yourewrong wrote:Ericb5 wrote:yourewrong wrote:how? Simmons and Fultz both need the ball to thrive and Embiid had a 36% usg rate as a rookie. There's only one basketball.
First off, Embiid's usage rate was higher than normal due to the minutes restriction. He probably will never have that usage rate again in his career.
Fultz and Simmons fit perfectly precisely because Fultz DOESN'T need the ball in his hands to be effective. He clearly can shoot and play off the ball. That's the beauty of this.
In addition, when the game is on the line, and we really needs someone to get their own shot, he can do that better than Simmons can. Like Irving in Cleveland, you sometimes need to give the ball to someone and get out of the way, and he will get the ball a lot in those situations.
Both Simmons and Fultz will be behind Embiid in priority on both offense and defense too. Even though Simmons will have the ball in his hands more than Fultz, the primary goal will be getting Embiid the ball, when in the half court, and the other guys will be playing off of him.
Fultz is very capable of moving without the ball, and spacing the court, and Simmons is going to be one of the best passers in the league, and will get him the ball in situations where he can be effective.
The mix of the three of them together is really the primary selling point of this deal in my mind.
I thought that Fultz was the 3rd best prospect in the draft, but there is no doubt that he fits Simmons and Embiid perfectly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even if Fultz can play of the ball (which is questionable considering he's an iffy set shooter at best), it's clearly not making use of his skillset. Take Ball, who is in another league entirely as an off ball player if Ben is truly the guy.
Disagree entirely. Ball is a point guard and Fultz isn't. Fultz is a scorer and Ball isn't. They both can play off the ball, but Lonzo's primary strength and function in the league will be running a team and having the ball in his hands.
Very different players. I would compare Fultz more to Lilard, or Irving, and both of them are stars that require someone else to run the team in order for them to win. We have that in Simmons.
I think that even if Jackson ends up an equal player long term, that as long as Fultz is a really good player, it will be a good trade even if we lose it on points, which we will be unless he is a superstar.
The release valve for our 2 best players, the isolation scoring, the shooting, and the large war chest of draft assets that we had, all make this a good move in my mind.
I think it is basically worth the risk because we already have Simmons and Embiid. If we had nothing and were in the same position today then I wouldn't make the trade because we would just be in asset acquisition mode until we got our first star.
The reason I like the trade is that I feel we are in a different stage of the rebuild. I wouldn't have made this deal in 2014-2016.
We have established our true potential big 3, and now we just have to hope for health, and good player development.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk