Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:I've heard a couple draft experts say Monk's verticals athletic ability doesn't really play/show up when he plays. I tend to agree. At the end of the day these measurements and all that stuff matters but sometimes guys become good players regardless. Some people seem to feel Monk has some factors that will make him very good. I'm not buying it but I won't be completely shocked either. I think if he goes to the right team especially with a big PG or other wing playmaker he could be a really really nice player.

To me the wild card with him is he played at Kentucky and there is definitely some truth to the fact a player can't always show his full repertoire of skills there. For example, I could see his play making skills being masked at Kentucky, where he played with a high lotto point guard (Fox) and was relied on mostly as a scorer.

But still...it's hard to mask being short for your position!

60WinTim wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Monk's outbursts this past year were really impressive. The guy definitely has a Ben Gordon/Lou Williams vibe to his game. But that is a great 6th or 7th man, not a starting SG. And those guys are his ceiling, no? Unless he can play PG, I just don't see a best-case scenario that is better than either of those two guys.

I think what could be argued is that Monk has much deeper 3 point range than those guys had early in their NBA careers. If he can shoot the 3 well beyond the 3 point line with some consistency he could trend more towards being more than a 6 man.

This article discusses the possibility that Monk could be more than a Lou a Williams type. It was a good read Tim will love it. :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theringer.com/amp/p/f074a0b238f0

He's also at least two inches shorter than Booker. There simply aren't that many good starting SGs in league history at that height.

I do agree these Kentucky guys often show more skill in the NBA than we realized they had in college. With Monk, it might be his play making ability that got short-changed....I don't know. We know that typically it's some offensive skill that didn't fully get utilized....it's almost never, "my goodness! This guy is a way better defender than I thought!".

I know you don't put much stock in verticals. But Monk has a good wing span for his size and none of these guys -- Booker, Jamal Murray, Gary Harris, McCollum, Lou Williams, etc -- come close to having the vertical Monk has, which helps make up for some of that head-to-toe length you are worried about. The guy has athleticism to go along with his terrific shooting. I think he can develop into a starting SG. And the idea of having that kind of shooting coming off the bench behind Zach, and maybe even along side Zach, gets me kind of excited...

Only one problem: where are the minutes coming from?

Wiggins and LaVine would have to have their playing time reduced by plenty for these guys to shine

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I've heard a couple draft experts say Monk's verticals athletic ability doesn't really play/show up when he plays. I tend to agree. At the end of the day these measurements and all that stuff matters but sometimes guys become good players regardless. Some people seem to feel Monk has some factors that will make him very good. I'm not buying it but I won't be completely shocked either. I think if he goes to the right team especially with a big PG or other wing playmaker he could be a really really nice player.

To me the wild card with him is he played at Kentucky and there is definitely some truth to the fact a player can't always show his full repertoire of skills there. For example, I could see his play making skills being masked at Kentucky, where he played with a high lotto point guard (Fox) and was relied on mostly as a scorer.

But still...it's hard to mask being short for your position!

Well going along that train of thought...If he really is a playmaker...boom he can play minutes at the PG position and his size becomes an asset. No I'm not expecting that but...is it completely outreageous? Again it's not always easy to project what guys will and won't improve and these guys are so young. Maybe he becomes a Gary Harris type. Yeah Harris has a 3 inch longer wingspan...or does he? Monk was measured a bunch of times when he was younger and all of them on DX show 6'5-6'6 and then at UK It was 6'3. That seems weird. Oh and Lip will love to know Monk has a 3" higher overhead reach than Harris! One BB podcast calls guys like Garry Harris position bender's and says they are very valueable. I tend to agree. I can see why some people can get excited about Monk. I'm not a believer and if the guys that are gone that are expected to be gone...I'd be really at a losss of what to do unless a really good trade down offer was available. Only a few more days...

I don't think Monk would be a bad pick. He's proven to be a productive scorer with a nearly 40% 3-point percentage as a freshman, wNBA 3-point range and a very quick release. But I wouldn't draft him at #7. Two things trouble me about Monk. First, he didn't produce significantly in any area other than scoring. He only had around 2.5 assists, a little over 2 rebounds and less than one steal per game. Compare that to a comparable sized SG named CJ McCollum who had 5 rebounds and 1.3 steals per game as a freshman. Second, Monk's handle isn't impressive. The guards - PGs and SGs - who become all-star caliber players in the NBA typically have ball-on-a-string handles. That's one of the things that I like about McCollum coming out of college. Curry and Lillard had that attribute as well.

If we can't get Jackson, Isaac or Tatum at #7, I'd look to take Zach or John Collins. In either case we should be able to trade down and get another asset as well. If it's between Monk and Markkenan, I'd take Monk, but I wouldn't use our 7th pick on either one.

lipoli390 wrote:I don't think Monk would be a bad pick. He's proven to be a productive scorer with a nearly 40% 3-point percentage as a freshman, wNBA 3-point range and a very quick release. But I wouldn't draft him at #7. Two things trouble me about Monk. First, he didn't produce significantly in any area other than scoring. He only had around 2.5 assists, a little over 2 rebounds and less than one steal per game. Compare that to a comparable sized SG named CJ McCollum who had 5 rebounds and 1.3 steals per game as a freshman. Second, Monk's handle isn't impressive. The guards - PGs and SGs - who become all-star caliber players in the NBA typically have ball-on-a-string handles. That's one of the things that I like about McCollum coming out of college. Curry and Lillard had that attribute as well.

If we can't get Jackson, Isaac or Tatum at #7, I'd look to take Zach or John Collins. In either case we should be able to trade down and get another asset as well. If it's between Monk and Markkenan, I'd take Monk, but I wouldn't use our 7th pick on either one.

Good post.

What kind of handles did some of those older guards have when they were freshman? Of course we have tons of examples of guys that never really improved a whole lot after being promising freshman.

Lip have you seen some of the video's DX has been tweeting of John Collins. The latest one might be the most impressive athletically. Dude was working out and putting dunk after dunk down with his head at the rim (one I swear his head was above the time at one point). That made me think this guy should be in the dunk contest. Oh and it looks like he might actually be able to shoot 3's. I don't know how high I would take him but whoever gets him could end up with a nice player. There is certain some potential and he didn't just luck into basically 20-10 in under 27mpg as a sophomore. You will probably get at least something out of him.

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:I don't think Monk would be a bad pick. He's proven to be a productive scorer with a nearly 40% 3-point percentage as a freshman, wNBA 3-point range and a very quick release. But I wouldn't draft him at #7. Two things trouble me about Monk. First, he didn't produce significantly in any area other than scoring. He only had around 2.5 assists, a little over 2 rebounds and less than one steal per game. Compare that to a comparable sized SG named CJ McCollum who had 5 rebounds and 1.3 steals per game as a freshman. Second, Monk's handle isn't impressive. The guards - PGs and SGs - who become all-star caliber players in the NBA typically have ball-on-a-string handles. That's one of the things that I like about McCollum coming out of college. Curry and Lillard had that attribute as well.

If we can't get Jackson, Isaac or Tatum at #7, I'd look to take Zach or John Collins. In either case we should be able to trade down and get another asset as well. If it's between Monk and Markkenan, I'd take Monk, but I wouldn't use our 7th pick on either one.

Good post.

What kind of handles did some of those older guards have when they were freshman? Of course we have tons of examples of guys that never really improved a whole lot after being promising freshman.

Lip have you seen some of the video's DX has been tweeting of John Collins. The latest one might be the most impressive athletically. Dude was working out and putting dunk after dunk down with his head at the rim (one I swear his head was above the time at one point). That made me think this guy should be in the dunk contest. Oh and it looks like he might actually be able to shoot 3's. I don't know how high I would take him but whoever gets him could end up with a nice player. There is certain some potential and he didn't just luck into basically 20-10 in under 27mpg as a sophomore. You will probably get at least something out of him.

I watched the video of John Collins canning threes in a workout. Of course, those were uncontested threes, but he looked fluid and very accurate. His college numbers were tremendous. I believe he had the highest PER of any draft prospect and he put up his impressive numbers as a very young sophomore. I see the total package for a potentially elite NBA PF -- great hands, excellent strength, very bouncy athleticism, excellent body control, nose for the ball, great college production, especially in areas like rebounding that translate well to the NBA, and a fantastic motor. I've seen and read enough to have confidence that he'll become a very good mid-range shooter with decent 3-point range in the NBA. He's the real deal and potentially elite as a scorer and rebounder with decent shot-blocking potential.

His weaknesses are confined to the defensive end. But I'm not too concerned because those weaknesses tend to stem from issues of technique and defensive awareness -- things he can improve a lot once he gets to the NBA. His relentless motor and great work ethic tell me he'll overcome his current defensive shortcomings. The prospect of getting him and another valuable asset in trade-down scenario is really enticing.

There has been some movement on DX draft board the last few days. Swanigan is up to 33rd now and Frank'n and OG have dropped.

The return of Kahn

https://twitter.com/chrislongkstp/status/877654470246531073

SI makes 3 total NBA draft coverages. I'm tempted to try and watch all 3 at once. Lol

I'll be at the draft later on tonight. New Wolves logo fitted and everything.

WildWolf2813 wrote:I'll be at the draft later on tonight. New Wolves logo fitted and everything.

Awesome I always look forward to your take always from being there in person.