2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread Volume 2

Post #1781 » by **Foshan** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:16 pm

2 and 4 for Jackson and Monk is probably my dream

Unbreakable99 · Post #1782 » by **Unbreakable99** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:28 pm

Foshan wrote:2 and 4 for Jackson and Monk is probably my dream

If it's a dream then why not 1 and 4?

shawn_hemp · Post #1783 » by **shawn_hemp** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:42 pm

Unbreakable99 wrote:
Foshan wrote:2 and 4 for Jackson and Monk is probably my dream

If it's a dream then why not 1 and 4?

Well cuz then they might take Fultz

Unbreakable99 · Post #1784 » by **Unbreakable99** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:43 pm

shawn_hemp wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
Foshan wrote:2 and 4 for Jackson and Monk is probably my dream

If it's a dream then why not 1 and 4?

Well cuz then they might take Fultz

Well if true then that should be his dream.

shawn_hemp · Post #1785 » by **shawn_hemp** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:47 pm

I don't get why we wouldn't draft for fit either.

You only do the "BPA" nonsense when you expect half of your roster to be different come next year

We absolutely should reach for fit IMO

jaxsontend · Post #1786 » by **jaxsontend** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:12 pm

I like Jackson a lot and think he fits the physical/defensive/grit culture of the team well both personality-wise and skill-wise. However, to those who want to draft him, where does he fit on our team? Isnt he redundant with RoCo? would you trade Roco as part of a package to get him?

basically we are strong at 3 and 4 (im assuming embiid never plays but we worry aobut that next year and get cheap center depth), and sort of strong at 1 depending on simmons, with mcconnell running the bench unit or starting to defend pg's as needed. The glaring weakspot is 2 and this is a strong draft for 2s (and pgs).

again im going to continue to be redundant and say, assuming we lose the lakers pick, i'd be happy to get Monk and Hart out of this draft. we unlock our lineup in crazy ways imo, even with out embiid, with these guys (or dsj and mitchell or frank or other combos of guards)

our starting line up could be
simmons
monk
roco
saric
Embiid

if that lineup is too big and clunky we have the ability to go medium or small

tj
monk/hart/tlc
roco/
simmons
holmes

between tj/tlc/hart we will have guys that can defend different types of guards and small forwards (tlc and hart can ideally defend 1-3 reasonably one day but maybe that's wishful thinking) that can balance out any defensive weaknesses simmons/monk may bring in their roles whil allowing saric/simmons/roco (and hopefulyl embiid) to be the fulcrum of the team still

jaxsontend · Post #1787 » by **jaxsontend** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:18 pm

also i know it makes sense maybe to take a point guard and shooting guard rather than two of the latter, but if simmons is going to be our pg, i dont think it helps as far as team building goes to be developing another high level prospect at the same position rn.

also im not against drafting jackson, i'd just like someone to explain to me how they picture him fitting into our team.

smittybanton · Post #1788 » by **smittybanton** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:21 pm

I get the hype on Mohammed Bamba because of the dumb long arms. He is also very fluid. However, I don't see star potential. People beat me over the head about Wade Baldwin's ridiculous physique, even though he doesn't use it well. I like Bamba more than Baldwin. But I'm preparing for the hyperbole next year because of his wingspan.

smittybanton · Post #1789 » by **smittybanton** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:29 pm

PHI20 = RJ Barrett. Whew!

JojoSlimbiid · Post #1790 » by **JojoSlimbiid** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:33 pm

I changed my tune to this awhile ago but...

We should absolutely be picking BPA..at least to the degree we should be looking at guards. How they fit should be second. People need to get rid of the notion of just getting spot up guys and building around Simmons and Embiid. Embiid likely isn't going to be reliable for his career and Simmons is unknown he could end up just as injury prone or he could end up sucking. Talking about getting off ball players and what not to play around Simmons is way too premature at this point. Maybe if he played and showed us anything.

Unbreakable99 · Post #1791 » by **Unbreakable99** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:12 pm

Read on Twitter

PLO · Post #1792 » by **PLO** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 1:08 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Good article, I like Tjarks list the best, mainly because I think he has the two best prospects on top.

FlightBrothers · Post #1793 » by **FlightBrothers** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 1:19 am

could fox and monk work for us I really like fox and if we had the two picks monk could work

I'm not sure I'd be thrilled if we had just one pick and took monk though

TheAntiTrump · Post #1794 » by **TheAntiTrump** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 1:30 am

FlightBrothers wrote:could fox and monk work for us I really like fox and if we had the two picks monk could work

I'm not sure I'd be thrilled if we had just one pick and took monk though

It depends. I like Monk. Best pure athlete maybe in this draft ( Dennis Smith is right there as well ) However I also like what I have seen from TLC at the SG spot. When I consider who our GM is though. And the fact that he as well as his Dad promised a quick turnaround, I can also see them making a big splash. Maybe using that pick IF it is outside say the top-4 to trade, along with Okafor, and maybe one other player for a current start player. At either the SG or SF position.

ExplosionsInDaSky · Post #1795 » by **ExplosionsInDaSky** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 2:46 am

I'm sold on both Kentucky guards at this point. I'll be happy drafting either one. I like Fox a bit more despite him nor being the shooter that Monk is and that is because Fox is a very good defender. I like his size as well, almost like a 6'4 Rajon Rondo.

skulky · Post #1796 » by **skulky** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 4:56 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
Foshan wrote:2 and 4 for Jackson and Monk is probably my dream

If it's a dream then why not 1 and 4?

If it's a dream 1 and 5, which means both celtics and lakers fall out of top3

Post #1797 » by **Foshan** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 6:23 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
Foshan wrote:2 and 4 for Jackson and Monk is probably my dream

If it's a dream then why not 1 and 4?

yeah, so i'd like Fultz sure.

So lets say this is my dream and we land fultz at 1... who are we taking at 4 or 5? I really like monk, but not super sold on a Fultz/Monk pair. I guess that's what I like about Jackson/Monk, but maybe Fultz/Tatum is better?

JojoSlimbiid · Post #1798 » by **JojoSlimbiid** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 7:53 am

I think in just about any double pick scenario in this draft you take Issac with one of the picks. Not too comfortable with any of the top end point guards in the draft switching to playing shooting guard full time. I assume the 2 position is where our FA money is likely to be spent. So in the situation where we already got the pointguard of the future you'd bank on the potential of Issac to see if he can utilize his combination of size and talent.

EBrandEra · Post #1799 » by **EBrandEra** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 1:45 pm

PLO wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Good article, I like Tjarks list the best, mainly because I think he has the two best prospects on top.

I would be pissed if the Sixers draft Isaac over Ball. Ball is a special distributor and he's shown he can hit the 3pt shot. While we have Simmons, passing on a guard like Ball for another forward would not make me happy.

I like Isaac, but I think you draft him only if Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Smith Jr. and Monk are off the board. Sixers need backcourt help way more than another forward.

EBrandEra · Post #1800 » by **EBrandEra** » Sat Apr 1, 2017 1:50 pm

Obviously the Ideal scenario is the Sixers getting the No. 1 overall pick and picking up the Lakers pick at No. 4.

If that happens, then I hope the Sixers get Fultz and either Jackson or Monk.

That would really make for a very good, young core that could contend within a couple years.