Malik Monk

[Duke4life831]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[CptCrunch]

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]

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]

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]

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

[stitches]

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]

Is bradley beal a decent comp for him?

[toussaud]

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]

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

[Han Solo]

Favorite player in the draft.

[ItsThatEasy]

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]

Gilbert Arenas 2.0?

Without the craziness ? Sure send him on down.

[No-Man]

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

[Ballerhogger]

A catch shoot player like mini klay would be useful for a lot teams . Especially if you have pass first PG already

[Marcus]

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

[GimmeDat]

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.