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

[Mik317]

Monk is fine at 6 or 7. All of the PGs should be off the board by then. I like the idea of what Monk could be more than what he is right now tho.

[Negrodamus]

South Carolina's defense is masterful right now. Really suffocating and hands always in the pocket of the driving man. Impressive to watch.

Dozier has really come to life in the tourney. I predict he'll go pro if they make it to the Final Four if he has a good game today. He's playing like a guard and he's 6'7 with a 7'0 wingspan. His fade away jumper has been impressive the past few games.

[Kobblehead]

What if you had future knowledge only on Monk that he would be just as good as Beal or McCollum at the next level and he will play like them. Would you say he's worth taking at 5 or 6 or 7?

Just as an add, I don't like either of those players. But to answer your question, I just can't see that coming to fruition, given what I perceive Malik Monk's balls skills to be in comparison to those two players.

The McCollum thing makes no sense to me. C.J. is one of the very best ball handlers in the entire league and an excellent secondary distributor. C.J. is an actual combo guard. Malik is just an undersized SG.

The Beal thing at least makes a little more sense, but it still discounts the ball handling discrepancy between the two players. Beal routinely took guys off the dribble and got to whatever spot he wanted to. He frequently blew by guys that slashed to the rim. Malik Monk can't do these things. He's not even comfortable putting the ball on the floor with a defender in front of him.

[Unbreakable99]

What if you had future knowledge only on Monk that he would be just as good as Beal or McCollum at the next level and he will play like them. Would you say he's worth taking at 5 or 6 or 7?

Just as an add, I don't like either of those players. But to answer your question, I just can't see that coming to fruition, given what I perceive Malik Monk's balls skills to be in comparison to those two players.

The McCollum thing makes no sense to me. C.J. is one of the very best ball handlers in the entire league and an excellent secondary distributor. C.J. is an actual combo guard. Malik is just an undersized SG.

The Beal thing at least makes a little more sense, but it still discounts the ball handling discrepancy between the two players. Beal routinely took guys off the dribble and got to whatever spot he wanted to. He frequently blew by guys that slashed to the rim. Malik Monk can't do these things. He's not even comfortable putting the ball on the floor with a defender in front of him.

What's if his first two years mirrors what Booker has done? Would you be fine with him at 6 or 7 or 8? And yes I know you don't like Booker. Every prospect is flawed and once you get past 4 you could make a case for many players. Would you take a player like Fox who appears to have the higher upside but could also appear to be a bad fit with Simmons?

[Negrodamus]

I missed the first 5 minutes in the second half, but Florida already has 7 fouls? USC is down, but this game might be over if that's the hole their in for the remainder of this game.

[the_process]

What if you had future knowledge only on Monk that he would be just as good as Beal or McCollum at the next level and he will play like them. Would you say he's worth taking at 5 or 6 or 7?

Just as an add, I don't like either of those players. But to answer your question, I just can't see that coming to fruition, given what I perceive Malik Monk's balls skills to be in comparison to those two players.

The McCollum thing makes no sense to me. C.J. is one of the very best ball handlers in the entire league and an excellent secondary distributor. C.J. is an actual combo guard. Malik is just an undersized SG.

The Beal thing at least makes a little more sense, but it still discounts the ball handling discrepancy between the two players. Beal routinely took guys off the dribble and got to whatever spot he wanted to. He frequently blew by guys that slashed to the rim. Malik Monk can't do these things. He's not even comfortable putting the ball on the floor with a defender in front of him.

What's if his first two years mirrors what Booker has done? Would you be fine with him at 6 or 7 or 8? And yes I know you don't like Booker. Every prospect is flawed and once you get past 4 you could make a case for many players. Would you take a player like Fox who appears to have the higher upside but could also appear to be a bad fit with Simmons?

Monk is like a glorified Anthony Morrow IMO. He's not in my top ten.

[Sixerscan]

Malik Monk has untapped point guard skills also. That's just not his role at Kentucky because Fox and Briscoe need the ball in their hands and Monk can be a dangerous weapon off-ball. I agree his defensive concerns are overstated as well. There's no reason he can't be a decent defender at PG with his combination of size and athleticism. I can easily see him becoming a better defender than Fultz, Ball, and Smith for example.

Again I like the C.J. McCollum comparison. He is a decent defender of PG's. His problem is that because Lillard has to defend PG's, he is forced to defend SG's which he has trouble with. I believe Monk will be the same. We are a team where he will defend PG's.

I agree on the uptapped PG skills. We've been over this again and again with combo guards being asked to play offball at UK. Bledsoe, Booker, Murray. Then when those guys get to the league they show more ball handling ability. Not saying it's a sure thing but it's just not something he's been asked to do or develop to this point.

[Kobblehead]

What's if his first two years mirrors what Booker has done? Would you be fine with him at 6 or 7 or 8? And yes I know you don't like Booker. Every prospect is flawed and once you get past 4 you could make a case for many players. Would you take a player like Fox who appears to have the higher upside but could also appear to be a bad fit with Simmons?

Nope. I'd be completely annoyed with any scenario where we ended up with Malik Monk. I wouldn't even want him if we were picking 14th and he slipped to the back of the lottery. He's a 1 tool player that is trash on the defensive end. Those are not players I want on my roster playing key roles as I'm trying to build a monster.

[Slizeezyc]

I'd rather have a shooting coach work on De'Aaron's shot than Lonzo's shot. His mechanics look pretty decent and he's a good enough FT shooter right now.

You wouldn't trust the guy shooting 40% from deep over the guy who can't hit any sort of jumper with consistency?

Lonzo doesn't have a pull-up game based on his mechanics, but at least he has a stepback and a standstill that are already real things. Fox has nothing to hang his hat on as a standstill or off the bounce shooter. I also don't think you're going to change Ball's mechanics besides maybe trying to figure out a way to make the load happen more quickly so this is sort of a weird line to go down as is. I doubt you can quickly change something like making it so he keeps the ball on one side of his body so he can shoot going both ways rather than just one etc. without massive changes, so you just wouldn't make them because he makes shots already.

Regardless, I feel like in terms of probable outcomes, it's way more rare for the non-shooting PG to figure something like that versus someone who already has shots to fall back on.

Guys like Derrick Rose and John Wall were solid at free throws, it doesn't mean they get better as shooters or figure things out eventually (neither ever really has, which is fine as at least Wall has made it work still, but the point is the shooting). There generally needs to be some body of work that hints at it beyond solid free-throw percentage for a PG -- again, because these guys are dribbling and shooting not taking standstill jumpers. The bar is lower for those guys because their other skills offset the shooting issues, so I don't get too hung up on the Fox shooting thing either way. Either you believe in him as a PG who can break a defense like those dudes or you don't. Everything else is sort of relative to fit if you believe that much as any shooting you do get is just a bonus towards him being a MVP talent rather than just an All-Star talent.

Yep, because when Lonzo misses, because his offensive arsenal is so limited, he misses badly. So when he faces a De'Aaron Fox at the next level, he's going to be jacking up terrible threes in order to score. We just had a preview of what he'll be against NBA competition. I wouldn't want to harp on one game though; however, he sucked against Kentucky the first time they played. Check out his numbers against Arizona. How's he going to be against Marcus Smart? Tony Allen?

The only reason to love Lonzo is his passing. Otherwise, you have to hope he's getting open shots at the next level because he's not driving on anyone worth their salt at defense in the next level and he's definitely not getting his shot off easily in ISO situations.

De'Aaron actually has a more traditional form and shooting coaches will know what to do with it. In addition to that, he can drive on anyone in college because he's an elite athlete and that should translate to the next level. Oh yea, and he actually plays defense.

I've beat the drum on concerns with Lonzo's issues against certain styles of defense, which I think we talked about in terms of my not wanting him to be "the guy" on a team. But if he's just a shooting dude with good passing skills, then he's not going to go up against the Tony Allens of the world (for the record, just about no one could score on peak Allen with any efficiency). On top of that, he doesn't strike me as someone who will force much.

A lot of what you're saying I still don't think has much to do with shooting outcomes either way, but I understand the concept of liking Fox more than Ball if that's what you're getting at overall.

[dkj5061]

What's if his first two years mirrors what Booker has done? Would you be fine with him at 6 or 7 or 8? And yes I know you don't like Booker. Every prospect is flawed and once you get past 4 you could make a case for many players. Would you take a player like Fox who appears to have the higher upside but could also appear to be a bad fit with Simmons?

Nope. I'd be completely annoyed with any scenario where we ended up with Malik Monk. I wouldn't even want him if we were picking 14th and he slipped to the back of the lottery. He's a 1 tool player that is trash on the defensive end. Those are not players I want on my roster playing key roles as I'm trying to build a monster.

He definitely needs to develop more of his offensive game, but you do realize that the last 2 champions have featured bad defensive players as either their first or second best player, right? We all want 2 way monsters on the Sixers, but those players aren't available where we will probably be picking. Drafting a offensive stud (hopefully, no sure things in the draft) at 6 is still a step in the right direction for this team.

[Mik317]

none of these guys are finished products. Many of them have fatal flaws that need to be worked on. Some of them will do just that. Its all about predicting who will and if its possible.

so many statements of certainty are thrown around here. "oh he's not this now so I would stay away". Yes I know "bu-but the same was said about Jah doe". Yes but Jah's issues are all effort...thats tough to evaluate if a guy is going to give a **** or not. But a lot of the same **** was also said about Giannis.

I am no expert on this but geez guys

[Negrodamus]

You wouldn't trust the guy shooting 40% from deep over the guy who can't hit any sort of jumper with consistency?

Lonzo doesn't have a pull-up game based on his mechanics, but at least he has a stepback and a standstill that are already real things. Fox has nothing to hang his hat on as a standstill or off the bounce shooter. I also don't think you're going to change Ball's mechanics besides maybe trying to figure out a way to make the load happen more quickly so this is sort of a weird line to go down as is. I doubt you can quickly change something like making it so he keeps the ball on one side of his body so he can shoot going both ways rather than just one etc. without massive changes, so you just wouldn't make them because he makes shots already.

Regardless, I feel like in terms of probable outcomes, it's way more rare for the non-shooting PG to figure something like that versus someone who already has shots to fall back on.

Guys like Derrick Rose and John Wall were solid at free throws, it doesn't mean they get better as shooters or figure things out eventually (neither ever really has, which is fine as at least Wall has made it work still, but the point is the shooting). There generally needs to be some body of work that hints at it beyond solid free-throw percentage for a PG -- again, because these guys are dribbling and shooting not taking standstill jumpers. The bar is lower for those guys because their other skills offset the shooting issues, so I don't get too hung up on the Fox shooting thing either way. Either you believe in him as a PG who can break a defense like those dudes or you don't. Everything else is sort of relative to fit if you believe that much as any shooting you do get is just a bonus towards him being a MVP talent rather than just an All-Star talent.

Yep, because when Lonzo misses, because his offensive arsenal is so limited, he misses badly. So when he faces a De'Aaron Fox at the next level, he's going to be jacking up terrible threes in order to score. We just had a preview of what he'll be against NBA competition. I wouldn't want to harp on one game though; however, he sucked against Kentucky the first time they played. Check out his numbers against Arizona. How's he going to be against Marcus Smart? Tony Allen?

The only reason to love Lonzo is his passing. Otherwise, you have to hope he's getting open shots at the next level because he's not driving on anyone worth their salt at defense in the next level and he's definitely not getting his shot off easily in ISO situations.

De'Aaron actually has a more traditional form and shooting coaches will know what to do with it. In addition to that, he can drive on anyone in college because he's an elite athlete and that should translate to the next level. Oh yea, and he actually plays defense.

I've beat the drum on concerns with Lonzo's issues against certain styles of defense, which I think we talked about in terms of my not wanting him to be "the guy" on a team. But if he's just a shooting dude with good passing skills, then he's not going to go up against the Tony Allens of the world (for the record, just about no one could score on peak Allen with any efficiency). On top of that, he doesn't strike me as someone who will force much.

A lot of what you're saying I still don't think has much to do with shooting outcomes either way, but I understand the concept of liking Fox more than Ball if that's what you're getting at overall.

Then if you're not taking Lonzo as a "the guy", then why is anyone taking him in the top 10? He's not particularly good at defense, he's a spot shooter, essentially. I don't think it needs to be Tony Allen even. Put MCW on him and he's not getting a clean look off all day.

And now what do we have? A guy who struggles at driving the ball, hasn't shown a compelling reason to believe in his pull up jumper, sucks against a faster opponent on defense. That's not a top 10 player.

And even if you wanted to implement a pull up jumper in Ball's game, what is a shooting coach going to do with that form? What are we going to do about his 67% FT shooting? I'd rather have to dissect and figure out Fox's form than dive into Ball's situation. That's what I'm saying.

[Mik317]

This grandpa at SCAR is pretty good for an old guy

[Negrodamus]

Sindarius is clutch out of his mind. Always in the right place at this right time.

[Kobblehead]

Sindarius is clutch out of his mind. Always in the right place at this right time.

DX's 26th ranked senior. I wonder if he'll get a contract from a Russian League team.

[JojoSlimbiid]

Glorified Anthony Morrow? Jesus...that's nonsense. Monk would be a great get after 5,6,7 range. I'd rather have Fultz or Ball even but at a certain point Monk is more than fine. Brett's ball-movement system would do great things for him and he'd defend pointguards where his measurable's or lack there of aren't as much of a concern.

[Kobblehead]

Everyone is scared to death of taking a senior with only 1 year of dominance in the Top 10, but Sindarious Thornwell very easily could be one of the 5 best players in this draft.

[the_process]

So... Thornwell, huh?

[Unbreakable99]

What's if his first two years mirrors what Booker has done? Would you be fine with him at 6 or 7 or 8? And yes I know you don't like Booker. Every prospect is flawed and once you get past 4 you could make a case for many players. Would you take a player like Fox who appears to have the higher upside but could also appear to be a bad fit with Simmons?

Nope. I'd be completely annoyed with any scenario where we ended up with Malik Monk. I wouldn't even want him if we were picking 14th and he slipped to the back of the lottery. He's a 1 tool player that is trash on the defensive end. Those are not players I want on my roster playing key roles as I'm trying to build a monster.

What about Fox? Would you take him? He doesn't seem like a good fit at all with Simmons. I think he will be a good player but he needs the ball to be productive on offense and he can't shoot.

[Kobblehead]

What about Fox? Would you take him? He doesn't seem like a good fit at all with Simmons. I think he will be a good player but he needs the ball to be productive on offense and he can't shoot.

I keep a list of desired prospects and a list of guys I don't want. Fox is currently in my bubble zone. I've cooled on him a bit as the season has progressed. I would be more accepting of his poor jumper if his defense and distributing had remained a constant throughout the year.