All Things 2017 Draft

[bucknersrevenge]

Most nights the PG is going to be the tougher cover so Ball guarding 2's instead of 1's goes to his benefit. Although if we have Ball and IT out on the floor at the same time, I think that would be an abject disaster. If we drafted Ball, I don't see how we could stay with IT. But offensively, I think Ball will have more space to penetrate and maneuver in the pro game than he does in college, especially if he was to come to Boston so much like with JB, I don't see that weakness translating at the next level.

[bucknersrevenge]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

Right, Jackson's definitely not an iso scorer like Fultz or Tatum. He has that capability in limited amounts and all the actions that we run for Jae right now I could easily see Jackson running with no problem. However, if he's a hard worker, who's to say he couldn't improve his handle to the point where he could do that more? But IMO he's more of a beta than an alpha. The ability to draw contact and make plays usually separates those types.

[Homerclease]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

Right, Jackson's definitely not an iso scorer like Fultz or Tatum. He has that capability in limited amounts and all the actions that we run for Jae right now I could easily see Jackson running with no problem. However, if he's a hard worker, who's to say he couldn't improve his handle to the point where he could do that more? But IMO he's more of a beta than an alpha. The ability to draw contact and make plays usually separates those types.

He has better handle than Tatum now.

[London2Boston]

Most nights the PG is going to be the tougher cover so Ball guarding 2's instead of 1's goes to his benefit. Although if we have Ball and IT out on the floor at the same time, I think that would be an abject disaster. If we drafted Ball, I don't see how we could stay with IT. But offensively, I think Ball will have more space to penetrate and maneuver in the pro game than he does in college, especially if he was to come to Boston so much like with JB, I don't see that weakness translating at the next level.

Tbf, our D is taking a huge hit next year most likely regardless I think. AB is most likely traded and /Thomas wouldn't be a much better combo defensively than Thomas/Ball. It's why Smart will be huge for us I think. That said, if Celtics pick Jackson then I can see them potentially keeping AB if the deal is right and all of a sudden some defensive lineups Brad could put out would be crazy.

[bucknersrevenge]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

Right, Jackson's definitely not an iso scorer like Fultz or Tatum. He has that capability in limited amounts and all the actions that we run for Jae right now I could easily see Jackson running with no problem. However, if he's a hard worker, who's to say he couldn't improve his handle to the point where he could do that more? But IMO he's more of a beta than an alpha. The ability to draw contact and make plays usually separates those types.

He has better handle than Tatum now.

You are correct. I didn't phrase that right in regard to Tatum. Tatum has to me, the better offensive polish and repertoire currently from an iso standpoint but I'm in complete agreement that Jackson's handle is better.

[pasfru]

Oh boy... this thread. I'm glad I don't read the live reactions here often because you guys ride these prospects like a wave.

I have nothing bad to say about Lonzo. He managed to fool Indiana into thinking Alford was a good coach, that's all there is to say. It's pretty disrespectful that so many people are acting like Lonzo didn't give a **** out there. He played just like he always has, stop acting like this is a serious problem or anything new.

If you really want to sell prospect stock over attitude flaws, sell Fultz. If you want to sell prospect stock over lack of defensive effort, sell Fultz. People acting like Ball's gonna fall in the Draft are being ridiculous. Fultz and Ball are 1a/1b. I think it'll really come down to whether you want the gifted scorer or gifted passer, both are in the same tier, one game doesn't change that for me.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Please enlighten me on this.

Fultz always looked a lot more disengaged than Ball to me. I don't think it's going to be a problem for either, but people who discredit Ball for not being very animated and then give Fultz a pass irk me.

[greenroom31]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

Right, Jackson's definitely not an iso scorer like Fultz or Tatum. He has that capability in limited amounts and all the actions that we run for Jae right now I could easily see Jackson running with no problem. However, if he's a hard worker, who's to say he couldn't improve his handle to the point where he could do that more? But IMO he's more of a beta than an alpha. The ability to draw contact and make plays usually separates those types.

He has better handle than Tatum now.

Neither has an exceptional handle, but I'd actually say Tatum has a slightly better handle than Jackson and Jackson has better court vision. Tatum's footwork and shooting form is way ahead of Jackson, and is really the primary reason to pick him over Jackson.

Jackson is the better athlete and passer, so I'd say he has a little higher ceiling but also a lower floor than Tatum. The guy Tatum reminds me of a little bit is actually Jabari (probably in part due to the Duke ties) although Parker had a higher usage rate and was in the post a bit more.

Jabari per 40 stats: 25 points on 47.3% FG, 35.8% from 3pt on 106 attempts, 74.8% FT on 214 attempts, 11.4 rebounds, 1.5 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.6 blocks, 3.0 TOs, 54.2% TS, 48.7% eFG, 2.7 WS, 28.7 PER, 31.9% usage

Tatum per 40 stats: 20.2 points on 45.2% FG, 34.2% from 3pt on 117 attempts, 84.9% FT on 139 attempts, 8.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.4 blocks, 3.2 TOs, 56.5% TS, 51.1% eFG, 2.0 WS, 20.6 PER, 25.7% usage

*edit to add I know it's far from a perfect analogy, but some similarities

[pasfru]

Every thread i've posted in i've said I don't like Ball. I'm ok taking him at 4 if he's best player available, but i don't want him at 1 or 2. Fultz and Jackson for me.

The fact he played terrible on offense and defense last doesn't make my opinion, just reinforces it.

10 and 8 isn't a terrible performance. It's funny that no one here can see how bad UCLA as a team played. All of the focus is on Ball. People falling all over the place, rebounds slipping out of Alford's hands, Leaf running into his own teammates.

When Lonzo's playing good, they say he's got much better teammates than Fultz. When Lonzo's playing bad, they say he's overrated and overhyped. True mark of a star player there.

I mean, this isn't even remotely debatable. Not sure why you're saying "they say" as if it isn't 100% definitively the case.

Does that make him any less impressive? The point I'm trying to make is, with many, it's the team that makes them successful, the player that makes them fail. LeBron's first stint in Cleveland and Pierce before the Big Three come to mind.

[bucknersrevenge]

Most nights the PG is going to be the tougher cover so Ball guarding 2's instead of 1's goes to his benefit. Although if we have Ball and IT out on the floor at the same time, I think that would be an abject disaster. If we drafted Ball, I don't see how we could stay with IT. But offensively, I think Ball will have more space to penetrate and maneuver in the pro game than he does in college, especially if he was to come to Boston so much like with JB, I don't see that weakness translating at the next level.

Tbf, our D is taking a huge hit next year most likely regardless I think. AB is most likely traded and /Thomas wouldn't be a much better combo defensively than Thomas/Ball. It's why Smart will be huge for us I think. That said, if Celtics pick Jackson then I can see them potentially keeping AB if the deal is right and all of a sudden some defensive lineups Brad could put out would be crazy.

I think it's pretty notable that in the last week or so Brad has stated twice that this team is really not as good as its record says it is. It would not surprise me one bit if next year we took a step back record-wise players are shuffled on and off this team. I'm starting to gravitate towards preferring to keep AB over IT and even Marcus if it came to it preferring to find playmaking elsewhere in the likes of (hopefully) Fultz and Hayward, and obviously Al. Acquiring 2 guys capable of volume scoring at all 3 levels that can also playmake would allow us to insert AB and Jaylen as the 3rd guy in this trio seamlessly into any open spot. I'm thinking now that that is what I want to see happen this offseason.

[Spin Move]

Lonzo Ball is Jason Kidd 2.0 on offense, the problem is he is not Jason Kidd 2.0 on defense. He will make other around him better but will never score 25 a game for a season, pass first make other better. Fultz is a poor man's Russel Westbrook or maybe just a reguler man's Stephen marbury he is going to get his and he will probbaly help his teamates get theres too, but he is getting his first. It depends on what you have around them...Someone with a ton of shooters like GS would prefer Ball, a team like Phily would kill for Fultz. Both are big enough to guard 2 guards I think Fultz is a better pick for us as outside of IT we are somewhat limited offensively. think Fultz has more lateral quickness then ball and the potental to be a better defender if he decides to be. I am a big Kansas fan, Josh Jackson is the second coming of Scottie Pippen,...and that is a very good thing, he does it all and is a great defender who just wants to win more then anything, think of a mini KG attitude wise. He will be able to score 20 a night and lock down almost any wing and has the speed to stay with the fastest of point guards. Maybe he will never score 25 a night but he will score 20 and make the other guys best player score 5 less then he normally does. If you see us keeping IT long term and see Brown as a 2 guard I could see us taking Jackson and it being a good choice, if you see Brown as a 3 (and think brown is a future very good starter or all star) then Fultz makes more sense, both will be all stars, Ball will too but I am worried about his defense.

[pasfru]

Lonzo Ball is Jason Kidd 2.0 on offense, the problem is he is not Jason Kidd 2.0 on defense. He will make other around him better but will never score 25 a game for a season, pass first make other better. Fultz is a poor man's Russel Westbrook or maybe just a reguler man's Stephen marbury he is going to get his and he will probbaly help his teamates get theres too, but he is getting his first. It depends on what you have around them...Someone with a ton of shooters like GS would prefer Ball, a team like Phily would kill for Fultz. Both are big enough to guard 2 guards I think Fultz is a better pick for us as outside of IT we are somewhat limited offensively. think Fultz has more lateral quickness then ball and the potental to be a better defender if he decides to be. I am a big Kansas fan, Josh Jackson is the second coming of Scottie Pippen,...and that is a very good thing, he does it all and is a great defender who just wants to win more then anything, think of a mini KG attitude wise. He will be able to score 20 a night and lock down almost any wing and has the speed to stay with the fastest of point guards. Maybe he will never score 25 a night but he will score 20 and make the other guys best player score 5 less then he normally does. If you see us keeping IT long term and see Brown as a 2 guard I could see us taking Jackson and it being a good choice, if you see Brown as a 3 (and think brown is a future very good starter or all star) then Fultz makes more sense, both will be all stars, Ball will too but I am worried about his defense.

That's the thing about Ball that worries me. He looks like Kidd on offence (and could be much better if he keeps knocking down threes in the NBA), but at the same time, Kidd was a much better defender than Ball. I think Ball may be a better passer than any of the great PGs he's compared to, but those guys usually had something else going for them. With Nash and Stockton, they were knockdown shooters. With Kidd, he was a lockdown defender. With CP3, he's the whole package.

With Ball, I'm not sure. He could be a great shooter at the next level, could be a below-average shooter. It's hard to tell.

[pasfru]

With Porter committing to Missouri, I'm really getting tired of top prospects committing to bad teams. If Fultz played under someone like Coach Cal or Coach K, it could've made a big difference for his stock going into the Draft. We might not be debating at all who should go #1 if we got to see Fultz with a better supporting cast.

To me, while it's not a big thing for some, Washington's performance this year does bother me. Fultz is hardly to blame, but it is slightly concerning just how uncompetitive they were.

[Gomes3PC]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

Right, Jackson's definitely not an iso scorer like Fultz or Tatum. He has that capability in limited amounts and all the actions that we run for Jae right now I could easily see Jackson running with no problem. However, if he's a hard worker, who's to say he couldn't improve his handle to the point where he could do that more? But IMO he's more of a beta than an alpha. The ability to draw contact and make plays usually separates those types.

He has better handle than Tatum now.

Yeah I don't get the idea that Jackson can't get his own shot. Despite his shooting inconsistency, Jackson draws just as many fouls as Tatum and is a much more explosive player. Assuming his jumper translates or is at least respectable, his elite athleticism will allow him to get by his defender to the rim with relative ease.

Tatum has more "natural scorer" feel to him, but that's not to say Jackson won't be a big threat as a scorer himself.

Even if he's not, it's like asking if you'd rather have Jimmy Butler or Carmelo Anthony. Butler even today is not the pure scorer Melo is, but he's just so much better at defense and other parts of the game it kind of doesn't matter.

[m haynes]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

You need to read your last couple of post. You have used every excuse for Ball you could think of for his horrible game. Someone said he faded and I agree 100% He showed no fight. I don't care if he had a good game or bad, however I do care what type of player he is when his game not there. Does he try to help his team with other parts of his game does he turn up his intensity.

What I saw last night was a SOFT player that folded when his game went south. He showed no fight and THAT'S ON HIM. No excuses.

[return2glory]

He didn't get exposed at all. These guys have been watching him all year. Do you not think they are already aware of his weaknesses? Especially considering he got outplayed by Fox earlier in the year already. The book is out on most of these guys and a tournament game is not drastically changing anything.

I disagree. Ball is being called a top 3 prospect in this draft by many, and he showed he didn't belong in the same class as Fox. It wasn't even close.

A few more GMs will be thinking about taking Fox over Ball a little more than they had two days ago.

Again Ball is still a good player, but being dominated in his head to head match up against Fox should bring up some questions.

I get the fact that it's one game and someone like Andrew Wiggins didn't have a good game in his last college game. But Wiggins didn't didn't dominated by the oppositing SF either like Ball did against the opposing PG.

If you think this game was a revelation then you must not have watched Ball that much. He's had plenty of games like this. One against that very same Kentucky team, and another against Arizona. Ball was being called a top 3-4 prospect (I've always had him at 4) for his entire body of work, one game isn't changing that. Fox probably did raise his stock, I'm not arguing against that. But even that isn't just based solely on this one game, because he's been rising lately anyway with his recent play.

I think the combine and pre-draft workouts will play a much bigger role on teams big boards than a single tournament game. Overreacting to one game is how you make stupid draft decisions.

Scouts and GMs don't overreact to one game. Either am I. I'm just saying for a guy like Ball that came in with questions about his defense and his weird low side release on his shot and playing against a top guard like Fox and getting badly outplayed isn't going to help his draft position too much. Factor in his ass clown dad, more teams would be thinking twice before taking him.

Fox has been projected top 10 all year. Any team that's picking with Fultz, Jackson, and Tatum off the board, they would think twice about taking Ball over Fox.

[Wes-J]

With Porter committing to Missouri, I'm really getting tired of top prospects committing to bad teams. If Fultz played under someone like Coach Cal or Coach K, it could've made a big difference for his stock going into the Draft. We might not be debating at all who should go #1 if we got to see Fultz with a better supporting cast.

To me, while it's not a big thing for some, Washington's performance this year does bother me. Fultz is hardly to blame, but it is slightly concerning just how uncompetitive they were.

I'm far more concerned with these kids playing for terrible coaches.

[DK-All Day]

1. Fultz
2. Jackson
3. Ball
4. Tatum

We're leaving the draft with one. I'm good.

[Bar Fight]

Oh boy... this thread. I'm glad I don't read the live reactions here often because you guys ride these prospects like a wave.

I have nothing bad to say about Lonzo. He managed to fool Indiana into thinking Alford was a good coach, that's all there is to say. It's pretty disrespectful that so many people are acting like Lonzo didn't give a **** out there. He played just like he always has, stop acting like this is a serious problem or anything new.

If you really want to sell prospect stock over attitude flaws, sell Fultz. If you want to sell prospect stock over lack of defensive effort, sell Fultz. People acting like Ball's gonna fall in the Draft are being ridiculous. Fultz and Ball are 1a/1b. I think it'll really come down to whether you want the gifted scorer or gifted passer, both are in the same tier, one game doesn't change that for me.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Please enlighten me on this.

Fultz always looked a lot more disengaged than Ball to me. I don't think it's going to be a problem for either, but people who discredit Ball for not being very animated and then give Fultz a pass irk me.

Yeah, not looking "animated" on the floor is not a legitimate criticism at all (for either player). Plenty of all time great players were nonchalant when they played. Not an indicator of attitude problems whatsoever.

[pasfru]

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

You need to read your last couple of post. You have used every excuse for Ball you could think of for his horrible game. Someone said he faded and I agree 100% He showed no fight. I don't care if he had a good game or bad, however I do care what type of player he is when his game not there. Does he try to help his team with other parts of his game does he turn up his intensity.

What I saw last night was a SOFT player that folded when his game went south. He showed no fight and THAT'S ON HIM. No excuses.

I'm not Lavar Ball, mate, I don't care what happens to Lonzo outside of him coming to the Celtics.

It's just funny/irritating reading the reactions here. A few days back we were all praising Lonzo and people were touting him as the #1 pick. Days before that, we were all talking about Tatum. Today, the talk's all on Ball disappointing and how overrated he is. It's the lack of objectivity or rational thinking that gets me.

[Bar Fight]

With Porter committing to Missouri, I'm really getting tired of top prospects committing to bad teams. If Fultz played under someone like Coach Cal or Coach K, it could've made a big difference for his stock going into the Draft. We might not be debating at all who should go #1 if we got to see Fultz with a better supporting cast.

To me, while it's not a big thing for some, Washington's performance this year does bother me. Fultz is hardly to blame, but it is slightly concerning just how uncompetitive they were.

Simmons went number 1 and Fultz is still projected to go number 1, so I'm not sure it really hurt either of them. Also, picking what school you go to isn't always strictly a basketball decision. If you're already on the radar as one of the top players in the country and already have an NBA ready game/skill set, I don't see how going to Duke or Kentucky will help you all that much.