2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

Negrodamus · Post #741 » by **Negrodamus** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:18 pm

I do think Monk's handles and defense concerns are overstated a bit. UK as a whole has played pretty mediocre defense, especially against ranked teams. On top of that, Monk is still 18 and hasn't completely filled out nor has he played defense at a high level for long. If you watch him throughout the game, he actually makes some pretty great defensive plays (steals, deflections, etc).

Do I think he can play point in the NBA? He can certainly guard them. He won't be the primary ball handler anywhere. With Simmons and Embiid, I could see him quickly being a 20 ppg scorer. Maybe not first year, but definitely year 2.

He is the same shooter as Murray but with less f***s given when shooting and a waaaay higher ceiling.

sixerswillrule · Post #742 » by **sixerswillrule** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:58 pm

So basically people are saying that even if Monk were 6'6", he couldn't be a starting SG in the NBA? SGs are generally secondary ball handlers. It would be no different on this team, except our primary ball handler will happen to be 6'10" and Monk would be defending PGs instead of SGs (a good thing given his size). I think it could work with both Simmons and Embiid to run the offense through.

ET Da Gawd · Post #743 » by **ET Da Gawd** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:42 pm

Anything other than monk is a travesty

ProcessDoctor · Post #744 » by **ProcessDoctor** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:32 pm

If we get Monk with one of our picks, then I think the player that best complements him is Jackson. DSJ, Fultz, or Ball paired with Monk would get abused defensively (see: Portland Trailblazers). The dream scenario in this draft is Fultz/Jackson, but Monk/Jackson wouldn't be too far off, especially considering how high Fultz's usage rate is going to be. I'd also be down with Ball/Jackson...maybe what I'm getting at is Jackson seems to be the most complementary piece for this team on offense and defense (sans 3-point shot).

SelfishPlayer · Post #745 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:37 pm

It's amazing how many players today fit well with Iverson, but back then they were difficult to find. 3 & D players are everywhere. Big "PGs" are everywhere. Big men that can shoot from the outside are everywhere.

SelfishPlayer · Post #746 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:50 pm

If Lonzo Ball had Monk's shooting mechanics and shooting ability he would be the runaway #1 pick. Lonzo Ball concerns me as a scorer. He relies upon a weird looking set shot that is useless when defenders with NBA athleticism are locked in on him. You can learn a great deal about Lonzo Ball if you take a look at his step back jump shot when he misses. But he's only 19 so he may soon develop some other ways to get the ball into the hoop regularly.

sixerswillrule · Post #747 » by **sixerswillrule** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:11 pm

sixers238 wrote:If we get Monk with one of our picks, then I think the player that best complements him is Jackson. DSJ, Fultz, or Ball paired with Monk would get abused defensively (see: Portland Trailblazers). The dream scenario in this draft is Fultz/Jackson, but Monk/Jackson wouldn't be too far off, especially considering how high Fultz's usage rate is going to be. I'd also be down with Ball/Jackson...maybe what I'm getting at is Jackson seems to be the most complementary piece for this team on offense and defense (sans 3-point shot).

Hopefully Covington becomes a 40% 3-point shooter in that scenario because we'd need that around Simmons, Jackson, and Embiid.

OleSchool · Post #748 » by **OleSchool** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:20 pm

sixers238 wrote:If we get Monk with one of our picks, then I think the player that best complements him is Jackson. DSJ, Fultz, or Ball paired with Monk would get abused defensively (see: Portland Trailblazers). The dream scenario in this draft is Fultz/Jackson, but Monk/Jackson wouldn't be too far off, especially considering how high Fultz's usage rate is going to be. I'd also be down with Ball/Jackson...maybe what I'm getting at is Jackson seems to be the most complementary piece for this team on offense and defense (sans 3-point shot).

I was looking at Jackson as well but, I think I want to lean Tatum. We can't have our 3 & 4 (Simmons/Jackson) to not have an outside shot.

Jackson "may" be a better player but, lets see how Tatum finishes out the year. I think by the tournament Tatum will be ranked higher, assuming he stays heathly

ProcessDoctor · Post #749 » by **ProcessDoctor** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:26 pm

OleSchool wrote:
sixers238 wrote:If we get Monk with one of our picks, then I think the player that best complements him is Jackson. DSJ, Fultz, or Ball paired with Monk would get abused defensively (see: Portland Trailblazers). The dream scenario in this draft is Fultz/Jackson, but Monk/Jackson wouldn't be too far off, especially considering how high Fultz's usage rate is going to be. I'd also be down with Ball/Jackson...maybe what I'm getting at is Jackson seems to be the most complementary piece for this team on offense and defense (sans 3-point shot).

I was looking at Jackson as well but, I think I want to lean Tatum. We can't have our 3 & 4 (Simmons/Jackson) to not have an outside shot.

Jackson "may" be a better player but, lets see how Tatum finishes out the year. I think by the tournament Tatum will be ranked higher, assuming he stays heathly

Tatum is slowly creeping up there too...I wouldn't mind him at all. Jackson is a little more flexibility in terms of position (can play 2 or 3) and style (can handle the ball well), but I don't think you can go wrong with either. The thing to like about both players is neither look like they'll have monster usage rates to take away from Simmons/Embiid.

eagereyez · Post #750 » by **eagereyez** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:52 am

OleSchool wrote:
eagereyez wrote:Yeah the defense in a Fultz/Monk or a Ball/Monk pairing is cause for concern. I'd rather come away with one of the three PG's (Fultz, Ball, Monk) and one of the three SF's (Jackson, Tatum, Isaac). Maybe trade Noel for a mid 1st and go after Mikal Bridges.

That's the way I'm leaning right now, I think if our pick stays in the top 3 (no reason to think it won't), and the Lakers can stay in the 7 range (6 or lower would be primo) I would go with the best SF with our pick and pray Monk is there at the Lakers pick.

We need a guard out of this draft

Yeah a lot depends on where the LA pick lands.

PhilasFinest · Post #751 » by **PhilasFinest** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:56 am

I could drool over the thoughts of adding Ball,Fultz or Monk to this team.

Unbreakable99 · Post #752 » by **Unbreakable99** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:18 am

Fultz scored 27 and had 8 rebounds and 10 assists. Does anyone have highlights of it?

eagereyez · Post #753 » by **eagereyez** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:12 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:Fultz scored 27 and had 8 rebounds and 10 assists. Does anyone have highlights of it?

Watch on YouTube

eagereyez · Post #754 » by **eagereyez** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:52 am

Harry Giles is expected to make his debut today.

Unbreakable99 · Post #755 » by **Unbreakable99** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:21 pm

eagereyez wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:Fultz scored 27 and had 8 rebounds and 10 assists. Does anyone have highlights of it?

Watch on YouTube

Thanks. Do you have Dennis Smith from last night?

eagereyez · Post #756 » by **eagereyez** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:33 pm

Unbreakable99 wrote:
eagereyez wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:Fultz scored 27 and had 8 rebounds and 10 assists. Does anyone have highlights of it?

Watch on YouTube

Thanks. Do you have Dennis Smith from last night?

Just subscribe to that youtube channel. He uploads highlights from all the big name college players.

phillynative · Post #757 » by **phillynative** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:23 pm

Monk could have eric gordon potential(before the injuries and loss of explosiveness)

dkj5061 · Post #758 » by **dkj5061** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:33 pm

phillynative wrote:Monk could have eric gordon potential(before the injuries and loss of explosiveness)

I had the same thought but from a much more negative prospective. I'm worried that he could just end up as an undersized shooter, which is fine but we might be able to get better. I would just like to see some more diversity in his game as the year progresses.

cksdayoff · Post #759 » by **cksdayoff** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:36 pm

all these kids are 18-19 years old. they are not finish products but they are lighting the college bball world on fire. they can develop other facets of the game at the next level with proper coaching.

LloydFree · Post #760 » by **LloydFree** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:04 pm

phillynative wrote:Monk could have eric gordon potential(before the injuries and loss of explosiveness)

I can see that, but I recall Gordon having a better handle and being more of a playmaker.