The Class of 2016 could be the year of the point guard in college basketball recruiting. With Dennis Smith Jr., Kobi Simmons, De'Aaron Fox, Lonzo Ball and numerous others, the class is loaded with depth and talent. But exactly where this year's point guard crop measures against years past might depend on whether you include scoring combo-guards such as Malik Monk and Frank Jackson on the point guard list. National recruiting analysts Adam Finkelstein and Joel Francisco debate:
Should Malik Monk and Frank Jackson be classified as point guards?
Adam Finkelstein: Right now, I wouldn't call either player a true point guard. However, I believe they're both capable of making the transition to that position. A few years down the road, when we look back at this class, I think it's very possible that we have them on the same list with the likes of Dennis Smith, De'Aaron Fox, Lonzo Ball and Kobi Simmons.
Joel Francisco: First and foremost, I'm relieved that you see both Monk and Jackson as scoring guards because that is what they are at this stage of their young careers. This new term of "lead" guard has crept into the jargon of scouting analysis and I'm a bit confused on what it takes to be a "lead" guard. Isn't a lead guard essentially a combo guard? And through my experience, combo-guards score more than they manage the offense. Do "lead" guards have the ball in their hands? Yes. But that doesn't make them point guards. My definition of a point guard is a player who can facilitate the offense, get his teammates involved, and if it's the best viable option for the team, then scoring comes into play.
Finkelstein: I've never claimed Monk and Jackson were anything other than scoring guards, only that they were scoring guards who showed the instincts to eventually play with the ball in their hands. As far as the term "lead" guard goes, it might sound like scouting jargon but I think it's better described as coaching terminology. The pass-first distributor that it sounds like you're describing is -- I would agree -- the purest form of a true point guard, but the game has evolved so much in the past 10 years we are seeing less and less of that, especially at the NBA level (which is ultimately the level I'm talking about when I am projecting these guys out down the road).
Just look at the best guys in the league. Stephen Curry was the MVP of the league and the Warriors won the NBA championship, but he was the team's leading scorer and took five more shots than anyone else on the team. Russell Westbrook was fourth in the MVP voting, second among point guards, and the league's leading scorer, but he took 22 shots per game. Not only do those guys not fit your definition, but they are undeniably scoring guards, and yet they are widely considered two of the best point guards in the NBA.
Francisco: I understand Steph Curry and Russell Westbrook are labeled point guards in the NBA. However, in my eye they are not point guards but rather scorers who can pass. In other words, they are combo-guards or the newly created term "lead" guard. Their mindset is set on scoring first, passing second -- and there is nothing wrong with that. They are arguably two of the top 10 players in the NBA. However, when the NBA pundits label them as point guards, I have a hard time digesting that proclamation. True point guards are pass-first guards who look to get the best available shot for their teammates and if they have the ability to get their own shot, that will make them that more special. Think Steve Nash, and for that matter LeBron James.
When I think of the point guards in this class at the top, Lonzo Ball exhibits best what a true point guard is because he can dominate the game with the pass. I'm not sure there is another guard who that fits that description. However, I do see your point in where the evolution of this game is headed and as a result there are a plethora of combo guards in this class, headed by Dennis Smith and De'Aaron Fox. But I don't see that right now in Frank Jackson and Malik Monk. These two prospects are fantastic scorers and it's by far the strength of their game -- not passing.
Finkelstein: OK, so I think we're gradually getting on the same page here, because that was actually going to be my next point, that lots of the players typically referred to as point guards today play with more of a scoring style, or maybe best described as a playmaker's mindset. Based on your definition, which again I would consider to be more of a pure point guard in the traditional sense of the position, I would also agree that Ball best embodies that. Smith, Fox and Simmons are playmakers. They'll get their fair share of assists, but they're thinking attack first and foremost, and whether they end up scoring or throwing a pass that leads to an immediate shot has a lot more to do with how the defense reacts to their penetration.
But here's the problem, if we stick to your definition, then we essentially have to acknowledge that not all teams -- in fact, I would argue most -- play with a pure point guard anymore. Would you agree with that, based on what we're seeing in college and in the NBA right now?
Francisco: I would definitely agree with that statement. We are definitely seeing more of an Allen Iverson-type of guard then, let's say, a Steve Nash type, and I think it's a bit unfortunate. While watching Frank Jackson and Malik Monk this summer I see two gifted scorers who dominated the ball and rarely involved their teammates, because they were constantly thinking "score." They occasionally advanced the ball in transition, but for the most part they were navigating the defense looking to score. This can lead to forced shots in the paint or a deep jump shot early on in the shot clock without ever involving their teammates. As a result, inefficiency creeps into their games, more so with Jackson than Monk.
Secondly, there is a lack of fluidity in the offense. If it's true that these two will be labeled point guards in the future, would they be happy taking just five or six shots a game while distributing to open teammates for a more efficient shot? Because that is what the definition of a point guard is to me. I have a hard time thinking that will be the case with those two gifted scorers. As I think about Monk, what is wrong with him being a more explosive Brad Beal -- who is by the way considered one of the better 2-guards in the game? Passing can always be a part of their games going forward, but I would hate to take away from them what they are best at, and that is putting the ball in the basket.
Finkelstein: I probably wouldn't disagree with you that it's unfortunate, but ultimately our job is to evaluate the game as it is currently being played, not as we want it to be, and as we've both now acknowledged, scoring guards are playing the point with increased regularity, both in the NBA and in college, and they're taking a heck of a lot more than five or six shots per game. With Monk in particular, I, too, have seen a scorer first and foremost, but I saw a deceptively good passer from the very first session of EYBL and it's hard to question his efficiency when he shot over 47 percent from the floor and had an almost 2:1 assist to turnover ratio on an EYBL team that needed him to be constantly aggressive.
Nonetheless, I never would have thought Monk had a chance to be anything other than a straight 2-guard until the last two weeks of July. He played the point at the Nike Global Challenge and won the MVP while leading his team to the championship. He averaged 21.8 points on 55 percent shooting from the floor and 6 assists per game against 3.8 turnovers, although he averaged only two turnovers per game until the finals.
In Vegas, when he finally had another scorer (Jayson Tatum) on the floor with him, he again played the point. Yes, he continued to be aggressive attacking the defense, but I also saw him be a composed ball handler against pressure, have good control over his pace and make some heady passes in the pick-and-roll. Does that make him a point guard? Not even by the most current definition, but it's enough to make him a prospect to play that position down the road, which is all I ever claimed.
Finally, he could be Brad Beal, but only if he grows a couple of inches. Beal measured 6-foot-4¾ with shoes and 6-3¼ without them at the 2012 NBA draft combine, which is already on the small side for 2-guards. When Monk was measured by USA basketball last fall, he was 6-2½ with shoes and 6-1¾ without, which would make him one of the smallest 2-guards in the NBA.
Francisco: Regardless of size -- and we're talking less than two inches as well -- Monk is more Brad Beal than Steph Curry in terms of skill set and approach at this stage. In addition, Monk's athleticism makes up for his lack of size to play the 2 in the NBA. Now, if he gets drafted as a lead guard in the draft in the 2017 draft, it wouldn't shock me, considering where the NBA is headed. I still believe it will be taking away what he excels at and that is being a potential lethal scorer.
Frank Jackson is another scoring guard who is projected to be a 1 at the next level by many in our business. However, I have watched Jackson play for three seasons now and I still don't see "point guard" for him either, especially when utilizing my definition for a true point guard. Jackson possesses too many scoring tools and instincts for me to consider him a point guard. In his last two games at Adidas Nations, where he played on the ball for much of the time, he was 7-of-30 from the field and had one assist -- that doesn't exactly scream potential point guard to me. For me, point guards are game managers who create the best viable option for their team to score. If this new generation of point guards considers scoring just as or more important than setting up a teammate with the pass, I feel offensive efficiency and the beauty of team ball will slowly deteriorate.
Finkelstein: You've seen Jackson much more than I have and have a much better handle on his game. Monk was always the guy I had stronger feelings about, and at this point, I think we're much closer to being on the same page, even if our specific evaluations have varied a little bit depending on when we've seen him. I do think his size is a bigger obstacle long term if he's playing exclusively off the ball, but his ability to play with the ball in his hands is going to be based on how his game develops in the coming years. That's all I was ever really claiming -- not that he's a point guard now, only that he might be able to play the position, based on how the NBA game is evolving. And I'm with you on your last point; give me guys who move the ball and understand how to pass and it's a much better product.