2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[No-Man]

I'd be apoplectic if we passed on Fultz for Jackson. Fultz is the clear #1 for me at this point -- best player and a great fit. Also almost 1.5 years younger than old man Jackson.

I am not sure how you can argue that Fultz is a good fit, he is a great talent but if all of the guys you have hit their ceilings, they are not gonna be at their best together almost certainly, Fultz is a lead guard type with up to 30% in usage most likely, Ben has to be on ball because of his shooting issues, and Embiid is gonna break the record in terms of usage % for a rookie? or come close at least, how do you plan on building a reasanoble team between those 3?
Fultz is a good and solid shooter, but he is not Curry, like this is not a situation where you can play your stud guard off ball 90% of the time and get as much gravity, he is a different player.

[Duke4life831]

Unpopular/premature opinion, but I'd probably take Tatum over Jackson right now due to Jackson's shooting issues. I would probably take Tatum #2, and almost certainly would if he continues to hit the three at a decent % on a bit more volume.

The biggest problem with Tatum is fit. Jackson moves incredibly well off the ball and is a very good facilitator. Tatum is pretty poor off the ball and can be somewhat of a ball stopper. I do agree that I think Tatum is the better prospect but you have to think who is going to allow Simmons to be at his best and who will play off Simmons the best.

Simmons is a very unique talent, he doesnt really have that good of a post up game and has 0 jumper. So off the ball he can struggle and wont be really much of a threat. But you put the ball in his hands and he becomes a huge threat, so offensively you want the ball in his hands as much as you can, he will be at his best and your offense will probably be at its best. So I think you need to think about fitting guys around Simmons offensively. I just dont think Simmons and Tatum are a good fit offensively.

[OleSchool]

You guys are expecting these kids to come in the league and be amazing 2-way players right from the jump

Not every player is LeBron James. A lot of guys are either really good at offense, or really good at defense. Very few are really good at both. Most of the quality players in the league are really good at one and passable at the other.

Personally, I'd rather just try to put a team together that can out score opponents on any given night and live with some questions on defense

Let's be honest, most of the NBA season doesn't involve a whole lot of defending. I'd rather have players that are at least capable of making plays on defense at crucial times rather than be lockdown defenders on every single possession. I'm really not trying to watch the Tom Thibodeau-era Bulls night after night

I agree with a lot of this but you also dont want to get stuck in the situation where the Wolves are in right now where they have a lot of offensive players but no defense and they cant win anything. Thats why I think you guys definitely need a top tier scorer thats why I think Monk is a great fit for you guys. Then add a guy like Jackson who should be a good defender day 1, he has that questionable jumper but moves very well off the ball and is a great athlete. So him in transition with Simmons and Monk would be a terror and he can make an impact offensively with his passing as well. I think Monk gives you the scoring punch and Jackson the 2 way player you will need down the road when you start competing

*EDIT*

you answered this question above

[phiphan]

I am not sure how you can argue that Fultz is a good fit, he is a great talent but if all of the guys you have hit their ceilings, they are not gonna be at their best together almost certainly, Fultz is a lead guard type with up to 30% in usage most likely, Ben has to be on ball because of his shooting issues, and Embiid is gonna break the record in terms of usage % for a rookie? or come close at least, how do you plan on building a reasanoble team between those 3? Fultz is a good and solid shooter, but he is not Curry, like this is not a situation where you can play your stud guard off ball 90% of the time and get as much gravity, he is a different player.

The biggest problem with Tatum is fit. Jackson moves incredibly well off the ball and is a very good facilitator. Tatum is pretty poor off the ball and can be somewhat of a ball stopper. I do agree that I think Tatum is the better prospect but you have to think who is going to allow Simmons to be at his best and who will play off Simmons the best.

Simmons is a very unique talent, he doesnt really have that good of a post up game and has 0 jumper. So off the ball he can struggle and wont be really much of a threat. But you put the ball in his hands and he becomes a huge threat, so offensively you want the ball in his hands as much as you can, he will be at his best and your offense will probably be at its best. So I think you need to think about fitting guys around Simmons offensively. I just dont think Simmons and Tatum are a good fit offensively.

In both instances I believe we need a second scorer behind Embiid. I think Tatum and Fultz both fit the bill and can be successful off-ball when Simmons is handling given their shooting ability. Additionally, I see them as developing into two-way players with the ability to guard at least two positions (Fultz the 1&2, Tatum the 3&4).

[cksdayoff]

if simmons is a generational talent, he will develop a jumpshot.

[Duke4life831]

You guys are expecting these kids to come in the league and be amazing 2-way players right from the jump

Not every player is LeBron James. A lot of guys are either really good at offense, or really good at defense. Very few are really good at both. Most of the quality players in the league are really good at one and passable at the other.

Personally, I'd rather just try to put a team together that can out score opponents on any given night and live with some questions on defense

Let's be honest, most of the NBA season doesn't involve a whole lot of defending. I'd rather have players that are at least capable of making plays on defense at crucial times rather than be lockdown defenders on every single possession. I'm really not trying to watch the Tom Thibodeau-era Bulls night after night

I agree with a lot of this but you also dont want to get stuck in the situation where the Wolves are in right now where they have a lot of offensive players but no defense and they cant win anything. Thats why I think you guys definitely need a top tier scorer thats why I think Monk is a great fit for you guys. Then add a guy like Jackson who should be a good defender day 1, he has that questionable jumper but moves very well off the ball and is a great athlete. So him in transition with Simmons and Monk would be a terror and he can make an impact offensively with his passing as well. I think Monk gives you the scoring punch and Jackson the 2 way player you will need down the road when you start competing

Youre obvious a Duke fan and Ive seen some of your posts so I have the sense that youre kind of tapped into the program. How would Tatum vs. Jackson?

Definite Duke fan here haha. Not tapped in really, just know a guy that gets to see the practices so I get to hear how the players are looking in practices, thats it.

I think Jackson would be the better player for the 6ers than Tatum. Tatum I feel like is the better prospect (could just be a Duke bias) but his strengths and weaknesses just dont match up all that well with Simmons and Embiid. I think Jackson just fits a lot better. Tatum has elite scoring skills for his age and rebounds extremely well. But he is very lazy off the ball, still a better shooter off the dribble than catch and shoot, improving his range but still loves that mid range jumper and can hunt for his shot a little too much and not look to pass enough. If you guys didnt have Simmons id say take BPA beween him and Jackson and take Tatum. But the difference between the two are so small id say take the one that fits best with Simmons and thats Jackson. Jackson moves much much better off the ball and is a much better facilitator. Simmons is going to be (should be) your primary ball handler and because of that, I think Jackson just fits much better with Simmons. Again I think the difference between the two is very minimal, if you were looking for a guy to anchor your offense take Tatum, but since you guys have found that already take Jackson.

[Ericb5]

I am not sure how you can argue that Fultz is a good fit, he is a great talent but if all of the guys you have hit their ceilings, they are not gonna be at their best together almost certainly, Fultz is a lead guard type with up to 30% in usage most likely, Ben has to be on ball because of his shooting issues, and Embiid is gonna break the record in terms of usage % for a rookie? or come close at least, how do you plan on building a reasanoble team between those 3? Fultz is a good and solid shooter, but he is not Curry, like this is not a situation where you can play your stud guard off ball 90% of the time and get as much gravity, he is a different player.

The biggest problem with Tatum is fit. Jackson moves incredibly well off the ball and is a very good facilitator. Tatum is pretty poor off the ball and can be somewhat of a ball stopper. I do agree that I think Tatum is the better prospect but you have to think who is going to allow Simmons to be at his best and who will play off Simmons the best.

Simmons is a very unique talent, he doesnt really have that good of a post up game and has 0 jumper. So off the ball he can struggle and wont be really much of a threat. But you put the ball in his hands and he becomes a huge threat, so offensively you want the ball in his hands as much as you can, he will be at his best and your offense will probably be at its best. So I think you need to think about fitting guys around Simmons offensively. I just dont think Simmons and Tatum are a good fit offensively.

In both instances I believe we need a second scorer behind Embiid. I think Tatum and Fultz both fit the bill and can be successful off-ball when Simmons is handling given their shooting ability. Additionally, I see them as developing into two-way players with the ability to guard at least two positions (Fultz the 1&2, Tatum the 3&4).

Thinking of the usage issue I think that Ball is the obvious choice at the top of the draft.

He can shoot and play off the ball pretty well, plus he can start the games with Simmons, and run the team when Simmons is off the floor. I don't think that we need scorers as much as we need shooters. Embiid is going to average 25-30 points a game once he gets going.

Ball and Monk would be a great haul, and they could be our starting back court for a long time.

[Duke4life831]

I am not sure how you can argue that Fultz is a good fit, he is a great talent but if all of the guys you have hit their ceilings, they are not gonna be at their best together almost certainly, Fultz is a lead guard type with up to 30% in usage most likely, Ben has to be on ball because of his shooting issues, and Embiid is gonna break the record in terms of usage % for a rookie? or come close at least, how do you plan on building a reasanoble team between those 3? Fultz is a good and solid shooter, but he is not Curry, like this is not a situation where you can play your stud guard off ball 90% of the time and get as much gravity, he is a different player.

The biggest problem with Tatum is fit. Jackson moves incredibly well off the ball and is a very good facilitator. Tatum is pretty poor off the ball and can be somewhat of a ball stopper. I do agree that I think Tatum is the better prospect but you have to think who is going to allow Simmons to be at his best and who will play off Simmons the best.

Simmons is a very unique talent, he doesnt really have that good of a post up game and has 0 jumper. So off the ball he can struggle and wont be really much of a threat. But you put the ball in his hands and he becomes a huge threat, so offensively you want the ball in his hands as much as you can, he will be at his best and your offense will probably be at its best. So I think you need to think about fitting guys around Simmons offensively. I just dont think Simmons and Tatum are a good fit offensively.

In both instances I believe we need a second scorer behind Embiid. I think Tatum and Fultz both fit the bill and can be successful off-ball when Simmons is handling given their shooting ability. Additionally, I see them as developing into two-way players with the ability to guard at least two positions (Fultz the 1&2, Tatum the 3&4).

I just dont see Tatum being a good off ball scorer. If anything he has a rep that is him pounding the ball and being a black hole. Im a massive Tatum fan but the dude is and always has been lazy off the ball. Off ball scoring is not a strength at all for Tatum.

[phiphan]

Thinking of the usage issue I think that Ball is the obvious choice at the top of the draft.

He can shoot and play off the ball pretty well, plus he can start the games with Simmons, and run the team when Simmons is off the floor. I don't think that we need scorers as much as we need shooters. Embiid is going to average 25-30 points a game once he gets going.

Ball and Monk would be a great haul, and they could be our starting back court for a long time.

It depends if you trust Ball's shot and believe Monk/Ball have good defensive potential. I don't trust any of those things.

[PhilasFinest]

Lebron,Wade and Bosh all played together, won and had usage %'s above or around 30%.

Lebron,Kyrie,Love are playing together with usage rates above or around 30%.

i dont think id be worried about usage from a top 5 pick in the draft. Embiid/Simmons and the pick can all thrive in the right setup.Just make sure he's not a center.

[phiphan]

I just dont see Tatum being a good off ball scorer. If anything he has a rep that is him pounding the ball and being a black hole. Im a massive Tatum fan but the dude is and always has been lazy off the ball. Off ball scoring is not a strength at all for Tatum.

That's fair, and I agree that Tatum is a black hole at this point. I just view that as less of an issue than hoping Jackson develops a shot or praying we can otherwise land two lights-out shooters at the 1&2.

[Duke4life831]

I am not sure how you can argue that Fultz is a good fit, he is a great talent but if all of the guys you have hit their ceilings, they are not gonna be at their best together almost certainly, Fultz is a lead guard type with up to 30% in usage most likely, Ben has to be on ball because of his shooting issues, and Embiid is gonna break the record in terms of usage % for a rookie? or come close at least, how do you plan on building a reasanoble team between those 3? Fultz is a good and solid shooter, but he is not Curry, like this is not a situation where you can play your stud guard off ball 90% of the time and get as much gravity, he is a different player.

The biggest problem with Tatum is fit. Jackson moves incredibly well off the ball and is a very good facilitator. Tatum is pretty poor off the ball and can be somewhat of a ball stopper. I do agree that I think Tatum is the better prospect but you have to think who is going to allow Simmons to be at his best and who will play off Simmons the best.

Simmons is a very unique talent, he doesnt really have that good of a post up game and has 0 jumper. So off the ball he can struggle and wont be really much of a threat. But you put the ball in his hands and he becomes a huge threat, so offensively you want the ball in his hands as much as you can, he will be at his best and your offense will probably be at its best. So I think you need to think about fitting guys around Simmons offensively. I just dont think Simmons and Tatum are a good fit offensively.

In both instances I believe we need a second scorer behind Embiid. I think Tatum and Fultz both fit the bill and can be successful off-ball when Simmons is handling given their shooting ability. Additionally, I see them as developing into two-way players with the ability to guard at least two positions (Fultz the 1&2, Tatum the 3&4).

Thinking of the usage issue I think that Ball is the obvious choice at the top of the draft.

He can shoot and play off the ball pretty well, plus he can start the games with Simmons, and run the team when Simmons is off the floor. I don't think that we need scorers as much as we need shooters. Embiid is going to average 25-30 points a game once he gets going.

Ball and Monk would be a great haul, and they could be our starting back court for a long time.

Im just curious why Ball over Jackson especially if the idea is having Simmons being the primary ball handler? Jackson is going to be the more versatile defender. His game is already tailor made to be effective off the ball. He moves and cuts off the ball better than Ball as well. For a young wing he has really good vision and facilitating ability as well. So with Simmons, Jackson and Embiid you would have your primary ball handler and guy that runs the offense plus a 5 that is a really good passer and a 6'8 wing who is also a very good passer. Also if we are doing this pairing with Monk, you would be allowing Monk to guard PGs instead of SGs which would be a better match up for him and with Simmons it allows him to basically play as a SG on offense.

[Duke4life831]

I just dont see Tatum being a good off ball scorer. If anything he has a rep that is him pounding the ball and being a black hole. Im a massive Tatum fan but the dude is and always has been lazy off the ball. Off ball scoring is not a strength at all for Tatum.

That's fair, and I agree that Tatum is a black hole at this point. I just view that as less of an issue than hoping Jackson develops a shot or praying we can otherwise land two lights-out shooters at the 1&2.

I agree the black hole thing isnt too big of a deal in the long term. My big thing with Tatum though is he really lacks off ball skills. He doesnt cut well, rarely moves at all, is a better shooter off the dribble than on the catch and shoot. I just feel like it would be like someone drafting Melo to play off the ball, it just doesnt fit him. Jackson's offensive game just fits better. He cuts extremely well, facilitates as well. Just think he fits much better next to Simmons even if he doest improve that jumper.

[cksdayoff]

Lebron,Wade and Bosh all played together, won and had usage %'s above or around 30%.

Lebron,Kyrie,Love are playing together with usage rates above or around 30%.

i dont think id be worried about usage from a top 5 pick in the draft. Embiid/Simmons and the pick can all thrive in the right setup.Just make sure he's not a center.

probably harden, durant and westbrook too. nba fans regretting the harden trade nowadays.

[PhilasFinest]

In both instances I believe we need a second scorer behind Embiid. I think Tatum and Fultz both fit the bill and can be successful off-ball when Simmons is handling given their shooting ability. Additionally, I see them as developing into two-way players with the ability to guard at least two positions (Fultz the 1&2, Tatum the 3&4).

Thinking of the usage issue I think that Ball is the obvious choice at the top of the draft.

He can shoot and play off the ball pretty well, plus he can start the games with Simmons, and run the team when Simmons is off the floor. I don't think that we need scorers as much as we need shooters. Embiid is going to average 25-30 points a game once he gets going.

Ball and Monk would be a great haul, and they could be our starting back court for a long time.

Im just curious why Ball over Jackson especially if the idea is having Simmons being the primary ball handler? Jackson is going to be the more versatile defender. His game is already tailor made to be effective off the ball. He moves and cuts off the ball better than Ball as well. For a young wing he has really good vision and facilitating ability as well. So with Simmons, Jackson and Embiid you would have your primary ball handler and guy that runs the offense plus a 5 that is a really good passer and a 6'8 wing who is also a very good passer. Also if we are doing this pairing with Monk, you would be allowing Monk to guard PGs instead of SGs which would be a better match up for him and with Simmons it allows him to basically play as a SG on offense.

Would all depend on the situation. If you KNOW you can get Monk and Jackson, its a great pairing....but at this point that likely means you need 2 top 5 picks or so....which isn't likely IMO.

I just think you want the floor spaced as much as possible with Simmons/Embiid.

Ball spaces the floor and also creates more plays for you, along with making you more lethal in transition. Yes you want Simmons with the ball a ton, but having someone else on the floor that is an elite playmaker would make everyone more lethal, and his off ball ability to shoot still compliments both your core pieces...it also covers your ass if Simmons is not some LeBron like do it all player and more of a Draymond or if he was to miss any time. I like the idea of adding a potential Jason Kidd like PG with a 3 PT shot to the core of Simmons/Embiid than I do an Iguodala like wing.

Jackson could be a hell of a perimeter defender paired with Embiid,and would be explosive in the open floor with Simmons... but I'm a bit worried about that jump shot. I want teams to be punished for doubling Embiid down low in the post or clogging the lane on a Simmons drive.

Monk is not a playmaker like Ball, but is a pure scorer and shooter. I think he could defend PG's with some good coaching and his shot and ability to score on and off ball and in transition would be lethal paired with Simmons/Embiid.

At the end of the day, were in a great position...multiple high level prospects fill needs for us. Im excited as hell for this draft.

[SelfishPlayer]

De'Aaron Fox shouldn't be slept on as if he's truly a tier below other PGs in this draft. This guy is a competitor. Everything is so jumpshot oriented right now that it can be overlooked how well he plays the game in all other aspects at the age of 18. Right now he's not looked upon as a scorer, but he may be a good scorer in the NBA immediately and certainly a great creator. I think that he will be much like prior Kentucky guards Wall and Bledsoe, although he is much more like Wall as a passer. Calipari is a pretty good judge of talent, that should be considered.

[PhilasFinest]

De'Aaron Fox shouldn't be slept on as if he's truly a tier below other PGs in this draft. This guy is a competitor. Everything is so jumpshot oriented right now that it can be overlooked how well he plays the game in all other aspects at the age of 18. Right now he's not looked upon as a scorer, but he may be a good scorer in the NBA immediately and certainly a great creator. I think that he will be much like prior Kentucky guards Wall and Bledsoe, although he is much more like Wall as a passer. Calipari is a pretty good judge of talent, that should be considered.

I think he's a very good prospect, just not an ideal pick to add to a Simmons led team.

[SelfishPlayer]

De'Aaron Fox shouldn't be slept on as if he's truly a tier below other PGs in this draft. This guy is a competitor. Everything is so jumpshot oriented right now that it can be overlooked how well he plays the game in all other aspects at the age of 18. Right now he's not looked upon as a scorer, but he may be a good scorer in the NBA immediately and certainly a great creator. I think that he will be much like prior Kentucky guards Wall and Bledsoe, although he is much more like Wall as a passer. Calipari is a pretty good judge of talent, that should be considered.

I think he's a very good prospect, just not an ideal pick to add to a Simmons led team.

I'm not committed to anyone. Simmons is not an ideal NBA player.

[Ericb5]

In both instances I believe we need a second scorer behind Embiid. I think Tatum and Fultz both fit the bill and can be successful off-ball when Simmons is handling given their shooting ability. Additionally, I see them as developing into two-way players with the ability to guard at least two positions (Fultz the 1&2, Tatum the 3&4).

Thinking of the usage issue I think that Ball is the obvious choice at the top of the draft.

He can shoot and play off the ball pretty well, plus he can start the games with Simmons, and run the team when Simmons is off the floor. I don't think that we need scorers as much as we need shooters. Embiid is going to average 25-30 points a game once he gets going.

Ball and Monk would be a great haul, and they could be our starting back court for a long time.

Im just curious why Ball over Jackson especially if the idea is having Simmons being the primary ball handler? Jackson is going to be the more versatile defender. His game is already tailor made to be effective off the ball. He moves and cuts off the ball better than Ball as well. For a young wing he has really good vision and facilitating ability as well. So with Simmons, Jackson and Embiid you would have your primary ball handler and guy that runs the offense plus a 5 that is a really good passer and a 6'8 wing who is also a very good passer. Also if we are doing this pairing with Monk, you would be allowing Monk to guard PGs instead of SGs which would be a better match up for him and with Simmons it allows him to basically play as a SG on offense.

I love Jackson too, and he and Ball are 1 and 1a for me, but what it came down to for me was that Ball is a better shooter, and his vision and passing are sort of "next gen" like Simmons'.

I think that he could guard many 2's in the league too, and we need offensive playmaking and shooting guards more than we need versatile defenders because I think Embiid gives you some of that freedom.

I love that Jackson is a run and gun athlete, with flair and attitude, and he would be great in transition with Simmons. Plus he can play the 2, and the 3, and guard the 2 and the 3.

Jackson and Smith were my original dream draft this summer, and now I feel as if Ball has taken a slight lead in my mind on Jackson, and Monk has caught up to Smith a bit for the Lakers pick.

It's fluid still to me at this point.

My only firm feeling at this point is that I like Ball and Jackson BOTH more than Fultz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OleSchool]

I
Im just curious why Ball over Jackson especially if the idea is having Simmons being the primary ball handler? Jackson is going to be the more versatile defender. His game is already tailor made to be effective off the ball. He moves and cuts off the ball better than Ball as well. For a young wing he has really good vision and facilitating ability as well. So with Simmons, Jackson and Embiid you would have your primary ball handler and guy that runs the offense plus a 5 that is a really good passer and a 6'8 wing who is also a very good passer. Also if we are doing this pairing with Monk, you would be allowing Monk to guard PGs instead of SGs which would be a better match up for him and with Simmons it allows him to basically play as a SG on offense.

The problem for us, under drafting Jackson scenario is where will the shooting/scoring come from? assuming Simmons hasnt become a better shooter at this point teams are just going to sag off of him, making it tougher on Embiid.

What about Isaac? I tried to watch 2 FSU games but had stuff come up so I really never got a good read on him