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.
Uptown wrote: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...
I would not put Booker or Murray in that blossom category. Murray is a rookie but hasn't looked good and Booker is an overrated shooter who is really a chucker that has only shot 35% from 3 for his career thus far.
yellowboy90 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.
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.
it shouldnt be. NFL player train to be explosive above all else. Nobody in the NBA trains and lifts with their legs like NFL players do.
Also this thread isnt about drafting a great athlete. Its about a highly skilled player who also has elite athleticism. All I am saying is Monk is more than just a shooter, despite what he showed
BRIGGS wrote: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?
it's a joke because you're comparing an 18yo kid to a 22yo kid.. if you were looking to be fair, (which i don't believe you are, you are just pushing your own agenda) you would compare josh hart in his freshman year to malik monk this year... where, if you took the time to look, the stats are very comparable in their freshman years. also, you tout hart's size, well again, when he was a freshman, he was 6-5, 205 and since he's put on all that muscle, which is also very comparable to monk's 6-3, 200.
cmon man, this "draft-guru" agenda push is pathetic when you twist things to look the way you want them to.
Malik will become known as "Shaolin".
Josh who?
nyk4ever wrote:BRIGGS wrote: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?
it's a joke because you're comparing an 18yo kid to a 22yo kid.. if you were looking to be fair, (which i don't believe you are, you are just pushing your own agenda) you would compare josh hart in his freshman year to malik monk this year... where, if you took the time to look, the stats are very comparable in their freshman years. also, you tout hart's size, well again, when he was a freshman, he was 6-5, 205 and since he's put on all that muscle, which is also very comparable to monk's 6-3, 200.
cmon man, this "draft-guru" agenda push is pathetic when you twist things to look the way you want them to.
Whats is the agenda--telling it how I see it? Josh Hart has been consistent from year 1 to year 4. Villanova uses 5-6 guards every year--thats why most of them stay. Josh hart is a LONGER athlete with more size---guess what Malik Monkls arms are not going to grow 5 inches nor is he going to be 6-5+ or 215pds+ anytime soon. Evene if he works hard--I dont think he will have the ambidextrous handles that Hart has. Malik Monk is a predominantly right hand dribble three point shooter with finishing ability. In the open court hes able to get to the line some games. In the NBA--he could be stymied unless he plays in open court. I see him much more like his last 19 games than his first 19 games. Josh Hart is consistent--not a star but a winning player. So what is the comparison--one player who is smallish with a better 3 point shot(well not much better) versus a diverse winner who rebounds defends passes shoots from all angles has brains. You're saying B riggs how can you compare the two--you're somewhat right--different ball players--but I think on a winning team--which is what the post is about--what player would I rather have building a team--the answer is easy--Josh Hart. I dont waste my time watching college basketball to make a dumb post--I watch it because I enjoy it. I believe Im right here--Im simply not high on Monk--sorry.
Id like to see Monk against Zeek Woodley because they have similar games--but Woodley is 25 pounds heavier and plays better D. Same athletic ability shooting etc. but Woodley has a pro body. He looks like Mitch Richmond at 6-3. Malik looks skinny--maybe a form of Monta Ellis at best
fishmike wrote:what are you smoking?
I see Briggs has voted 2X in the poll.
Monk scores from distance, mid-range, floaters, all types of layups and dunks -- he is a top 2-3 scorer in this draft -- if he were 6'4" in socks folks would be all over him in the Top 5 but his height/length are causing some concern. Rightfully so.
LivingLegend wrote:Monk scores from distance, mid-range, floaters, all types of layups and dunks -- he is a top 2-3 scorer in this draft -- if he were 6'4" in socks folks would be all over him in the Top 5 but his height/length are causing some concern. Rightfully so.
We can only hope he's as good an athlete as Zeke Woodley.
