Markelle Fultz Discussion

[Ericb5]

He looked really good in the summer league, but his training camp and preseason has basically been a dud.

If you remove the shooting narrative, he actually has looked pretty impressive this preseason, at least to me. Played solid defense and attacked the hoop. I think many are blinded by his free throw form.

I agree. It is more of an incomplete as opposed to a fail.

I love his attitude, his work ethic, and his commitment to becoming a better defender. Any worry that I have is really on his shoulder right now. SOMETHING is causing that funky shooting form, and I want that sorted out. It isn't like he is Noel who needed major shooting work. Fultz is already a good natural jump shooter. He just got off the rails somehow, and I hope that there isn't a physical problem that will prevent his quick return.

[smittybanton]

I know the early impression of Fultz isn't exactly a favorable one, but do people think Jayson Tatum is really going to be a better player than him?

Same tier. Neither should have been drafted in the top 3-4 picks.

Top 7 were in the same tier as far as I was and am concerned. Tatum's game is sweet. Incredibly diverse crew of good basketball players. DSJ was clearly the most talented, in my opinion, but the injury risk is/was real. This was not a good year for Boston to have the #1 pick. Should'nt have saved them.

[Kolkmania]

I often wonder how many (or few) followed these prospects prior to the draft outside watching highlight reels on YouTube. 90% of the people agreed in May that Markelle was the clear number one pick, 2.5 SL games and 2 preseason games the narrative completely changed. Absolutely amazes me.

[Mik317]

I often wonder how many (or few) followed these prospects prior to the draft outside watching highlight reels on YouTube. 90% of the people agreed in May that Markelle was the clear number one pick, 2.5 SL games and 2 preseason games the narrative completely changed. Absolutely amazes me.

I'm not going to lie. I watched very little of Fultz in college. Part of that was due to not wanting to get attached, the other part was they were often on stupid late and generally getting blown out by the time I had a chance to turn in. So any evaluation I had came via others POV.

I also was team Jackson or Fox. Still am (more so with Simmons probably not being a true point after all) but I still think many are far too harsh on Fultz at times. PG is a rough position to learn especially for a 19 year old. I remember Mike Conley being absolute ass for a while.

This board is going to suck with the I told you sos but also all of the excuses and pleas copping.. Can't wait for the first Simmons is holding Fultz back thread. wooo booooi

[cksdayoff]

I know the early impression of Fultz isn't exactly a favorable one, but do people think Jayson Tatum is really going to be a better player than him?

fultz is and was the better prospect, and will be the better player. fultz held on to the top spot of that prospect list throughout the entire college season, never relinquished it to a prospect like tatum. his closest rival was either dsj or josh jackson. i had dsj as the clear cut #2 on my board, not a popular opinion at the time

[HotelVitale]

I often wonder how many (or few) followed these prospects prior to the draft outside watching highlight reels on YouTube. 90% of the people agreed in May that Markelle was the clear number one pick, 2.5 SL games and 2 preseason games the narrative completely changed. Absolutely amazes me.

A lot of us on the draft boards watch edited games (just the 15 minutes or so relevant to a player or sometimes like 40-50 minutes of game action) and I'd say that most of us who did that were cooler on Fultz than those who just watched highlights or just read DX and other things. When you watch the larger games you could see how Fultz's speed and explosion weren't where you'd like them to be for a top pick, and how that was already forcing him to take tough shots (which of course get even tougher at the next level).

At the same time, I agree with you and others that the narrative switched for confusing and annoying reasons. Fultz was fine in SL, and nothing about how he played so far has changed what people liked or didn't like about him at draft time. The one bad PS game he just looked out of rhythm and took weird/bad shots, and the one good SL game showed him hitting everything. (I would also say he looked good against BOS in the PS, when the staff seemed to tell him to get to the cup every play). He's a rhythm player and he hasn't gotten enough reps to figure that out yet, plus he's 19 years old and there's no need to throw him into the fire with other options around. End of story. There's been nothing particularly discouraging about him as a prospect so far (unless you were one of the headline-gawkers who was expecting an instant stud based on clickbait).

[cksdayoff]

A lot of us on the draft boards watch edited games (just the 10-15 minutes relevant to a player) and I'd say that most of us who did that were cooler on Fultz than those who just watched highlights or just read DX and other things. When you watch the larger games you could see how Fultz's speed and explosion weren't where you'd like them to be for a top pick, and how that was already forcing him to take tough shots (which of course get even tougher at the next level).

what fultz did in college despite a severe lack of talent around him is what sold me on him as the top prospect.

[smittybanton]

I often wonder how many (or few) followed these prospects prior to the draft outside watching highlight reels on YouTube. 90% of the people agreed in May that Markelle was the clear number one pick, 2.5 SL games and 2 preseason games the narrative completely changed. Absolutely amazes me.

No matter how much the 10% yelled and screamed, nobody listened. Particularly BC.

[Negrodamus]

I often wonder how many (or few) followed these prospects prior to the draft outside watching highlight reels on YouTube. 90% of the people agreed in May that Markelle was the clear number one pick, 2.5 SL games and 2 preseason games the narrative completely changed. Absolutely amazes me.

Which is weird, because if anything I'm more at ease with him being our #1 pick after watching him play these games. Faster than I thought. Gets to the basket with the same ease as college. Contests shots.

If you look at just the stat lines, yea he's not producing like he did in college.

[Scarletfire81]

Its way too early to know how good any of these prospects will be. Fultz looks like he can get to the basket with ease but his foul shot looks broken. Tatum looks good defensively but he isn't as aggressive as I hoped. Josh Jackson looks impressive but doesn't have much of a jump shot so his ceiling is not as high IMO. But we shall see.

[Unbreakable99]

I know the early impression of Fultz isn't exactly a favorable one, but do people think Jayson Tatum is really going to be a better player than him?

fultz is and was the better prospect, and will be the better player. fultz held on to the top spot of that prospect list throughout the entire college season, never relinquished it to a prospect like tatum. his closest rival was either dsj or josh jackson. i had dsj as the clear cut #2 on my board, not a popular opinion at the time

I never understood the hate towards Tatum and still don't. Outside of Negrodamus I was probably the highest on Tatum. Negrodamus had him as the top rated prospect. I didn't like him THAT much but I liked him a lot. I would see on social media and boards many Sixers fans just bashing Tatum to no end. I never understood it. He still gets so much hate from Sixers fans. Now I do hope he isn't good or flops because he's in Boston but I doubt it. He can get buckets. I think he can be pretty efficient once he learns the game. He's going to be a tough matchup. As far as Fultz there was a lot to like but whereas other said he was head and shoulders above the rest I just thought he was along the same plain as others. I still liked him and rated him 3rd overall.

I think I rated Tatum 4th or 5th or maybe 6th. I know I was high on Issac and DSJ and had those 3 after Ball and Jackson. And Fox was the wildcard for me. I may have had him 5th. Damn. There were so many prospects I liked. I always maintained that if Fox ever gets a consistent jump shot then he will become the best player from the draft. He is just so fast and he plays good defense. I was sold on DSJ and Fox being the only 2 players who can get any shot they want and get to any spot on the floor to get a shot out of all the top prospects.

[HotelVitale]

A lot of us on the draft boards watch edited games (just the 10-15 minutes relevant to a player) and I'd say that most of us who did that were cooler on Fultz than those who just watched highlights or just read DX and other things. When you watch the larger games you could see how Fultz's speed and explosion weren't where you'd like them to be for a top pick, and how that was already forcing him to take tough shots (which of course get even tougher at the next level).

what fultz did in college despite a severe lack of talent around him is what sold me on him as the top prospect.

I hear that and he definitely showed a diversity of skills at Washington; but it's easy for me to imagine he does the same things and shoots say 10% worse from 3 and midrange (either because of NBA length/speed or because small sample size inflated his numbers a little) and finishes 10% worse in the NBA; and imagine that he gets into the lane or turns the corner 10-20% less and can't set up the nifty passing he showed at UW. All of a sudden you're left with a lead guard who's not efficient enough for the NBA as is and doesn't have a simple path to improving.

It's a different story for more athletic or explosive guys who can always create some space and learn how to take advantage of it in different ways. (Take Simmons--if he develops his finishing and shooting that's great but even if he doesn't he'll physically always be able to juke bigs and overpower smaller guys, and he'll always be able to exploit help defense with his passing.) If you're not explosive and don't have incredible BBIQ, you have to have elite and quick-trigger skills and be able to read the game quickly and accurately (like e.g. Harden) to be a difference-making player; I'm hopeful Fultz can get most of the way to that but it's a high bar to set, and I don't think his play at Washington reassured me he'd definitely be able to do that. I like him and think he showed the tools to be a star, but I'm also not going to be surprised if he's just an okay player--decent shooter who can also attack well if he has a lane (or a good pn'r partner). The NBA's a tough league, and you have to be extremely good to stand out among the wildly skilled, massive human beings that are already running things there.

(I also think being on a bad team meant he could shine whenever he was feeling it and gave him more chances to build up highlight moments--though I want to repeat that he was indeed very good at passing, creating, and scoring in those games).

[cksdayoff]

I never understood the hate towards Tatum and still don't. Outside of Negrodamus I was probably the highest on Tatum. Negrodamus had him as the top rated prospect. I didn't like him THAT much but I liked him a lot. I would see on social media and boards many Sixers fans just bashing Tatum to no end. I never understood it. He still gets so much hate from Sixers fans. Now I do hope he isn't good or flops because he's in Boston but I doubt it. He can get buckets. I think he can be pretty efficient once he learns the game.

hate is a strong word. if the sixers kept the #3 pick and selected tatum, some would be pissed because dsj or josh jackson were available but we'd all probably come around and appreciate tatum's offensive skillset. he's clearly advanced for his age.

wasn't as high on fox as most on here, great athlete, but his shot scared me.

[XtremeDunkz]

All this overeaction over weird free throw shooting and 1 bad preseason game? Am I missing something?

[Kobblehead]

I see Tatum as a fine prospect. I just think that his lack of plus athleticism just hinders the likelihood of reaching the ceiling that his skill level allows him to have. He'll probably be a nice starter in the league, I just don't see him as a difference maker.

[Ben]

Really good discussion today. Smart insights and no rank homerism. Thanks to all who've contributed.

[cksdayoff]

I hear that and he definitely showed a diversity of skills at Washington; but it's easy for me to imagine he does the same things and shoots say 10% worse from 3 and midrange (either because of NBA length/speed or because small sample size inflated his numbers a little) and finishes 10% worse in the NBA; and imagine that he gets into the lane or turns the corner 10-20% less and can't set up the nifty passing he showed at UW. All of a sudden you're left with a lead guard who's not efficient enough for the NBA as is and doesn't have a simple path to improving.

(I also think being on a bad team meant he could shine whenever he was feeling it and gave him more chances to build up highlight moments--though I want to repeat that he was indeed very good at passing, creating, and scoring in those games).

as an 18 year old at the time, being able to produce in points, assists, rebounds the way fultz did is an incredible feat. he was clearly better overall than most of his competition, offensively, even if he was being held back by his team. fultz may not be an elite level athlete, but his handles and athleticism are advanced enough for him to produce efficiently in the pros, imo there's always going to be an adjustment period, due to the speed and length of the nba, but that didn't stop guys like cj and bradley beal from producing. if fultz is a top level prospect, which he is, then he'll get better in every phase of his game, and it will be the league that will have to adjust. i'm gonna assume a 19 year old fultz is better than an 18 year old fultz, and a 20 year old fultz with a full year of nba level conditioning and training will be better than his 19 year old self and so on. it's only logical. and it helps a lot that fultz will be in an ideal situation where he'll get all the spacing he could ever want

as for being on a garbage team, fultz was constantly double teamed, sometimes triple teamed. no spacing whatsoever, teammates with lack of skill and low iq (actually all of them), yet the huskies offense was actually better than the year before with two 1st round picks and a 20ppg senior. i dont think it can be stated enough how bad his team was, his teammates shot 28% from 3 point range and and had 49.4% eFG as a team, ranked 225th in the country. yet he still averaged 6 assists per game. some source on twitter posted up a graphic showing all the top propsect's teammates and their combined obpm (or rpm?), washington was dead last, behind ncsu, and dsj's team has some legit prospects who have professional ball careers in their future. ucla with all the skilled shooters they had was at the top of the list.

collectively on defense, the huskies were ranked in the #300s as a team. their defensive rebounding percentage was in the #200s. huskies were already a poorly coached, poor defensive team so when u give up offensive rebounds at that rate, hard to win many games. so imagine the surprise by a lot of fans when fultz doesn't look too terrible defensively in the preseason or summer league in his short stint.

i agree with most of your post, also understand the concerns because the nba is just on another level in literally everything, but i think fultz's elevator in terms of development and progress won't stop at age 18.

[HotelVitale]

I hear that and he definitely showed a diversity of skills at Washington; but it's easy for me to imagine he does the same things and shoots say 10% worse from 3 and midrange (either because of NBA length/speed or because small sample size inflated his numbers a little) and finishes 10% worse in the NBA; and imagine that he gets into the lane or turns the corner 10-20% less and can't set up the nifty passing he showed at UW. All of a sudden you're left with a lead guard who's not efficient enough for the NBA as is and doesn't have a simple path to improving. .

fultz may not be an elite level athlete, but his handles and athleticism are advanced enough for him to produce efficiently in the pros, imo there's always going to be an adjustment period, due to the speed and length of the nba, but that didn't stop guys like cj and bradley beal from producing. if fultz is a top level prospect, which he is, then he'll get better in every phase of his game, and it will be the league that will have to adjust. i'm gonna assume a 19 year old fultz is better than an 18 year old fultz, and a 20 year old fultz with a full year of nba level conditioning and training will be better than his 19 year old self and so on. it's only logical...

I don't disagree with any of this aside from the assumption in the bold part. The fact is we DO NOT KNOW who will improve in what areas--we're dealing in probabilities and not certainties with prospects, and there's no way to project who's going to make all the necessary adjustments (otherwise GMs would be a lot lot better at the draft than they are). 99% of players improve from college but that's different from making full adjustments to the NBA game; even guys that had unquestioned elite skills in college have to adjust them completely to the NBA (speeding up your shot, finishing over a bit more length around screens, absorbing contact, etc); it's all very small movements that require crazy accuracy, and look no further than Stauskas for an example of a guy who was a blistering shooter (he shot like 43% over two years in college) and just couldn't adjust for the pace of the NBA, which in turn led him to never develop the feel for the game he showed in his 2nd year at UM.

He's an extreme example but guys like CJ McCollum are extreme the other way--in addition to doing what they did well in college, they also extended their range, speeded up their games, developed new ways to read and operate quickly in space, etc. You obviously hope for that sort of development but can't expect or assume it from prospects. I think Fultz will be better than McCollum if he develops--he should get to the basket better and his passing should lead to more high % assists--but he definitely might not get close to that, or he might only develop his shooting to average levels (rather than CJ's near elite ones) while his creation becomes above average. There's a whole range of outcomes, and my point is just that a player like Fultz who doesn't have great physical attributes has a lot of burden placed on his skill/IQ development/adjustment, and that stuff is really really hard to master.

Tl;dr version: he's a good prospect as far as size/skills but anything can happen with those guys, and he's not a usual #1 pick since his game and development rely so much on skills and IQ rather than athleticism and/or obvious innate ability (like a B Griffin or D Rose type guy).

[LloydFree]

I often wonder how many (or few) followed these prospects prior to the draft outside watching highlight reels on YouTube. 90% of the people agreed in May that Markelle was the clear number one pick, 2.5 SL games and 2 preseason games the narrative completely changed. Absolutely amazes me.

I think you got that backwards. At least on this board. Amongst the guys here who actually watch games, probably 75% had someone else ranked as #1 and in many cases someone else #2 also.

I watched at least 6 full games of Fultz, and he wasn't very impressive in any one of his matchups against quality opponents. (Gonzaga, Arizona, Oregon, UCLA). And he sat out nearly all of the road games against the good team's in his conference.

[Slartibartfast]

I hear that and he definitely showed a diversity of skills at Washington; but it's easy for me to imagine he does the same things and shoots say 10% worse from 3 and midrange (either because of NBA length/speed or because small sample size inflated his numbers a little) and finishes 10% worse in the NBA; and imagine that he gets into the lane or turns the corner 10-20% less and can't set up the nifty passing he showed at UW. All of a sudden you're left with a lead guard who's not efficient enough for the NBA as is and doesn't have a simple path to improving. .

fultz may not be an elite level athlete, but his handles and athleticism are advanced enough for him to produce efficiently in the pros, imo there's always going to be an adjustment period, due to the speed and length of the nba, but that didn't stop guys like cj and bradley beal from producing. if fultz is a top level prospect, which he is, then he'll get better in every phase of his game, and it will be the league that will have to adjust. i'm gonna assume a 19 year old fultz is better than an 18 year old fultz, and a 20 year old fultz with a full year of nba level conditioning and training will be better than his 19 year old self and so on. it's only logical...

I don't disagree with any of this aside from the assumption in the bold part. The fact is we DO NOT KNOW who will improve in what areas--we're dealing in probabilities and not certainties with prospects, and there's no way to project who's going to make all the necessary adjustments (otherwise GMs would be a lot lot better at the draft than they are). 99% of players improve from college but that's different from making full adjustments to the NBA game; even guys that had unquestioned elite skills in college have to adjust them completely to the NBA (speeding up your shot, finishing over a bit more length around screens, absorbing contact, etc); it's all very small movements that require crazy accuracy, and look no further than Stauskas for an example of a guy who was a blistering shooter (he shot like 43% over two years in college) and just couldn't adjust for the pace of the NBA, which in turn led him to never develop the feel for the game he showed in his 2nd year at UM.

He's an extreme example but guys like CJ McCollum are extreme the other way--in addition to doing what they did well in college, they also extended their range, speeded up their games, developed new ways to read and operate quickly in space, etc. You obviously hope for that sort of development but can't expect or assume it from prospects. I think Fultz will be better than McCollum if he develops--he should get to the basket better and his passing should lead to more high % assists--but he definitely might not get close to that, or he might only develop his shooting to average levels (rather than CJ's near elite ones) while his creation becomes above average. There's a whole range of outcomes, and my point is just that a player like Fultz who doesn't have great physical attributes has a lot of burden placed on his skill/IQ development/adjustment, and that stuff is really really hard to master.

Tl;dr version: he's a good prospect as far as size/skills but anything can happen with those guys, and he's not a usual #1 pick since his game and development rely so much on skills and IQ rather than athleticism and/or obvious innate ability (like a B Griffin or D Rose type guy).

Fultz does have great physical attributes, though. Great length and great size for a PG, good (not great) speed, good quickness, good leaping ability, good strength.

It's a talent stack - you put them all together and Fultz is one of the most physically gifted PGs in the league. Wall and Westbrook are ahead of him, but he's also well ahead of CP3, Conley, Irving, IT, Lowry and Lillard from a physical standpoint.

If you don't view him as a PG, then his physical profile diminishes considerably.