Markelle Fultz

[GimmeDat]

I already see the Simmons and Fultz as the lead guard issues coming. Same with Center issues with same coach . Simmons is supposley going be the point forward right?

Yes but they should still be able to coexist.

You'll have two point guards on court at the same time? That's not going work . If the Sixers change their course now what twas the point in drafting simmons in the first place ? If your just going draft Fultz.

No matter what, you're still going to have a PG on the floor with Simmons. Might as well have an elite one like Fultz.

[SelfishPlayer]

Simmons is a PF no matter what a loser coach like Brett Brown says. There will be no conflict with Simmons and a PG, especially not one of the multi-talented PGs in this year's lottery. Simmons would clash with a Ricky Rubio or even Chris Paul type PG. Fultz is a scorer and Ball can be a shooter so they can operate with those mentalities a sizable portion of the time when Simmons delivers them the basketball instead of hunting for assists like a Rondo, Rubio, CP3. Simmons is already an assist hunter.

[Duke4life831]

I think people need to look at Fultz as similar to Russell. You watch Russell and he comes off as a SG that can pass. I believe Fultz is going to be the same way. Fultz is going to look for his shot first and that's great because he projects to be a great scorer. Just look at the pairing of Lebron and Kyrie or Lebron and Wade. I think Fultz would be a great pair with Simmons. It allows Simmons to be the primary facilitator which will allow Fultz to look for his shot 1st and he also has the ability to be a 2nd facilitator.

[Domejandro]

He has a lot of similarities to Shaun Livingston offensively.

I should add the obvious "he is way better"-caveat because someone would go crazy missing the point, but the way he posts up and uses his lankiness to weave through traffic to create for himself and teammates is similar to how Shaun Livingston played.

[SelfishPlayer]

I think people need to look at Fultz as similar to Russell. You watch Russell and he comes off as a SG that can pass. I believe Fultz is going to be the same way. Fultz is going to look for his shot first and that's great because he projects to be a great scorer. Just look at the pairing of Lebron and Kyrie or Lebron and Wade. I think Fultz would be a great pair with Simmons. It allows Simmons to be the primary facilitator which will allow Fultz to look for his shot 1st and he also has the ability to be a 2nd facilitator.

I feel the same way. I usually shy away from comparing prospects that are so close in age, but Russell is one of the more accurate comparisons. Fultz appears to be more aggressive and explosive attacking the rim, but Russell looks like he is a more creative passer.

[Dennis Reynolds]

Let me get this straight, this is supposedly the best draft in recent memory and somehow the best prospect is barely more talented than Russell?

It doesn't look like there's a better prospect than Towns or Porzingis in this draft so what am I missing?

[GimmeDat]

Let me get this straight, this is supposedly the best draft in recent memory and somehow the best prospect is barely more talented than Russell?

It doesn't look like there's a better prospect than Towns or Porzingis in this draft so what am I missing?

Their physical attributes are night and day. I'd take Fultz over Russell 10 times out of 10, and I don't say that as a Russell hater.

Also, a lot of the appeal of this draft is the whole lottery is so stacked. Not every draft's value comes down to how good #1 is, otherwise 2002 would be considered a good draft.

[HotelVitale]

Let me get this straight, this is supposedly the best draft in recent memory and somehow the best prospect is barely more talented than Russell? It doesn't look like there's a better prospect than Towns or Porzingis in this draft so what am I missing?

Their physical attributes are night and day. I'd take Fultz over Russell 10 times out of 10, and I don't say that as a Russell hater. Also, a lot of the appeal of this draft is the whole lottery is so stacked. Not every draft's value comes down to how good #1 is, otherwise 2002 would be considered a good draft.

Yup, this is a depth rather than high peak draft. There's like 8-10 guys that could be top 3 or 4 in many drafts, lotta good physical specimens in this draft. If people are telling you this is 'the best draft in recent memory,' you should probably cut back on the hype pieces and start looking at the prospects; it's a good and deep draft that looks better than most but it's not like there's 5 guaranteed franchise guys or anything.

And I'd definitely say Fultz looks better than Russell did. Russell looked really good in college but sort of fell apart once he got into the lane, and he was basically a one-on-one perimeter player who used a lot of head fakes and step backs. Fultz has a more complete inside/out bag of tricks and is always dynamic, always has an answer from anywhere on the court. He isn't elite athletically, though, isn't a Wall or Rose as a pure physical player. The hope is more that he's Brandon Roy as a skill guy with more full-time PG capabilities.

[GimmeDat]

I'd be willing to bet Fultz turns in to a 20-5-5 guy, or close to it. He just is strong in so many areas and passes the eye test at a high level. A complete player.

[SelfishPlayer]

Let me get this straight, this is supposedly the best draft in recent memory and somehow the best prospect is barely more talented than Russell?

It doesn't look like there's a better prospect than Towns or Porzingis in this draft so what am I missing?

Porzingis the NBA prospect or Porzingis the NBA player? I would say that at this very same point in the year before Porzingis entered the draft there are maybe 8 players that have higher value than him in this draft. De'Aaron Fox and Jonathan Isaac are two of them.

[Duke4life831]

Let me get this straight, this is supposedly the best draft in recent memory and somehow the best prospect is barely more talented than Russell?

It doesn't look like there's a better prospect than Towns or Porzingis in this draft so what am I missing?

I haven't seen one person say that Fultz is just a barley more talented version of Russell. What myself and many others are saying is the similarities between their style of play not level of play or potential. Russell played PG in college but was a score first type guy, Russell in the pros is looking more and more like a SG that can be a really good passer and a good 2nd facilitator. That's what I think Fultz style projects to be, a SG that can be a really good passer and a good 2nd facilitator. I think Fultz is the much better prospect though, better athlete and overall just better scorer.

Like others have said, this draft is getting a ton of hype not because it is top loaded with great talent, even though find me a draft that pre draft had as many potential franchise players as this one does since 2003, again talking about expectations pre draft. The thing that makes this draft so special is it is looking like even if you get a late lottery pick, it's like you got a top 5-7 pick in almost any other draft. The depth of this draft is the insane part.

[Dennis Reynolds]

Thanks for the answers guys.

I just prefer drafts with as many probable superstars as possible. 2015 draft was very good and deep as well for example. That's why I find all this hype about 2017 draft being the best one in recent memory quite surprising.

[HotelVitale]

Thanks for the answers guys. I just prefer drafts with as many probable superstars as possible. 2015 draft was very good and deep as well for example. That's why I find all this hype about 2017 draft being the best one in recent memory quite surprising.

I guess it depends on how much of a draft nerd you are. I'd say 2017 looks better than 2015 did before the draft, and 2015 has already seen a few good surprises (Porzingis, Booker, M Turner) and bad ones (Okafor, Hezonja, Mudiay, etc). The idea that it was a very deep draft came well after the draft was over, and that's not the case with this particular draft.

Also, fwiw, if you're a fan of potential stars then you should love the 2017 draft. It's got those 8-10 guys with clear star potential plus a handful of other dark horses, just none that are Lebron/Shaq type super-prospects. But it's rare for a draft to have more than one of them.

[Dennis Reynolds]

Thanks for the answers guys. I just prefer drafts with as many probable superstars as possible. 2015 draft was very good and deep as well for example. That's why I find all this hype about 2017 draft being the best one in recent memory quite surprising.

I guess it depends on how much of a draft nerd you are. I'd say 2017 looks better than 2015 did before the draft, and 2015 has already seen a few good surprises (Porzingis, Booker, M Turner) and bad ones (Okafor, Hezonja, Mudiay, etc). The idea that it was a very deep draft came well after the draft was over, and that's not the case with this particular draft.

I agree about star potential or better say lack of it but disagree about the depth. It was seen as a pretty deep draft from what I remember.

[HotelVitale]

Thanks for the answers guys. I just prefer drafts with as many probable superstars as possible. 2015 draft was very good and deep as well for example. That's why I find all this hype about 2017 draft being the best one in recent memory quite surprising.

I guess it depends on how much of a draft nerd you are. I'd say 2017 looks better than 2015 did before the draft, and 2015 has already seen a few good surprises (Porzingis, Booker, M Turner) and bad ones (Okafor, Hezonja, Mudiay, etc). The idea that it was a very deep draft came well after the draft was over, and that's not the case with this particular draft.

I agree about star potential or better say lack of it but disagree about the depth. It was seen as a pretty deep draft from what I remember.

It was regarded as deep in the sense of pretty good players throughout the lotto, not in the sense of a bunch of great players everywhere. The top 10 this year certainly has more juice at the moment than the 2015 top ten did at any time.

Guess all I'm trying to say is, if the 2015 draft had you excited, then go ahead and let this one do the same. It's a good draft as far as drafts go. Just don't expect that it'll produce 10 all-stars and another dozen good starters--no draft does that, and the ones that came close were because players improved a ton after the draft. This stuff's all super unpredictable, no matter what the hype machine says!

[Dennis Reynolds]

I see your point, thanks again. I guess comparing pre draft prospects from both years just seems strange to me considering it's much better and easier to evaluate a draft when prospects actually get to play in the NBA which is the case with 2015 draft class.

[scrabbarista]

I've only seen a couple of games. I can't speak on his intangibles, but what I see at first look is a guy with maybe a Dwyane Wade-type of impact. Clearly he's a better shooter than a young Wade.

[Mulhollanddrive]

Watching games live Fultz does more in 5 minutes than Ball or Jackson do in 20.

Nothing against them, but there's big difference between an elite player and an elite role player.

[Marcus]

Watching games live Fultz does more in 5 minutes than Ball or Jackson do in 20.

Nothing against them, but there's big difference between an elite player and an elite role player.

He's also in a position where he has to do that. Ball and Jackson have more talent around them (more so with Josh than with Lonzo) which means less forcing. Not necessarily a bad thing to have that type of willingness when you're that talented of a player.

[jrob23]

Watching games live Fultz does more in 5 minutes than Ball or Jackson do in 20.

Nothing against them, but there's big difference between an elite player and an elite role player.

completely different coaches and teammates and Fultz hasn't played anyone unlike Ball and Fox. Like tonight's game. Ball probably leads his team to a win and puts up similar numbers while doing it.