Markelle Fultz

freewhitemoon · Post #181 » by **freewhitemoon** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 5:16 am

Do people already forget how incredible Kyrie was in college? They thought he was the next Chris Paul. He's become more of a shooting guard in the NBA but as a prospect he was as highly touted as any guard in the last 10 years

Upperclass · Post #182 » by **Upperclass** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 5:18 am

From what i've seen.. Fultz is a bit beyond any guard in this draft. His hoops IQ is up there with some of the best in the league already. And there hasnt been a guard, who scores as effortlessly as him in quite some time. Kyrie is a better OVERALL scorer, due to his handle, jumpshot and otherworldly touch around the hoop. But Fultz isnt far off. He scores alot like young Penny did.. just moves to another gear everytime you are close to matching him. Its strange to see because he looks so lackadaisical in his movements.

reanimator · Post #183 » by **reanimator** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 2:21 pm

Questioning Fultz's ability to extend his range past 20 ft, add mass/strength, and his defensive intensity is legitimate critique. Comparing his athleticism to DLo or simply pegging as some one dimensional scorer is throwing crap at a wall and hoping it sticks.

Post #184 » by **Ruzious** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 2:45 pm

Loved Bill Walton's critique of Fultz being regarded as a better prospect than Ball - basically saying Fultz' team lost by 20 the other day, so how can he be better? Well Bill, UCLA's team is loaded compared to Washington's. Then Bill goes on to say - compare UCLA and Washington last season, and one team added Ball while the other added Fultz, and now UCLA is so much better, so do the math. Bill, TJ Leaf says hello to you and the family. Bill's not a homer, nah.

Btw, Draftexpress has moved Ball up to #2, so maybe Bill is helping with their mock. Actually, I enjoy Walton - he's like a kid having fun doing his job.

doordoor123 · Post #185 » by **doordoor123** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 3:23 pm

reanimator wrote:Questioning Fultz's ability to extend his range past 20 ft, add mass/strength, and his defensive intensity is legitimate critique. Comparing his athleticism to DLo or simply pegging as some one dimensional scorer is throwing crap at a wall and hoping it sticks.

Russell is not one-dimensional. He can shoot on and off ball, plays with his back to the basket. He's a good passer at times, has floaters, step backs, dribble moves. I don't think this is what you mean, just clarifying.

Upperclass · Post #186 » by **Upperclass** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 4:03 pm

Not sure how this turned into a Deangelo thread.. But he's extremely talented as well.. he just plays a different game. DeAngelo is more Steph Curry than anything else. He's a very good outside shooter, who can pass and handle a bit; while also making his floaters in the lane. He'll never make his living the way Fultz and other "power" guards do

SelfishPlayer · Post #187 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 7:12 pm

The Anfernee Hardaway comparisons are way off, he's just not long enough. He has more in common with Sam Cassell but more talent at a younger age.

reanimator · Post #188 » by **reanimator** » Fri Jan 6, 2017 10:37 pm

doordoor123 wrote:
reanimator wrote:Questioning Fultz's ability to extend his range past 20 ft, add mass/strength, and his defensive intensity is legitimate critique. Comparing his athleticism to DLo or simply pegging as some one dimensional scorer is throwing crap at a wall and hoping it sticks.

Russell is not one-dimensional. He can shoot on and off ball, plays with his back to the basket. He's a good passer at times, has floaters, step backs, dribble moves. I don't think this is what you mean, just clarifying.

No, they were meant to be two separate comments on two different critiques I've seen. I don't think DLo and Fultz are similar athletes, shooters, passers, defenders, etc...both are creative off the bounce, smooth in their movements and light-skinned lol plus recency makes people apt to make the comparison.

Ambrose · Post #189 » by **Ambrose** » Sat Jan 7, 2017 6:29 pm

freewhitemoon wrote:Do people already forget how incredible Kyrie was in college? They thought he was the next Chris Paul. He's become more of a shooting guard in the NBA but as a prospect he was as highly touted as any guard in the last 10 years

He wasn't even as hyped as Wall or Rose so this is false. There was even some debate between if who would go first between he and Derrick Williams in a weak class. Wall and Rose had some doubt too (Turner/Beasley), but they were in much better (projected) draft classes. Both of them get taken before Irving if they are in the same draft.

UcanUwill · Post #190 » by **UcanUwill** » Sat Jan 7, 2017 6:46 pm

Ambrose wrote:
freewhitemoon wrote:Do people already forget how incredible Kyrie was in college? They thought he was the next Chris Paul. He's become more of a shooting guard in the NBA but as a prospect he was as highly touted as any guard in the last 10 years

He wasn't even as hyped as Wall or Rose so this is false. There was even some debate between if who would go first between he and Derrick Williams in a weak class. Wall and Rose had some doubt too (Turner/Beasley), but they were in much better (projected) draft classes. Both of them get taken before Irving if they are in the same draft.

True. I remember that draft very well, and for a number one pick, Kyrie wasn't hyped that much. And correct me if I am wrong, but he barely even played in college that year due to his toe injury.

smittybanton · Post #191 » by **smittybanton** » Sun Jan 8, 2017 2:46 am

UcanUwill wrote:
Ambrose wrote:
freewhitemoon wrote:Do people already forget how incredible Kyrie was in college? They thought he was the next Chris Paul. He's become more of a shooting guard in the NBA but as a prospect he was as highly touted as any guard in the last 10 years

He wasn't even as hyped as Wall or Rose so this is false. There was even some debate between if who would go first between he and Derrick Williams in a weak class. Wall and Rose had some doubt too (Turner/Beasley), but they were in much better (projected) draft classes. Both of them get taken before Irving if they are in the same draft.

True. I remember that draft very well, and for a number one pick, Kyrie wasn't hyped that much. And correct me if I am wrong, but he barely even played in college that year due to his toe injury.

He only played around 11 games, but was chosen #1 anyway because he was so highly touted coming out of high school. Kyrie was a big thing.

Ambrose · Post #192 » by **Ambrose** » Sun Jan 8, 2017 3:03 am

smittybanton wrote:
UcanUwill wrote:
Ambrose wrote:
He wasn't even as hyped as Wall or Rose so this is false. There was even some debate between if who would go first between he and Derrick Williams in a weak class. Wall and Rose had some doubt too (Turner/Beasley), but they were in much better (projected) draft classes. Both of them get taken before Irving if they are in the same draft.

True. I remember that draft very well, and for a number one pick, Kyrie wasn't hyped that much. And correct me if I am wrong, but he barely even played in college that year due to his toe injury.

He only played around 11 games, but was chosen #1 anyway because he was so highly touted coming out of high school. Kyrie was a big thing.

It was a laughably weak draft class. Not taking anything away from Kyrie but he wasn't anywhere near the hype of Wall or Rose.

Post #193 » by **Duke4life831** » Sun Jan 8, 2017 3:58 am

smittybanton wrote:
UcanUwill wrote:
Ambrose wrote:
He wasn't even as hyped as Wall or Rose so this is false. There was even some debate between if who would go first between he and Derrick Williams in a weak class. Wall and Rose had some doubt too (Turner/Beasley), but they were in much better (projected) draft classes. Both of them get taken before Irving if they are in the same draft.

True. I remember that draft very well, and for a number one pick, Kyrie wasn't hyped that much. And correct me if I am wrong, but he barely even played in college that year due to his toe injury.

He only played around 11 games, but was chosen #1 anyway because he was so highly touted coming out of high school. Kyrie was a big thing.

Thats not exactly true. Barnes was the highly touted guy coming out of high school. He was the consensus #1 guy in that class. Kyrie wasn't even number 2, he was the 3rd ranked recruit behind Sullinger.

Now he was rising pretty quick that year, he wasn't even a top 25 guy a year before the final rankings came out for that recruiting class. Kyrie went #1 because he took college by storm that year. Here is a quote from DX from back in 2010

If there is such a thing as a freshman playing flawless basketball right now, Kyrie Irving would qualify for that outlandish statement.

"Productive, efficient, unselfish, exciting—there's really no shortage of ways to describe the way Irving has performed thus far. He's managed to take a NCAA Tournament championship team—ranked as the best offense in college basketball—and make them even better, acting as their main facilitator, shot-maker and go-to guy. Dominant when needed, but still deferential enough to keep all of Duke's many other options happy (thus far), Irving has fit in as seamlessly as possible, making the transition to the NCAA-level look effortless."

The way Kyrie dominated with scoring when needed and helped get his teammates going when needed was seriously perfection. Kyrie coming out of college was the perfect offensive PG prospect you could ever ask for. Now his passing hasn't lived up to what he was doing in college, but again coming out of college his passing was a strength and surprisingly his defense was considered another strength. He was an elite prospect coming out of college and in my opinion as a prospect was better than Wall and Rose, was the best prospect I'd seen since CP3.

Post #194 » by **Marcus** » Sun Jan 8, 2017 6:58 am

Hey so just to get the thread back on track again. Allow me to be so bold as to post highlights from Kelle's first conference win.

Watch on YouTube

Hopefully that ankle isn't too bad.

hcsilla · Post #195 » by **hcsilla** » Sun Jan 8, 2017 10:52 pm

SelfishPlayer wrote:The Anfernee Hardaway comparisons are way off, he's just not long enough. He has more in common with Sam Cassell but more talent at a younger age.

The Cassell comparison is even more off, since Fultz is less of a PG, bigger and much more athletic than Cassell was.

SelfishPlayer · Post #196 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Mon Jan 9, 2017 4:21 am

hcsilla wrote:
SelfishPlayer wrote:The Anfernee Hardaway comparisons are way off, he's just not long enough. He has more in common with Sam Cassell but more talent at a younger age.

The Cassell comparison is even more off, since Fultz is less of a PG, bigger and much more athletic than Cassell was.

Cassell averaged 4.4 assists and 18.3 ppg over his college career at 6'3" 185lbs, Fultz is 6'4" 195" while Anfernee Hardaway is 6'7" 195" lbs.. Cassell averaged fewer assists than both of them in college. You would need to have seen Sam Cassell play in order to know that he was constantly knocked for not being a true PG. Today he would be called a scoring PG. Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith constantly knocked him for being crazy enough to be on the court with Michael Jordan and still believe that he is the best player on the floor. Fultz isn't much of an athlete to begin with, so to say that he is much more athletic than a pro like Sam Cassell is a stretch, just like you are stretching the size differential between the two.

hcsilla · Post #197 » by **hcsilla** » Mon Jan 9, 2017 9:49 am

I would not need to have seen Cassell play in whatever order, I have seen him play.

In his best years Cassell averaged almost 7 ASTPG. Scoring or not he was more of a PG than Fultz looks like now as a future pro, IMO. BTW, Charles Barkley knocking anyone for anything has a huge importance on evaluating players...

Fultz isn't much of athlete? He is already twice the athlete Cassell ever was. Cassell was basically a non-athlete with excellent shooting skills and he was a polite/finesse scorer and passer as well. Yes, Fultz is absolutely much more athletic than Cassell was, saying that is not strecthing anything.

I honestly can not see how is saying Fultz is bigger than Cassell stretching when Fultz is 6'4 and Cassell is 6'3.

SelfishPlayer · Post #198 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Mon Jan 9, 2017 3:30 pm

hcsilla wrote:I would not need to have seen Cassell play in whatever order, I have seen him play.

In his best years Cassell averaged almost 7 ASTPG. Scoring or not he was more of a PG than Fultz looks like now as a future pro, IMO. BTW, Charles Barkley knocking anyone for anything has a huge importance on evaluating players...

Fultz isn't much of athlete? He is already twice the athlete Cassell ever was. Cassell was basically a non-athlete with excellent shooting skills and he was a polite/finesse scorer and passer as well. Yes, Fultz is absolutely much more athletic than Cassell was, saying that is not strecthing anything.

I honestly can not see how is saying Fultz is bigger than Cassell stretching when Fultz is 6'4 and Cassell is 6'3.

WTF is a "polite/finesse scorer?" That sounds like it could apply to Steph Curry.

hcsilla · Post #199 » by **hcsilla** » Mon Jan 9, 2017 3:34 pm

SelfishPlayer wrote:
hcsilla wrote:I would not need to have seen Cassell play in whatever order, I have seen him play.

In his best years Cassell averaged almost 7 ASTPG. Scoring or not he was more of a PG than Fultz looks like now as a future pro, IMO. BTW, Charles Barkley knocking anyone for anything has a huge importance on evaluating players...

Fultz isn't much of athlete? He is already twice the athlete Cassell ever was. Cassell was basically a non-athlete with excellent shooting skills and he was a polite/finesse scorer and passer as well. Yes, Fultz is absolutely much more athletic than Cassell was, saying that is not strecthing anything.

I honestly can not see how is saying Fultz is bigger than Cassell stretching when Fultz is 6'4 and Cassell is 6'3.

WTF is a "polite/finesse scorer?" That sounds like it could apply to Steph Curry.

Great observation.

SelfishPlayer · Post #200 » by **SelfishPlayer** » Mon Jan 9, 2017 3:42 pm

hcsilla wrote:
SelfishPlayer wrote:
hcsilla wrote:I would not need to have seen Cassell play in whatever order, I have seen him play.

In his best years Cassell averaged almost 7 ASTPG. Scoring or not he was more of a PG than Fultz looks like now as a future pro, IMO. BTW, Charles Barkley knocking anyone for anything has a huge importance on evaluating players...

Fultz isn't much of athlete? He is already twice the athlete Cassell ever was. Cassell was basically a non-athlete with excellent shooting skills and he was a polite/finesse scorer and passer as well. Yes, Fultz is absolutely much more athletic than Cassell was, saying that is not strecthing anything.

I honestly can not see how is saying Fultz is bigger than Cassell stretching when Fultz is 6'4 and Cassell is 6'3.

WTF is a "polite/finesse scorer?" That sounds like it could apply to Steph Curry.

Great observation.

Obviously you just checked out after being called to the floor on that vague observation you provided...