Markelle Fultz Discussion

[HotelVitale]

also fultz missed 6 games last year as well, and their best defensive big man missed 11 games

Yes I realize Washington's talent was trash and they weren't good with Chriss and Murray. However, I pointed out that they underachieved based on their preseason ranking.

Don't want to get too into this, but three quick things I've seen while you were talking:
a) 711 is arguing based on preseason rankings and CK doesn't care about them, since he's talking about the team's actual talent. I tend to agree that college preseason rankings are based on lazy writer's quick glances at rosters they don't know much about, but I just wanted to point out the difference in approaches.
b) looking over the advanced #s on this roster, it's hard to argue this wasn't a mega-trash team. Looks like only 3 of their 8 rotation guys had positive BPMs, and most of the others have utterly dreadful -3 and -4 ratings. Compare that to last year's team, when the starters all had BPMs over +4, and the rest of rotation was positive (except for one guy who had a small negative of -0.3)--and they still only went a mediocre 19-14. https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/washington/2017.html
c) I also think 711 is sort of implying that a real star would've been able to lift everyone around him, and CK thinks that just doesn't apply to this talent-less WAS team. FWIW, I don't think Fultz put the team on his back quite as much as he could've (one of my criticisms is that his high intensity effort is streaky) but he was also extremely high usage and both scored well himself and created a ton of good opps for others.

[Chris76]

I don't think so. The 76ers will be winning this season whether he plays well or not, so he won't have that much scrutiny. The team winning will save him that aggravation.

Not that I disagree with you about the team taking a big step up in wins, but this feels like you're kinda covering yourself from being wrong/protecting against Fultz being great. For example, if Fultz is playing amazing, are you going to think that his play still has no impact on the (hopefully) team's success?

I'm not covering myself. I hope he does contribute to the teams success in the season. All I've ever said is that Fultz wasn't one of the top 3 players in this draft, and trading up to get a lesser talent was stupid. I've said previously, I think Fultz has a ceiling of CJ McCollum, IMO. CJ McCollum is a very good player. That means I believe Fultz can be a very good player. I just wouldn't have picked Fultz in the top 3. I've been very consistent with that. Fultz could very well contribute to the success of this team and still not be as good as other players in this draft, and still not be worth (2) Top 5 picks. I don't need to cover myself for that.

Just wondering, who were your top 3 guys?

[Negrodamus]

My expectation for Fultz is McCollum. If he doesn't get to that level, as the first overall pick, I'll be disappointed. I think his length, athleticism, and size combo gives him a higher ceiling than McCollum.

[Unbreakable99]

My expectation for Fultz is McCollum. If he doesn't get to that level, as the first overall pick, I'll be disappointed. I think his length, athleticism, and size combo gives him a higher ceiling than McCollum.

I hope he reaches at least that level. CJ doesn't have great athleticism just like Fultz. Fultz is bigger and taller and longer. Fultz SHOULD reach CJ level and that's a very good player. But I also think he should be even better than CJ. He should be close to Kyrie or Lilliard as a scorer to justify taking him first.

[711takeover]

also fultz missed 6 games last year as well, and their best defensive big man missed 11 games

Yes I realize Washington's talent was trash and they weren't good with Chriss and Murray. However, I pointed out that they underachieved based on their preseason ranking.

Don't want to get too into this, but three quick things I've seen while you were talking:
a) 711 is arguing based on preseason rankings and CK doesn't care about them, since he's talking about the team's actual talent. I tend to agree that college preseason rankings are based on lazy writer's quick glances at rosters they don't know much about, but I just wanted to point out the difference in approaches.
b) looking over the advanced #s on this roster, it's hard to argue this wasn't a mega-trash team. Looks like only 3 of their 8 rotation guys had positive BPMs, and most of the others have utterly dreadful -3 and -4 ratings. Compare that to last year's team, when the starters all had BPMs over +4, and the rest of rotation was positive (except for one guy who had a small negative of -0.3)--and they still only went a mediocre 19-14. https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/washington/2017.html
c) I also think 711 is sort of implying that a real star would've been able to lift everyone around him, and CK thinks that just doesn't apply to this talent-less WAS team. FWIW, I don't think Fultz put the team on his back quite as much as he could've (one of my criticisms is that his high intensity effort is streaky) but he was also extremely high usage and both scored well himself and created a ton of good opps for others.

I'm not all knocking Fultz as a player. He averaged 23,6,6. My point was that I'm not understanding how Washington didn't underachieve last year. There is no way I believe that people believed they would only win 9 games.

[dkj5061]

I don't think so. The 76ers will be winning this season whether he plays well or not, so he won't have that much scrutiny. The team winning will save him that aggravation.

Not that I disagree with you about the team taking a big step up in wins, but this feels like you're kinda covering yourself from being wrong/protecting against Fultz being great. For example, if Fultz is playing amazing, are you going to think that his play still has no impact on the (hopefully) team's success?

I'm not covering myself. I hope he does contribute to the teams success in the season. All I've ever said is that Fultz wasn't one of the top 3 players in this draft, and trading up to get a lesser talent was stupid. I've said previously, I think Fultz has a ceiling of CJ McCollum, IMO. CJ McCollum is a very good player. That means I believe Fultz can be a very good player. I just wouldn't have picked Fultz in the top 3. I've been very consistent with that. Fultz could very well contribute to the success of this team and still not be as good as other players in this draft, and still not be worth (2) Top 5 picks. I don't need to cover myself for that.

I know you've been consistent. Just the way you worded the message I originally replied to, it sounded like you thought Fultz wouldn't be contributing to winning basketball, even if it appears he's playing well. I apologize for the confusion. We had different evaluations of prospects (namely I had 1. Fultz 2. Josh Jackson 3. Lonzo), but your draft opinions are looking spot on so far. Ultimately, go Sixers. This next 3 months is gonna take forever.

[HotelVitale]

I'm not all knocking Fultz as a player. He averaged 23,6,6. My point was that I'm not understanding how Washington didn't underachieve last year. There is no way I believe that people believed they would only win 9 games.

As I just explained, the problem is that your discussion hasn't defined or pinned down what the 'expectations' were, where they came from, and if they were reasonable/informed. When people talk about 'underachieving' they usually mean a team that should've done better than they did--the Clippers for instance have clearly underachieved the last couple of years by being really talented and still not going as far as they should've because of failure to perform at some key moments. On the other hand, a team isn't 'underachieving' if they're clearly terrible but some people hoped they'd be better--e.g. the Suns didn't underachieve last year even if lots of their fans thought they would be significantly better than they were.

You all are talking past each other on that point. You're dug in on saying it's just a fact that Washington underachieved because some people expected them to be a mid-tier team--and what CK is saying is that those people (whoever they were) were trippin since UW had an awful roster that had no realistic chance of being much better than they were. I'm not sure what your stance is on that last point, since you keep trying to drown it out by repeating the first (less interesting and pointed) thing. I'm not trying to defend Fultz here--don't really care about UW's season at this pt--just pointing out what you might be missing.

[dkj5061]

My expectation for Fultz is McCollum. If he doesn't get to that level, as the first overall pick, I'll be disappointed. I think his length, athleticism, and size combo gives him a higher ceiling than McCollum.

I hope he reaches at least that level. CJ doesn't have great athleticism just like Fultz. Fultz is bigger and taller and longer. Fultz SHOULD reach CJ level and that's a very good player. But I also think he should be even better than CJ. He should be close to Kyrie or Lilliard as a scorer to justify taking him first.

This is a fair way to look at. It's both complimentary of Fultz while still holding him to a very high standard, as he should be. If you look at the recent history of #1 overall picks, McCollum would be a slight disappointment as Fultz' ceiling.

Personally, I'd be fine with McCollum as an offensive ceiling, but Fultz would have to bring + play on the defensive side to make up for it.

[Eyeamok]

Fultz is going to be under major scrutiny this season with the way Ball has dominated Summer League.

It's summer league. You fans need to really check yourselves for looking too deeply into the summer league. It's getting ridiculous now.

Preach.

I agree it is just summer league. And say what you want about Lavar Ball but he has done an amazing job of creating a buzz around his son. You would think Lonzo is the second coming of MJ/Magic and Bird all rolled into one.

Markelle Fultz is in a great position with the 76ers, he can grow without all the glitz's and glamour and exceptional expectations. Which is a good thing.

[LloydFree]

Not that I disagree with you about the team taking a big step up in wins, but this feels like you're kinda covering yourself from being wrong/protecting against Fultz being great. For example, if Fultz is playing amazing, are you going to think that his play still has no impact on the (hopefully) team's success?

I'm not covering myself. I hope he does contribute to the teams success in the season. All I've ever said is that Fultz wasn't one of the top 3 players in this draft, and trading up to get a lesser talent was stupid. I've said previously, I think Fultz has a ceiling of CJ McCollum, IMO. CJ McCollum is a very good player. That means I believe Fultz can be a very good player. I just wouldn't have picked Fultz in the top 3. I've been very consistent with that. Fultz could very well contribute to the success of this team and still not be as good as other players in this draft, and still not be worth (2) Top 5 picks. I don't need to cover myself for that.

Just wondering, who were your top 3 guys?

The search engine on this thing stinks, but somewhere in the last draft thread I had:

1. Ball
2. Jackson
3. D Smith
4. Isaac
5. Fultz
6. Tatum
7. Fox

[Chris76]

I'm not covering myself. I hope he does contribute to the teams success in the season. All I've ever said is that Fultz wasn't one of the top 3 players in this draft, and trading up to get a lesser talent was stupid. I've said previously, I think Fultz has a ceiling of CJ McCollum, IMO. CJ McCollum is a very good player. That means I believe Fultz can be a very good player. I just wouldn't have picked Fultz in the top 3. I've been very consistent with that. Fultz could very well contribute to the success of this team and still not be as good as other players in this draft, and still not be worth (2) Top 5 picks. I don't need to cover myself for that.

Just wondering, who were your top 3 guys?

The search engine on this thing stinks, but somewhere in the last draft thread I had:

1. Ball
2. Jackson
3. D Smith
4. Isaac
5. Fultz
6. Tatum
7. Fox

After seeing them a little, I have them in tiers:

1-Fultz, Tatum

2-Isaac, DSJ, Fox

3-Ball, Jackson

I liked how Fultz and Tatum already make contested shots.

[cksdayoff]

also fultz missed 6 games last year as well, and their best defensive big man missed 11 games

Yes I realize Washington's talent was trash and they weren't good with Chriss and Murray. However, I pointed out that they underachieved based on their preseason ranking.

Don't want to get too into this, but three quick things I've seen while you were talking:
a) 711 is arguing based on preseason rankings and CK doesn't care about them, since he's talking about the team's actual talent. I tend to agree that college preseason rankings are based on lazy writer's quick glances at rosters they don't know much about, but I just wanted to point out the difference in approaches.
b) looking over the advanced #s on this roster, it's hard to argue this wasn't a mega-trash team. Looks like only 3 of their 8 rotation guys had positive BPMs, and most of the others have utterly dreadful -3 and -4 ratings. Compare that to last year's team, when the starters all had BPMs over +4, and the rest of rotation was positive (except for one guy who had a small negative of -0.3)--and they still only went a mediocre 19-14. https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/washington/2017.html
c) I also think 711 is sort of implying that a real star would've been able to lift everyone around him, and CK thinks that just doesn't apply to this talent-less WAS team. FWIW, I don't think Fultz put the team on his back quite as much as he could've (one of my criticisms is that his high intensity effort is streaky) but he was also extremely high usage and both scored well himself and created a ton of good opps for others.

washington couldn't stop anyone. opposing teams were doing layup drills against them. washington bigs are the biggest reason why the team sucked ass. very hard to win games when the opposing teams would go on runs just by scoring in the paint possession after possession after possession.

fultz would've needed to take 25-30 shots a night for them to win more games.

[LongLiveHinkie]

lol are haters really trying to act like the 9 win thing matters because they're jealous of Fultz?

Winning in college is completely meaningless. Duke won a national title with Jahlil Okafor and no team in the NBA wants him. UConn won a nation title with Napier dominating in the tournament and he sucks in the NBA. Wins in college are completely and totally meaningless. This whole "is this guy a winner or not???" narrative and mindset fans have is part of the reason the NBA is so **** up right now with super teams. Players are lazily labeled either all the time for no logical reason and it makes them insecure, so they go join super teams because they don't wanna be labeled losers.

People called James Harden a loser a year ago when the Rockets underachieved and came back vs the Clippers in game 6 with him not on the court. So he was a loser then, but after a mere coaching change now he's a winner I guess.

The whole winner/not winner thing is so dumb. It always was dumb. There's great and not great. Every great talent is capable of winning a title if the right coaches and players surround them. Every single one. Some people think "you can never win a title with Russell Westbrook dominating the ball!" Ok, then put him on the Warriors and watch him win a title. Put him with Lebron James and watch him win a title. It's all circumstance, and such a tired debate.

[Unbreakable99]

lol are haters really trying to act like the 9 win thing matters because they're jealous of Fultz?

Winning in college is completely meaningless. Duke won a national title with Jahlil Okafor and no team in the NBA wants him. UConn won a nation title with Napier dominating in the tournament and he sucks in the NBA. Wins in college are completely and totally meaningless. This whole "is this guy a winner or not???" narrative and mindset fans have is part of the reason the NBA is so **** up right now with super teams. Players are lazily labeled either all the time for no logical reason and it makes them insecure, so they go join super teams because they don't wanna be labeled losers.

People called James Harden a loser a year ago when the Rockets underachieved and came back vs the Clippers in game 6 with him not on the court. So he was a loser then, but after a mere coaching change now he's a winner I guess.

The whole winner/not winner thing is so dumb. It always was dumb. There's great and not great. Every great talent is capable of winning a title if the right coaches and players surround them. Every single one. Some people think "you can never win a title with Russell Westbrook dominating the ball!" Ok, then put him on the Warriors and watch him win a title. Put him with Lebron James and watch him win a title. It's all circumstance, and such a tired debate.

I wouldn't exactly say wins in college are meaningless. I also wouldn't say wins in college mean a whole lot either. I had no issue with Simmons not winning as much as many projected. Great players can raise the level of team play though. DWade led Marquette to a Final Four. Steph Curry led Davidson to the Elite 8. But I do somewhat agree that wins aren't everything in college. Every situation is different.

[eagereyez]

Simmons was misused at LSU. He should have been the primary facilitator but his coach decided to massage the egos of his less talented seniors. Fultz definitely had worse teammates, but at the same time I would expect a truly generational talent to win more than 9 games with that roster. That's why I don't believe Fultz is a transformative talent. He is not a KAT or a AD. He is a great young prospect who needs time to develop into a winning NBA player.

[JojoSlimbiid]

Yeah he's definitely not an AD or KAT. He didn't go to Kentucky and not win championships with a bunch of other 5* recruits.

[cksdayoff]

Yeah he's definitely not an AD or KAT. He didn't go to Kentucky and not win championships with a bunch of other 5* recruits.

[eagereyez]

It warms my heart to see the Prokafor **** teammate excuse being re-used. Transformative talent shouldn't able to beat down on the elite basketball programs of WSU and TCU, got it.

[JojoSlimbiid]

It warms my heart to see the Prokafor **** teammate excuse being re-used. Transformative talent shouldn't be able to beat down on the elite basketball programs of WSU and TCU, got it.

What kind of garbage is this?

I'm still hoping for answer as to what exactly AD and KAT did in college to warrant being labeled transformative outside of not winning a national championship with the most talented rosters in college basketball. I'll wait.

Not even gonna get into the fact that they really haven't done much in the league outside of put up good stats. Wouldn't say N.O or Minny are transformed but I'll save that topic for another day.

[Sixerscan]

Davis won a national championship...