Knicks · Just for opinion--who would you rather have (page 1)

what are you smoking?

I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

lol, leave it to briggs to make a poll where he chooses a consesus top10 pick vs a guy who is going to be picked in the 2nd round... all so he can say that he'll take josh hart and say "i told ya so" just in case he plays better than a rotation player. such a joke. briggs is also comparing a senior to a freshman, which is also ridiculous. this poll is such a joke on so many levels.

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

nyk4ever wrote:lol, leave it to briggs to make a poll where he chooses a consesus top10 pick vs a guy who is going to be picked in the 2nd round... all so he can say that he'll take josh hart and say "i told ya so" just in case he plays better than a rotation player. such a joke. briggs is also comparing a senior to a freshman, which is also ridiculous. this poll is such a joke on so many levels.

Why is it a joke? Were talking a 6-3(maybe) thin Sg versus a powerfully built 6-5 Sg who has a much more diverse game. Who looks plays more like an nba player?

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

How many games did Monk have 2 or less rebounds-- get back to me with all that vertical

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

How many games did Monk have 2 or less rebounds-- get back to me with all that vertical

I have to say this isn't a stat you use to judge Monk's impact on the NBA level. Rebounds????

nixluva wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

How many games did Monk have 2 or less rebounds-- get back to me with all that vertical

I have to say this isn't a stat you use to judge Monk's impact on the NBA level. Rebounds????

Defense rebounding passing ball handling shooting team play intangibles. Let's weigh them all together. My bet is Phil would rather have Josh Hart

If we want a SG/SF .. Josh Hart without question! Hart's creative talent improve each season in UConn
If we want a PG .. Malik Monk .. only if Lonzo Ball is gone

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

How many games did Monk have 2 or less rebounds-- get back to me with all that vertical

I have to say this isn't a stat you use to judge Monk's impact on the NBA level. Rebounds????

Defense rebounding passing ball handling shooting team play intangibles. Let's weigh them all together. My bet is Phil would rather have Josh Hart

Yeah but not with our 1st rd pick!!! You can grab older can't miss college guys in the 2nd rd and UDFA's. The top picks are high upside guys. Monk is probably going to play PG in the NBA. He's got to mature and get stronger in order to play SG. Hart is a completely different player.

nixluva wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

How many games did Monk have 2 or less rebounds-- get back to me with all that vertical

I have to say this isn't a stat you use to judge Monk's impact on the NBA level. Rebounds????

Defense rebounding passing ball handling shooting team play intangibles. Let's weigh them all together. My bet is Phil would rather have Josh Hart

Yeah but not with our 1st rd pick!!! You can grab older can't miss college guys in the 2nd rd and UDFA's. The top picks are high upside guys. Monk is probably going to play PG in the NBA. He's got to mature and get stronger in order to play SG. Hart is a completely different player.

Oh yeah he's not a top 10 pick but he's better than Monk

Monk, hands down.

I can't say enough to know. I even would say Briggs as out there as he can be, has scouted and watched more college ball than I ever have.
But from the little I have seen of Monk, I do think he is getting sold a little short.

Not that I'd take him over some of the better top 5 or 6 lottery picks, but he has serious 20 points a night scoring potential in the NBA. Great first step. Great driver to the basket. Great shooter. His decision making needs work. He doesn't pass the ball. He's a shooting guard that plays point. In any other offense I'd say he'd make a better 6th man than starter on a good team, but with the Triangle, and if we say paired him with Ron Baker (because Ron can guard many 2's) I don't know, I get the feeling Monk would immediately do well. I can't see him miss the shots Sasha, or some of the opportunities Lee get. Holiday as well. He'll only have to bring the ball up at the point in the Triangle, and after that he's basically a shooter and driver.

I'd take a number of players before Monk, and looks like Monk is falling than rising in draft mocks. However I see real potential with him in the Triangle. If we got him at 8 or lower, I'd be ok and pretty happy we got such a talented scorer and shooter. Top 6, top 5, no.

What's Monk's downisde? I think JR Smith or maybe Jamal Murry. At best? He's maybe CJ.

Zeek Woodley hes same height but 25 pounds heavier 6-3 215

Only guy in draft who has a 40 inch vertical who avg over 20 points for his career who also avg over 40% from 3 and over 85% from the line while averaging 5+ rebounds with more defensive ability.

If I want to find a 3 point shooter why waster a lottery pick on Monk when I can get the same undrafted? Forget Josh hart because I think they are 2 different players--what can I get from Monk that I cant get from a guy who will be an NBA player but wont be drafted?

BRIGGS wrote:Zeek Woodley hes same height but 25 pounds heavier 6-3 215

Only guy in draft who has a 40 inch vertical who avg over 20 points for his career who also avg over 40% from 3 and over 85% from the line while averaging 5+ rebounds with more defensive ability.

If I want to find a 3 point shooter why waster a lottery pick on Monk when I can get the same undrafted? Forget Josh hart because I think they are 2 different players--what can I get from Monk that I cant get from a guy who will be an NBA player but wont be drafted?

Are we factoring age, potential and level of competition?

Just look back I had Malcolm Brogdon as a lottery pick last year(went 36) and Derrick Jones as a late #1(undrafted)

#14 Malcolm Brogdon 6-5 225 G Going off the sentiment reader again Consistent hard working two way player who has a 40-90% 3 + 2 FT potential. Has some dribble drive game with incredible strength and long arms. Good passer ACC defensive and player player of the year. Adequate rebounder but could improve there. Lacks an NBA first step slow to the hoop

#29 Derrick Jones-- Best athlete in draft. Explosive nice size if he can level off to a 2G at 6-7. Potentially an elite defender. Excellent rebounder Raw in various aspects of game. Needs developmental time in the D league this year. Worthy of late 1. I think hes a lottery pick if he stayed in school--this is a discount
I say these two guys because these were my selections for the Knicks along with Bryn Forbes. (because I felt we would not get into rd 1)

Just because a sentiment says a player is a top 10 doesnt mean it will translate and the red flags with Monk are stock pile high folks.

I love Hart as a player and a person (Eagle scout, I believe). Hart is a jack of all trades type player who can do a little bit of everything. I'm not saying he's complete finished product, but I don't see him getting too much better than he already is...

With that said, Monk as a much better shooter and is a more explosive scorer and athlete. Another thing to keep in mind...These Kentucky players seem to blossom in the NBA. I'm willing to gamble that Monk has more in the tool box than he showed in college, similar to Towns, Davis, Booker, Cousins, Murray, etc...

If we end up with Isaacs or Smith with the 6th pick, would love to snatch Hart in the second round, though...

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:I can understand that Hart is a pretty sure thing. Not special but a good role player. That's not what Monk is. Monk has greater upside. Despite the doubts and questions left unanswered because he's just a freshman, Monk has more potential for being a greater player.

For all we know Monk turns into a big time scorer. You draft him for that potential.

Monk has Curry scoring potential with Vince Carter hops. Monk's numbers are almost identical to Curry's their first year. Curry has a 35 inch vert. Monk's 42. I was not high on Monk but after a deeper look this guy has massive unused and unlocked potential. He would be an elite athlete by NBA standards and he can already shoot and score.

Monk has some warts and concerns, but his potential vs. Hart's potential is simply a silly discussion. Hart can be had by us and would be a great player to look at in round 2. I like Frank Mason there alot as well. We have two #2s. Hart will be there. You can always move up in round 2 if you need.

Yeah! This is why you pay scouts. They take more than just the way a player looks right now on a specific college team into account. Kids like Monk on loaded teams can be limited or held back by the role or even the style of play. You have to account for and project how they'll do in the NBA and as they develop. The College game is NOTHING like the NBA. Gotta always keep that in mind.

Monk's vertical is 42 inches. That like throwing 99 in the bigs. There are only a handful of guys who can do that.

not really. I know its a different sport but watch the NFL combine. They are getting close to 42 inches without running like nba players do. It's always weird to me how NFL players can jump higher than most NBA players. The funny thing is its not only skill position players but you see it from almost each position group.