Fultz vs. Tatum: What do you think now?

[Writebloc]

Someone with more time than I have needs to look up the poll on who we should draft. No way at all 64% of you liked it from the start. The pro Tatum thread had like 10 of us in there. Too funny. The poll leader should be, didn't like it then, love it now.

You have to take into account it's not only Tatum for Fultz but that other pick is in the deal. It was a slam dunk of a deal originally, it's only gotten better due to Tatum's stellar play and Fultz's woes.

[Turgon]

As for Ball, I felt he was superior to Fultz and a better fit with IT. Kyrie is a ridiculously talented player but I wouldn't have done that trade based on one variable: Doncic. I think Doncic will be the best sub-7 foot player in the NBA during the 2020s. I would have never parted with the Nets pick on that basis alone. I would have picked Ball, hoped IT got healthy and was willing to resign at a reasonable rate (and let him walk if he didn't), and then moved heaven and earth to get Doncic in 2018. My timeline is probably more long term than Danny's but I think winning the 2020s is a reasonable goal and I skeptical about loading up towards psuedocontender status while Lebron and the Ws are still in their prime. I felt we had a punchers chance with Kryie/Hayward/Brad this season (pre injury) but overall didn't see it as a good gamble. My preferred gamble was gearing up to win the 2020s with Doncic.

I'm with you all the way. I look at Doncic and honestly stand in awe with the things he does at his age... And he's doing them against talented, fully developed and experienced guys in the euroleague and the Spanish league. I am fairly certain when all is said and done we will look at Doncic as the greatest European player ever and one of the all time NBA greats - he is that good.

Some team will be getting a perennial MVP contender and I hate that it won't be us.

[FutureIsGreen]

Someone with more time than I have needs to look up the poll on who we should draft. No way at all 64% of you liked it from the start. The pro Tatum thread had like 10 of us in there. Too funny. The poll leader should be, didn't like it then, love it now.

You have to take into account it's not only Tatum for Fultz but that other pick is in the deal. It was a slam dunk of a deal originally, it's only gotten better due to Tatum's stellar play and Fultz's woes.

I do. So many called for Danny's head that day. Fultz or Jackson was who 90% wanted. Getting that pick and watching us lose the Nets Pick makes this so much sweeter after watching the Nets start well.

Sent from my XT1032 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Andrew McCeltic]

Someone with more time than I have needs to look up the poll on who we should draft. No way at all 64% of you liked it from the start. The pro Tatum thread had like 10 of us in there. Too funny. The poll leader should be, didn't like it then, love it now.

I was sure, until the trade, we’d take Fultz - but had major doubts. He put up great stats against bad teams. It’s not a surprise he’s struggling, although it seems like there’s a lot going on.

We got a player - we hit on the pick, at least a double, maybe a home run. But it’s early - Jackson, Ball have Hall of Fame upside, Lauri and Fox look really good. Tatum could wind up the second or third best player in a great draft, or the best.

[Spin Move]

I think Tatum has played well so far but it is WAYYYYYYY to early to write off Fultz

[Andrew McCeltic]

Horford going coast to coast? That just happened?

[jfs1000d]

I think Tatum has played well so far but it is WAYYYYYYY to early to write off Fultz

I think write off is a strong no.

But, I am adjusting expectations. I don't see this athlete that others are claiming. Sure, he is injure d now, which is a huge issue and makes him barely an NBA player, but I didn't find him exceptionally quick or explosive.

People write and scouted his freakish physical profile. I was expecting and explosive player. Not a herky and jerky change of pace player.

Where is the athleticism?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[sully00]

I don't think "over scouting" was the problem. The majority of the opinions the general public had on Tatum before the draft came from the media, 99% of which only had the Hoop Summit, Duke, and Youtube to go off of.

Tatum had a ton of high level experience before that, which is why he was considered the top prospect leading into Duke.

Problem is that he will, in fact, need to become a reliable catch-and-shoot 3-point threat to reach "superstar" level and the combination of early-injury and Coach K's willingness to use him as an ISO player masked the ability he'd already shown as a high-impact role player on Team USA.

For the "real scouts" the argument became about whether or not he was committed to doing the "little things" and this was made worse by Josh Jackson's presence as a natural foil to compare him against.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I think one of the issues with Tatum is that he is a smooth athlete not eye popping like Brown. So he can give the impression of not giving full effort especially on a floor with lesser athletes. Now has that same smoothness against the best athletes in the world. They don't necessarily have the same game but the guy he reminds the most of physically is Tracy McGrady.

I really liked Jackson's game.

[TheMartian]

Can't believe a good 19% voted that Ainge should have gone the other way.

[Kolkmania]

He was never a slam dunk #1 pick. The worst thing and best thing that happened to Fultz was Giles knee injury, Giles was the slam dunk #1 pick and blew out his knee. He never should have played a game last season. I think based on play Jackson was probably the #1 pick but he created questions about his game and make up and ditched a work out. Ball is a pure PG not a guy who you can pair with another PG if that matters. Tatum has a ton of talent but a slow start it took some balls to take him over Jackson but I think talent wise it was the right decision.

I don't know how you watch college basketball and the NBA and not have reservations about Fultz and the year he had. Felt a little bit like that with Simmons but there was no other option I didn't also have concerns with. That said I was all over KO over the Greek Freak so what do I know.

Giles was a PF who didn't have great range, poor vision and didn't have the defense of a center. You could see the potential when he crossed people while being 6'10'', which seemed really crazy, but he wasn't a sure thing either. He could have been a high usage, low efficient PF, or an undersized C with poor defense.

I think a lot of the reactions about Fultz are in hindsight, we're judging a player who looks nothing similar to the player who scored efficiently from three levels while being 18 years old, was an above average playmaker and had elite measurements for a PG.
Josh Jackson wasn't quick enough to beat athletes off the dribble, his defense was overrated, one of the worst shot mechanics and 20 years old. Jayson Tatum did everything well, but nothing exceptional and he had troubles finishing around big guys and settled for long jumpers against good defenders. De'Aaron Fox was a historically bad shooter and his frame was so fragile. Dennis Smith jr. didn't gave a **** in 50% of his games and came close to Fox' efficiency from midrange on a large sample size.

I could go on and one, but at the time Markelle Fultz was the consensus #1 pick and most agreed on this forum (check the reactions after lottery). That doesn't mean he will be the best player from the draft and he'll certainly not be the best if he continues with his shooting issues.

There were no concerns with Giles athleticism and defense prior to the knees it was whether or not he could fill out and develop a jumper but he was a freak athlete before the knees, and looked like an NBA ready rebounder and shot blocker. I can only speak for myself but I had issues with Fultz all year. He is the best offensive player in the world with his team down 10 points and the game about to get out of hand. I though he looked pretty pedestrian in conference play until he came up lame and just stopped playing all together. At that point in the year is when NBA people start really paying attention and Jackson and Tatum were great. Ball was good all year long he just got exposed a couple of times specifically against Fox that was going to make you worry.

He was a quick jumper, but not someone with a crazy vertical. He had very quick feet prior to his knee injuries (dissipated completely afterwards). His on ball defense was good if he was locked in, but his timing on help defense wasn't impressive, the feeling on the defensive end wasn't extraordinary and at 6'9'/10' and small frame he wasn't projected as a center.
With the ball in his hands he did a lot of fancy stuff, but he was a bit like Ayton in high school that the mix tapes were awesome, but as soon as you watched full games you'd question his IQ.

You're absolutely right that Fultz' efficiency took a hit in conference play, but the lack of help on the offensive end was a legit explanation. It's not like he was a black hole, on the contrary, he tended to overpass early in the game imo.

"At that point in the year is when NBA people start really paying attention and Jackson and Tatum were great", this is just laughable. NBA teams start scouting these kids seriously when they're 14 year old kids and rightfully so, every bit of additional context and data can be usefull in a major decision for the franchise.

Fox had a couple of great games against UCLA, but their defensive scheme in P&R defense was the main reason why Fox scored that many points.

[Kolkmania]

Who were the people who said Tatum wasn't a good athlete.

Define good athlete, because I do had major questions about Tatum's explosiveness. Jayson has an above average vertical off two feet which helps him being a really good rebounder. But off one foot he doesn't have the same kind of explosiveness which caused him to have troubles to finish against rim protectors. Creating space against quick defenders was also an issue, which lead to high volume of difficult fadeaways and contested off the dribble jumpers.

A lot of the "I told you so" posters around here don't understand the concerns I and what some of you call "draft experts" had. Nearly nobody doubted that Jayson Tatum would excel in a Otto Porter-esque role, great efficiency on low usage and being a plus defender. But in the draft you try to find the prospect with the highest upside, a franchise player, a top 15 player. For Tatum that means being a first or secondary option on the offensive end with value on the defensive end.

We'll see if he can become an efficient option while being defended by the best wing defender on a good team, he has plenty of time, but thus far he didn't show that he can be that.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Who were the people who said Tatum wasn't a good athlete.

Define good athlete, because I do had major questions about Tatum's explosiveness. Jayson has an above average vertical off two feet which helps him being a really good rebounder. But off one foot he doesn't have the same kind of explosiveness which caused him to have troubles to finish against rim protectors. Creating space against quick defenders was also an issue, which lead to high volume of difficult fadeaways and contested off the dribble jumpers.

A lot of the "I told you so" posters around here don't understand the concerns I and what some of you call "draft experts" had. Nearly nobody doubted that Jayson Tatum would excel in a Otto Porter-esque role, great efficiency on low usage and being a plus defender. But in the draft you try to find the prospect with the highest upside, a franchise player, a top 15 player. For Tatum that means being a first or secondary option on the offensive end with value on the defensive end.

We'll see if he can become an efficient option while being defended by the best wing defender on a good team, he has plenty of time, but thus far he didn't show that he can be that.

Has any rookie shown that they can become an efficient first or secondary option while being defended by the best wing defender?

[SmartWentCrazy]

Someone with more time than I have needs to look up the poll on who we should draft. No way at all 64% of you liked it from the start. The pro Tatum thread had like 10 of us in there. Too funny. The poll leader should be, didn't like it then, love it now.

A few people are flat out lying about liking Tatum pre-draft. It’s kinda funny.

[jfs1000d]

Who were the people who said Tatum wasn't a good athlete.

Define good athlete, because I do had major questions about Tatum's explosiveness. Jayson has an above average vertical off two feet which helps him being a really good rebounder. But off one foot he doesn't have the same kind of explosiveness which caused him to have troubles to finish against rim protectors. Creating space against quick defenders was also an issue, which lead to high volume of difficult fadeaways and contested off the dribble jumpers.

A lot of the "I told you so" posters around here don't understand the concerns I and what some of you call "draft experts" had. Nearly nobody doubted that Jayson Tatum would excel in a Otto Porter-esque role, great efficiency on low usage and being a plus defender. But in the draft you try to find the prospect with the highest upside, a franchise player, a top 15 player. For Tatum that means being a first or secondary option on the offensive end with value on the defensive end.

We'll see if he can become an efficient option while being defended by the best wing defender on a good team, he has plenty of time, but thus far he didn't show that he can be that.

Don't wanna be a jerk, but why does everyone talk like a draft writer in normal conversations? I question his explosiveness off one foot against rim protectors?

Who talks like that? Reminds me of normal people discussing stocks like sell side analysts. If you get past the jargon and style, what you are really questioning is his one foot jumping over two foot jumping?

Also, creating space against quicker defenders. He creates it with his long arms and footwork.

I watched Tatum in NCAA, watched him in summer league, watched him in preseason, watched first four games. Doesn't have finishing issues, athletic issues or skill issues. His athleticism fits right in there with NBA 3s.

Fultz has none of the athleticism that we were led to believe.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jmr07019]

I think write off is a strong no.

But, I am adjusting expectations. I don't see this athlete that others are claiming. Sure, he is injure d now, which is a huge issue and makes him barely an NBA player, but I didn't find him exceptionally quick or explosive.

People write and scouted his freakish physical profile. I was expecting and explosive player. Not a herky and jerky change of pace player.

Where is the athleticism?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Nobody was calling Fultz a Rose / Westbrook level athlete. That was one of the knocks on him and why he wasn't viewed as a generational player. He's still huge for a pg - 6'3'' with a long wingspan, 6'9'' I think.

Fultz is more like Tatum. Great combo of length and skill with adequate to above average athleticism. He had the pull up 3 pointer down in college and that is one of the best shots you can have if you can hit it at a high percentage and he was. When his shot completely goes to crap it makes it a lot easier to play for the drive and dare him to shoot. If he gets his shot working again he will be an all star.

[jmr07019]

From nbadraft.net weakness section on Fultz

Fultz does not have the quickest first step and struggles to turn the corner against more athletic defenders ... Will have to rely more on craftiness and deception to become an elite scorer in the NBA ...

[SmartWentCrazy]

Who were the people who said Tatum wasn't a good athlete.

Define good athlete, because I do had major questions about Tatum's explosiveness. Jayson has an above average vertical off two feet which helps him being a really good rebounder. But off one foot he doesn't have the same kind of explosiveness which caused him to have troubles to finish against rim protectors. Creating space against quick defenders was also an issue, which lead to high volume of difficult fadeaways and contested off the dribble jumpers.

A lot of the "I told you so" posters around here don't understand the concerns I and what some of you call "draft experts" had. Nearly nobody doubted that Jayson Tatum would excel in a Otto Porter-esque role, great efficiency on low usage and being a plus defender. But in the draft you try to find the prospect with the highest upside, a franchise player, a top 15 player. For Tatum that means being a first or secondary option on the offensive end with value on the defensive end.

We'll see if he can become an efficient option while being defended by the best wing defender on a good team, he has plenty of time, but thus far he didn't show that he can be that.

Don't wanna be a jerk, but why does everyone talk like a draft writer in normal conversations? I question his explosiveness off one foot against rim protectors?

Who talks like that? Reminds me of normal people discussing stocks like sell side analysts. If you get past the jargon and style, what you are really questioning is his one foot jumping over two foot jumping?

Also, creating space against quicker defenders. He creates it with his long arms and footwork.

I watched Tatum in NCAA, watched him in summer league, watched him in preseason, watched first four games. Doesn't have finishing issues, athletic issues or skill issues. His athleticism fits right in there with NBA 3s.

Fultz has none of the athleticism that we were led to believe.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

When did you first start watching Tatum, curiously?

I have a theory that the people who harped on his athleticism formed the basis on the opinion after watching him early in the season when he rushed back from a foot injury. His athleticism was understandably diminished as he wasn’t truly healthy. Those first impressions stuck (as they often do), and people ignored that he was a noticeably different player come the conference tournament in March.

People viewed the statistics in aggregate and suffered from confirmation bias. The reality was that his slow start was very understandable when viewed with the appropriate lens, and not truly indicative of whom he was as a healthy player. They also missed the fact that Kennard and Allen often froze him out as those two consistently played 2 on 5 (that Syracuse game still makes me irate) which is something you could only gather by watching the games.

Tatum was a stud. He was a hurt stud for a little and a stud not in the perfect system, but he was a stud. Very happy he’s ours.

[Froob]

Surprised people don't claim Ainge sold Philly damaged goods letting them take Fultz.

[vct33]

It sure felt like I was much more of a minority in liking the trade when it happened.

[Kolkmania]

Who were the people who said Tatum wasn't a good athlete.

Define good athlete, because I do had major questions about Tatum's explosiveness. Jayson has an above average vertical off two feet which helps him being a really good rebounder. But off one foot he doesn't have the same kind of explosiveness which caused him to have troubles to finish against rim protectors. Creating space against quick defenders was also an issue, which lead to high volume of difficult fadeaways and contested off the dribble jumpers.

A lot of the "I told you so" posters around here don't understand the concerns I and what some of you call "draft experts" had. Nearly nobody doubted that Jayson Tatum would excel in a Otto Porter-esque role, great efficiency on low usage and being a plus defender. But in the draft you try to find the prospect with the highest upside, a franchise player, a top 15 player. For Tatum that means being a first or secondary option on the offensive end with value on the defensive end.

We'll see if he can become an efficient option while being defended by the best wing defender on a good team, he has plenty of time, but thus far he didn't show that he can be that.

Has any rookie shown that they can become an efficient first or secondary option while being defended by the best wing defender?

Nobody, but that is my point. Some of the posters here are acting like it's a sure thing that Tatum is the superior prospect while it's impossible to judge at this point.