Fruit Pastilles wrote:1. Giving T. J. Leaf as much credit as Lonzo for UCLA's success is like saying Amar'e breaking out is why the '05 Suns were so much better than the '04 Suns, or saying the Kevin Love trade had just as much an impact on the Cavs as signing LeBron.
UCLA transformed their offence to fit Ball's play style. Leaf is good but he's no difference maker. Mainly, do I see Fultz making UCLA as good or better? I don't think he does.
I don't know, it's hard. Do I think Washington's badness means Fultz lacks intelligence or feel for the game? Not necessarily, but if he's the transcendent talent that many say he is, I'd expect more. I don't think it's a coincidence that Washington's DRTG was so bad this year with Fultz as their #1 guy in comparison to previous years.
I think the Suns example works well here. Steve Nash didn't suddenly grow a gigantic BBIQ when he left the Mavs for the Suns, he just joined a system that better accentuated his skill set. Similarly, Lonzo joined a team that was perfectly built to run on all cylinders around him. I struggle attributing UCLA's success as if it's a testament to his IQ; he just joined the right team with the right system and right players.
Fultz joined a crap team that was a poor collection of both system and surrounding talent. There was a point late in the season that Washington had a +8 net rating with Fultz playing alongside at least 1 floor spacing big, and a 0 rating with two traditional bigs. Romar didn't care and continued to piss into the wind and play the floor clogging guys. That ultimately cost him his job despite the fact that he successfully recruited the #1 guy in the nation for a second straight year. I fail to see how Washington's record is an indictment on Fultz's BBIQ.
Statistically, I don't see it either. He had a better assist% and TO% than Lonzo. There's nothing out there to indicate a material difference in BBIQ other than highly subjective "watch them" excuse; I've done that and just don't see it.
2. I wouldn't say Wiggins was all that good of a defender in college. He used his size, length and lateral quickness to his advantage, had a great coach in Bill Self, and a good set of rim protectors behind him in Joel Embiid and Tarik Black. Instincts and aggressiveness are key traits on defence and Wiggins' low steal rate suggests he didn't really have those attributes. People were more impressed by the tools he had and how much potential that lent him, but basic lack of intangibles means he's not really that good. I see a lot of the same in Fultz, except Fultz might actually be worse.
I disagree on Wiggins impact in school, but don't necessarily disagree with your overall point. I just want to add the caveat that systems matter. No idea if Fultz would or would not be good here, but I trust that he'd be a better defender in Boston than on Philly or Phoenix or Orlando, where he'd be ask to shoulder a much heavier load on offense.
3. He probably can, though it's probably a waste to have him sitting out behind the line reduced to a Terry Rozier-esque 3-and-no-D eighth man role.
Agreed, fully.
4. I mean, yeah, there's no arguing that. But at the same time, look at the 76ers. I'm sure they'd like to take some of those picks back. Drafting for need isn't always the smartest route to take, but if you're a 50-win team with some semblance of established talent on your roster like us, it's something to consider.
If we had a future franchise cornerstone like Embiid at PG, I'd agree with you. IT is 9 years older than Fultz though, even if you leave the training wheels on for a year, their impacts project to span different generations.
FWIW, DX wrote in their write up on Fultz that he began to show good off ball play towards the end of college. Shot 38% off of catch-and-shoots and began to be ran off screens and curls on a much improved frequency. I think he could function perfectly in the Smart role, playing off ball with the 1's and on ball with the 2's.
