monsterpile wrote:I'd be interested to hear how people compare/value Monk vs Jamal Murray. I haven't got a good feel for Monk I wasn't paying attention to him when I was watching UK Games and I had seen a lot more of Murray last year.
The ringer nba show podcast just talked about Monk. Said he is a very good athlete and can shoot but besides that can't do that much. They said his best case nba comp was Lou Williams and Zach LaVine. Worried about his size though because he has point gaurd size but didn't have to show those skills at Kentucky.
One guy said he would not draft him high because you can find just as good of shooters later in the draft. And if Monk isn't going to get 10+ shots a game or not a top 3 option on offense is he really valuable because he dosen't do much else (they said this on the context of the 76ers drafting him)
That would be my take on Monk from the times I've seen him, including both games and highlight videos. He's not a particularly good ballhandler for a guard. He'll get on highlight reels on the receiving end of alleyoops. He can possibly be a volume scorer with a decent 3-point shot in the NBA, but as a 39% shooter at the college level he's not elite in that area. I think Zach is a better perimeter shooter and faster with the ball than Monk. As I've mentioned before, I'd be very surprised if Monk ended up getting picked in the top 6. I think he'll end up going in the 10-15 range.
Interesting takes here including Kahns liking Murray over Monk and I agree a lot with how Kahns broke it down.
A couple questions based on these takes.
If Monk isn't a terrific prospect then...why is he considered such a high pick? Is it just the shooting plus athletic ability?
It seems that Monk is a top 10 pick based on the stuff I see. If Monk is comparable to Murray and maybe even Murray is a possibly better prospect than Monk then...is this draft really as good as it has been touted to be over the last few months? I do think it's a good draft for PGs but I'm not sure the rest of it and that's even though I do like Isaac a lot.
I think Monk is getting the 76ers bump because they have Simmons and could use the outside shooting and he is the best at that in the draft. Other than that I don't expect anyone in the top 6 to really consider him. So to me he's going 3 or he's dropping probably past us which is the same range as Murray last year. I think this is a good draft and he's only getting bumped for 1 team. Otherwise he's sitting closer to Collins and Markkanen than Fultz and Ball. Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Isaac, Fox, Tatum are the top two tiers and then you drop 1 down to get to Smith, Monk, Markkanen, Collins and then there is another drop to the next tier.
Orlando needs shooting also so that may have kept him up there also. Now with the new guys in charge there have resumes that lead me to believe they are going to take the best prospect over reaching for a shooter. Remember the Kings owner LOVES shooters so... lol
Well I hope someone in the top 6 picks him I just think there are better players and smart teams would pass to pick up a better player. Here's an interesting trade proposal that I just thought of. Say Monk falls to 7. The previous top 6 I mentioned are all off the board so you have Monk, Collins and Markkanen. Would you trade Monk to Philly for Saric and a 2nd rounder because of the 1 less year we would get Saric for? Would you consider Saric a better option than Collins or Markkanen? Saric is only 1 year into his rookie deal so you still get most of that value contract. Saric really came on after the All-Star break when he started getting minutes averaging 17.3/7.3/3.4 in 30 MPG's. He could use an efficiency bump but I feel like that's an easy fix next to Wiggins, Zach and Towns. With Simmons set to be their star at the 4 I think that's a very possible deal and we could plug Saric right into the starting lineup at the 4.
Simmons is gonna be their defacto PG and is gonna wind up playing point forward on the court. They're not gonna bump Saric to play Simmons when they can play together.
Simmons is a 4. I'm not sure where this idea that he's a 3 comes from. He can't shoot at all. He's 6'10 240 which would be one of the biggest wings in the league. These 6'10/6'11 guys just don't play wing in today's NBA. A lot of them are getting bumped to even C let alone PF. His mismatch is against 4's, not 3's and he definitely can't guard 3's. I don't think they can play Simmons, Saric, Embiid at the same time. I think Simmons/Embiid is their starting frontcourt so why not trade Saric for a starting guard who can shoot? Saric isn't a great shooter, but he's serviceable for a stretch 4.
At some point they need to add some guards to that squad. They have Simmons, Saric, Embiid, Okafor. That's too many guys in the frontcourt and Okafor is a tough guy to trade and get value in return and they definitely aren't giving up Simmons or Embiid. So they can keep Saric and have too many guys in the frontcourt or they can release the pressure a little bit and get a guard they desperately need to the point they are considering drafting him at 3 which would be a reach.
thedoper wrote:I'm curious for those who are really high on Issac what they would see his ideal role next year on the team? I'd be extremely worried if the plan was to give him more than 20mins/game as the back up 4. I can see him molding into a player with the right environment but it seems like it would be a slog to watch him learn the NBA 4 with where he is at on both sides of the ball right now. I hope and pray we can find a serviceable option at the 4 this offeseason otherwise I fear we are in for another challenging year without that compliment to take some pressure of KAT especially on the defensive side of the ball. We got to put some real money to that role one way or another.
I see him as a SF both short term and long term. In the short term, I see him as a 15 minute per game sub off the bench. Longer term I see him as a major part of our wing rotation with Wiggins and LaVine. I disagree with the pundits who have him slated long term as a PF. He has a guard's skill set having been a guard in high school before a late growth changed his position. He has the length of an NBA PF. He'll eventually have the width/strength of an NBA SF. Add to that a SG's skills and you have the makings of a potentially very good maybe allstar caliber NBA SF in a few years.
The same thing happened to Anthony Davis. Just because you grow to 6'11 doesn't mean you keep your guard skills especially when you are talking at an NBA level. You also minimize his shot blocking and rebounding when you put him at the 3 versus the 4 which are supposed to be two of the bigger pluses of adding him to your team. If he was 6'11 with NBA guard skills he'd be going number 1 to the Celtics just like Simmons went 1 to the 76ers last year. There just aren't a lot of successful 6'11 wings. It's hard to be quick enough at that size to play on the perimeter all game long and you take him away from the rim which is where a lot of his benefit comes from. He's built to play the 4 in today's game.
You're right that just because you grow to 6'11 doesn't mean you keep your guard skills. But I'm not just assuming he kept those skills. Everything I've seen of him and read about him show that he has kept those skills. Simmons didn't have a late growth spurt so he was more of a finished physical product than Isaac. And I'm not sure Simmons would be the first pick in this year's draft ahead of Fultz and Ball. Isaac could easily go #3. Of course there aren't a lot of successful 6'11 wings. Because most guys that tall by the time they reach the NBA were tall in earlier stages of their careers, which meant they generally didn't play wing or guard positions where they would develop the skill set for an NBA SF. That's what makes Isaac so unique. Of course, Kevin Durant has done just fine as a SF. In any event, I honestly don't think it matters whether he's considered a 3 or a 4. The NBA is becoming less about position except perhaps PG.
monsterpile wrote:I'd be interested to hear how people compare/value Monk vs Jamal Murray. I haven't got a good feel for Monk I wasn't paying attention to him when I was watching UK Games and I had seen a lot more of Murray last year.
The ringer nba show podcast just talked about Monk. Said he is a very good athlete and can shoot but besides that can't do that much. They said his best case nba comp was Lou Williams and Zach LaVine. Worried about his size though because he has point gaurd size but didn't have to show those skills at Kentucky.
One guy said he would not draft him high because you can find just as good of shooters later in the draft. And if Monk isn't going to get 10+ shots a game or not a top 3 option on offense is he really valuable because he dosen't do much else (they said this on the context of the 76ers drafting him)
That would be my take on Monk from the times I've seen him, including both games and highlight videos. He's not a particularly good ballhandler for a guard. He'll get on highlight reels on the receiving end of alleyoops. He can possibly be a volume scorer with a decent 3-point shot in the NBA, but as a 39% shooter at the college level he's not elite in that area. I think Zach is a better perimeter shooter and faster with the ball than Monk. As I've mentioned before, I'd be very surprised if Monk ended up getting picked in the top 6. I think he'll end up going in the 10-15 range.
Interesting takes here including Kahns liking Murray over Monk and I agree a lot with how Kahns broke it down.
A couple questions based on these takes.
If Monk isn't a terrific prospect then...why is he considered such a high pick? Is it just the shooting plus athletic ability?
It seems that Monk is a top 10 pick based on the stuff I see. If Monk is comparable to Murray and maybe even Murray is a possibly better prospect than Monk then...is this draft really as good as it has been touted to be over the last few months? I do think it's a good draft for PGs but I'm not sure the rest of it and that's even though I do like Isaac a lot.
I think Monk is getting the 76ers bump because they have Simmons and could use the outside shooting and he is the best at that in the draft. Other than that I don't expect anyone in the top 6 to really consider him. So to me he's going 3 or he's dropping probably past us which is the same range as Murray last year. I think this is a good draft and he's only getting bumped for 1 team. Otherwise he's sitting closer to Collins and Markkanen than Fultz and Ball. Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Isaac, Fox, Tatum are the top two tiers and then you drop 1 down to get to Smith, Monk, Markkanen, Collins and then there is another drop to the next tier.
Orlando needs shooting also so that may have kept him up there also. Now with the new guys in charge there have resumes that lead me to believe they are going to take the best prospect over reaching for a shooter. Remember the Kings owner LOVES shooters so... lol
Well I hope someone in the top 6 picks him I just think there are better players and smart teams would pass to pick up a better player. Here's an interesting trade proposal that I just thought of. Say Monk falls to 7. The previous top 6 I mentioned are all off the board so you have Monk, Collins and Markkanen. Would you trade Monk to Philly for Saric and a 2nd rounder because of the 1 less year we would get Saric for? Would you consider Saric a better option than Collins or Markkanen? Saric is only 1 year into his rookie deal so you still get most of that value contract. Saric really came on after the All-Star break when he started getting minutes averaging 17.3/7.3/3.4 in 30 MPG's. He could use an efficiency bump but I feel like that's an easy fix next to Wiggins, Zach and Towns. With Simmons set to be their star at the 4 I think that's a very possible deal and we could plug Saric right into the starting lineup at the 4.
Simmons is gonna be their defacto PG and is gonna wind up playing point forward on the court. They're not gonna bump Saric to play Simmons when they can play together.
Simmons is a 4. I'm not sure where this idea that he's a 3 comes from. He can't shoot at all. He's 6'10 240 which would be one of the biggest wings in the league. These 6'10/6'11 guys just don't play wing in today's NBA. A lot of them are getting bumped to even C let alone PF. His mismatch is against 4's, not 3's and he definitely can't guard 3's. I don't think they can play Simmons, Saric, Embiid at the same time. I think Simmons/Embiid is their starting frontcourt so why not trade Saric for a starting guard who can shoot? Saric isn't a great shooter, but he's serviceable for a stretch 4.
At some point they need to add some guards to that squad. They have Simmons, Saric, Embiid, Okafor. That's too many guys in the frontcourt and Okafor is a tough guy to trade and get value in return and they definitely aren't giving up Simmons or Embiid. So they can keep Saric and have too many guys in the frontcourt or they can release the pressure a little bit and get a guard they desperately need to the point they are considering drafting him at 3 which would be a reach.
I think it makes no sense for the Sixers to trade Saric. They can add shooting via free agency. Woj reported the are in on reddick and Lowry add one of those players and now shooting increases. Can also add shooters in the 2nd round. No reason to give up a valuable asset on his rookie deal for the hope the player could be good when Saric is already good
thedoper wrote:I'm curious for those who are really high on Issac what they would see his ideal role next year on the team? I'd be extremely worried if the plan was to give him more than 20mins/game as the back up 4. I can see him molding into a player with the right environment but it seems like it would be a slog to watch him learn the NBA 4 with where he is at on both sides of the ball right now. I hope and pray we can find a serviceable option at the 4 this offeseason otherwise I fear we are in for another challenging year without that compliment to take some pressure of KAT especially on the defensive side of the ball. We got to put some real money to that role one way or another.
I see him as a SF both short term and long term. In the short term, I see him as a 15 minute per game sub off the bench. Longer term I see him as a major part of our wing rotation with Wiggins and LaVine. I disagree with the pundits who have him slated long term as a PF. He has a guard's skill set having been a guard in high school before a late growth changed his position. He has the length of an NBA PF. He'll eventually have the width/strength of an NBA SF. Add to that a SG's skills and you have the makings of a potentially very good maybe allstar caliber NBA SF in a few years.
The same thing happened to Anthony Davis. Just because you grow to 6'11 doesn't mean you keep your guard skills especially when you are talking at an NBA level. You also minimize his shot blocking and rebounding when you put him at the 3 versus the 4 which are supposed to be two of the bigger pluses of adding him to your team. If he was 6'11 with NBA guard skills he'd be going number 1 to the Celtics just like Simmons went 1 to the 76ers last year. There just aren't a lot of successful 6'11 wings. It's hard to be quick enough at that size to play on the perimeter all game long and you take him away from the rim which is where a lot of his benefit comes from. He's built to play the 4 in today's game.
You're right that just because you grow to 6'11 doesn't mean you keep your guard skills. But I'm not just assuming he kept those skills. Everything I've seen of him and read about him show that he has kept those skills. Simmons didn't have a late growth spurt so he was more of a finished physical product than Isaac. And I'm not sure Simmons would be the first pick in this year's draft ahead of Fultz and Ball. Isaac could easily go #3. Of course there aren't a lot of successful 6'11 wings. Because most guys that tall by the time they reach the NBA were tall in earlier stages of their careers, which meant they generally didn't play wing or guard positions where they would develop the skill set for an NBA SF. That's what makes Isaac so unique. Of course, Kevin Durant has done just fine as a SF. In any event, I honestly don't think it matters whether he's considered a 3 or a 4. The NBA is becoming less about position except perhaps PG.
Yep, a tweener is no longer a bad thing it is a great thing. Based on matchups he can play both off the bench next year. Name the backup sf who are instant offense in the nba. Also name the backup pf who get the ball on the low block and are asked to score.
Off the bench I can't see how he would be a massive net negative next year on defense.
Is there any way possible this happens. You absolutely take him if this happens as I see it.
Lakers pass on him and Lazar tells people he won't play for anyone else. Nobody figured Rubio would fall to 5th and he did. Same with Noel. It can happen.
Is there any way possible this happens. You absolutely take him if this happens as I see it.
Lakers pass on him and Lazar tells people he won't play for anyone else. Nobody figured Rubio would fall to 5th and he did. Same with Noel. It can happen.
That would be awesome. People should have learned with Kobe that you should ignore the posturing and pick the best talent. We'd be silly not to take him if he made it all the way to 7th. That's a huge dip.
Is there any way possible this happens. You absolutely take him if this happens as I see it.
Lakers pass on him and Lazar tells people he won't play for anyone else. Nobody figured Rubio would fall to 5th and he did. Same with Noel. It can happen.
That would be awesome. People should have learned with Kobe that you should ignore the posturing and pick the best talent. We'd be silly not to take him if he made it all the way to 7th. That's a huge dip.
I can't imagine the Sixers passing on him.
If he did fall take him it's a no brainer. He can theoretically play with any of our guards.
Rubio wasn't going to play for any NBA team for at least a year in that draft. That's a tough sell for most NBA teams. That's not really comparable to Ball falling. No way he and/or his dad threaten to play overseas for a year like Kobe did.
