2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[Ericb5]

Jayson Tatum is shooting 26.7% from 3pt. Is his 3 point jump shot now broken? Will he be a poor fit for the Sixers because he can't spread the floor?

A backcourt of Lonzo Ball and DeAaron Fox would do a great deal of damage in the NBA. They compliment one another with how they approach making shots in halfcourt offense so they do not duplicate skills in that way at this point in their careers. The Sixers would have a speed advantage every night with those two guys sprinting in transition.

C Embiid
PF Simmons
SF Covington
SG Ball
PG Fox

Tatum has shot 15 threes since coming out of injury. Just give the man some time to get to 100%

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhilasFinest]

My only issue with Tatum is position. He's likely a straight SF, or small ball 4. I guess it all depends on where your playing Simmons.

Skill set wise, I think he will be able to score for sure. He reminds me a bit of Danny Granger/ Tobias Harris.

[OleSchool]

Jayson Tatum is shooting 26.7% from 3pt. Is his 3 point jump shot now broken? Will he be a poor fit for the Sixers because he can't spread the floor?

A backcourt of Lonzo Ball and DeAaron Fox would do a great deal of damage in the NBA. They compliment one another with how they approach making shots in halfcourt offense so they do not duplicate skills in that way at this point in their careers. The Sixers would have a speed advantage every night with those two guys sprinting in transition.

C Embiid
PF Simmons
SF Covington
SG Ball
PG Fox

Tatum has shot 15 threes since coming out of injury. Just give the man some time to get to 100%

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

[LloydFree]

Tatum has shot 15 threes since coming out of injury. Just give the man some time to get to 100%

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

Jackson could easily become the best player in this draft. We've become accustomed to players being good 3 point shooters out of the gate, but most Forwards don't come out hitting 3's as Freshmen. Josh Jackson, with just natural body growth, is Nick Batum or Iguodala right now. A big jump in his shooting and you are talking a Paul George level talent. He's a lot better than most of the players being dreamed on here.

[Slizeezyc]

Tatum has shot 15 threes since coming out of injury. Just give the man some time to get to 100%

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

The 3-point shot is a real concern, but the idea that Jackson is some net negative on offense even if he can't shoot is a mean fabrication that should probably end. It's not ideal shooting-wise with Simmons and Jackson, but both have amazing skills beyond their shooting on offense. Simmons is a top-tier passer and creator. Jackson would be an elite passer for his position as well, has a strong handle and can crash the glass as well. He's not MKG. He's been solid from mid range. He's shown an ability to make a variety of shots around the rim. You don't look at his shot like MKG's and think it needs some re-build from the ground up.

The team defense could be downright frightening almost out of the gate if you're running Jackson/Simmons/Embiid/Covington (or insert other solid defender here)/another like-sized player. That's switching for days with two players with very impressive steal numbers for forwards (Jackson/Simmons) an elite-level deflections player in Covington, and then a very impressive and mobile shot blocker in Embiid. You're out and running no question with that lineup, and easy buckets will come from that. Jackson also has impressive block numbers for a wing.

You also have Jackson to tie with Simmons as NBA-ready bodies and minds right from the start. Simmons maybe has had his competitiveness challenged by scouts (Jackson will never be questioned there), but either way both have already shown to be smart as hell on the court.

As a duo, they also would dominate the glass as forwards, and almost assuredly the Sixers would have a chance to be really great on both the defensive and offensive glass with.

Yes, Jackson would be perfect if he could shoot, and the ideal lineup around Embiid/Simmons is three-like-sized shooters who can all switch and defend with Simmons 1-4, but you know, that's why it's an ideal. It's not bad if you end up with Simmons/Embiid, a slashing playmaker, and two shooters who defend. Plus, even Jackson shooting just 30% or so from deep would be enough for it to unlock the rest of his talents, and I think that's still on the table.

All in all, if you like Tatum more as a prospect I'm totally cool with that (I love the dude as well. Fultz is my one forever and always, but Jackson and Tatum are both dope consolation prizes and I will be happy if Sixers end up with one of the three). But on Draft Day, if the theory is Jackson is a better prospect than Tatum, there's no chance I would pass on Jackson for Tatum out of fit concerns. And I'm not crapping on Tatum either, he could be a Melo/Pierce fusion, but I think Jackson can become a Butler/Kawhi-level wing as well and I would probably take that high-end outcome over the Tatum one if I have to pick between the two.

PS, I will draw the line in the sand though and say anyone saying they would take Lonzo Ball or any of the other PGs not named Fultz over either Tatum or Jackson is incorrect at this juncture (in other words maybe it changes closer to draft time, but at this moment this is how I feel). I will throw down with those people -- shirts optional -- and absolutely reject the notion that "fit" somehow gives credence to passing on a Jackson or Tatum for one of those guards in the top 5.

[Ericb5]

Tatum has shot 15 threes since coming out of injury. Just give the man some time to get to 100%

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

Zero offensive production from Simmons? I expect he is going to score over 20 points a game once he gets going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OleSchool]

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

Zero offensive production from Simmons? I expect he is going to score over 20 points a game once he gets going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I meant to say zero shooting from the 3 & 4

[Ericb5]

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

Zero offensive production from Simmons? I expect he is going to score over 20 points a game once he gets going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I meant to say zero shooting from the 3 & 4

Even that will probably only be true of Simmons for his first year or two. A player at that level will eventually develop a jump shot.

His shot already looks good. He just needs to keep forcing himself to take jump shots to build up his confidence and muscle memory.

[Ericb5]

Jackson is atop my board right now. I think that he comes in and is our starting 2 or 3 from day one, and is our best perimeter defender, and athlete on the team from the start. He is an elite transition player, and will be a secondary ball handler, slasher, and playmaker immediately. If he becomes a competent jump shooter then watch out.

He would be the third in our big 3, and then we would just need to prioritize shooting ability in the rest of our role players.

My top 5 today:

1.Jackson
2. Ball
3. Fultz
4. Tatum
5. Smith

Monk would be 6 .

[PhilasFinest]

Even if Tatum doesn't shoot the 3 consistently this year, he shouldn't have any problem getting there eventually. He is a legit shooter. He just hasn't extended his range that far yet. The form, and the touch is all there though.

Jackson on the other hand will probably struggle to do it, even though I like Jackson more as a player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

The 3-point shot is a real concern, but the idea that Jackson is some net negative on offense even if he can't shoot is a mean fabrication that should probably end. It's not ideal shooting-wise with Simmons and Jackson, but both have amazing skills beyond their shooting on offense. Simmons is a top-tier passer and creator. Jackson would be an elite passer for his position as well, has a strong handle and can crash the glass as well. He's not MKG. He's been solid from mid range. He's shown an ability to make a variety of shots around the rim. You don't look at his shot like MKG's and think it needs some re-build from the ground up.

The team defense could be downright frightening almost out of the gate if you're running Jackson/Simmons/Embiid/Covington (or insert other solid defender here)/another like-sized player. That's switching for days with two players with very impressive steal numbers for forwards (Jackson/Simmons) an elite-level deflections player in Covington, and then a very impressive and mobile shot blocker in Embiid. You're out and running no question with that lineup, and easy buckets will come from that. Jackson also has impressive block numbers for a wing.

You also have Jackson to tie with Simmons as NBA-ready bodies and minds right from the start. Simmons maybe has had his competitiveness challenged by scouts (Jackson will never be questioned there), but either way both have already shown to be smart as hell on the court.

As a duo, they also would dominate the glass as forwards, and almost assuredly the Sixers would have a chance to be really great on both the defensive and offensive glass with.

Yes, Jackson would be perfect if he could shoot, and the ideal lineup around Embiid/Simmons is three-like-sized shooters who can all switch and defend with Simmons 1-4, but you know, that's why it's an ideal. It's not bad if you end up with Simmons/Embiid, a slashing playmaker, and two shooters who defend. Plus, even Jackson shooting just 30% or so from deep would be enough for it to unlock the rest of his talents, and I think that's still on the table.

All in all, if you like Tatum more as a prospect I'm totally cool with that (I love the dude as well. Fultz is my one forever and always, but Jackson and Tatum are both dope consolation prizes and I will be happy if Sixers end up with one of the three). But on Draft Day, if the theory is Jackson is a better prospect than Tatum, there's no chance I would pass on Jackson for Tatum out of fit concerns. And I'm not crapping on Tatum either, he could be a Melo/Pierce fusion, but I think Jackson can become a Butler/Kawhi-level wing as well and I would probably take that high-end outcome over the Tatum one if I have to pick between the two.

PS, I will draw the line in the sand though and say anyone saying they would take Lonzo Ball or any of the other PGs not named Fultz over either Tatum or Jackson is incorrect at this juncture (in other words maybe it changes closer to draft time, but at this moment this is how I feel). I will throw down with those people -- shirts optional -- and absolutely reject the notion that "fit" somehow gives credence to passing on a Jackson or Tatum for one of those guards in the top 5.

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

[Ericb5]

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

The 3-point shot is a real concern, but the idea that Jackson is some net negative on offense even if he can't shoot is a mean fabrication that should probably end. It's not ideal shooting-wise with Simmons and Jackson, but both have amazing skills beyond their shooting on offense. Simmons is a top-tier passer and creator. Jackson would be an elite passer for his position as well, has a strong handle and can crash the glass as well. He's not MKG. He's been solid from mid range. He's shown an ability to make a variety of shots around the rim. You don't look at his shot like MKG's and think it needs some re-build from the ground up.

The team defense could be downright frightening almost out of the gate if you're running Jackson/Simmons/Embiid/Covington (or insert other solid defender here)/another like-sized player. That's switching for days with two players with very impressive steal numbers for forwards (Jackson/Simmons) an elite-level deflections player in Covington, and then a very impressive and mobile shot blocker in Embiid. You're out and running no question with that lineup, and easy buckets will come from that. Jackson also has impressive block numbers for a wing.

You also have Jackson to tie with Simmons as NBA-ready bodies and minds right from the start. Simmons maybe has had his competitiveness challenged by scouts (Jackson will never be questioned there), but either way both have already shown to be smart as hell on the court.

As a duo, they also would dominate the glass as forwards, and almost assuredly the Sixers would have a chance to be really great on both the defensive and offensive glass with.

Yes, Jackson would be perfect if he could shoot, and the ideal lineup around Embiid/Simmons is three-like-sized shooters who can all switch and defend with Simmons 1-4, but you know, that's why it's an ideal. It's not bad if you end up with Simmons/Embiid, a slashing playmaker, and two shooters who defend. Plus, even Jackson shooting just 30% or so from deep would be enough for it to unlock the rest of his talents, and I think that's still on the table.

All in all, if you like Tatum more as a prospect I'm totally cool with that (I love the dude as well. Fultz is my one forever and always, but Jackson and Tatum are both dope consolation prizes and I will be happy if Sixers end up with one of the three). But on Draft Day, if the theory is Jackson is a better prospect than Tatum, there's no chance I would pass on Jackson for Tatum out of fit concerns. And I'm not crapping on Tatum either, he could be a Melo/Pierce fusion, but I think Jackson can become a Butler/Kawhi-level wing as well and I would probably take that high-end outcome over the Tatum one if I have to pick between the two.

PS, I will draw the line in the sand though and say anyone saying they would take Lonzo Ball or any of the other PGs not named Fultz over either Tatum or Jackson is incorrect at this juncture (in other words maybe it changes closer to draft time, but at this moment this is how I feel). I will throw down with those people -- shirts optional -- and absolutely reject the notion that "fit" somehow gives credence to passing on a Jackson or Tatum for one of those guards in the top 5.

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

I think that the poor free throw shooting is definitely a negative indicator of his shooting ability, but the lack of length is a non issue. He can guard the 2, or the 3. He just has the IT factor that Simmons and Embiid have. I think that he would play over 30 minutes a night from the start, and just be a killer for us. Embiid is going to be our primary scorer regardless of who else joins the team.

[LloydFree]

I'm with you, I like Jackson but I don't think we can take him. We would literally get zero offensive production out of the 3 & 4 spots (assuming Simmons is playing the 4 and Jackson playing the 3).

If we take a different position then guard with our first I would want Tatum over Jackson, even if Tatum looks like he can be iso heavy/ball stopper

The 3-point shot is a real concern, but the idea that Jackson is some net negative on offense even if he can't shoot is a mean fabrication that should probably end. It's not ideal shooting-wise with Simmons and Jackson, but both have amazing skills beyond their shooting on offense. Simmons is a top-tier passer and creator. Jackson would be an elite passer for his position as well, has a strong handle and can crash the glass as well. He's not MKG. He's been solid from mid range. He's shown an ability to make a variety of shots around the rim. You don't look at his shot like MKG's and think it needs some re-build from the ground up.

The team defense could be downright frightening almost out of the gate if you're running Jackson/Simmons/Embiid/Covington (or insert other solid defender here)/another like-sized player. That's switching for days with two players with very impressive steal numbers for forwards (Jackson/Simmons) an elite-level deflections player in Covington, and then a very impressive and mobile shot blocker in Embiid. You're out and running no question with that lineup, and easy buckets will come from that. Jackson also has impressive block numbers for a wing.

You also have Jackson to tie with Simmons as NBA-ready bodies and minds right from the start. Simmons maybe has had his competitiveness challenged by scouts (Jackson will never be questioned there), but either way both have already shown to be smart as hell on the court.

As a duo, they also would dominate the glass as forwards, and almost assuredly the Sixers would have a chance to be really great on both the defensive and offensive glass with.

Yes, Jackson would be perfect if he could shoot, and the ideal lineup around Embiid/Simmons is three-like-sized shooters who can all switch and defend with Simmons 1-4, but you know, that's why it's an ideal. It's not bad if you end up with Simmons/Embiid, a slashing playmaker, and two shooters who defend. Plus, even Jackson shooting just 30% or so from deep would be enough for it to unlock the rest of his talents, and I think that's still on the table.

All in all, if you like Tatum more as a prospect I'm totally cool with that (I love the dude as well. Fultz is my one forever and always, but Jackson and Tatum are both dope consolation prizes and I will be happy if Sixers end up with one of the three). But on Draft Day, if the theory is Jackson is a better prospect than Tatum, there's no chance I would pass on Jackson for Tatum out of fit concerns. And I'm not crapping on Tatum either, he could be a Melo/Pierce fusion, but I think Jackson can become a Butler/Kawhi-level wing as well and I would probably take that high-end outcome over the Tatum one if I have to pick between the two.

PS, I will draw the line in the sand though and say anyone saying they would take Lonzo Ball or any of the other PGs not named Fultz over either Tatum or Jackson is incorrect at this juncture (in other words maybe it changes closer to draft time, but at this moment this is how I feel). I will throw down with those people -- shirts optional -- and absolutely reject the notion that "fit" somehow gives credence to passing on a Jackson or Tatum for one of those guards in the top 5.

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

I'd take Ball and Jackson over Fultz and Tatum right now. I may change my mind next month, after I see what Fultz looks like, getting his shot off in games against Arizona or UCLA. I'm not a fan of his athletic projection, but if he shows he can get shots off against NBA caliber athletes, that's all that matters.

[PhilasFinest]

The 3-point shot is a real concern, but the idea that Jackson is some net negative on offense even if he can't shoot is a mean fabrication that should probably end. It's not ideal shooting-wise with Simmons and Jackson, but both have amazing skills beyond their shooting on offense. Simmons is a top-tier passer and creator. Jackson would be an elite passer for his position as well, has a strong handle and can crash the glass as well. He's not MKG. He's been solid from mid range. He's shown an ability to make a variety of shots around the rim. You don't look at his shot like MKG's and think it needs some re-build from the ground up.

The team defense could be downright frightening almost out of the gate if you're running Jackson/Simmons/Embiid/Covington (or insert other solid defender here)/another like-sized player. That's switching for days with two players with very impressive steal numbers for forwards (Jackson/Simmons) an elite-level deflections player in Covington, and then a very impressive and mobile shot blocker in Embiid. You're out and running no question with that lineup, and easy buckets will come from that. Jackson also has impressive block numbers for a wing.

You also have Jackson to tie with Simmons as NBA-ready bodies and minds right from the start. Simmons maybe has had his competitiveness challenged by scouts (Jackson will never be questioned there), but either way both have already shown to be smart as hell on the court.

As a duo, they also would dominate the glass as forwards, and almost assuredly the Sixers would have a chance to be really great on both the defensive and offensive glass with.

Yes, Jackson would be perfect if he could shoot, and the ideal lineup around Embiid/Simmons is three-like-sized shooters who can all switch and defend with Simmons 1-4, but you know, that's why it's an ideal. It's not bad if you end up with Simmons/Embiid, a slashing playmaker, and two shooters who defend. Plus, even Jackson shooting just 30% or so from deep would be enough for it to unlock the rest of his talents, and I think that's still on the table.

All in all, if you like Tatum more as a prospect I'm totally cool with that (I love the dude as well. Fultz is my one forever and always, but Jackson and Tatum are both dope consolation prizes and I will be happy if Sixers end up with one of the three). But on Draft Day, if the theory is Jackson is a better prospect than Tatum, there's no chance I would pass on Jackson for Tatum out of fit concerns. And I'm not crapping on Tatum either, he could be a Melo/Pierce fusion, but I think Jackson can become a Butler/Kawhi-level wing as well and I would probably take that high-end outcome over the Tatum one if I have to pick between the two.

PS, I will draw the line in the sand though and say anyone saying they would take Lonzo Ball or any of the other PGs not named Fultz over either Tatum or Jackson is incorrect at this juncture (in other words maybe it changes closer to draft time, but at this moment this is how I feel). I will throw down with those people -- shirts optional -- and absolutely reject the notion that "fit" somehow gives credence to passing on a Jackson or Tatum for one of those guards in the top 5.

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

I think that the poor free throw shooting is definitely a negative indicator of his shooting ability, but the lack of length is a non issue. He can guard the 2, or the 3. He just has the IT factor that Simmons and Embiid have. I think that he would play over 30 minutes a night from the start, and just be a killer for us. Embiid is going to be our primary scorer regardless of who else joins the team.

Yea, Its not the end all be all, I just usually find most impact defenders have the length trait going for them. Jackson would def start and likely contribute for us, just not sure I could see him being a "killer" out of the gate without a jumper.

My worry is that Simmons is going to have to go through some growing for a little while. His bread and butter is likely attacking from the perimeter and either scoring/going to FT line/finding the open man. Jackson is likely going to have to do the same...so it may be a bit redundant initially. I guess if you can get a good shooter at the other 2 positions on the floor, it could work...Id be worried defenses would just clog the paint and make you beat them with jump shots. Hopefully Jackson can get into the mid-high 60's by the end of the season, that would give me a lot more optimism in terms of him improving his shot.

[Ericb5]

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

I think that the poor free throw shooting is definitely a negative indicator of his shooting ability, but the lack of length is a non issue. He can guard the 2, or the 3. He just has the IT factor that Simmons and Embiid have. I think that he would play over 30 minutes a night from the start, and just be a killer for us. Embiid is going to be our primary scorer regardless of who else joins the team.

Yea, Its not the end all be all, I just usually find most impact defenders have the length trait going for them. Jackson would def start and likely contribute for us, just not sure I could see him being a "killer" out of the gate without a jumper.

My worry is that Simmons is going to have to go through some growing for a little while. His bread and butter is likely attacking from the perimeter and either scoring/going to FT line/finding the open man. Jackson is likely going to have to do the same...so it may be a bit redundant initially. I guess if you can get a good shooter at the other 2 positions on the floor, it could work...Id be worried defenses would just clog the paint and make you beat them with jump shots. Hopefully Jackson can get into the mid-high 60's by the end of the season, that would give me a lot more optimism in terms of him improving his shot.

Well, let's just a assume, for the sake of argument, a line up of Embiid, Simmons, Jackson, Covington, and Monk.

You would have 2 floor spacers, 2 dynamic playmakers, and maybe the best offensive, and defensive center in the league(even if it takes a year or two for Embiid to establish himself as such).

You have role players of Noel, Saric, Illyasova, Stauskus, and Bayless, and end of the roster types of Luwawu, Henderson, Sergio, Holmes, Thompson.

That is a great young team with plenty of offense, and defense, including 3 point shooting.

[PhilasFinest]

I think that the poor free throw shooting is definitely a negative indicator of his shooting ability, but the lack of length is a non issue. He can guard the 2, or the 3. He just has the IT factor that Simmons and Embiid have. I think that he would play over 30 minutes a night from the start, and just be a killer for us. Embiid is going to be our primary scorer regardless of who else joins the team.

Yea, Its not the end all be all, I just usually find most impact defenders have the length trait going for them. Jackson would def start and likely contribute for us, just not sure I could see him being a "killer" out of the gate without a jumper.

My worry is that Simmons is going to have to go through some growing for a little while. His bread and butter is likely attacking from the perimeter and either scoring/going to FT line/finding the open man. Jackson is likely going to have to do the same...so it may be a bit redundant initially. I guess if you can get a good shooter at the other 2 positions on the floor, it could work...Id be worried defenses would just clog the paint and make you beat them with jump shots. Hopefully Jackson can get into the mid-high 60's by the end of the season, that would give me a lot more optimism in terms of him improving his shot.

Well, let's just a assume, for the sake of argument, a line up of Embiid, Simmons, Jackson, Covington, and Monk.

You would have 2 floor spacers, 2 dynamic playmakers, and maybe the best offensive, and defensive center in the league(even if it takes a year or two for Embiid to establish himself as such).

You have role players of Noel, Saric, Illyasova, Stauskus, and Bayless, and end of the roster types of Luwawu, Henderson, Sergio, Holmes, Thompson.

That is a great young team with plenty of offense, and defense, including 3 point shooting.

Im fine with that, but Im not sold on being able to land Monk with the Laker pick. If that was a guarantee, id absolutely take Jackson and my worries with his shooting would be less of a concern. I think Monk will be a top 5 pick when its all said and done.

[Slizeezyc]

Yea, Its not the end all be all, I just usually find most impact defenders have the length trait going for them. Jackson would def start and likely contribute for us, just not sure I could see him being a "killer" out of the gate without a jumper.

My worry is that Simmons is going to have to go through some growing for a little while. His bread and butter is likely attacking from the perimeter and either scoring/going to FT line/finding the open man. Jackson is likely going to have to do the same...so it may be a bit redundant initially. I guess if you can get a good shooter at the other 2 positions on the floor, it could work...Id be worried defenses would just clog the paint and make you beat them with jump shots. Hopefully Jackson can get into the mid-high 60's by the end of the season, that would give me a lot more optimism in terms of him improving his shot.

Well, let's just a assume, for the sake of argument, a line up of Embiid, Simmons, Jackson, Covington, and Monk.

You would have 2 floor spacers, 2 dynamic playmakers, and maybe the best offensive, and defensive center in the league(even if it takes a year or two for Embiid to establish himself as such).

You have role players of Noel, Saric, Illyasova, Stauskus, and Bayless, and end of the roster types of Luwawu, Henderson, Sergio, Holmes, Thompson.

That is a great young team with plenty of offense, and defense, including 3 point shooting.

Im fine with that, but Im not sold on being able to land Monk with the Laker pick. If that was a guarantee, id absolutely take Jackson and my worries with his shooting would be less of a concern. I think Monk will be a top 5 pick when its all said and done.

I don't especially like Monk so I hope they don't draft him unless it's at the very bottom of the lottery at the earliest. There's just too many other guys who do multiple things well to take an undersized all-scoring, nothing else player who will negatively impact your defense. He'd be fun to have off the bench for this team no question though. And, to be clear, I think having a Lou Williams or Jamal Crawford is important, but in this abnormal draft there are just too many good players to take a player with that sort of upside when so many potential starters are out there this year.

In last year's draft, I take Monk top 5 and don't even think twice.

[Slizeezyc]

The 3-point shot is a real concern, but the idea that Jackson is some net negative on offense even if he can't shoot is a mean fabrication that should probably end. It's not ideal shooting-wise with Simmons and Jackson, but both have amazing skills beyond their shooting on offense. Simmons is a top-tier passer and creator. Jackson would be an elite passer for his position as well, has a strong handle and can crash the glass as well. He's not MKG. He's been solid from mid range. He's shown an ability to make a variety of shots around the rim. You don't look at his shot like MKG's and think it needs some re-build from the ground up.

The team defense could be downright frightening almost out of the gate if you're running Jackson/Simmons/Embiid/Covington (or insert other solid defender here)/another like-sized player. That's switching for days with two players with very impressive steal numbers for forwards (Jackson/Simmons) an elite-level deflections player in Covington, and then a very impressive and mobile shot blocker in Embiid. You're out and running no question with that lineup, and easy buckets will come from that. Jackson also has impressive block numbers for a wing.

You also have Jackson to tie with Simmons as NBA-ready bodies and minds right from the start. Simmons maybe has had his competitiveness challenged by scouts (Jackson will never be questioned there), but either way both have already shown to be smart as hell on the court.

As a duo, they also would dominate the glass as forwards, and almost assuredly the Sixers would have a chance to be really great on both the defensive and offensive glass with.

Yes, Jackson would be perfect if he could shoot, and the ideal lineup around Embiid/Simmons is three-like-sized shooters who can all switch and defend with Simmons 1-4, but you know, that's why it's an ideal. It's not bad if you end up with Simmons/Embiid, a slashing playmaker, and two shooters who defend. Plus, even Jackson shooting just 30% or so from deep would be enough for it to unlock the rest of his talents, and I think that's still on the table.

All in all, if you like Tatum more as a prospect I'm totally cool with that (I love the dude as well. Fultz is my one forever and always, but Jackson and Tatum are both dope consolation prizes and I will be happy if Sixers end up with one of the three). But on Draft Day, if the theory is Jackson is a better prospect than Tatum, there's no chance I would pass on Jackson for Tatum out of fit concerns. And I'm not crapping on Tatum either, he could be a Melo/Pierce fusion, but I think Jackson can become a Butler/Kawhi-level wing as well and I would probably take that high-end outcome over the Tatum one if I have to pick between the two.

PS, I will draw the line in the sand though and say anyone saying they would take Lonzo Ball or any of the other PGs not named Fultz over either Tatum or Jackson is incorrect at this juncture (in other words maybe it changes closer to draft time, but at this moment this is how I feel). I will throw down with those people -- shirts optional -- and absolutely reject the notion that "fit" somehow gives credence to passing on a Jackson or Tatum for one of those guards in the top 5.

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

I'd take Ball and Jackson over Fultz and Tatum right now. I may change my mind next month, after I see what Fultz looks like, getting his shot off in games against Arizona or UCLA. I'm not a fan of his athletic projection, but if he shows he can get shots off against NBA caliber athletes, that's all that matters.

Yeah, I think that's where we just differ. You're still in the wait-and-see area, and I'm already looking at what Fultz has done this year in college and for the national team, and it's such an easy slam dunk in my eyes that Fultz is in a tier all by himself. So I always will want the Tier 1 guy, and then whatever else, versus two guys from Tier 2 etc.

[LloydFree]

Id take Ball over Tatum right now.

Jackson I can see, because of his 2-way upside. Him on the perimeter with Embiid and Simmons would be solid defensively and lethal in transition, and his willingness to pass could make for some good ball movement. But his lack of length (if measured correctly 6'9.75" wingspan) and that 54%FT really concerns me. I did a big post last summer on correlating FT% and improved shooting w/ multiple players and the 2 usually go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, id be happy with a majority of these guys being slotted in the 1-5 range, I just think Ball could make for a dynamic PG,would make life easier for Embiid and others, and his 3 point shooting would be a huge shot in the arm for the team.

I'd take Ball and Jackson over Fultz and Tatum right now. I may change my mind next month, after I see what Fultz looks like, getting his shot off in games against Arizona or UCLA. I'm not a fan of his athletic projection, but if he shows he can get shots off against NBA caliber athletes, that's all that matters.

Yeah, I think that's where we just differ. You're still in the wait-and-see area, and I'm already looking at what Fultz has done this year in college and for the national team, and it's such an easy slam dunk in my eyes that Fultz is in a tier all by himself. So I always will want the Tier 1 guy, and then whatever else, versus two guys from Tier 2 etc.

Fultz isn't on any separate tier than the rest of these guys. There are 5-7 guys all bunched together, that could all claim #1 by the end of the year. I've seen Fultz play, and he isn't anymore impressive than Ball or Jackson at this point.

[Ericb5]

I'd take Ball and Jackson over Fultz and Tatum right now. I may change my mind next month, after I see what Fultz looks like, getting his shot off in games against Arizona or UCLA. I'm not a fan of his athletic projection, but if he shows he can get shots off against NBA caliber athletes, that's all that matters.

Yeah, I think that's where we just differ. You're still in the wait-and-see area, and I'm already looking at what Fultz has done this year in college and for the national team, and it's such an easy slam dunk in my eyes that Fultz is in a tier all by himself. So I always will want the Tier 1 guy, and then whatever else, versus two guys from Tier 2 etc.

Fultz isn't on any separate tier than the rest of these guys. There are 5-7 guys all bunched together, that could all claim #1 by the end of the year. I've seen Fultz play, and he isn't anymore impressive than Ball or Jackson at this point.

I'm all for the draft tier strategy, but I don't think that there are any clear tier differences that have shown up.

I think that there are no franchise players in this draft so the top tier is unoccupied at the moment. There are a bunch of guys that could be allstars though, and maybe even grow into superstars, and Fultz could be as good as any of them.

[Slizeezyc]

The only thing Fultz has going against him being the top pick is the same thing Simmons did. If he's doing this stuff at Duke or on a "winning" team, then it's not really a doubt. His numbers are insane for a freshman PG tasked with doing it all. Or if he's just in a weaker class, it's easier to just say "well duh he's the first pick" like it was with Simmons. This class is dope.

He's the only player right now who has shown both via numbers and scouting that he has a crystal clear path to being a two-way star. He's the first guard to be the projected first pick in many years. It's hard to compare him to other first picks because guys like Towns and Davis are locks, and they're bigs. Either way, he's easily above any other guard that has come out in the last 5 drafts. He's maybe the first top pick at guard that seems like a given since maybe Derrick Rose? Kyrie was a top pick, but there wasn't a body of work, and that draft was a perceived mess at the top. John Wall is another maybe but again easy to make some arguments there. Could even be AI in some universe. Regardless, he's the most complete PG prospect to come out in at least 5 years, and it's probably even longer than that.

-Amazing numbers with high usage
-Good shooting numbers from deep and mid range.
-Adjusted numbers of over 2 steals a game, over a block a game, and almost 8 FTs a game.
-All the hype goes to his offense (as it should) but he already looks like the best defender at PG not named Frank the Frenchman. He can be a clear plus at that position and has good size for the PG spot.
-Can play both with and without the ball and excel at both
-He is a perfectly good athlete: the FT numbers, usage, assist numbers, finishing numbers all support it.

He has zero of the questions that Jackson and Tatum have (or Giles), and he certainly has none of the same sort of questions Ball and Smith have -- there is a chasm of difference between Fultz's main weaknesses and those guys' weaknesses at this point. Smith and Ball, while I like both, have HUGE qualifiers to them. If you're going to hold Jackson's shooting against him, both Smith and Ball have things that can potentially hold them back just as much.

I agree that things can change and someone else could step up, but I think it sort of belittles what Fultz is doing to say he's not clearly in his own tier based on the body of work in the past and present, especially factoring in the scouting aspect of how quick his learning curve has been along the way.

PS, don't forget Fultz is young for his class and only turned 18 in May, hence why he got to run with the U18 team again.