Markelle Fultz Discussion II

LongLiveHinkie · Post #141 » by **LongLiveHinkie** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:43 am

They traded one draft pick to move up to #1, not 5 picks. Will you people stop your **** whining?

Att · Post #142 » by **Att** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:06 am

LongLiveHinkie wrote:They traded one draft pick to move up to #1, not 5 picks. Will you people stop your **** whining?

They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

LongLiveHinkie · Post #143 » by **LongLiveHinkie** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:39 am

Att wrote:
LongLiveHinkie wrote:They traded one draft pick to move up to #1, not 5 picks. Will you people stop your **** whining?

They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

First of all, it's Bryan, not Brian. No offense, but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't even know how to spell the dude's name.

Secondly, that's the price for moving up from 3 to 1. You think teams move up to #1 for 2nd rounders? That's not reality.

I mean, if you don't like Fultz you don't like him, but the price to move up to #1 was not over payment. That's the price it costs to move up in the NBA.

phifans · Post #144 » by **phifans** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:53 am

LongLiveHinkie wrote:
Att wrote:
LongLiveHinkie wrote:They traded one draft pick to move up to #1, not 5 picks. Will you people stop your **** whining?

They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

First of all, it's Bryan, not Brian. No offense, but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't even know how to spell the dude's name.

Secondly, that's the price for moving up from 3 to 1. You think teams move up to #1 for 2nd rounders? That's not reality.

I mean, if you don't like Fultz you don't like him, but the price to move up to #1 was not over payment. That's the price it costs to move up in the NBA.

The price BC paid to move up to #1 is actually ok. But I think Its just not the right rookie class you trade up for considering the gap between the few top picks this year is not that big...

Anyway this is getting old that people shouldnt even care about that. The real problem now is BC traded for Fultz because he believe this kid will be a great fit for the rest of our core but clearly BB seems like have some different opinion So

A. he decide to bench Fultz and start Bayless
B. he would like to use and develop Simmons as a full time point guard which is also Fultzs nature position.

So it seems our Head coach and General manager couldnt come to an agreement on Fultz then whats the point on trade for him at the first time.

marcush · Post #145 » by **marcush** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:06 am

Were the 'contrarians' right again?

LongLiveHinkie · Post #146 » by **LongLiveHinkie** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:13 am

Brett Brown gushed over Fultz, he's being benched because he missed preseason and training camp time because of injuries. He's going to start probably within a couple weeks.

Att · Post #147 » by **Att** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:22 am

LongLiveHinkie wrote:
Att wrote:
LongLiveHinkie wrote:They traded one draft pick to move up to #1, not 5 picks. Will you people stop your **** whining?

They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

First of all, it's Bryan, not Brian. No offense, but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't even know how to spell the dude's name.

Secondly, that's the price for moving up from 3 to 1. You think teams move up to #1 for 2nd rounders? That's not reality.

I mean, if you don't like Fultz you don't like him, but the price to move up to #1 was not over payment. That's the price it costs to move up in the NBA.

I've been following his moves for the last 10 years. My bad, I should have just focused on his name and not his endless mistakes.

I don't have a problem with the price. I have a problem with the Strategy.
Giving up a high lottery pick to go from 3 to 1 is a huge gamble. It means you think the gap between the players is so large that it justifies giving up a highly coveted asset who might turn out to be an all star. It means you think Fultz will be a superstar, a top5 player in the league (or you think the rest of the draft suck. which is obviously not the case).

You can't get all of the picks right. That's why you need several of those high picks.
BC gambled with our upside. If Futlz turns out to be the best player of this draft by a large margin - fine. He wins. If he's not - it was a really big mistake. If he busts completely, BC (Bryan for you) has destroyed the process with just one move and you can forget about a championship in Philly.

Post #148 » by **kingofthecourt67** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:44 am

phifans wrote:
LongLiveHinkie wrote:
Att wrote:They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

First of all, it's Bryan, not Brian. No offense, but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't even know how to spell the dude's name.

Secondly, that's the price for moving up from 3 to 1. You think teams move up to #1 for 2nd rounders? That's not reality.

I mean, if you don't like Fultz you don't like him, but the price to move up to #1 was not over payment. That's the price it costs to move up in the NBA.

The price BC paid to move up to #1 is actually ok. But I think Its just not the right rookie class you trade up for considering the gap between the few top picks this year is not that big...

Anyway this is getting old that people shouldnt even care about that. The real problem now is BC traded for Fultz because he believe this kid will be a great fit for the rest of our core but clearly BB seems like have some different opinion So

A. he decide to bench Fultz and start Bayless
B. he would like to use and develop Simmons as a full time point guard which is also Fultzs nature position.

So it seems our Head coach and General manager couldnt come to an agreement on Fultz then whats the point on trade for him at the first time.

He benched Fultz because he played 47 minutes in preseason and messed up his own shot. How is that unreasonable?

Fultz is the more natural scorer and appears to be well-suited to be a secondary creator. Ben Simmons has shown the ability to have elite passing. If he's not creating then he offers limited offensive value. That is not the case for Fultz who can be a 20 ppg scorer if he just returns to his old jump shot.

Post #149 » by **kingofthecourt67** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:46 am

Att wrote:
LongLiveHinkie wrote:
Att wrote:They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

First of all, it's Bryan, not Brian. No offense, but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't even know how to spell the dude's name.

Secondly, that's the price for moving up from 3 to 1. You think teams move up to #1 for 2nd rounders? That's not reality.

I mean, if you don't like Fultz you don't like him, but the price to move up to #1 was not over payment. That's the price it costs to move up in the NBA.

I've been following his moves for the last 10 years. My bad, I should have just focused on his name and not his endless mistakes.

I don't have a problem with the price. I have a problem with the Strategy.
Giving up a high lottery pick to go from 3 to 1 is a huge gamble. It means you think the gap between the players is so large that it justifies giving up a highly coveted asset who might turn out to be an all star. It means you think Fultz will be a superstar, a top5 player in the league (or you think the rest of the draft suck. which is obviously not the case).

You can't get all of the picks right. That's why you need several of those high picks.
BC gambled with our upside. If Futlz turns out to be the best player of this draft by a large margin - fine. He wins. If he's not - it was a really big mistake. If he busts completely, BC (Bryan for you) has destroyed the process with just one move and you can forget about a championship in Philly.

The whole point of the process is that one false move won't sink it. Even if Fultz busts, which I am confident he won't, A LOT more has to go wrong for it to have failed.

LongLiveHinkie · Post #150 » by **LongLiveHinkie** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:08 am

Att wrote:
LongLiveHinkie wrote:
Att wrote:They traded a very high pick to get someone who's not necessarily better. If he busts, it's two picks down the drain. That's the difference between a championship contender for 10 years and lowly playoff team. An entire process gone to waste. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brian Colangelo.

First of all, it's Bryan, not Brian. No offense, but it's hard to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't even know how to spell the dude's name.

Secondly, that's the price for moving up from 3 to 1. You think teams move up to #1 for 2nd rounders? That's not reality.

I mean, if you don't like Fultz you don't like him, but the price to move up to #1 was not over payment. That's the price it costs to move up in the NBA.

I've been following his moves for the last 10 years. My bad, I should have just focused on his name and not his endless mistakes.

I don't have a problem with the price. I have a problem with the Strategy.
Giving up a high lottery pick to go from 3 to 1 is a huge gamble. It means you think the gap between the players is so large that it justifies giving up a highly coveted asset who might turn out to be an all star. It means you think Fultz will be a superstar, a top5 player in the league (or you think the rest of the draft suck. which is obviously not the case).

You can't get all of the picks right. That's why you need several of those high picks.
BC gambled with our upside. If Futlz turns out to be the best player of this draft by a large margin - fine. He wins. If he's not - it was a really big mistake. If he busts completely, BC (Bryan for you) has destroyed the process with just one move and you can forget about a championship in Philly.

You're being way too overdramatic. All he has to do is be great for this team for it to be a good deal, because we have no idea how other players would fit on this team. Ball, Tatum, Jackson, Fox on their respective teams isn't the same as how they would perform on the Sixers.

They traded up for Fultz, because a) they considered him the best player in the draft and b) he fit the team the best. Don't you recall months of debating how guys in this draft would fit on this team with Simmons because they can't shoot? You think De'Aaron Fox can play with Simmons based on what you've seen the first two games? Ball? Tatum would be coming off the bench for us, because Cov is our starter and will be for the foreseeable future. So unless you wanna start Tatum at the 4(which would be asinine) taking Tatum means we would have drafted a bench guy with our #3 overall pick.

BC has had a good drafting track record and can evaluate prospects well. He saw the guy he wanted for this team and went for it. Stop obsessing over that damn draft pick. It will not make our break our rebuild, I promise you.

marcush · Post #151 » by **marcush** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:20 am

Don't worry Bryan.....its not all bad. At least you will get free drinks in every bar in Boston for the next decade.

Post #152 » by **CoreyGallagher** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:34 am

marcush wrote:Were the 'contrarians' right again?

Be right all of the time if they only focused when it fits narrative. SL, he played well individually and the ‘contrarians’ focused on plus/minus rather than his individual performance. Played well in his debut and no mention of it because there were bigger things to focus on, like Simmons playing better and Embiid playing again. Now he struggles shooting and the focus is right back where they want it to be.

Not going to know if you’re right for a few years, which seems like an excuse for those that actually want that gratification, but tis the fact of the matter.

broseph13 · Post #153 » by **broseph13** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:35 am

I think Fultz will be a very good player moving forward, but he'll never develop with Brown keeping him off the ball 90% of the time...that's simply not his game. Fultz is a combo guard, not a traditional two-guard (like Klay Thompson or Redick), which means he needs to be given at least half of the ball handling duties while on the court. The way Brown has Fultz playing now is more like a traditional two-guard/small forward and that's simply not his game.

I also think Fultz is intimidated by Simmons and is basically walking on egg shells right now in an attempt to keep Simmons happy. However, what needs to happen is Simmons being taken off the ball (sorry guys, but Simmons hasn't demonstrated many of the qualities you want in a top tier PG thus far, preseason or regular season) and Fultz needs to be made the primary ball handler/facilitator. Not only would this help his confidence immensely, but I truly believe Fultz is better suited for the PG position than Simmons as Simmons is basically a non-threat on offense from the parameter.

Post #154 » by **CoreyGallagher** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:44 am

Simmons had a 39.3 ast% in preseason, only a 14.5 to%. Simmons showed PG capability in preseason.

marcush · Post #155 » by **marcush** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:51 am

CoreyGallagher wrote:
marcush wrote:Were the 'contrarians' right again?

Be right all of the time if they only focused when it fits narrative. SL, he played well individually and the ‘contrarians’ focused on plus/minus rather than his individual performance. Played well in his debut and no mention of it because there were bigger things to focus on, like Simmons playing better and Embiid playing again. Now he struggles shooting and the focus is right back where they want it to be.

Maybe....I'm no draft expert myself, so what would I know.

It just seems as though these guys giving their views often appear to have more foresight than the 'consensus'....it was the same with Okafor. I guess it's just more socially acceptable to blame the coach or Stauskus, instead of discussing the really big decisions like how giving up a high lottery pick may have a huge impact on the teams ceiling.

Post #156 » by **CoreyGallagher** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:53 am

Wait. Why blame Stauskas?

Also, for every Okafor they were right about, they were wrong about Ingram>Simmons and Exum>Embiid.

76ciology · Post #157 » by **76ciology** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:01 am

bottomline is..

Fultz wont be back until he fixed his shot. And I dont expect that to happen until atleast post allstar.

marcush · Post #158 » by **marcush** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:29 am

CoreyGallagher wrote:Wait. Why blame Stauskas?

Also, for every Okafor they were right about, they were wrong about Ingram>Simmons and Exum>Embiid.

Really?...thought the posters getting branded like Lloyd and Kobble were both pro Simmons and Embiid. Maybe I am mistaken....

LloydFree · Post #159 » by **LloydFree** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:41 am

marcush wrote:
CoreyGallagher wrote:
marcush wrote:Were the 'contrarians' right again?

Be right all of the time if they only focused when it fits narrative. SL, he played well individually and the ‘contrarians’ focused on plus/minus rather than his individual performance. Played well in his debut and no mention of it because there were bigger things to focus on, like Simmons playing better and Embiid playing again. Now he struggles shooting and the focus is right back where they want it to be.

Maybe....I'm no draft expert myself, so what would I know.

It just seems as though these guys giving their views often appear to have more foresight than the 'consensus'....it was the same with Okafor. I guess it's just more socially acceptable to blame the coach or Stauskus, instead of discussing the really big decisions like how giving up a high lottery pick may have a huge impact on the teams ceiling.

Now you got it. It's easier to name-call the guy with a different opinion than the consensus, than to take the time to figure out why the guy has a different opinion. Then when the consensus is wrong, once again, just cover themselves (make themslves feel good) by claiming the bad guys (contrarians) are wishing the team failure for the grand purpose of looking smart to a bunch of strangers. SMH.

Post #160 » by **CoreyGallagher** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:46 am

marcush wrote:
CoreyGallagher wrote:Wait. Why blame Stauskas?

Also, for every Okafor they were right about, they were wrong about Ingram>Simmons and Exum>Embiid.

Really?...thought the posters getting branded like Lloyd and Kobble were both pro Simmons and Embiid. Maybe I am mistaken....

Thought you meant to the actual general consensus.