Odds Fultz doesn't go first overall?

[Pointgod]

Jesus guys. If the Lakers get number 1 they're taking Fultz. Jim and Mitch aren't running the show anymore.

[DanTown8587]

It depends on the player, but lumping Jackson in with a bunch of guys who are either dreadful shooters or have flawed mechanics isn't really fair either. Jackson will probably never be a guy we see camping out at the three point line waiting for passes, but no one would even want him to be that guy. He is a dynamic athlete who can score in any number of ways. Including outside jumpers.

His free throwing shooting is definitely an issue, but again, I see no reason he can't clean that up to an acceptable level. Jackson is a guy the game seems to come so easy to, if he puts in the work, I don't think there is much he won't be able to do on a basketball court.

Can you tell me guys who shot less than 60% on free throws in college and became even acceptable shooters in the NBA? The list will be extremely short (I know because I've looked). The overwhelming odds on someone shooting this poorly on free throws is that he will be a below-average NBA shooter (from everywhere). And those guys are hard to hide with or without the ball.

I like the narrative that "hard work" pays off. But the facts are that most of the time, bad shooters are just bad shooters. Justise Winslow by all accounts is a very hard worker, and he is very talented at a lot of things. But his shooting is bad, will likely remain bad, and will always limit his ceiling. I see the same thing for JJ.

I actually think Isaac projects to be a much better shooter than JJ and will be a safer pick at #3. To me JJ starts to make more sense in the 7-10 range. We'll see in a few years who's right I guess.

Of the 148 "active" players to take (not even make) 1000 threes in the league, only four have FT% below .700 and the only one below .670 is Josh Smith at .630.

When people point to Kawhi and his poor shooting on threes, he was actually a mid 70s FT shooter (at 18/19). I agree with your overall point, if Jackosn has any future potential in the league, it's as a guy on a team that switches a ton defensively, plays him as a hybrid 3/4, and Jackson becomes a passable spot-up shooter in the corners. That to me isn't a guy I'd love to take three but then again, if you're a team like Philly, maybe you roll the dice on Jackson and go with a potential Simmons - great shooter - Jackson - Saric - Embiid lineup.

[EvanZ]

I don't think anyone takes Jackson #1 unless he shows ridiculous shooting in the workouts. He is also a full year older thank Fultz. Whats his ceiling if he never learns to shoot? Iggy?

Even Iggy is a career 34% 3pt shooter. You can't leave him completely uncovered.

[Coeur]

It depends on the player, but lumping Jackson in with a bunch of guys who are either dreadful shooters or have flawed mechanics isn't really fair either. Jackson will probably never be a guy we see camping out at the three point line waiting for passes, but no one would even want him to be that guy. He is a dynamic athlete who can score in any number of ways. Including outside jumpers.

His free throwing shooting is definitely an issue, but again, I see no reason he can't clean that up to an acceptable level. Jackson is a guy the game seems to come so easy to, if he puts in the work, I don't think there is much he won't be able to do on a basketball court.

Can you tell me guys who shot less than 60% on free throws in college and became even acceptable shooters in the NBA? The list will be extremely short (I know because I've looked). The overwhelming odds on someone shooting this poorly on free throws is that he will be a below-average NBA shooter (from everywhere). And those guys are hard to hide with or without the ball.

I like the narrative that "hard work" pays off. But the facts are that most of the time, bad shooters are just bad shooters. Justise Winslow by all accounts is a very hard worker, and he is very talented at a lot of things. But his shooting is bad, will likely remain bad, and will always limit his ceiling. I see the same thing for JJ.

I actually think Isaac projects to be a much better shooter than JJ and will be a safer pick at #3. To me JJ starts to make more sense in the 7-10 range. We'll see in a few years who's right I guess.

Of the 148 "active" players to take (not even make) 1000 threes in the league, only four have FT% below .700 and the only one below .670 is Josh Smith at .630.

When people point to Kawhi and his poor shooting on threes, he was actually a mid 70s FT shooter (at 18/19). I agree with your overall point, if Jackosn has any future potential in the league, it's as a guy on a team that switches a ton defensively, plays him as a hybrid 3/4, and Jackson becomes a passable spot-up shooter in the corners. That to me isn't a guy I'd love to take three but then again, if you're a team like Philly, maybe you roll the dice on Jackson and go with a potential Simmons - great shooter - Jackson - Saric - Embiid lineup.

Jackson is a sg/sf. Not at all an NBA 4. Highest ceiling is as a 2. Would be better at pg than PF

[Ettorefm]

As for the Suns, for the long term Fultz might make more sense though, and to move on from Bledsoe. Or maybe Ball throwing lobs to Chriss, setting up Booker, etc, since the Suns like to run.

You talk like Fultz has the BBIQ or vision like Mario Chalmers. Of course the Suns would pick Fultz, he's the better prospect.

Anything Ball can do passing the ball, so can Fultz. He just isn't as good in transition playmaking for sure, but Fultz can get Chriss and Booker their numbers easily.

"Since the suns like to Run". And Fultz can't push the pace?

I am not sure how you deduced that from the statement. I'd certainly rather the Suns take Fultz than Ball.

You said that the Suns should pick Fultz, but maybe they'll pick Ball because they like to run and they need someone who can throw lobs to their young guys.

What I answered was that there is nothing that Lonzo can do in those categories that Fultz can't do, so your argument makes no sense. It would only make sense if Fultz was a Rose-type player who is score only and has low BBIQ and can't find open teammates or control the tempo, so it would beb etter to pick the playmaker first dude for fitting and style purposes. But Fultz is a great playmaker, the best p'n'roll guard and passer out of the pick'n'roll in the draft, so...there is no reason for any team to pick Ball before him.

[EvanZ]

Jackson is a sg/sf. Not at all an NBA 4. Highest ceiling is as a 2. Would be better at pg than PF

If you think this, then you don't understand how the modern NBA works.

[bwgood77]

You talk like Fultz has the BBIQ or vision like Mario Chalmers. Of course the Suns would pick Fultz, he's the better prospect.

Anything Ball can do passing the ball, so can Fultz. He just isn't as good in transition playmaking for sure, but Fultz can get Chriss and Booker their numbers easily.

"Since the suns like to Run". And Fultz can't push the pace?

I am not sure how you deduced that from the statement. I'd certainly rather the Suns take Fultz than Ball.

You said that the Suns should pick Fultz, but maybe they'll pick Ball because they like to run and they need someone who can throw lobs to their young guys.

What I answered was that there is nothing that Lonzo can do in those categories that Fultz can't do, so your argument makes no sense. It would only make sense if Fultz was a Rose-type player who is score only and has low BBIQ and can't find open teammates or control the tempo, so it would beb etter to pick the playmaker first dude for fitting and style purposes. But Fultz is a great playmaker, the best p'n'roll guard and passer out of the pick'n'roll in the draft, so...there is no reason for any team to pick Ball before him.

I'm not arguing for Ball though. I think the Suns should take Fultz if they get the first pick, or I'd even probably take Jackson over Ball. I'm just simply stating what they might do because I don't know their intentions and maybe they have different ideas about the guys, like they could think Fultz is more of a scoring guard like Booker, and although I think they would make a great duo in the backcourt because they can both score and pass 9 (Booker had 9 assists last on top of Ulis' 13) that I personally would be unhappy if they get the 1st pick and take Ball.

[Upperclass]

I can see PHX/LAL going 1,2 with Fultz and Ball and then BOS at three ending up with the player they will probably want most anyway, in Jayson Tatum. Philly will have to decide between J.Jax & DSJ which will be tough. They really cant have two wings who cant shoot in one lineup in Simmons and Jackson. But DSJ is small and doesnt fit with Simmons that well either, unless you think you can cast him in the off-ball Kyrie role

[dballislife]

does a freshman wiggins go before fultz?

[The-Power]

Jackson is a sg/sf. Not at all an NBA 4. Highest ceiling is as a 2. Would be better at pg than PF

If you think this, then you don't understand how the modern NBA works.

Indeed. Jackson is a 3 who can play some small-ball 4 if his interior college defense translates (and I see little reason to doubt that).

[Derento]

Fultz is most like going number one.
I'd take Isaac and Tatum over Jackson.
His shooting is a extreme red flag.
Its much more likely that Tatum will improve his finishing,Isaac improves his creation ability off the dribble than Jackson becomes a average shooter.

[brackdan70]

I would put #1 pick odds as Fultz 75%, Tatum 10%, Jackson 8%, Ball 6%, somebody else 1%
I like Fultz, Jackson, Tatum, Ball in that order though.
I could see Ball slip a bit though...

[Coeur]

I would put #1 pick odds as Fultz 75%, Tatum 10%, Jackson 8%, Ball 6%, somebody else 1%
I like Fultz, Jackson, Tatum, Ball in that order though.
I could see Ball slip a bit though...

Pretty much how I see it too. Hard to put %'s on it but I think it's over 50% likely fultz #1.

Then although everyone has Lonzo and Jackson locked into top 3 I'd almost agree that Tatum might have the best chance after fultz to go 1. Could be jj or Lonzo with a chance of dsj. To me that top 5 is almost a clear tier and the most likely to drop to 7 or 8ish could be dsj or Lonzo.


After the top 5 I think you have do decide which players could break into the top 5 depending on 1 team loving them. A lot of people seem to have fox now and monk still but I'm not sure I see that possible for either. Frank N (Isaac prob fits too) is a wildcard. Might go 5 or 15. The guys I see most likely to move up from now are Markkanen and maybe bridges or hartenstein. TJ Leaf, both Collins, bam and even anibogu, anunboy are all guys w a wide range of possibilities

[Mulhollanddrive]

Will Fultz be 100% for workouts?

Turn the temperature up in the gym and see if he's still playing defense after an hour.

[nba_rant]

Fultz is most like going number one.
I'd take Isaac and Tatum over Jackson.
His shooting is a extreme red flag.
Its much more likely that Tatum will improve his finishing,Isaac improves his creation ability off the dribble than Jackson becomes a average shooter.

Kawhi Leonard's shooting was a red flag.

Ability to improve creating of the dribble vs improving a jumpshot is more likely. wow!! very interesting!! never heard that? you coach or something?

[Derento]

Fultz is most like going number one.
I'd take Isaac and Tatum over Jackson.
His shooting is a extreme red flag.
Its much more likely that Tatum will improve his finishing,Isaac improves his creation ability off the dribble than Jackson becomes a average shooter.

Kawhi Leonard's shooting was a red flag.

Ability to improve creating of the dribble vs improving a jumpshot is more likely. wow!! very interesting!! never heard that? you coach or something?

He's on a very poor shooting list of wings/guards who shot under 60 percent on free throws while Kawhi shot in the 70s.

[Brauer]

So apparently most teams only give Fultz a "slight edge" over Ball. I honestly find that hard to believe.

[antonac]

tbh, I think Fultz will be a bust.

I'd select Ball every time over him, he can play off the ball, he's not a great ball handler but he's big enough and a good enough passer to put doubt in a defenders mind when driving, he's bigger so should defend well, and who cares about his weird stroke if it works? klay thompson if klay was a better passer is a high, but realistic ceiling for him, I'd take that.

Fultz might well prove me wrong, but I see him struggling in the league initially, his scoring gamem which is the basis for his draft stock, doesn't translate brilliantly into the NBA (too reliant on his height and strength, as a 6'4 PG he's going to find the edge he had over college players evaporate insantly in the pros).

[oceanlife]

So apparently most teams only give Fultz a "slight edge" over Ball. I honestly find that hard to believe.

Teams rarely tip their hands which makes me doubt any "insider sources" before the draft. GM's/Scouts throw all sorts of smoke to their sources before the draft for reasons we won't know about. For example if I were a GM and desperately wanted Fultz I'd want to devalue the #1 pick so I could make a trade for Fultz. You better believe I'd be making up a whole bunch of leaks about how the draft class was super close and Fultz and Ball were interchangeable.

In reality, I think Fultz is by far the best choice. His measurements are damn near perfect for his position at 6'4" with 6'9" wingspan. He put up excellent numbers and more importantly, he looked ready for the next level. The question for me is whether Fultz will hit the ground running like Wall/Rose or if he'll take time to develop like Gary Payton did. Now I understand someone preferring Ball's game, he has great vision and won a bunch in the NCAA. If Ball puts everything together he could be a guy who leads the league in assists, an all NBA type. If we were playing black jack I'd say Fultz is like hitting on 11 and Lonzo Ball is like hitting on 13. Both can give great results but Ball has the higher risk.

The question I have with Jackson and Tatum (forgive me future generations reading this post) is whether either are special enough to warrant a top selection. My bar for a wing to be #1 is someone at least at the level of Wiggins not players that compare more closely to Rudy Gay or Caron Butler. The thing with both of these guys is that all 6'8" athletic wings have the potential to be All-NBA types, it's a matter of how much work they put in and how effective the coaching staff is. If they have a work ethic like Kawhi Leonard I'd say either of them could make big waves in the next level. If they have the work ethic of Anthony Bennett that's another story.

[The-Power]

I'd select Ball every time over him, he can play off the ball, he's not a great ball handler but he's big enough and a good enough passer to put doubt in a defenders mind when driving, he's bigger so should defend well, and who cares about his weird stroke if it works? klay thompson if klay was a better passer is a high, but realistic ceiling for him, I'd take that.

Whose to say the weird stroke does work at the next level? Ball is an opportunistic scorer who picks his spots and this has, in part, to do with his inability to create good looks for himself consistently.

Klay Thompson is a really bad comparison for Ball. Basically, Klay is relatively poor at what Ball does best - namely orchestrating the offense - and Ball is poor at what Klay does - namely being able to shoot over the top of defenders, getting his shot off at any time. It is a comparison where the players have exactly opposite strenghts and weaknesses and that makes little sense.

Also, driving to the rim is one of the biggest concerns regarding Ball because he not only has relatively loose handles but also because he displayed no consistent midrange game whatsoever. Furthermore, his PnRs are mostly abandoned early and Ball makes the pass before defenses break down - and this has to do with him not being able to get into the lane and do something from there at a high level. His passing and vision are good enough to still create in these scenarios but at the next level he will have to prove that he can drive to the rim in PnRs and penetrate defenses consistently for him to maximize his playmaking gifts.

I get the appeal with Ball, I rank him highly myself. But there are probably more question marks for Ball's playing style than there are for Fultz, for whom it is more about polishing his skills rather than figuring out how to make them work at the next level.