Malik Monk

Draft talk all year round

Moderators: Duke4life831, Marcus

Duke4life831
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 36,171
And1: 66,844
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
 

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#41 » by Duke4life831 » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:26 pm

My thing with Monk is what do people see him as? Best case scenario is he just a better version of JR with his head screwed on? He doesn't have the handles to be your primary ball handler or to be able to create his own shot consistently. He also doesn't bring anything to the table defensively. So I think best case you're seeing a guy that can be a great scorer without needing to pound the rock. So you're not looking at a true #1 or a guy that can lead your offense or team.

So I think you have to look at guys that can be your #1 option or can lead your team. Guys like Fultz, Ball, DSJ, Tatum, Jackson and Giles if you want to take a chance on his health are the guys in this draft you can see being the guy that leads your team or your #1 scoring option that has 2 way potential. I don't see Monk having a higher potential than those 5 guys (6 if you count Giles). Monk just isn't the complete players like those guys.

Ideally if you're the 6ers he falls to you with the Lakers pick. He is exactly what the 6ers need, a guy that is an off ball scorer. You don't want to take him with your earliest pick, but if he's there with their 2nd pick you have to take him, he just fits so well with what that team is building.
No-Man
RealGM
Posts: 14,879
And1: 3,480
Joined: Feb 11, 2012

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#42 » by No-Man » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:48 pm

I think best case scenario is next to a playmaking wing when he can play off-ball and attack close outs, run the ball with some mobile units and develop defensively, he has good tools and competes, to be solid against PGs and not awful against some bigger wings, likely he will be, he is not gonna give you much more than scoring and space the floor, but if he can develop enough of his floor game to be able to make the right pass even if he is not creating off-the-dribble, he can be a solid player, maybe a 2nd banana scoring wise, but not in terms of usage, or real impact.
Most likely than not he falls short of that and is either a 6th man type in a solid team or an inefficient scorer for a mediocre one.

Monk is okay on D, good agility, can move his feet, and compete around screens, he is just tiny and defense at the PG position it's just not that valuable, plus he can't check bigger guys, it's not just that he is small and has no length, he has no bulk either.

He doesnt bring anything on the floor game, passing game is okay-ish, not really getting a chance to showcase it, but man, he is not like an Avery Bradley type, that will take charges, compete for every ball, grab rebounds, make the savy play that doesnt appear in the boxscore.

Pigeoning Ball, heck even Tatum and Giles honestly, or Josh, basically anybody but Fultz, maybe Junior, as guys that can be a 1st option is beyond optimistic imo.

I'd take Ball ahead of Monk as a triangle type Guard if I am Philly btw, he can fit perfectly fine with Simmons, actually Ball+Josh Jackson is probably Phillys ideal draft, even if we have concerns about Josh's shooting, Ball-Jackson-Covington-Simmons-Embiid would be nasty.
reanimator
Analyst
Posts: 3,387
And1: 1,448
Joined: Jan 31, 2014
     

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#43 » by reanimator » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:09 pm

One of the wild cards of the draft given his age. Right now, a backend lottery microwave scorer but if his ball skills make significant gains...watch out.
sipclip
Head Coach
Posts: 6,859
And1: 1,241
Joined: Jan 20, 2005

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#44 » by sipclip » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:20 pm

Duke4life831 wrote:My thing with Monk is what do people see him as? Best case scenario is he just a better version of JR with his head screwed on? He doesn't have the handles to be your primary ball handler or to be able to create his own shot consistently. He also doesn't bring anything to the table defensively. So I think best case you're seeing a guy that can be a great scorer without needing to pound the rock. So you're not looking at a true #1 or a guy that can lead your offense or team.

So I think you have to look at guys that can be your #1 option or can lead your team. Guys like Fultz, Ball, DSJ, Tatum, Jackson and Giles if you want to take a chance on his health are the guys in this draft you can see being the guy that leads your team or your #1 scoring option that has 2 way potential. I don't see Monk having a higher potential than those 5 guys (6 if you count Giles). Monk just isn't the complete players like those guys.

Ideally if you're the 6ers he falls to you with the Lakers pick. He is exactly what the 6ers need, a guy that is an off ball scorer. You don't want to take him with your earliest pick, but if he's there with their 2nd pick you have to take him, he just fits so well with what that team is building.


You are acting like this kid is a finished product and not a freshman. He has plenty of room for improvement.
bigboi
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,645
And1: 1,383
Joined: Nov 05, 2010

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#45 » by bigboi » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:23 pm

paulbball wrote:
bigboi wrote:
paulbball wrote:
Ben Mclemore was basically the same player. A better version in fact. Legit 2 guard size, better pure shooter, more efficient to boot.

One dimensional shooter types usually don't do well in the league. You certainly don't take an undersized pure shooting guard in a PG's body in the top 5.


:lol: Mclemore was barely more efficient. Monk's TS is .627 while Mclemore's is .633 all while Monk scores like 5 points more. So how is Mclemore a better version?


McLemore had a substantially lower usage rate, was actually the first option and playing with future NBA 'superstars' such as Jeff Withey, Travis Relefor and Elijah Johnson.

Monk shares the scoring load this year with Briscoe and Fox. Briscoe is the ball pounder and does most of the creation. Briscoe, Fox, Bam and Gabriel are all guaranteed future NBA players. Putting up numbers on a stack team is substantially easier than being the first and only option on a depleted year for Kansas.


You do realize that it's harder to score more points when you have to share the scoring load, right? And you do realize that Monk is the first scoring option for Kentucky without question. Sounds like you're pulling stuff out your ass
tlee324 wrote:
Lebron made it to the finals with that cleveland team.

Bird would have won 4 rings with that team, in this weak ass era of basketball.
User avatar
CptCrunch
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,666
And1: 4,694
Joined: Jun 30, 2016
   

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#46 » by CptCrunch » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:23 pm

sipclip wrote:
Duke4life831 wrote:My thing with Monk is what do people see him as? Best case scenario is he just a better version of JR with his head screwed on? He doesn't have the handles to be your primary ball handler or to be able to create his own shot consistently. He also doesn't bring anything to the table defensively. So I think best case you're seeing a guy that can be a great scorer without needing to pound the rock. So you're not looking at a true #1 or a guy that can lead your offense or team.

So I think you have to look at guys that can be your #1 option or can lead your team. Guys like Fultz, Ball, DSJ, Tatum, Jackson and Giles if you want to take a chance on his health are the guys in this draft you can see being the guy that leads your team or your #1 scoring option that has 2 way potential. I don't see Monk having a higher potential than those 5 guys (6 if you count Giles). Monk just isn't the complete players like those guys.

Ideally if you're the 6ers he falls to you with the Lakers pick. He is exactly what the 6ers need, a guy that is an off ball scorer. You don't want to take him with your earliest pick, but if he's there with their 2nd pick you have to take him, he just fits so well with what that team is building.


You are acting like this kid is a finished product and not a freshman. He has plenty of room for improvement.


That argument can be made about every other 18 year old freshmen. The point is that there other PG sized guards in this draft with more mature collection of skillset (emphasis not the same skillset obviously) such as Ball, DSJ and Fultz.

The three mentioned above can also develop in other areas that they lack in (compared w/ Monk), primarily shooting. And we know from experience that shooting is one of skills that can be more readily developed compared to things such as handles and with even more difficulty vision/passing.
Duke4life831
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 36,171
And1: 66,844
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
 

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#47 » by Duke4life831 » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:40 pm

sipclip wrote:
Duke4life831 wrote:My thing with Monk is what do people see him as? Best case scenario is he just a better version of JR with his head screwed on? He doesn't have the handles to be your primary ball handler or to be able to create his own shot consistently. He also doesn't bring anything to the table defensively. So I think best case you're seeing a guy that can be a great scorer without needing to pound the rock. So you're not looking at a true #1 or a guy that can lead your offense or team.

So I think you have to look at guys that can be your #1 option or can lead your team. Guys like Fultz, Ball, DSJ, Tatum, Jackson and Giles if you want to take a chance on his health are the guys in this draft you can see being the guy that leads your team or your #1 scoring option that has 2 way potential. I don't see Monk having a higher potential than those 5 guys (6 if you count Giles). Monk just isn't the complete players like those guys.

Ideally if you're the 6ers he falls to you with the Lakers pick. He is exactly what the 6ers need, a guy that is an off ball scorer. You don't want to take him with your earliest pick, but if he's there with their 2nd pick you have to take him, he just fits so well with what that team is building.


You are acting like this kid is a finished product and not a freshman. He has plenty of room for improvement.


Where am I acting like he's a finished product? I'm talking about how he plays the game, how I think his game is going to transfer to the pros and how he compares to the other prospects. I'm not saying any of these guys are finished products.

What im saying is you can see the style of game these guys have had and basically always had throughout high school.

Tatum is a guy you will throw he ball to and feel good about him getting a bucket. DSJ is a freak athlete and ace in the PnR. Fultz is this great scorer who can also facilitate, Ball is just a guy that has a calming affect on an offense and just knows what exact plays to make. Jackson is a two way swiss army knife type guy, that even if his shot isn't falling he still makes plays either passing, driving, cutting and so on. Monk is a freak athlete who isn't great at creating his own shot, but is great running off the ball, great at creating enough space with little step backs to get his shot off.

That's the style of play for these guys, this is how they play basketball, this doesn't really change all that much depending on the level of competition, the only thing that really changes is their success level. Are they going to improve? Of course they are, if they don't at all none of them are good enough now to be immediate all stars. Will they expand their games? Hopefully ya.

The best chance for these guys succeeded is getting placed in a role that fits their style of play and hopefully in time they can start to expand their role. With Monk you want to draft him with the idea and hope he can be a JR Smith with his head on straight and maybe from there he can expand his game.
jonjames
Veteran
Posts: 2,687
And1: 1,758
Joined: Apr 02, 2016

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#48 » by jonjames » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:48 am

Duke4life831 wrote:
sipclip wrote:
Duke4life831 wrote:My thing with Monk is what do people see him as? Best case scenario is he just a better version of JR with his head screwed on? He doesn't have the handles to be your primary ball handler or to be able to create his own shot consistently. He also doesn't bring anything to the table defensively. So I think best case you're seeing a guy that can be a great scorer without needing to pound the rock. So you're not looking at a true #1 or a guy that can lead your offense or team.

So I think you have to look at guys that can be your #1 option or can lead your team. Guys like Fultz, Ball, DSJ, Tatum, Jackson and Giles if you want to take a chance on his health are the guys in this draft you can see being the guy that leads your team or your #1 scoring option that has 2 way potential. I don't see Monk having a higher potential than those 5 guys (6 if you count Giles). Monk just isn't the complete players like those guys.

Ideally if you're the 6ers he falls to you with the Lakers pick. He is exactly what the 6ers need, a guy that is an off ball scorer. You don't want to take him with your earliest pick, but if he's there with their 2nd pick you have to take him, he just fits so well with what that team is building.


You are acting like this kid is a finished product and not a freshman. He has plenty of room for improvement.


Where am I acting like he's a finished product? I'm talking about how he plays the game, how I think his game is going to transfer to the pros and how he compares to the other prospects. I'm not saying any of these guys are finished products.

What im saying is you can see the style of game these guys have had and basically always had throughout high school.

Tatum is a guy you will throw he ball to and feel good about him getting a bucket. DSJ is a freak athlete and ace in the PnR. Fultz is this great scorer who can also facilitate, Ball is just a guy that has a calming affect on an offense and just knows what exact plays to make. Jackson is a two way swiss army knife type guy, that even if his shot isn't falling he still makes plays either passing, driving, cutting and so on. Monk is a freak athlete who isn't great at creating his own shot, but is great running off the ball, great at creating enough space with little step backs to get his shot off.

That's the style of play for these guys, this is how they play basketball, this doesn't really change all that much depending on the level of competition, the only thing that really changes is their success level. Are they going to improve? Of course they are, if they don't at all none of them are good enough now to be immediate all stars. Will they expand their games? Hopefully ya.

The best chance for these guys succeeded is getting placed in a role that fits their style of play and hopefully in time they can start to expand their role. With Monk you want to draft him with the idea and hope he can be a JR Smith with his head on straight and maybe from there he can expand his game.



How would you compare Monk to Ben Mclemore coming out of kansas?
Upperclass
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,844
And1: 2,186
Joined: Aug 09, 2005

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#49 » by Upperclass » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:34 am

McLemore was ALWAYS overated as a prospect. He didnt do anything well except jump in a straight line vertically, and show nice form on his J. He was average or below at everything else.

Monk is a good guard prospect. He minds me of Monta more thn anyone else, I think he is a score in bunchs guy. He'll be less streaky than a JR Smith imo. His floor is probably Tim Hardaway Jrish
User avatar
stitches
RealGM
Posts: 14,458
And1: 6,899
Joined: Jul 14, 2014
 

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#50 » by stitches » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:56 pm

Duke4life831 wrote:My thing with Monk is what do people see him as? Best case scenario is he just a better version of JR with his head screwed on? He doesn't have the handles to be your primary ball handler or to be able to create his own shot consistently. He also doesn't bring anything to the table defensively. So I think best case you're seeing a guy that can be a great scorer without needing to pound the rock. So you're not looking at a true #1 or a guy that can lead your offense or team.

So I think you have to look at guys that can be your #1 option or can lead your team. Guys like Fultz, Ball, DSJ, Tatum, Jackson and Giles if you want to take a chance on his health are the guys in this draft you can see being the guy that leads your team or your #1 scoring option that has 2 way potential. I don't see Monk having a higher potential than those 5 guys (6 if you count Giles). Monk just isn't the complete players like those guys.

Ideally if you're the 6ers he falls to you with the Lakers pick. He is exactly what the 6ers need, a guy that is an off ball scorer. You don't want to take him with your earliest pick, but if he's there with their 2nd pick you have to take him, he just fits so well with what that team is building.


Do you see how easy he gets his shot off? Even when people are right in front of him with hand in his face? Who does that remind you of as a GSW fan? I don't think he even needs to become a first option to be a tremendous player. I need to see his measurements from the combine to know how much we can expect from him defensively, but I see no reason why he can't become a high-volume 3p shooter ala Klay Thompson with similar efficiency. He's also more athletic than Klay and I'd say he's better passer. And the questions about him are very similar to the questions about Klay coming out of the draft. Now Klay is not the typical developmental path for a prospect and he's progressed immensely in some aspects of his game(for example - coming out of the draft his defense was a huge ?, his ability to put the ball on the floor and score around the rim was a ?). I'd like to see how Monk looks at the end of the season and how he measures at the combine. Klay had very good measurements there and I think this is part of the reason why he's succeeded more than just as a spot up shooter.
Dee1sking
Ballboy
Posts: 5
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 05, 2012

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#51 » by Dee1sking » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:14 pm

Is bradley beal a decent comp for him?
toussaud
Junior
Posts: 354
And1: 238
Joined: Apr 26, 2014

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#52 » by toussaud » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:21 pm

I've seen him play In person for years and have played Against him a number of times. First and foremost he's thoroughbred athletically. His athletic ability will negats his height. His footwork on his shot can be more consistent but has a stroke. Mentally immature on the court. Doesn't have a killer instinct and pouts when his shot isnt falling. Avg to below avg ball handler. Can be a good defender with coaching but isn't there yet. Shys away from contact. But i want to stress this kid is a Zach lavine type athlete.


Doesnt have motas handles or Lou's driving ability. I think a better shooting version of Shannon brown is what he projects as. If he seriously works on his handles, maybe a poor mans Steve Francis but that's pushing it
toussaud
Junior
Posts: 354
And1: 238
Joined: Apr 26, 2014

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#53 » by toussaud » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:19 am

Ya know I'm gonna give you another comparison. That won't make sense butbi think is accurate. Rabbis miller. Streaky shooters with questionable handles and defense
User avatar
Han Solo
General Manager
Posts: 9,900
And1: 7,694
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Contact:
     

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#54 » by Han Solo » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:28 am

Favorite player in the draft.
ItsThatEasy
Analyst
Posts: 3,189
And1: 5,032
Joined: Nov 04, 2014
 

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#55 » by ItsThatEasy » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:05 am

toussaud wrote:Ya know I'm gonna give you another comparison. That won't make sense butbi think is accurate. Rabbis miller. Streaky shooters with questionable handles and defense


Reggie?
Ballerhogger
RealGM
Posts: 47,741
And1: 17,306
Joined: Jul 06, 2014
       

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#56 » by Ballerhogger » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:22 am

peachbucket wrote:Gilbert Arenas 2.0?

Without the craziness ? Sure send him on down.
No-Man
RealGM
Posts: 14,879
And1: 3,480
Joined: Feb 11, 2012

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#57 » by No-Man » Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:40 am

He is totally like a smallish version of LaVine, they play exactly the same way.
Ballerhogger
RealGM
Posts: 47,741
And1: 17,306
Joined: Jul 06, 2014
       

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#58 » by Ballerhogger » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:55 pm

A catch shoot player like mini klay would be useful for a lot teams . Especially if you have pass first PG already
Marcus
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 10,315
And1: 5,173
Joined: Mar 03, 2014

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#59 » by Marcus » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:46 pm

Do folks really believe Monk is similar to the kind of shooter Klay Thompson is?
Watch More Basketball

Sometimes silence is the best thing you can contribute to a conversation

after what he did to Moses Moody's name, I got DJ K. Perk in a Verzuz battle against ANYBODY
User avatar
GimmeDat
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 23,927
And1: 16,926
Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Location: Australia
 

Re: Malik Monk 

Post#60 » by GimmeDat » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:27 pm

Fischella wrote:He is totally like a smallish version of LaVine, they play exactly the same way.


He's always been an immediate name that came to mind. Athletically/physically they are very similar, but LaVine has that smoothness in his ball handling and off the dribble game that Monk lacks at this stage, I think. Obviously, Monk has been a much more productive college player, but I think you could get a glimpse of that element of LaVine at UCLA that I haven't seen to the same extent in Monk yet.

I think Monk can develop that handle a bit more and easily become a similar player, though.

Return to NBA Draft