2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

Ericb5 · Post #721 » by **Ericb5** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:00 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:I really like what I saw from Monk today.

Hells yeah, and Fox was pretty tasty too. He is another candidate for the Lakers pick. If the pick comes in at 10, for example, Fox could be the guy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cksdayoff · Post #722 » by **cksdayoff** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:01 am

monk is a dynamic scorer, haven't had one since iverson. monk and fultz in the backcourt is going to be amazing

eagereyez · Post #723 » by **eagereyez** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:12 am

Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG. Maybe he can develop into a score first PG similar to Lillard. He did show off some nice passing and dribbling that I hadn't seen before

sixerhp3 · Post #724 » by **sixerhp3** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:18 am

I'm getting pretty nervous that Monk will be picked in the top 5...

OleSchool · Post #725 » by **OleSchool** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:18 am

Glad to see people starting to come around on Monk. I think he'd be perfect for us, since Simmons will be handling the ball most of the time

SelfishPlayer · Post #726 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:20 am

eagereyez wrote:Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG.

That's true in terms of who he is defending. He's a natural shooting guard, although undersized and his feel for the game as a ball handler and passer is something like an Iman Shumpert so I'd never trust him at PG unless he rapidly develops in that area. He looks like he can be a CJ McCollum type offensively at some point.

Unbreakable99 · Post #727 » by **Unbreakable99** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:25 am

eagereyez wrote:Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG. Maybe he can develop into a score first PG similar to Lillard. He did show off some nice passing and dribbling that I hadn't seen before.

I don't think he can. His handles aren't good enough. I can't see him being a secondary ball handler. I see him as like a Ray Allen type player. Ray Allen was not a PG. He didn't facilitate either. He looked for his shot. That's Monk. If Monk is on the team we would need another ball handler to play with Simmons. Monk also doesn't play D. I would like Fultz and Monk if it came to that but if that happened our backcourt defense would not be good. The offense would be good.

Chuck Everett · Post #728 » by **Chuck Everett** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:32 am

Seems like a Crawford type, but the Sixers absolutely have the type of talent (in Embiid & Ben) to allow Monk to shine as an offensive player. I like the CJ McCollum comparison, who did not play PG at Lehigh, yet, clearly has the handles and playmaking skills to do so.

eagereyez · Post #729 » by **eagereyez** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:40 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
eagereyez wrote:Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG. Maybe he can develop into a score first PG similar to Lillard. He did show off some nice passing and dribbling that I hadn't seen before.

I don't think he can. His handles aren't good enough. I can't see him being a secondary ball handler. I see him as like a Ray Allen type player. Ray Allen was not a PG. He didn't facilitate either. He looked for his shot. That's Monk. If Monk is on the team we would need another ball handler to play with Simmons. Monk also doesn't play D. I would like Fultz and Monk if it came to that but if that happened our backcourt defense would not be good. The offense would be good.

I don't know, I'm not gonna say what these kids can or can't develop into. Lillard, Curry, and Bledsoe were undersized SG's who learned to play PG. Then you have the failed experiments such as LaVine and Redick. We're also not seeing the full extent of Monk's ball handling due to Fox. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Post #730 » by **Foshan** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:42 am

wow, pulling for more LA losses... Fultz/Monk/RoCo/Simmons/Embiid... make it happen!

SelfishPlayer · Post #731 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:42 am

Josh Jackson doesn't seem to be the popular name around here quite like earlier in the season, but his game is still special. Plenty of NBA prospects have developed 3 point shots in the NBA like Kawhi Leonard, Andrew Wiggins, and Trevor Ariza. Josh Jackson's length and athleticism allow him to defend multiple positions on the NBA level. I don't think it's wise to draft a small backcourt that includes NBA prospects like Fultz and Monk. You'll have issues in the playoffs against the best teams even if those two guys become the offensive players people hope they'll be. What if Josh Jackson becomes the offensive player he is hoped to be? That wouldn't require much beyond some shooting which is amongst the easier skills to master.

eagereyez · Post #732 » by **eagereyez** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:56 am

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.

LloydFree · Post #733 » by **LloydFree** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:31 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
eagereyez wrote:Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG. Maybe he can develop into a score first PG similar to Lillard. He did show off some nice passing and dribbling that I hadn't seen before.

I don't think he can. His handles aren't good enough. I can't see him being a secondary ball handler. I see him as like a Ray Allen type player. Ray Allen was not a PG. He didn't facilitate either. He looked for his shot. That's Monk. If Monk is on the team we would need another ball handler to play with Simmons. Monk also doesn't play D. I would like Fultz and Monk if it came to that but if that happened our backcourt defense would not be good. The offense would be good.

I agree. I don't think Monk has the handle to play PG and right now I don't know that he could even be a secondary ball handler. On defense, his lack of length will be a huge problem against NBA Shooting Guards. He's a great scorer, but he may be a tricky fit in a starting lineup.

OleSchool · Post #734 » by **OleSchool** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:42 pm

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

OleSchool · Post #735 » by **OleSchool** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:48 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
eagereyez wrote:Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG. Maybe he can develop into a score first PG similar to Lillard. He did show off some nice passing and dribbling that I hadn't seen before.

I don't think he can. His handles aren't good enough. I can't see him being a secondary ball handler. I see him as like a Ray Allen type player. Ray Allen was not a PG. He didn't facilitate either. He looked for his shot. That's Monk. If Monk is on the team we would need another ball handler to play with Simmons. Monk also doesn't play D. I would like Fultz and Monk if it came to that but if that happened our backcourt defense would not be good. The offense would be good.

I agree. I don't think Monk has the handle to play PG and right now I don't know that he could even be a secondary ball handler. On defense, his lack of length will be a huge problem against NBA Shooting Guards. He's a great scorer, but he may be a tricky fit in a starting lineup.

I don't think it'll be that tricky to fit Monk in a starting lineup. It'll be the same thing when Iverson was here. Just need a big PG (like Snow was).

Livingston? Even though I know GSW wouldn't trade him. MAYBE MCW? :lol:

we can get him cheap. Although, if you do pick up MCW we'll have no offense out of our 1 & 4 spots, assuming Simmons is playing the 4 but, we will need a PG like that to team with Monk

Ericb5 · Post #736 » by **Ericb5** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:18 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
eagereyez wrote:Monk could easily play PG on a team with Simmons. Still not sure what I think of him as a SG. Maybe he can develop into a score first PG similar to Lillard. He did show off some nice passing and dribbling that I hadn't seen before.

I don't think he can. His handles aren't good enough. I can't see him being a secondary ball handler. I see him as like a Ray Allen type player. Ray Allen was not a PG. He didn't facilitate either. He looked for his shot. That's Monk. If Monk is on the team we would need another ball handler to play with Simmons. Monk also doesn't play D. I would like Fultz and Monk if it came to that but if that happened our backcourt defense would not be good. The offense would be good.

I agree. I don't think Monk has the handle to play PG and right now I don't know that he could even be a secondary ball handler. On defense, his lack of length will be a huge problem against NBA Shooting Guards. He's a great scorer, but he may be a tricky fit in a starting lineup.

He can be the 2 on offense, and the 1 on defense.

Fultz, Ball and Jackson can all defend the 2 to varying degrees.

Any defensive shortcomings in the back court have to be thought of in a context of Embiid being one of the most consequential defenders in the league. He will make everyone better defensively.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cksdayoff · Post #737 » by **cksdayoff** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:31 pm

with fultz and monk, the sixers will be amazing in transition, and in the halfcourt offense.

LloydFree · Post #738 » by **LloydFree** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:36 pm

OleSchool wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
I don't think he can. His handles aren't good enough. I can't see him being a secondary ball handler. I see him as like a Ray Allen type player. Ray Allen was not a PG. He didn't facilitate either. He looked for his shot. That's Monk. If Monk is on the team we would need another ball handler to play with Simmons. Monk also doesn't play D. I would like Fultz and Monk if it came to that but if that happened our backcourt defense would not be good. The offense would be good.

I agree. I don't think Monk has the handle to play PG and right now I don't know that he could even be a secondary ball handler. On defense, his lack of length will be a huge problem against NBA Shooting Guards. He's a great scorer, but he may be a tricky fit in a starting lineup.

I don't think it'll be that tricky to fit Monk in a starting lineup. It'll be the same thing when Iverson was here. Just need a big PG (like Snow was).

Livingston? Even though I know GSW wouldn't trade him. MAYBE MCW? we can get him cheap. Although, if you do pick up MCW we'll have no offense out of our 1 & 4 spots, assuming Simmons is playing the 4 but, we will need a PG like that to team with Monk

Honestly, Iverson was always a tricky fit, also. But Iverson was a once in a lifetime talent. He had a Point Guard's handle and he was an athletic freak.
Right now it's just a little difficult for me to project what Monk will have the ability to do in the NBA, because he is a very unique type of talent. If he were 2 inches taller and had 4 inches more reach he'd be a classic SG. If he had a better handle, he'd be a classic scoring PG. But we'll see. You may be right, he may be good enough at what he does, to be a seamless fit into an offense

phiphan · Post #739 » by **phiphan** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:37 pm

SelfishPlayer wrote:Josh Jackson doesn't seem to be the popular name around here quite like earlier in the season, but his game is still special. Plenty of NBA prospects have developed 3 point shots in the NBA like Kawhi Leonard, Andrew Wiggins, and Trevor Ariza. Josh Jackson's length and athleticism allow him to defend multiple positions on the NBA level. I don't think it's wise to draft a small backcourt that includes NBA prospects like Fultz and Monk. You'll have issues in the playoffs against the best teams even if those two guys become the offensive players people hope they'll be. What if Josh Jackson becomes the offensive player he is hoped to be? That wouldn't require much beyond some shooting which is amongst the easier skills to master.

Fultz is 6'5 with a 6'9 wingspan. He's got great size for a point guard, and good size for a shooting guard. I am not into hoping for guys to develop a shot at this point. We've already got to do that with Simmons, and we've seen how bad things can turn out if it doesn't work out (MCW). I want to prioritize shooting this draft to maximize Embiid's and Simmon's talents. Embiid will make us a pretty good defensive team by default.

OleSchool · Post #740 » by **OleSchool** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:46 pm

LloydFree wrote:
OleSchool wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
I agree. I don't think Monk has the handle to play PG and right now I don't know that he could even be a secondary ball handler. On defense, his lack of length will be a huge problem against NBA Shooting Guards. He's a great scorer, but he may be a tricky fit in a starting lineup.

I don't think it'll be that tricky to fit Monk in a starting lineup. It'll be the same thing when Iverson was here. Just need a big PG (like Snow was).

Livingston? Even though I know GSW wouldn't trade him. MAYBE MCW? we can get him cheap. Although, if you do pick up MCW we'll have no offense out of our 1 & 4 spots, assuming Simmons is playing the 4 but, we will need a PG like that to team with Monk

Honestly, Iverson was always a tricky fit, also. But Iverson was a once in a lifetime talent. He had a Point Guard's handle and he was an athletic freak.
Right now it's just a little difficult for me to project what Monk will have the ability to do in the NBA, because he is a very unique type of talent. If he was 2 inches taller and had 4 inches more reach he'd be a classic SG. If he had a better handle, he'd be a classic scoring PG. But we'll see. You may be right, he may be good enough at what he does, to be a seamless fit into an offense

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to compare Monk with Iverson. Just talking from a strictly physical standpoint.