ImageImageImage

Markelle Fultz Discussion III: For Fultz and going forward (see 2017 draft thread for trade discussion)

Moderators: HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Foshan, sixers hoops, Sixerscan

ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 7,997
And1: 2,009
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#461 » by ivysixer2000 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:00 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not but so far they look like they have a higher ceiling than Fultz. Fultz doesn’t have the athleticism of Mitchell. He never will either. Fultz may never shoot as well as Tatum. Tatum is a much better FT shooter. He is a better 3 point shooter so far. This is Tatum’s floor. He can go much higher.


Fultz hasn't even played healthy in the NBA yet, how do you know what is ceiling is, crystal ball??

Handpicking Mitchell and Tatum is fun as I like them as players, but its not like someone could go back and do it again. Trade back, get the Kings to trade up for Fox per say, then pick Tatum at 5 cause the Celtics weren't really going to take him at 1. Then take Donovan 'shoot first ask questions later' Mitchell at 10. There is your perfect hindsight dream draft.

Then you wake up and realize you drank too much vodka last night.


A GM easily could have drafted Mitchell in the top 6.


Ok, Isaac went 6th. So without hindsight as your advantage, would the Magic take Mitchell over Isaac?
Unbreakable99
General Manager
Posts: 8,752
And1: 3,993
Joined: Jul 04, 2014

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#462 » by Unbreakable99 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:03 am

ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Fultz hasn't even played healthy in the NBA yet, how do you know what is ceiling is, crystal ball??

Handpicking Mitchell and Tatum is fun as I like them as players, but its not like someone could go back and do it again. Trade back, get the Kings to trade up for Fox per say, then pick Tatum at 5 cause the Celtics weren't really going to take him at 1. Then take Donovan 'shoot first ask questions later' Mitchell at 10. There is your perfect hindsight dream draft.

Then you wake up and realize you drank too much vodka last night.


A GM easily could have drafted Mitchell in the top 6.


Ok, Isaac went 6th. So without hindsight as your advantage, would the Magic take Mitchell over Isaac?


I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.
Ryuzaki
Freshman
Posts: 76
And1: 25
Joined: Oct 31, 2017

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#463 » by Ryuzaki » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:10 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
A GM easily could have drafted Mitchell in the top 6.


Ok, Isaac went 6th. So without hindsight as your advantage, would the Magic take Mitchell over Isaac?


I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


No they couldn't have. Mitchell wasn't regarded to be in that top group of guards and it just makes you sound like a Professor. Hindsight to try and say otherwise
Unbreakable99
General Manager
Posts: 8,752
And1: 3,993
Joined: Jul 04, 2014

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#464 » by Unbreakable99 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:12 am

Ryuzaki wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Ok, Isaac went 6th. So without hindsight as your advantage, would the Magic take Mitchell over Isaac?


I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


No they couldn't have. Mitchell wasn't regarded to be in that top group of guards and it just makes you sound like a Professor. Hindsight to try and say otherwise


He was in that group. Some GMs just messed up and didn’t scout properly.
ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 7,997
And1: 2,009
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#465 » by ivysixer2000 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:16 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
A GM easily could have drafted Mitchell in the top 6.


Ok, Isaac went 6th. So without hindsight as your advantage, would the Magic take Mitchell over Isaac?


I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


My point is its easy to say why take Sam Bowie now, not as easy in the drafting process especially when you consider the fit and need of your particular team as a GM. Sure you can take 3 centers cause they are the best available like Hinkie actually did, cause of 'talent', but in building a team you just can't do that....and guess what....that's why he got fired. Great at building assets, horrible at building an actual team.

Sam Bowie was drafted cause that's what they needed, maybe Fultz will go down as that or maybe not. But in building a team, the pieces still have to fit like the Bulls, Heat, Cavs, and Warriors have done in the past if you want to go by recent history. Or do you want me to talk about Oscar and Kareem, cause I could do that. And yeah thats ol' school.

No GM is perfect, they all make mistakes cause they are human just like you and me. Unless they can get in a DeLorean with Micheal J. Fox, noone has an idea at that moment what will happen in the future.
PLO
Analyst
Posts: 3,062
And1: 1,305
Joined: Aug 04, 2016
     

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#466 » by PLO » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:24 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
cksdayoff wrote:tatum and mitchell are solid players but they won't be stars in this league imo


Maybe. Maybe not but so far they look like they have a higher ceiling than Fultz. Fultz doesn’t have the athleticism of Mitchell. He never will either. Fultz may never shoot as well as Tatum. Tatum is a much better FT shooter. He is a better 3 point shooter so far. This is Tatum’s floor. He can go much higher.


Mitchell was an outstanding pick for Utah but he's a few years older than guys like Fultz; Fultz is also taller and as we've seen with guards, you don't need outlier athleticism to be successful (Kemba,Curry, Harden, Kyrie etc). However there are precious few wings who are perrenial all-stars who don't have either really good athleticism or good length. Tatum has neither so while this is likely his floor I really doubt "he can go much higher."

However what the success of Mitchell and Tatum give both Utah and Boston is solidity moving forward - knowing they have a piece they can lock into future starting line-ups. That's not something you often get from rookie players. Look at what happened with Utah with Exum - he's shown some flashes but has been largely injured and he was picked in the Embiid draft - and they are still in a quandary about what to do with him or if he has what it takes to be an NBA player. Across the league its really very unusual to know what you have in a rookie in the first half of their debut seasons but you can certainly make some assumptions about them going forward.

One assumption I can make is that Fultz has the on-ball craft to be a success as a primary or secondary initiator in the league and I can't say the same about Lonzo Ball. I can also make an assumption that "featuring" Josh Jackson on offense would be akin to featuring Justin Anderson. I think on these things I can be pretty certain. We can give Ball and Jackson a "grade pending" in a number of areas of their games, for example Josh Jackson's defensive lapses could be just the fact the NBA is complex for a newcomer, which it is, but on those other things we can be sure.
LakersDynasty14 wrote:Lonzo Ball is literally on a Hall of Fame trajectory at this point. This thread is so full of fail.


shakes0 wrote:I hope they put Simmons on Trae. He'll foul him out by the 3rd quarter. plus Simmons can't stay in front of Trae. No one can.
PLO
Analyst
Posts: 3,062
And1: 1,305
Joined: Aug 04, 2016
     

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#467 » by PLO » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:32 am

The reason Mitchell went after the first batch of guards is just age-related. That's a fact. While he wasn't expected to have this impact he was at least much more physically ready for the NBA than someone like a DeAaron Fox. DeAaron Fox could end up having the better career, but at least Utah knows what they have in Mitchell, which is a guy who could be competing for an all-star spot year in and year out, whereas the Kings don't know yet what they have with Fox. Its pretty unusual for a 19 year old guard to come in and dominate the league from day one and I can't think of anyone in the current batch of "great" guards who did so.
LakersDynasty14 wrote:Lonzo Ball is literally on a Hall of Fame trajectory at this point. This thread is so full of fail.


shakes0 wrote:I hope they put Simmons on Trae. He'll foul him out by the 3rd quarter. plus Simmons can't stay in front of Trae. No one can.
PLO
Analyst
Posts: 3,062
And1: 1,305
Joined: Aug 04, 2016
     

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#468 » by PLO » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:36 am

ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Ok, Isaac went 6th. So without hindsight as your advantage, would the Magic take Mitchell over Isaac?


I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


My point is its easy to say why take Sam Bowie now, not as easy in the drafting process especially when you consider the fit and need of your particular team as a GM. Sure you can take 3 centers cause they are the best available like Hinkie actually did, cause of 'talent', but in building a team you just can't do that....and guess what....that's why he got fired. Great at building assets, horrible at building an actual team.

Sam Bowie was drafted cause that's what they needed, maybe Fultz will go down as that or maybe not. But in building a team, the pieces still have to fit like the Bulls, Heat, Cavs, and Warriors have done in the past if you want to go by recent history. Or do you want me to talk about Oscar and Kareem, cause I could do that. And yeah thats ol' school.

No GM is perfect, they all make mistakes cause they are human just like you and me. Unless they can get in a DeLorean with Micheal J. Fox, noone has an idea at that moment what will happen in the future.


Bowie was also picked because of the huge value big men had in the NBA back then. He was a huge bust when you compare him to who was picked after but you can't fault the reasoning behind the pick at the time.
LakersDynasty14 wrote:Lonzo Ball is literally on a Hall of Fame trajectory at this point. This thread is so full of fail.


shakes0 wrote:I hope they put Simmons on Trae. He'll foul him out by the 3rd quarter. plus Simmons can't stay in front of Trae. No one can.
ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 7,997
And1: 2,009
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#469 » by ivysixer2000 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:40 am

PLO wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


My point is its easy to say why take Sam Bowie now, not as easy in the drafting process especially when you consider the fit and need of your particular team as a GM. Sure you can take 3 centers cause they are the best available like Hinkie actually did, cause of 'talent', but in building a team you just can't do that....and guess what....that's why he got fired. Great at building assets, horrible at building an actual team.

Sam Bowie was drafted cause that's what they needed, maybe Fultz will go down as that or maybe not. But in building a team, the pieces still have to fit like the Bulls, Heat, Cavs, and Warriors have done in the past if you want to go by recent history. Or do you want me to talk about Oscar and Kareem, cause I could do that. And yeah thats ol' school.

No GM is perfect, they all make mistakes cause they are human just like you and me. Unless they can get in a DeLorean with Micheal J. Fox, noone has an idea at that moment what will happen in the future.


Bowie was also picked because of the huge value big men had in the NBA back then. He was a huge bust when you compare him to who was picked after but you can't fault the reasoning behind the pick at the time.


That was my point also.
Ryuzaki
Freshman
Posts: 76
And1: 25
Joined: Oct 31, 2017

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#470 » by Ryuzaki » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:50 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


No they couldn't have. Mitchell wasn't regarded to be in that top group of guards and it just makes you sound like a Professor. Hindsight to try and say otherwise


He was in that group. Some GMs just messed up and didn’t scout properly.


No he wasn't. There was 0% chance he was being taken over any of Kelle/Ball/DSJ/Fox/Ntilikina or even Monk.
ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 7,997
And1: 2,009
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#471 » by ivysixer2000 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:16 am

Ryuzaki wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:
No they couldn't have. Mitchell wasn't regarded to be in that top group of guards and it just makes you sound like a Professor. Hindsight to try and say otherwise


He was in that group. Some GMs just messed up and didn’t scout properly.


No he wasn't. There was 0% chance he was being taken over any of Kelle/Ball/DSJ/Fox/Ntilikina or even Monk.


When I first started back posting here, I couldn't believe people were that high on Monk.

Yeah people had Monk above Mitchell, but I guess that was a Kentucky thing. I watch alot of SEC, and I knew he sucked, so I was shocked. You brought up his name, made me puck in my mouth, sorry lol.
Ericb5
RealGM
Posts: 10,303
And1: 3,377
Joined: Jan 08, 2014
       

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#472 » by Ericb5 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:23 am

PLO wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
I’m saying a GM could have done it. A lot of players where close in talent. There were about 6 players close in talent then about 5 more close to them.


My point is its easy to say why take Sam Bowie now, not as easy in the drafting process especially when you consider the fit and need of your particular team as a GM. Sure you can take 3 centers cause they are the best available like Hinkie actually did, cause of 'talent', but in building a team you just can't do that....and guess what....that's why he got fired. Great at building assets, horrible at building an actual team.

Sam Bowie was drafted cause that's what they needed, maybe Fultz will go down as that or maybe not. But in building a team, the pieces still have to fit like the Bulls, Heat, Cavs, and Warriors have done in the past if you want to go by recent history. Or do you want me to talk about Oscar and Kareem, cause I could do that. And yeah thats ol' school.

No GM is perfect, they all make mistakes cause they are human just like you and me. Unless they can get in a DeLorean with Micheal J. Fox, noone has an idea at that moment what will happen in the future.


Bowie was also picked because of the huge value big men had in the NBA back then. He was a huge bust when you compare him to who was picked after but you can't fault the reasoning behind the pick at the time.


I know that people often refer to players that broke down physically as busts, but to me a bust is someone who wasn’t good enough. By my definition Oden or Bowie weren’t busts for example. It has the same result so it is a semantic difference, but I don’t think the term bust is fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ericb5
RealGM
Posts: 10,303
And1: 3,377
Joined: Jan 08, 2014
       

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#473 » by Ericb5 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:26 am

ivysixer2000 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
He was in that group. Some GMs just messed up and didn’t scout properly.


No he wasn't. There was 0% chance he was being taken over any of Kelle/Ball/DSJ/Fox/Ntilikina or even Monk.


When I first started back posting here, I couldn't believe people were that high on Monk.

Yeah people had Monk above Mitchell, but I guess that was a Kentucky thing. I watch alot of SEC, and I knew he sucked, so I was shocked. You brought up his name, made me puck in my mouth, sorry lol.


I personally had Monk above Mitchell, but I don’t think it would have been outrageous for Mitchell to have been taken before him. I mean Mitchell could have easily gone 6th or 7th and people wouldn’t have freaked out. Him going before Smith would have been a shock, but I was shocked that Smith went 9th, and would have taken him 4th or 5th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 7,997
And1: 2,009
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#474 » by ivysixer2000 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:37 am

Ericb5 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:
No he wasn't. There was 0% chance he was being taken over any of Kelle/Ball/DSJ/Fox/Ntilikina or even Monk.


When I first started back posting here, I couldn't believe people were that high on Monk.

Yeah people had Monk above Mitchell, but I guess that was a Kentucky thing. I watch alot of SEC, and I knew he sucked, so I was shocked. You brought up his name, made me puck in my mouth, sorry lol.


I personally had Monk above Mitchell, but I don’t think it would have been outrageous for Mitchell to have been taken before him. I mean Mitchell could have easily gone 6th or 7th and people wouldn’t have freaked out. Him going before Smith would have been a shock, but I was shocked that Smith went 9th, and would have taken him 4th or 5th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just saying, Monk in a Sixer uniform would've made me upset if at 3, like I had saw here at that time. I probably would've shown up with pitchforks.

I would've taken Mitchell over Monk obviously, but thats just from my basis of seeing Monk play alot and him as a person. I don't watch the Knicks at all cause I hate them but I do want to see Frank play.
Ryuzaki
Freshman
Posts: 76
And1: 25
Joined: Oct 31, 2017

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#475 » by Ryuzaki » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:50 am

People really thought we were taking Monk at 3 too lol
PLO
Analyst
Posts: 3,062
And1: 1,305
Joined: Aug 04, 2016
     

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#476 » by PLO » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:50 am

Ericb5 wrote:
PLO wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
My point is its easy to say why take Sam Bowie now, not as easy in the drafting process especially when you consider the fit and need of your particular team as a GM. Sure you can take 3 centers cause they are the best available like Hinkie actually did, cause of 'talent', but in building a team you just can't do that....and guess what....that's why he got fired. Great at building assets, horrible at building an actual team.

Sam Bowie was drafted cause that's what they needed, maybe Fultz will go down as that or maybe not. But in building a team, the pieces still have to fit like the Bulls, Heat, Cavs, and Warriors have done in the past if you want to go by recent history. Or do you want me to talk about Oscar and Kareem, cause I could do that. And yeah thats ol' school.

No GM is perfect, they all make mistakes cause they are human just like you and me. Unless they can get in a DeLorean with Micheal J. Fox, noone has an idea at that moment what will happen in the future.


Bowie was also picked because of the huge value big men had in the NBA back then. He was a huge bust when you compare him to who was picked after but you can't fault the reasoning behind the pick at the time.


I know that people often refer to players that broke down physically as busts, but to me a bust is someone who wasn’t good enough. By my definition Oden or Bowie weren’t busts for example. It has the same result so it is a semantic difference, but I don’t think the term bust is fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bowie was a bust in terms of a failure of due diligence. He had injury issues in college and they just didn't look at him closely enough medically. What happened to him could have been foreseen if they'd been thorough. However I agree with your basic sentiment. Greg Oden isn't Michael Beasley.
LakersDynasty14 wrote:Lonzo Ball is literally on a Hall of Fame trajectory at this point. This thread is so full of fail.


shakes0 wrote:I hope they put Simmons on Trae. He'll foul him out by the 3rd quarter. plus Simmons can't stay in front of Trae. No one can.
Unbreakable99
General Manager
Posts: 8,752
And1: 3,993
Joined: Jul 04, 2014

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#477 » by Unbreakable99 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:55 am

Ryuzaki wrote:People really thought we were taking Monk at 3 too lol


There were some mock drafts from some media people who said we shouldn’t take Monk. I know O’Connor was one. He said we should seriously consider Monk at 3 becuae he fits what we need as a shooter.
ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 7,997
And1: 2,009
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#478 » by ivysixer2000 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:16 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:People really thought we were taking Monk at 3 too lol


There were some mock drafts from some media people who said we shouldn’t take Monk. I know O’Connor was one. He said we should seriously consider Monk at 3 becuae he fits what we need as a shooter.


Yeah sometimes its just hype, I believe my eyes usually. Monk needs his shot falling to be successful, and he will have more of a problem getting it off in the NBA, especially at a starting SG position playing against length. And as a person, he's just not a great guy.

What most seem to ignore about rookies is they are going against grown men when they first get to the NBA, but with patience they actually become the grown men going against rookies. With Ball and Josh struggling right now, if they develop their games, they will be the grown men going against dudes that are like 12 years old right now.

Thats the process.
LloydFree
RealGM
Posts: 15,767
And1: 11,567
Joined: Aug 20, 2012
Location: Somewhere near the Jersey Turnpike, between exit 4 and 15E

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#479 » by LloydFree » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:17 am

Unbreakable99 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:People really thought we were taking Monk at 3 too lol


There were some mock drafts from some media people who said we shouldn’t take Monk. I know O’Connor was one. He said we should seriously consider Monk at 3 becuae he fits what we need as a shooter.

There were a couple guys here, including a mod I believe, who wanted Monk at #3. I thought it was ridiculous then, but after seeing what they did, it wouldn't have been any worse.
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon.
Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
Unbreakable99
General Manager
Posts: 8,752
And1: 3,993
Joined: Jul 04, 2014

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion III 

Post#480 » by Unbreakable99 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:20 am

LloydFree wrote:
Unbreakable99 wrote:
Ryuzaki wrote:People really thought we were taking Monk at 3 too lol


There were some mock drafts from some media people who said we shouldn’t take Monk. I know O’Connor was one. He said we should seriously consider Monk at 3 becuae he fits what we need as a shooter.

There were a couple guys here, including a mod I believe, who wanted Monk at #3. I thought it was ridiculous then, but after seeing what they did, it wouldn't have been any worse.


Lol. True.

Return to Philadelphia 76ers