2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread III

[LloydFree]

For Tatum lovers like myself this isn't a good article lol. I like his breakdowns. I still like Tatum but I like what he wrote. He brought up some good points.

Read on Twitter

Jeff Green! Oh God, I can see that. Never pictured that before. That's scary. I can't get myself to the peak Danny Granger comps. He's just not as coordinated and fluid as Granger. But I can definitely see some Jeff Green. Tatum has age-to-performance over Green though.

[Sixerscan]

Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent. This is why I hate player comps. And him saying that Tatum doesn't have the same sort of offensive production that Pierce or Hayward had is pretty dumb. He's comparing Hayward as a sophomore in a crap conference, and I'm not sure what he's comparing with Pierce. (Pierce averaged 12 a night on 42% shooting as a frosh so it's not that). Obviously Tatum is not the same level of prospect that Melo was but he doesn't have to be to be a top 5 pick. Melo would have been a #1 pick in many years.

Though as I said two pages ago, I agree with him that Tatum is overrated defensively because he gets a lot of steals. He has a lot to work on on that end.

[LloydFree]

Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent. This is why I hate player comps. And him saying that Tatum doesn't have the same sort of offensive production that Pierce or Hayward had is pretty dumb. He's comparing Hayward as a sophomore in a crap conference, and I'm not sure what he's comparing with Pierce. (Pierce averaged 12 a night on 42% shooting as a frosh so it's not that). Obviously Tatum is not the same level of prospect that Melo was but he doesn't have to be to be a top 5 pick. Melo would have been a #1 pick in many years.

Though as I said two pages ago, I agree with him that Tatum is overrated defensively because he gets a lot of steals. He has a lot to work on on that end.

"Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent"

I don't understand. Not being facetious either. What do you mean by this?

[Sixerscan]

Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent. This is why I hate player comps. And him saying that Tatum doesn't have the same sort of offensive production that Pierce or Hayward had is pretty dumb. He's comparing Hayward as a sophomore in a crap conference, and I'm not sure what he's comparing with Pierce. (Pierce averaged 12 a night on 42% shooting as a frosh so it's not that). Obviously Tatum is not the same level of prospect that Melo was but he doesn't have to be to be a top 5 pick. Melo would have been a #1 pick in many years.

Though as I said two pages ago, I agree with him that Tatum is overrated defensively because he gets a lot of steals. He has a lot to work on on that end.

"Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent"

I don't understand. Not being facetious either. What do you mean by this?

He'd have games where he scored 30 points and looks like the best guy on the court, and then follow it up with weeks of games where he is invisible. Just didn't have the motor to bring it every night, and didn't seem to work hard enough to really expand his game. But as far as raw ability he has as much as 90% of the league.

[LloydFree]

Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent. This is why I hate player comps. And him saying that Tatum doesn't have the same sort of offensive production that Pierce or Hayward had is pretty dumb. He's comparing Hayward as a sophomore in a crap conference, and I'm not sure what he's comparing with Pierce. (Pierce averaged 12 a night on 42% shooting as a frosh so it's not that). Obviously Tatum is not the same level of prospect that Melo was but he doesn't have to be to be a top 5 pick. Melo would have been a #1 pick in many years.

Though as I said two pages ago, I agree with him that Tatum is overrated defensively because he gets a lot of steals. He has a lot to work on on that end.

"Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent"

I don't understand. Not being facetious either. What do you mean by this?

He'd have games where he scored 30 points and looks like the best guy on the court, and then follow it up with weeks of games where he is invisible. Just didn't have the motor to bring it every night, and didn't seem to work hard enough to really expand his game. But as far as raw ability he has as much as 90% of the league.

I agree he has talent, but I do not agree he has as much raw ability as 90% of the league. He is at best an average athlete, and that has an influence on his ability to consistently outperform opponents. He's skilled, but he isn't really 'plus' in anything other than ballhandling for a Forward. Same as Tatum. Guys who don't have loud tools rarely become great players and that is what scares me about Tatum.

[Sixerscan]

"Jeff Green didn't fail because of talent"

I don't understand. Not being facetious either. What do you mean by this?

He'd have games where he scored 30 points and looks like the best guy on the court, and then follow it up with weeks of games where he is invisible. Just didn't have the motor to bring it every night, and didn't seem to work hard enough to really expand his game. But as far as raw ability he has as much as 90% of the league.

I agree he has talent, but I do not agree he has as much raw ability as 90% of the league. He is at best an average athlete, and that has an influence on his ability to consistently outperform opponents. He's skilled, but he isn't really 'plus' in anything other than ballhandling for a Forward. Same as Tatum. Guys who don't have loud tools rarely become great players and that is what scares me about Tatum.

Gonna have to disagree with you. When Green was on Boston he was a very high level athlete. He just didn't show it all the time, again because of the inconsistency. And he was a creative scorer at all 3 levels with a very good looking shot that could have developed into a consistent weapon from 3 if he worked on it.

[Sixerscan]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Green had these two games within 12 days of each other. He averaged 12 points in the 5 games between them.

[Sixerscan]

Tatum and Isaac both signed with the same agent. That seems very weird.

[jaxsontend]

It's funny to read that people think of Lou Williams or JR Smith when they watch Malik Monk. I disagree. I see JR Smith in Donovan Mitchell at UL. He takes some ill advised shots and forces the issue at times, but also gets hot from out there. He also has the handles and quickness to drive and has the vertical ability to slam over players. The difference is that Mitchell a much better defender coming into the league. I don't know what his wingspan is going to be, but if it's over 6'9 or 6'10, he's somewhere in 5-10.

I love Donovan Mitchell as a defender and as a spot up 3 point shooter, but his handles are very weak imo. He was the secondary ball handler for Louisville and he WAS the temporary PG when Snider was out with injury. He has some passing ability but seriously, his handles aren't good for an NBA level pg right now.

I like Mitchell and would love to get him later in the draft somehow, but Monk seems clearly superior. His shot has better range, better mechanics, and a quicker release, and he can hit all day off screens and from weird angles. Mitchell's more of a solid catch-and-shoot or face-up shooter (isn't a 'tough shot maker' as the cliche goes). And apart from that Monk is a friggin water bug, he's quick and spry as hell and has awesome body control.

I don't like any of the Lou Will/JR Smith comparisons, but I'm wondering why Monk isn't a 3pt shooting version of Rip Hamilton?

totally agree with your take on monk as a 3pt shooting Rip Hamilton ( or an explosive JJ Redick)

[Negrodamus]

I actually don't think he's in another class as a scorer. I definitely think Monk can be a good scorer in the NBA, but he needs a team that's willing to overlook his defensive deficiencies (which there are quite a few), he is not much of a creator with the ball in his hands, and will need to be run off screens the entire game to get shots. Monk made 20% of his shots at the rim and about 50% of those were assisted. 26% of Donovan Mitchell's offense was at the rim and 20% of those baskets were assisted. Monk isn't the creator that Mitchell is. .

Yeah, that's in college. Monk's got a NBA-ready shot and an array of stepback/sidestep moves that are pretty sizzling, plus fairly elite leaping/body control athleticism. Mitchell's a pretty good shooter with a good IQ who competes, and he'll be a solid athlete too. (Also, every team runs screens all the time in every NBA game, it's not an outdated early 2000s offensive scheme; and Monk is a great 3pt shooter with great range so would score most frequently from deep).

Also, what's giving you the impression Monk's an epically bad defender? To my eyes he was somewhat lazy and will be a little undersized in the NBA, but he's also got decent tools and I don't see him as a terrible defender. I only saw a few games though--is there an argument I'm missing that he's severely compromised on that end of the court?

I wouldn't say Monk is an "epically bad" defender, but he has limitations. He's not a point guard from what I've seen, unlike a Jamal Murray from last year where I could see he has more advanced handles. So who is he going to guard? On our team, he'll guard the opposing PG, but what if Ben gets injured or is taking a breather? How do we accommodate for a 6'3 non-PG when our 6'10 PG is not playing? He certainly doesn't have the length to cause trouble against players larger than him, so he can't be moved over to SG.

Also, yes, running off ball screens is still a thing, but they were exclusively running it for one player, Rip Hamilton. Today's game is more about pick and roll, forcing the defense to collapse and kick out.

I like Monk a lot, but I guess I'm seeing him how you're seeing Mitchell; a nice piece later in the draft. Maybe an offensive spark off the bench. He was great for Kentucky, but I'm concerned with how he'll be as an NBA player.I'm especially concerned with how he concluded the season. He seemed to be taken out of the game easily when playing against length. Turned into a very streaky shooter. When something like that happens, you need to be exceptional on defense to not be a negative and he was, unfortunately, a negative all too often towards the end of the season.

[eagereyez]

I actually don't think he's in another class as a scorer. I definitely think Monk can be a good scorer in the NBA, but he needs a team that's willing to overlook his defensive deficiencies (which there are quite a few), he is not much of a creator with the ball in his hands, and will need to be run off screens the entire game to get shots. Monk made 20% of his shots at the rim and about 50% of those were assisted. 26% of Donovan Mitchell's offense was at the rim and 20% of those baskets were assisted. Monk isn't the creator that Mitchell is. .

Yeah, that's in college. Monk's got a NBA-ready shot and an array of stepback/sidestep moves that are pretty sizzling, plus fairly elite leaping/body control athleticism. Mitchell's a pretty good shooter with a good IQ who competes, and he'll be a solid athlete too. (Also, every team runs screens all the time in every NBA game, it's not an outdated early 2000s offensive scheme; and Monk is a great 3pt shooter with great range so would score most frequently from deep).

Also, what's giving you the impression Monk's an epically bad defender? To my eyes he was somewhat lazy and will be a little undersized in the NBA, but he's also got decent tools and I don't see him as a terrible defender. I only saw a few games though--is there an argument I'm missing that he's severely compromised on that end of the court?

I wouldn't say Monk is an "epically bad" defender, but he has limitations. He's not a point guard from what I've seen, unlike a Jamal Murray from last year where I could see he has more advanced handles. So who is he going to guard? On our team, he'll guard the opposing PG, but what if Ben gets injured or is taking a breather? How do we accommodate for a 6'3 non-PG when our 6'10 PG is not playing? He certainly doesn't have the length to cause trouble against players larger than him, so he can't be moved over to SG.

Also, yes, running off ball screens is still a thing, but they were exclusively running it for one player, Rip Hamilton. Today's game is more about pick and roll, forcing the defense to collapse and kick out.

I like Monk a lot, but I guess I'm seeing him how you're seeing Mitchell; a nice piece later in the draft. Maybe an offensive spark off the bench. He was great for Kentucky, but I'm concerned with how he'll be as an NBA player.I'm especially concerned with how he concluded the season. He seemed to be taken out of the game easily when playing against length. Turned into a very streaky shooter. When something like that happens, you need to be exceptional on defense to not be a negative and he was, unfortunately, a negative all too often towards the end of the season.

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

[LloydFree]

I love Donovan Mitchell as a defender and as a spot up 3 point shooter, but his handles are very weak imo. He was the secondary ball handler for Louisville and he WAS the temporary PG when Snider was out with injury. He has some passing ability but seriously, his handles aren't good for an NBA level pg right now.

I like Mitchell and would love to get him later in the draft somehow, but Monk seems clearly superior. His shot has better range, better mechanics, and a quicker release, and he can hit all day off screens and from weird angles. Mitchell's more of a solid catch-and-shoot or face-up shooter (isn't a 'tough shot maker' as the cliche goes). And apart from that Monk is a friggin water bug, he's quick and spry as hell and has awesome body control.

I don't like any of the Lou Will/JR Smith comparisons, but I'm wondering why Monk isn't a 3pt shooting version of Rip Hamilton?

totally agree with your take on monk as a 3pt shooting Rip Hamilton ( or an explosive JJ Redick)

A 3 point shooting Rip Hamilton would be a great comp, if Monk was 6'7 instead of 6'3. Thats the problem with Monk. If he was 6'7, he'd be the #1 pick. At 6'3, you take the chance that he's a more explosive Chasson Randle.

[Negrodamus]

Yeah, that's in college. Monk's got a NBA-ready shot and an array of stepback/sidestep moves that are pretty sizzling, plus fairly elite leaping/body control athleticism. Mitchell's a pretty good shooter with a good IQ who competes, and he'll be a solid athlete too. (Also, every team runs screens all the time in every NBA game, it's not an outdated early 2000s offensive scheme; and Monk is a great 3pt shooter with great range so would score most frequently from deep).

Also, what's giving you the impression Monk's an epically bad defender? To my eyes he was somewhat lazy and will be a little undersized in the NBA, but he's also got decent tools and I don't see him as a terrible defender. I only saw a few games though--is there an argument I'm missing that he's severely compromised on that end of the court?

I wouldn't say Monk is an "epically bad" defender, but he has limitations. He's not a point guard from what I've seen, unlike a Jamal Murray from last year where I could see he has more advanced handles. So who is he going to guard? On our team, he'll guard the opposing PG, but what if Ben gets injured or is taking a breather? How do we accommodate for a 6'3 non-PG when our 6'10 PG is not playing? He certainly doesn't have the length to cause trouble against players larger than him, so he can't be moved over to SG.

Also, yes, running off ball screens is still a thing, but they were exclusively running it for one player, Rip Hamilton. Today's game is more about pick and roll, forcing the defense to collapse and kick out.

I like Monk a lot, but I guess I'm seeing him how you're seeing Mitchell; a nice piece later in the draft. Maybe an offensive spark off the bench. He was great for Kentucky, but I'm concerned with how he'll be as an NBA player.I'm especially concerned with how he concluded the season. He seemed to be taken out of the game easily when playing against length. Turned into a very streaky shooter. When something like that happens, you need to be exceptional on defense to not be a negative and he was, unfortunately, a negative all too often towards the end of the season.

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

Ulis was the point guard so there wasn't much need for Murray to be handling the ball. But if you followed him prior to his season at UK, he was the point guard for Canada in all of their national games. He's a very good ball handler, but I never confused him with Kyrie Irving or anything.

[Sixerscan]

Yeah, that's in college. Monk's got a NBA-ready shot and an array of stepback/sidestep moves that are pretty sizzling, plus fairly elite leaping/body control athleticism. Mitchell's a pretty good shooter with a good IQ who competes, and he'll be a solid athlete too. (Also, every team runs screens all the time in every NBA game, it's not an outdated early 2000s offensive scheme; and Monk is a great 3pt shooter with great range so would score most frequently from deep).

Also, what's giving you the impression Monk's an epically bad defender? To my eyes he was somewhat lazy and will be a little undersized in the NBA, but he's also got decent tools and I don't see him as a terrible defender. I only saw a few games though--is there an argument I'm missing that he's severely compromised on that end of the court?

I wouldn't say Monk is an "epically bad" defender, but he has limitations. He's not a point guard from what I've seen, unlike a Jamal Murray from last year where I could see he has more advanced handles. So who is he going to guard? On our team, he'll guard the opposing PG, but what if Ben gets injured or is taking a breather? How do we accommodate for a 6'3 non-PG when our 6'10 PG is not playing? He certainly doesn't have the length to cause trouble against players larger than him, so he can't be moved over to SG.

Also, yes, running off ball screens is still a thing, but they were exclusively running it for one player, Rip Hamilton. Today's game is more about pick and roll, forcing the defense to collapse and kick out.

I like Monk a lot, but I guess I'm seeing him how you're seeing Mitchell; a nice piece later in the draft. Maybe an offensive spark off the bench. He was great for Kentucky, but I'm concerned with how he'll be as an NBA player.I'm especially concerned with how he concluded the season. He seemed to be taken out of the game easily when playing against length. Turned into a very streaky shooter. When something like that happens, you need to be exceptional on defense to not be a negative and he was, unfortunately, a negative all too often towards the end of the season.

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

Same thing with booker. Common theme with the U.K. guys.

I have Monk 5th. Smith and Isaac both seem great as well though, wouldn't be upset if they went with either of them.

[HotelVitale]

totally agree with your take on monk as a 3pt shooting Rip Hamilton ( or an explosive JJ Redick)

A 3 point shooting Rip Hamilton would be a great comp, if Monk was 6'7 instead of 6'3. Thats the problem with Monk. If he was 6'7, he'd be the #1 pick.

Sure, and comps are stupid. The Lou Will/JR comps are misleading and they've for some reason taken hold, so just trying to shift that to someone who's a really good athlete and transition player while also being a money shooter in the half court.

I still struggle with projecting Monk: I want to dislike his archetype (undersized, offense-only scoring wing) but can't help but see him as bouncy and quick enough to be a really really good version of that archetype. His shot is so quick and high that you'd have to plant a defender on him at all times, and I think he's clearly got enough of a first step to blow by perimeter D if he has an angle. (His handles might never be awesome but I think they'll be good enough to serve that function). He can also hit runners and pull-ups and with all that, he seems like he might be nearly unguardable, especially in an offense with other weapons. He's more athletic and quicker than Devin Booker, and Booker's blossomed just by being a deep threat who can also kill from midrange and going to the cup (I'm aware he's also a few inches shorter and less long than Booker, and has worse PG-type ball skills). Not trying to compare the two, just trying to make the case that an athlete who can shoot from all over and drive can be pretty dominant in the NBA, and I think people that like Monk are looking at that.

(Also, w/r/t Randle: Monk's a few inches taller and all of his tools--his release, his hops, his quickness/first step, his body control--are obviously better. Doesn't seem useful to tie Monk's fate to Randle's.)

[eagereyez]

I wouldn't say Monk is an "epically bad" defender, but he has limitations. He's not a point guard from what I've seen, unlike a Jamal Murray from last year where I could see he has more advanced handles. So who is he going to guard? On our team, he'll guard the opposing PG, but what if Ben gets injured or is taking a breather? How do we accommodate for a 6'3 non-PG when our 6'10 PG is not playing? He certainly doesn't have the length to cause trouble against players larger than him, so he can't be moved over to SG.

Also, yes, running off ball screens is still a thing, but they were exclusively running it for one player, Rip Hamilton. Today's game is more about pick and roll, forcing the defense to collapse and kick out.

I like Monk a lot, but I guess I'm seeing him how you're seeing Mitchell; a nice piece later in the draft. Maybe an offensive spark off the bench. He was great for Kentucky, but I'm concerned with how he'll be as an NBA player.I'm especially concerned with how he concluded the season. He seemed to be taken out of the game easily when playing against length. Turned into a very streaky shooter. When something like that happens, you need to be exceptional on defense to not be a negative and he was, unfortunately, a negative all too often towards the end of the season.

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

Ulis was the point guard so there wasn't much need for Murray to be handling the ball. But if you followed him prior to his season at UK, he was the point guard for Canada in all of their national games. He's a very good ball handler, but I never confused him with Kyrie Irving or anything.

Interesting. I think Monk played PG in high school, no? I wouldnt expect him to become Steve Nash or anything, but I wouldnt be surprised if he became a servicable passer who can at least run a competent pick and roll.

[shawn_hemp]

Ive been pretty high on Malik Monk all year but thats not to say I think he will be anything out of what most people already see him as.

I think he will be a bit more athletic than JJ Redick but that is the comparison I like best. Earlier in the year, I tried to compare him to Bradley Beal but I think Monk is more of a catch and shoot player than Beal who is better at shooting off the dribble or attacking the rim. Monk isnt bad at either of those things, he just doesnt seem to do it that often.

I dont see him as a negative on defense. You cant kill him for going on a cold shooting streak at the end of the year (if you even want to call it that) and then turn around and not recognize the defensive plays he also made in those games. There was one play against Lonzo Ball in particular where he got a block (on Ball's easily blocked release albeit) at one end, leaked down the court immediately, and beat several UCLA defenders (oxymoron?) at the other end for a layup.

He might not get you 3 deflections, 2 steals, and 1 block a game, but he has clearly shown the ability to have an impact on the defensive end when his number is called. It just wasnt called very often due to Fox being a superior athlete and defender.

I truly think if Kentucky had beat UNC that they would have won the National Championship. That Elite 8 matchup was the de facto championship game IMO.

It seems like the biggest argument against taking Monk in the top 5 is that we "could do better". But my argument against that is that we could do a lot worse too. What if Tatum IS the next Tobias Harris? Is Tobias Harris worth a top 5 pick? What if Frank Ntilikina is a bust? should we take him in the top 5?

What if De'Aaron Fox CAN'T get off any shot he wants in the NBA? Not like it even matters, his shot is horrible anyway.

"oh well his FT% was .736 so that means he has a 33.333333% chance to develop a +/- 15 jiggawatt increase to his TS% based off this study"

yeah whatever. Monk shot .822 from the FT line. does that mean hes going to shoot 2000% from 3pt in the NBA?

I say you draft Monk with the reasonable expectation that he becomes your JJ Redick, with the lofty goal of finding the next Avery Bradley.

[eagereyez]

I wouldn't say Monk is an "epically bad" defender, but he has limitations. He's not a point guard from what I've seen, unlike a Jamal Murray from last year where I could see he has more advanced handles. So who is he going to guard? On our team, he'll guard the opposing PG, but what if Ben gets injured or is taking a breather? How do we accommodate for a 6'3 non-PG when our 6'10 PG is not playing? He certainly doesn't have the length to cause trouble against players larger than him, so he can't be moved over to SG.

Also, yes, running off ball screens is still a thing, but they were exclusively running it for one player, Rip Hamilton. Today's game is more about pick and roll, forcing the defense to collapse and kick out.

I like Monk a lot, but I guess I'm seeing him how you're seeing Mitchell; a nice piece later in the draft. Maybe an offensive spark off the bench. He was great for Kentucky, but I'm concerned with how he'll be as an NBA player.I'm especially concerned with how he concluded the season. He seemed to be taken out of the game easily when playing against length. Turned into a very streaky shooter. When something like that happens, you need to be exceptional on defense to not be a negative and he was, unfortunately, a negative all too often towards the end of the season.

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

Same thing with booker. Common theme with the U.K. guys.

I have Monk 5th. Smith and Isaac both seem great as well though, wouldn't be upset if they went with either of them.

Brown has stated that he wants players who can run, shoot, and defend. It seems like Isaac fits that mold, so Id be pretty happy drafting him. If the Sixers draft DSJ then they must believe that he can learn to do those things too, so I wouldnt be upset with him either (although I prefer Monk). Its hard to think of a doomsday scenario in this draft. Its not like last year.

[Negrodamus]

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

Ulis was the point guard so there wasn't much need for Murray to be handling the ball. But if you followed him prior to his season at UK, he was the point guard for Canada in all of their national games. He's a very good ball handler, but I never confused him with Kyrie Irving or anything.

Interesting. I think Monk played PG in high school, no? I wouldnt expect him to become Steve Nash or anything, but I wouldnt be surprised if he became a servicable passer who can at least run a competent pick and roll.

I'm not sure if he played PG in HS. I don't doubt his passing ability though. I've seen him throw up some very impressive alley oops over the past year and he makes some very underrated passes. I would be concerned about him being the 2nd team point guard because his handles are pretty average. And I can't really recall any PnR situations with him. Not to say there weren't any, but they were seldom. He was more about running off screens and getting himself open. If he had the ball in his hands for longer than 2 minutes a game, I'd be shocked. He either takes the shot upon catching it or he makes a move to get space and take a shot or pass it away if he's not open. He was not a ball pounder at all. I like the Rip Hamilton comparisons, but he's not the same size, so it's concerning.

[Negrodamus]

Just curious, did you see Murray as a good ball handler at Kentucky? IIRC that was something that was nitpicked to death. A lot of people didnt think he had the handle to play PG, nor the defense to play SG. Ironically he is showing some potential in both areas. He finished the season with a higher DRPM than KCP and his AST/TOV ratio has improved from his Kentucky days. This is why I take the eye-test evaluations with a grain of salt.

Same thing with booker. Common theme with the U.K. guys.

I have Monk 5th. Smith and Isaac both seem great as well though, wouldn't be upset if they went with either of them.

Brown has stated that he wants players who can run, shoot, and defend. It seems like Isaac fits that mold, so Id be pretty happy drafting him. If the Sixers draft DSJ then they must believe that he can learn to do those things too, so I wouldnt be upset with him either (although I prefer Monk). Its hard to think of a doomsday scenario in this draft. Its not like last year.

If they need a package of those three things, then Isaac, Mitchell, Tatum, and maybe Ntilikina are the only ones in the top 15 that really provide those attributes. Maybe DJ Wilson if you think that highly of him (like I do).