2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[No-Man]

You always want BPA and that's the way to go, but If I'm Philly at stupid as that might sound I'd prefer to finish with the 2nd overall pick, taking Fultz into a team with Simmons and Embiid as high usage guys it's gonna be a challenge, and although Markelle can shoot, he is not gonna be a guy playing off-ball, maybe Ben can, he has the IQ and has been criticized at times during his HS career for been laid-back and a bit Boris Diaw-ish, but ideally if you can draft a wing, Josh Jackson unless you think his shooting will never become at least avg would be nasty with Simmons and JoJo, and take a guy like Ball that can play off-ball and execute, make the easy plays and has savyness on D, even if he lacks point of attack defense, with the Lakers pick, would be my dream Draft for this team.

It's true that Simmons might fail or JoJo might get hurt and then you regret not having that potentially elite 1st option as a lead guard that Fultz likely would be, but I am pretty wary about that actually coming to fruition and working.

Ball-Jackson-Covington-Simmons-Embiid is pretty nasty, if you could get another 1st whenever you move Noel and draft a guy like Mikal Bridges if he declares in case Cov continues with his shooting issues that would be sweet too.

[No-Man]

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).

There is no way you can get Fultz+Jackson unless you trade up and give up a considerable asset, Okafor doesnt count sadly.

Totally agree on Ball+Josh otherwise, I dont think Fultz-Jackson-Cov-Simmons-Embiid would work anyway, big lack of shooting and too many ball handlers/high usage guys there

[cksdayoff]

we need scoring/shooting talent in the back court. monk and fultz

[Ericb5]

How about Ball and Monk?

That seems pretty ideal to me.

[shawn_hemp]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who feels like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball are extremely similar players?

I feel like Malik Monk would be a better fit for our team than Lonzo Ball. Even if Ball and Simmons wind up playing different positions, they are still similar players with similar deficiencies in areas. The main one being a lack of a consistent jump shot.

I get the whole BPA philosophy, but a lot of people said that about Jahlil Okafor too.

"You gotta take him, he's the best player available"

I subscribe more to the "take the best available player you need" theory. Which I kind of just made up, but you get what I mean.

I'm sure Lonzo Ball will be an exciting talent in the NBA, to whatever team drafts him. I just feel like he might not be the best fit for the Sixers. And I'm tired of drafting players with the backup plan of trading them later because when you draft someone you can't use properly then other teams don't get to see that player at their best and therefore you get little to none in return for letting them go (see:Jahlil Okafor, Nerlens Noel)

[Duke4life831]

Monk is the perfect fit for your guys team. The best off ball scorer in the draft. If LA keeps losing there is a good chance that pick ends up around 5th or 6th pick and that would be a great place to take him. How bout Jackson with your guys pick and Monk with the LA pick. I would say this could be a legit lineup for you guys

PG: Monk
SG: Josh Jackson
SF: Covington
PF: Simmons
C: Embiid

Monk is pretty small for the 2 in the NBA, hes also not a guy you want running a team. But ideally you may want him defending PGs and not SGs because of his size. So with Monk playing the PG (because that will be his defensive assignment), he can play off ball which he is at his best, allows Simmons to be the majority ball handler and play maker where he is at his best, Jackson needs to improve his shot but he has a great handle and is an underrated facilitator so he can be a solid secondary facilitator for you guys behind Simmons. Plus it allows you guys to be freakishly athletic at basically every position, great size at every position as well. Plus you guys will have 3 pretty stud defenders right away with Jackson, Covington and Embiid.

[PhilasFinest]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who feels like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball are extremely similar players?

I feel like Malik Monk would be a better fit for our team than Lonzo Ball. Even if Ball and Simmons wind up playing different positions, they are still similar players with similar deficiencies in areas. The main one being a lack of a consistent jump shot.

I get the whole BPA philosophy, but a lot of people said that about Jahlil Okafor too.

"You gotta take him, he's the best player available"

I subscribe more to the "take the best available player you need" theory. Which I kind of just made up, but you get what I mean.

I'm sure Lonzo Ball will be an exciting talent in the NBA, to whatever team drafts him. I just feel like he might not be the best fit for the Sixers. And I'm tired of drafting players with the backup plan of trading them later because when you draft someone you can't use properly then other teams don't get to see that player at their best and therefore you get little to none in return for letting them go (see:Jahlil Okafor, Nerlens Noel)

I don't see how Ball and Simmons are similar outside of being elite playmakers and having light complexion.

[Duke4life831]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who feels like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball are extremely similar players?

I feel like Malik Monk would be a better fit for our team than Lonzo Ball. Even if Ball and Simmons wind up playing different positions, they are still similar players with similar deficiencies in areas. The main one being a lack of a consistent jump shot.

I get the whole BPA philosophy, but a lot of people said that about Jahlil Okafor too.

"You gotta take him, he's the best player available"

I subscribe more to the "take the best available player you need" theory. Which I kind of just made up, but you get what I mean.

I'm sure Lonzo Ball will be an exciting talent in the NBA, to whatever team drafts him. I just feel like he might not be the best fit for the Sixers. And I'm tired of drafting players with the backup plan of trading them later because when you draft someone you can't use properly then other teams don't get to see that player at their best and therefore you get little to none in return for letting them go (see:Jahlil Okafor, Nerlens Noel)

I do agree that Simmons and Ball are very similar players. Neither look for their own shot all that much. Ideally I think in this draft you want a elite scoring prospect and a prospect that is very versatile (Fultz) or a great two way potential guy like Jackson.

[No-Man]

How about Ball and Monk?

That seems pretty ideal to me.

defense could be really subpar there, you are basiclaly relying on Monk becoming a stopper, he can be adequate in time, but the guy is not gonna be able to defend wings and Ball is a guy that you might need to hide on the weakest wing of the opposing team.
If Simmons continues been lackadaisical on defense, you are pretty much gonna need JoJo to be a monster, and he might very well be, but... not sure if thats the best route.

[No-Man]

In a way Ball is your ideal triangle-PG, he is a ball mover and can create, esp in transition but he is not a heavy PnR guy with a high usage, he is not gonna be efficient pulling up from range with his motion, which is fine even if ugly off ball, when he can pick his spots and have enough space, but not if he needs to create that space off-bounce, he is a guy that likely is gonna end up as a low usage PG more than an on ball player, he has the 7th highest usage in UCLA at the moment at a mere 18%, which is insanely low for a lead guard.
I think he would fit pretty well with Simmons and Embiid, at least on offense, and if you can add Josh too, the defense will not be a problem.

[shawn_hemp]

You guys are expecting these kids to come in the league and be amazing 2-way players right from the jump

Not every player is LeBron James. A lot of guys are either really good at offense, or really good at defense. Very few are really good at both. Most of the quality players in the league are really good at one and passable at the other.

Personally, I'd rather just try to put a team together that can out score opponents on any given night and live with some questions on defense

Let's be honest, most of the NBA season doesn't involve a whole lot of defending. I'd rather have players that are at least capable of making plays on defense at crucial times rather than be lockdown defenders on every single possession. I'm really not trying to watch the Tom Thibodeau-era Bulls night after night

[cksdayoff]

we need a team that can run on opponents during the regular season and slow it down in the half court offense during the playoffs.

fultz and monk

[Duke4life831]

You guys are expecting these kids to come in the league and be amazing 2-way players right from the jump

Not every player is LeBron James. A lot of guys are either really good at offense, or really good at defense. Very few are really good at both. Most of the quality players in the league are really good at one and passable at the other.

Personally, I'd rather just try to put a team together that can out score opponents on any given night and live with some questions on defense

Let's be honest, most of the NBA season doesn't involve a whole lot of defending. I'd rather have players that are at least capable of making plays on defense at crucial times rather than be lockdown defenders on every single possession. I'm really not trying to watch the Tom Thibodeau-era Bulls night after night

I agree with a lot of this but you also dont want to get stuck in the situation where the Wolves are in right now where they have a lot of offensive players but no defense and they cant win anything. Thats why I think you guys definitely need a top tier scorer thats why I think Monk is a great fit for you guys. Then add a guy like Jackson who should be a good defender day 1, he has that questionable jumper but moves very well off the ball and is a great athlete. So him in transition with Simmons and Monk would be a terror and he can make an impact offensively with his passing as well. I think Monk gives you the scoring punch and Jackson the 2 way player you will need down the road when you start competing

[phiphan]

I'd be apoplectic if we passed on Fultz for Jackson. Fultz is the clear #1 for me at this point -- best player and a great fit. Also almost 1.5 years younger than old man Jackson.

[LloydFree]

Maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who feels like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball are extremely similar players?

I feel like Malik Monk would be a better fit for our team than Lonzo Ball. Even if Ball and Simmons wind up playing different positions, they are still similar players with similar deficiencies in areas. The main one being a lack of a consistent jump shot.

I get the whole BPA philosophy, but a lot of people said that about Jahlil Okafor too.

"You gotta take him, he's the best player available"

I subscribe more to the "take the best available player you need" theory. Which I kind of just made up, but you get what I mean.

I'm sure Lonzo Ball will be an exciting talent in the NBA, to whatever team drafts him. I just feel like he might not be the best fit for the Sixers. And I'm tired of drafting players with the backup plan of trading them later because when you draft someone you can't use properly then other teams don't get to see that player at their best and therefore you get little to none in return for letting them go (see:Jahlil Okafor, Nerlens Noel)

I don't see how Ball and Simmons are similar outside of being elite playmakers and having light complexion.

This. Pretty much nothing alike, except they both can pass the ball.

[Duke4life831]

I'd be apoplectic if we passed on Fultz for Jackson. Fultz is the clear #1 for me at this point -- best player and a great fit. Also almost 1.5 years younger than old man Jackson.

Im not saying to take Jackson #1. I do agree if you guys get #1 it should Fultz. Im saying a Jackson/Monk draft would be a really good draft if you dont end up with the #1 pick. I think Jackson/Monk is a better scenario than Ball/Monk.

[cksdayoff]

I'd be apoplectic if we passed on Fultz for Jackson. Fultz is the clear #1 for me at this point -- best player and a great fit. Also almost 1.5 years younger than old man Jackson.

Im not saying to take Jackson #1. I do agree if you guys get #1 it should Fultz. Im saying a Jackson/Monk draft would be a really good draft if you dont end up with the #1 pick. I think Jackson/Monk is a better scenario than Ball/Monk.

i wouldn't mind jackson one bit. the guy has an edge to him and he does all the other things to help a squad have a chance to win games. it's exciting to envision what that frontcourt would be like defensively and in transition. he's gonna have to rework his shot, it's covering his face at the release point. and when he creates offense for himself, it looks even worse.

[Duke4life831]

I'd be apoplectic if we passed on Fultz for Jackson. Fultz is the clear #1 for me at this point -- best player and a great fit. Also almost 1.5 years younger than old man Jackson.

Im not saying to take Jackson #1. I do agree if you guys get #1 it should Fultz. Im saying a Jackson/Monk draft would be a really good draft if you dont end up with the #1 pick. I think Jackson/Monk is a better scenario than Ball/Monk.

i wouldn't mind jackson one bit. the guy has an edge to him and he does all the other things to help a squad have a chance to win games. it's exciting to envision what that frontcourt would be like defensively and in transition. he's gonna have to rework his shot, it's covering his face at the release point. and when he creates offense for himself, it looks even worse.

Agreed 100% he needs to work on the jumper. He needs to get it much higher and get that hitch out of it. But there is promise with him offensively especially with his handles, athleticism and facilitating. But he should be able to come in day 1 and defend 2s and 3s. Plus can you imagine fast breaks with Monk and Jackson running down the sidelines with Simmons with the ball, thats scary stuff. I just think a Jackson/Monk draft will get you guys the early scoring you need, plus the 2 way potential and versatility on the perimeter that is needed with Jackson.

[phiphan]

Unpopular/premature opinion, but I'd probably take Tatum over Jackson right now due to Jackson's shooting issues. I would probably take Tatum #2, and almost certainly would if he continues to hit the three at a decent % on a bit more volume.

[No-Man]

Unpopular/premature opinion, but I'd probably take Tatum over Jackson right now due to Jackson's shooting issues. I would probably take Tatum #2, and almost certainly would if he continues to hit the three at a decent % on a bit more volume.

thing with Tatum is that ideally he is a 4 offensively and that's Simmons best position on offense as well, meaning that you want Ben with the ball but been defended by bigs, so I am not sure how that would work.

If 3pt shooting and defense are real for Tatum and his passing can improve he has a chance of been better than Josh if Jackson's shooting is truly bad, but I'd put my money on Josh as of now.