nixluva wrote:fishmike wrote:BRIGGS wrote:fishmike wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Im passing on Monk--when I first saw him I thought this guy had the potential to be a super athletic Steph Curry. By the end of the season Im questioning if hes a top 20 prospect.
what changed? Why does he no longer have that potential?Their numbers as college freshmen are almost identical
Steph Curry is a ballhandler/PG first Monk is not.
Are you comparing MVP and NBA champ Steph Curry to Monk? Or are you comparing 18 year old Davidson freshman Curry to Monk?
You might as well accept that people sometimes have a hard time keeping things in perspective! We tend to forget how frail Steph was when he was drafted.
Thinking back, Bledsoe never showed much in the way of playmaking ability when he was playing with Wall. He was in a comparable situation to Monk. He was asked to spot up, finish and defend. He wasn't able to flourish as a lead guard till he got to the pros. Of course, he got to learn under Chris Paul and Jeff. Would the fanbase be patient enough to let Monk learn? Same thing applies to Fix and his shot.
In Malik Monk's last 19 games this year he shot better than 50% one time
In those 19 games he had 5 or more rebounds twice. He had 0 rebounds 3 times--you would think a gu8y who could jump to the sky could do better than thta?
In those 19 games he had 5 or more assists twice. He had 1 assist or less 6 times--not a PG not is he a handler.
How would you compare Fox's athleticism to Monk's?
GustavBahler wrote:How would you compare Fox's athleticism to Monk's?
They both get up with ease! Fox seems more able to do it in game action thru traffic!
nixluva wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Knicks won't even consider Monk unless we fall to 8/9 or Monk works out for us like the second coming of Steph Curry.6'3" tweener who doesn't handle the ball like a PG or play D is not being drafted by Jackson, guys.
Yeah but I thought that was understood already. Monk is not at the top of my list and I would guess most feel the same way. I agree that he's in play if we fall back.
If I'm Philly I might look at Monk.
Saric is a fine passer, and Simmons is a point forward who needs the ball. I see Monk as a good fit for that team as an off guard.
I think this is a situation where you have to put your faith in your scouts and Jackson/Gaines/Hornacek and maybe a former player like Allan Houston.
Maybe they end up seeing things we're not able to see in him when they work him out...who knows.
WaltLongmire wrote:nixluva wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Knicks won't even consider Monk unless we fall to 8/9 or Monk works out for us like the second coming of Steph Curry.6'3" tweener who doesn't handle the ball like a PG or play D is not being drafted by Jackson, guys.
Yeah but I thought that was understood already. Monk is not at the top of my list and I would guess most feel the same way. I agree that he's in play if we fall back.
If I'm Philly I might look at Monk.Saric is a fine passer, and Simmons is a point forward who needs the ball. I see Monk as a good fit for that team as an off guard.
I think this is a situation where you have to put your faith in your scouts and Jackson/Gaines/Hornacek and maybe a former player like Allan Houston.
Maybe they end up seeing things we're not able to see in him when they work him out...who knows.
Many Sixers fans see monk as the perfect player for them. As you said, he is a guard who works best off the ball and can really shoot it, which serves as a perfect compliment to Ben Simmons.
TPercy wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:nixluva wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Knicks won't even consider Monk unless we fall to 8/9 or Monk works out for us like the second coming of Steph Curry.6'3" tweener who doesn't handle the ball like a PG or play D is not being drafted by Jackson, guys.
Yeah but I thought that was understood already. Monk is not at the top of my list and I would guess most feel the same way. I agree that he's in play if we fall back.
If I'm Philly I might look at Monk.Saric is a fine passer, and Simmons is a point forward who needs the ball. I see Monk as a good fit for that team as an off guard.
I think this is a situation where you have to put your faith in your scouts and Jackson/Gaines/Hornacek and maybe a former player like Allan Houston.
Maybe they end up seeing things we're not able to see in him when they work him out...who knows.
Many Sixers fans see monk as the perfect player for them. As you said, he is a guard who works best off the ball and can really shoot it, which serves as a perfect compliment to Ben Simmons.
Based on what I saw of Simmons last year, I cannot see him being a guy who is not directing their offense...you completely misuse him if you think he's going to be a secondary player moving without the ball or waiting in a corner for a kick out.
Whether or not Simmons becomes THE guy for them is another issue, but you drafted him with the idea that he would be a transformational player for you so it seems you have to give Simmons a chance to lead the show...
...Just wish we didn't have to sit behind Philly in the drafting order.
WaltLongmire wrote:TPercy wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:nixluva wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Knicks won't even consider Monk unless we fall to 8/9 or Monk works out for us like the second coming of Steph Curry.6'3" tweener who doesn't handle the ball like a PG or play D is not being drafted by Jackson, guys.
Yeah but I thought that was understood already. Monk is not at the top of my list and I would guess most feel the same way. I agree that he's in play if we fall back.
If I'm Philly I might look at Monk.Saric is a fine passer, and Simmons is a point forward who needs the ball. I see Monk as a good fit for that team as an off guard.
I think this is a situation where you have to put your faith in your scouts and Jackson/Gaines/Hornacek and maybe a former player like Allan Houston.
Maybe they end up seeing things we're not able to see in him when they work him out...who knows.
Many Sixers fans see monk as the perfect player for them. As you said, he is a guard who works best off the ball and can really shoot it, which serves as a perfect compliment to Ben Simmons.
Based on what I saw of Simmons last year, I cannot see him being a guy who is not directing their offense...you completely misuse him if you think he's going to be a secondary player moving without the ball or waiting in a corner for a kick out.
Whether or not Simmons becomes THE guy for them is another issue, but you drafted him with the idea that he would be a transformational player for you so it seems you have to give Simmons a chance to lead the show...
...Just wish we didn't have to sit behind Philly in the drafting order.
Honestly I feel like We're going to miss out on the Monk/ Fox train. Both Orlando and Philly can use those two. Also we saw in the leaked picture Orlando was looking at trading for a SF more than drafting one.
wargames wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:TPercy wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:nixluva wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Knicks won't even consider Monk unless we fall to 8/9 or Monk works out for us like the second coming of Steph Curry.6'3" tweener who doesn't handle the ball like a PG or play D is not being drafted by Jackson, guys.
Yeah but I thought that was understood already. Monk is not at the top of my list and I would guess most feel the same way. I agree that he's in play if we fall back.
If I'm Philly I might look at Monk.Saric is a fine passer, and Simmons is a point forward who needs the ball. I see Monk as a good fit for that team as an off guard.
I think this is a situation where you have to put your faith in your scouts and Jackson/Gaines/Hornacek and maybe a former player like Allan Houston.
Maybe they end up seeing things we're not able to see in him when they work him out...who knows.
Many Sixers fans see monk as the perfect player for them. As you said, he is a guard who works best off the ball and can really shoot it, which serves as a perfect compliment to Ben Simmons.
Based on what I saw of Simmons last year, I cannot see him being a guy who is not directing their offense...you completely misuse him if you think he's going to be a secondary player moving without the ball or waiting in a corner for a kick out.
Whether or not Simmons becomes THE guy for them is another issue, but you drafted him with the idea that he would be a transformational player for you so it seems you have to give Simmons a chance to lead the show...
...Just wish we didn't have to sit behind Philly in the drafting order.
Honestly I feel like We're going to miss out on the Monk/ Fox train. Both Orlando and Philly can use those two. Also we saw in the leaked picture Orlando was looking at trading for a SF more than drafting one.
Definitely could be right on this...Fox's stock seems to be high right now...and Monk's ability as a shooter might fill a need for certain teams. Orlando was supposedly willing to move Payton, a guy they paid dearly for to Philly, but in some ways Fox is a bit like Payton(a solid defender not known as a great shooter), except he's a little taller and slimmer.
I think at 6/7 we'll get a player most of us really like...and like a number of other folks around here, if we come away with a player like Isaac, I would be extremely happy. One of the players I'm looking at now- Fox, Ntilikina, or Isaac will be on the board when we pick...and I can live with any of them.
We just need to be in the 6/7 slot...hopefully #6.
Draft is murkier and murkier. Have a bunch where this will be one of those surprising drafts where some teams will get better players in the 20s and 30s than some lotto picks.
Having said that I take some comfort In that the Knicks seem to have very good draft evaluators -- unlike past regimes
What about Dennis Smith at 6? I don't know much about him, but my kids tell me he's legit and one of best players coming into the draft.
Moonangie wrote:What about Dennis Smith at 6? I don't know much about him, but my kids tell me he's legit and one of best players coming into the draft.
He's legit for sure. I don't know if the Knicks value him as highly on their lists but he is no joke. That's why this draft is so good. There's going to be disagreement over who is better at every spot.
fishmike wrote:LivingLegend wrote:Monk is a guy I go back and forth on for a few reasons.- while certainly no pure PG I did watch about 15 or so of his UK games and he did show some unselfishness, vision and passing ability in flashes
- in the triangle we don't need a pure PG but simply 2 guards who can move, pass and shoot
- he is outstanding off the ball either cutting off the ball or using screens --- all of which fits in the triangle
- this is a kid with I think (+4) 30 plus games as a freshmen. The SEC player of the year and a kid who put up 47 on National Champion NC and 27 on South Carolina D
- he is spectacular in the open court (some Westbrook in him)
- his range and form are both outstanding
It wouldn't be the worse thing to put a dynamic wing scorer next to KP -- particularly a guard that could pressure the defense on the break (get us out in transition and finish) -- we really haven't had a legit wing threat like that in some time.
Also liked that he showed a great attitude at UK -- sharing the limelight with Fox/BAM and taking tough coaching from Cal.
Here is something to think about as you are a Ron Baker guy... Baker measured 6'4 with a 6'10 wingspan. Do you consider the fact that those two are complimentary? Baker handles the ball and takes on the tougher guard in the backcourt. Monk guards opposing 1's usually, plays off the ball and both can spread the floor... Going to be tough to win NBA games with that backcourt but maybe Monk comes off the bench to play with Baker. You like that? 
I like Baker and I like Monk --- so yeah --- I don't mind the thought of those 2 playing together --- they would seem to fit to me.
I'm not saying they would be an all-time back court but I think they would fit because Baker does the little things, defends and has size --- leaving Monk to do what he does best "put the ball in the basket".
TPercy wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:nixluva wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Knicks won't even consider Monk unless we fall to 8/9 or Monk works out for us like the second coming of Steph Curry.6'3" tweener who doesn't handle the ball like a PG or play D is not being drafted by Jackson, guys.
Yeah but I thought that was understood already. Monk is not at the top of my list and I would guess most feel the same way. I agree that he's in play if we fall back.
If I'm Philly I might look at Monk.Saric is a fine passer, and Simmons is a point forward who needs the ball. I see Monk as a good fit for that team as an off guard.
I think this is a situation where you have to put your faith in your scouts and Jackson/Gaines/Hornacek and maybe a former player like Allan Houston.
Maybe they end up seeing things we're not able to see in him when they work him out...who knows.
Many Sixers fans see monk as the perfect player for them. As you said, he is a guard who works best off the ball and can really shoot it, which serves as a perfect compliment to Ben Simmons.
Sixer's could look at both Monk and Frankie (who could project as a SG longer term as he fills out and may even get bigger). Both would seem to be good fits next to Simmons where guys like DSJ, Fox not so much.
Moonangie wrote:What about Dennis Smith at 6? I don't know much about him, but my kids tell me he's legit and one of best players coming into the draft.
I think Smith is the absolute worst fit for what the Knicks want to do --- team based basketball running the triangle and defending.
Smith is a ball dominant pg who needs/wants the ball -- does nothing off the ball but stand around and shows little/no interest in defending.
Add in the knee injuries and I just don't see the DSJ fit with the Knicks.
I'm pretty sure that we will not draft Smith.
I can't see us taking a traditional point guard that is not a game changer.
I think we're looking at that Ntlinkina or Issac or Tatum, assuming that draft goes Fultz/Jackson/Ball/Fox.
If we draft within the top 7 I see us having this order after the top 4 (Fultz/Jackson/Ball/Fox off the board top 4).
Isaac
Ntlinkina
Tatum
All Phil type players, who would be molded into good system ball players because of background or who they are skill wise. Frank because of his great wingspan, freakish skills at time. Isaac because he's a big that can shoot be a good fit in the Triangle and also would allow KP to become a 5. Tatum is a pretty good two-way project for a longterm Melo replacement opens up a Melo trade to be for a starting guard.
Monk is going to be really good. He might be a good pickup if we feel confident in Baker. Baker and Monk could compliment each other very well. But either way, Monk has huge upside.
Knixkik wrote:Monk is going to be really good. He might be a good pickup if we feel confident in Baker. Baker and Monk could compliment each other very well. But either way, Monk has huge upside.
Just posted similar comment in another thread but anyone NOT in love with Monk should go back and watch the UK vs. Florida game where Fox was out and Monk (2nd half) absolutely went HAM....scoring in every way, attacking the rim and making some great passes to BAM.
Love this kids skill and fearless...attacking style -- he is a triangle fit as well.
