Fultz vs. Tatum: What do you think now?

[Banks2Pierce]

Tatum's athleticism is a weird one. His dunks just look weird. It's why there are some Melo comparisons. Just doesn't matter when a guy is 6'9"-6'10" and super skilled. That one play where he got switched on a guard(I think Brog) and just took him to the cup looked like the deceptive straight line speed of Pierce. Really think he looks on pace to be an elite #1 option scorer with normal age/body progression.

[ric munchn]

I think that today if you asked me if I’d rather have Tatum or Fultz I’d take Tatum. I was excited about getting fultz when we got the pick and still think he will be an elite scoring player and all star in his career. The injury and possible mental makeup issues are cause for concern. Tatum may have a better career but I still think fultz has a higher ceiling.
The possibility of getting another guy who projects as good as these two makes it so I can’t see how you don’t like the trade. Unless you think fultz is a first team all nba type player down the road but I’d say that’s unlikely.

[jfs1000d]

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 ...

That's what I see. That makes sense. ^

But, last year around lottery time, we did hear generational talent. We heard, best prospect at guard in the last 10 years. I heard it.

He was consensus No. 1, which means he was can't miss all-star, and a dominant No. 1 scoring option. Not Westbrook, but Damian Lillard at least.

We heard about wingspan and that he was impossible to guard.

What I saw, when I watched him, was a player who struggled to get by people.

Ya know. I think he's overrated in that sense. Good prospect, hope he gets healthy. Was nowhere near the once a decade guard.

[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.

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.

Well I sincerely like to follow prospects from high school, to college, to contributing in the NBA. The difference between jumping off one foot and two feet isn't rocket science and it is important in basketball. Jumping off two feet has entirely different applications than jumping off one foot, another prospect who has struggled with that is Donovan Mitchell and you can see some of his deficiencies in half court shot creation because of that.

Tatum's footwork is advanced in the post, but around the rim he's actually quite importent (at this point), he rarely uses off foot layups, eurosteps and doesn't protect the ball well enough with his body. I watched Tatum playing for Chaminade, in McDonalds, Jordan and Hoop Summit games, struggling in practices in these All-Star games and I've seen him around 20 times playing for Duke. It would be arrogant and ignorant to think that I know him well enough, but I've seen him enough for a well-formed opinion.

Fultz has athleticism issues as well, I also question his ability to absorb impact at the rim, but he has showed a lot more creativity around the rim than Jayson. Judging Fultz based on his games played for the Sixers is useless since he's simply not the same prospect, without his lethal off the dribble jumper he's so much easier to defend.

[jfs1000d]

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.

Well I sincerely like to follow prospects from high school, to college, to contributing in the NBA. The difference between jumping off one foot and two feet isn't rocket science and it is important in basketball. Jumping off two feet has entirely different applications than jumping off one foot, another prospect who has struggled with that is Donovan Mitchell and you can see some of his deficiencies in half court shot creation because of that.

Tatum's footwork is advanced in the post, but around the rim he's actually importent, he rarely uses off foot layups, eurosteps and doesn't protect the ball well enough with his body. I watched Tatum playing for Chaminade, in McDonalds, Jordan and Hoop Summit games, struggling in practices in these All-Star games and I've seen him around 20 times playing for Duke. It would be arrogant and ignorant to think that I know him well enough, but I've seen him enough for a well-formed opinion.

Fultz has athleticism issues as well, I also question his ability to absorb impact at the rim, but he has showed a lot more creativity around the rim than Jayson. Judging Fultz based on his game for the Sixers is useless since he's simply not the same prospect, without his lethal off the dribble jumper he's so much easier to defend.

Wasn't directed at you per se. Please dont' take it like that. Just, everyone seems to be a draft analyst these days. Didnt' mean to come at you like that.

[Kolkmania]

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.

Well I sincerely like to follow prospects from high school, to college, to contributing in the NBA. The difference between jumping off one foot and two feet isn't rocket science and it is important in basketball. Jumping off two feet has entirely different applications than jumping off one foot, another prospect who has struggled with that is Donovan Mitchell and you can see some of his deficiencies in half court shot creation because of that.

Tatum's footwork is advanced in the post, but around the rim he's actually importent, he rarely uses off foot layups, eurosteps and doesn't protect the ball well enough with his body. I watched Tatum playing for Chaminade, in McDonalds, Jordan and Hoop Summit games, struggling in practices in these All-Star games and I've seen him around 20 times playing for Duke. It would be arrogant and ignorant to think that I know him well enough, but I've seen him enough for a well-formed opinion.

Fultz has athleticism issues as well, I also question his ability to absorb impact at the rim, but he has showed a lot more creativity around the rim than Jayson. Judging Fultz based on his game for the Sixers is useless since he's simply not the same prospect, without his lethal off the dribble jumper he's so much easier to defend.

Wasn't directed at you per se. Please dont' take it like that. Just, everyone seems to be a draft analyst these days. Didnt' mean to come at you like that.

Yeah no problem, don't think that anybody here has the right to name himself a draft expert, but if we can't discuss stuff we find interesting then what's the point of a forum like this? Nowadays it's just so much easier to find information about a prospect, you can find full games of 14 year old kids, so it does kind of make sense that more people have informed opinions on draft prospects.

[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 ...

That's what I see. That makes sense. ^

But, last year around lottery time, we did hear generational talent. We heard, best prospect at guard in the last 10 years. I heard it.

He was consensus No. 1, which means he was can't miss all-star, and a dominant No. 1 scoring option. Not Westbrook, but Damian Lillard at least.

We heard about wingspan and that he was impossible to guard.

What I saw, when I watched him, was a player who struggled to get by people.

Ya know. I think he's overrated in that sense. Good prospect, hope he gets healthy. Was nowhere near the once a decade guard.

I was one of the people who was buying the hype on Fultz and saying why can't this guy be as good as Wall and Irving even if his game is different. The people who disagreed with me disagreed on 2 things basically. Shooting and athleticism. Some said Fultz was not a very good shooter. They pointed out that he wasn't a good 3 point shooter in HS and still shot poorly at the line. Other's like me saw him shooting 41% from 3 on 5 attempts per game and said he is a very good shooter and the FT's will come.

Then there is the athleticism. Some pointed out that he wasn't as quick as Fox and not a Westbrook / Rose type athlete. While I didn't debate those points there was a video of him dunking from the FT line and he had some pretty mean blocks at the rim.

No idea what's going on with the injury / shooting but his athleticism is fine imo. It's not like he's year 1 Smart when Marcus couldn't beat his man off the dribble.

[darylbe]

this is obviously way too early to discuss, but since we traded for kyrie, yea tatum was the player to pick. he's a big guy, can pull down rebounds, and has a good touch. just would like to see him get more touches. I notice when he gets the ball, a lot of times he tries to make it into an iso move rather than shooting off the pass which is important, considering how often we move the ball.

[SmartWentCrazy]

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.

We’re beginning to get a sample size though, and while we can’t make definitive statements, we can start to lean in certain directions.

What’s going on with Fultz is pretty much unprecedented. There is much uncertainty surrounding him. For whatever the reason, he changed his shot and he’s publicly battling with the Sixers FO in the media.

Also, consider the source. The Celtics were CLOBBERED nationally following the trade. Naturally, when the pendulum swung in the other direction, fans are gunna start rubbing it in as ‘payback’. I wouldn’t take it to heart.

[Kolkmania]

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.

We’re beginning to get a sample size though, and while we can’t make definitive statements, we can start to lean in certain directions.

What’s going on with Fultz is pretty much unprecedented. There is much uncertainty surrounding him. For whatever the reason, he changed his shot and he’s publicly battling with the Sixers FO in the media.

Also, consider the source. The Celtics were CLOBBERED nationally following the trade. Naturally, when the pendulum swung in the other direction, fans are gunna start rubbing it in as ‘payback’. I wouldn’t take it to heart.

We don't have a sample size on Fultz though, the games he played for the Sixers he wasn't able to use his biggest strength. If he'll never get his form and shooting touch back then it's pretty clear who won the trade.

Regarding the general consensus, lots of people yelled "NEVER trade the #1 pick", but many of them never watched these prospects. The trade was never lopsided in my opinion. I thought there was no prospect in this draft with a big chance of becoming a superstar, but I did have Fultz on a different tier than Isaac, Tatum, Jackson and Tatum. The Lakers/Sacramento pick has so much variance that it makes the trade risky for both teams, but it made sense for both nevertheless.

In Sixers defense it made sense because Fultz is in theory the perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid and the top of next years draft is filled with bigs.
The Celtics accumulated another potential top pick which increases the chance of finding their franchise player and Fultz was a weird fit with Isaiah Thomas on the roster.

[SmartWentCrazy]

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.

We’re beginning to get a sample size though, and while we can’t make definitive statements, we can start to lean in certain directions.

What’s going on with Fultz is pretty much unprecedented. There is much uncertainty surrounding him. For whatever the reason, he changed his shot and he’s publicly battling with the Sixers FO in the media.

Also, consider the source. The Celtics were CLOBBERED nationally following the trade. Naturally, when the pendulum swung in the other direction, fans are gunna start rubbing it in as ‘payback’. I wouldn’t take it to heart.

We don't have a sample size on Fultz though, the games he played for the Sixers he wasn't able to use his biggest strength. If he'll never get his form and shooting touch back then it's pretty clear who won the trade.

Regarding the general consensus, lots of people yelled "NEVER trade the #1 pick", but many of them never watched these prospects. The trade was never lopsided in my opinion. I thought there was no prospect in this draft with a big chance of becoming a superstar, but I did have Fultz on a different tier than Isaac, Tatum, Jackson and Tatum. The Lakers/Sacramento pick has so much variance that it makes the trade risky for both teams, but it made sense for both nevertheless.

In Sixers defense it made sense because Fultz is in theory the perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid and the top of next years draft is filled with bigs.
The Celtics accumulated another potential top pick which increases the chance of finding their franchise player and Fultz was a weird fit with Isaiah Thomas on the roster.

We do have a sample on Fultz. If he never gets his form back, this is who he is. And it’s not pretty. I don’t know what I’d handicap it returning, but it’s not a sure thing.

The trade made sense at the time and still does now— I’m not faulting Philly for expecting a guy with a good jumper to not change his form. This is unprecedented, they had no reason to expect it.

[Fencer reregistered]

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

Some of the great centers did that.

To answer your question seriously -- Michael Jordan had big numbers as a rookie, and I don't recall anybody next to him that had a strong(er) call on defensive attention. But he was also well older than Tatum is now.

[SmartWentCrazy]

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

Some of the great centers did that.

To answer your question seriously -- Michael Jordan had big numbers as a rookie, and I don't recall anybody next to him that had a strong(er) call on defensive attention. But he was also well older than Tatum is now.

Haha I meant this season. Obviously it can happen, but the big thing is to look for flashes. Tatum has clearly flashed #1 scored potential.

[shackles10]

Live look-in at Fultz at practice today...



I fully plan on recycling this one for Lavar’s son as well!

[BfB]

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

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.

The Hayward/Kyrie combo almost certainly outlasts the Warriors core remaining intact though.

Fultz/Tatum/Isaac were my top 3 - and very much think they will be by the time their rookie deals are up.

We've talked about this, Isaac is super-role player ready, but Orlando will have to develop him into a scorer as he is far too willing to take a back seat.

I knew these three inside and out by draft day. Would have been fine with any of them on Boston, they all fit, but I can't deny my thrill at getting Tatum - he's playing exactly as I expected given the situation.

Very interesting stuff regarding "vaginal toggling" or whatever it was though


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Do you see Isaac ever developing the handle necessary to create enough offense for himself? Personally, I did not, and struggle to see him as more than a 16-17 PPG guy, but am interested in your opinion.

Not worried about the handle. If he plays 4/5 he'll be fine...but he needs to want it


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[BfB]

Sure, in the context of the Kryie trade and the Hayward signing, I think you could make a compelling argument that Tatum over Ball was the better pick for this situation. My one quibble would be Isaac, I think he's a higher value player, has a skillset that's rarer league wide, and fits a particular need on this team, so may have represented the best pick possible. Tatum and Hayward roughly approximate each other and play the same position so while the Kryie trade did change the draft equation quite a bit after the fact I still wouldn't say Tatum's the perfect pick. He's gonna be good though, so this is more a discussion of degrees of value. Throwing in the potential pick from the Lakers/Kings, it's probably a wash and simply a matter of preference and taste.

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.

The Hayward/Kyrie combo almost certainly outlasts the Warriors core remaining intact though.

Assuming somewhat normal age related decline, I don't see how they outlast them by more than 1-2 seasons. And that's a scenario where we'd be assuming Jaylen or Jayson step into that 3rd star role within 3-4 years, and/or we manage to flip Al and other assets for a franchise big.

I'm also of the mind that Lebron has at least another 3-5 years in him at his current level, and then another 2-3 years at super role player level. I just don't see much championship window equity in the next 3 years, though if both Jaylen *and* Jayson develop into studs we may be able to play both the short and long term game.

Very interesting stuff regarding "vaginal toggling" or whatever it was though

I don't know about any vaginal toggling (sounds nice) but polyvagal theory may be of interest to you as a way to buttress the kind of value you provide but of course I can only speculate at that since it's proprietary and you keep thwarting my attempts to get you to spill the beans on your methodology lol.

We should talk by phone on the latter, as windows, I think we'll learn a lot about lux tax implications quite soon


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[ConstableGeneva]

Read on Twitter

Is this good?

[Duke4life831]

Read on Twitter

Is this good?

Plus 86% from the line. Talk about efficiency.

[Homerclease]

Read on Twitter

Is this good?

Plus 86% from the line. Talk about efficiency.

His defense, rebounding and 3 ball are all light years ahead of where I thought they would be. All we need from him now is to get comfortable and start looking for his own offense more.

[ConstableGeneva]

Read on Twitter

Is this good?

Plus 86% from the line. Talk about efficiency.

His defense, rebounding and 3 ball are all light years ahead of where I thought they would be. All we need from him now is to get comfortable and start looking for his own offense more.

Great decision by Stevens to give him the keys to the 2nd unit, role initially reserved for Hayward. Smart and Rozier need to defer more to him or set him up for easier looks. Larkin should just sit down. Those 3-guard lineups were painful to watch, like last year. Dragic feasted on Shane.