Markelle Fultz Discussion II

[Slartibartfast]

The next James Harden... or at least Dwayne Wade... Cough, cough

Did I say he would be at least Dwayne wade?

I think I said he was a better scoring prospect than Beal was.

I am not obsessed with maintaining my reputation as a scouting expert though so the stakes are much lower for me. I do however have the pac12 network on my cable package so maybe I have no excuse.

Not just a better scoring prospect than Beal, a better playmaking prospect. As a big Fultz booster, I'm always surprised how much people underestimate his passing ability out of PNR.

[Kobblehead]

Fultz has a more well-rounded game, but I don't think he was anywhere near the scoring prospect Beal was.

Collegiate point totals aren't as important as where they're scoring their points.

Bradley Beal: 35% of shots at the rim, 47% of shots beyond the arc
Markelle Fultz: 25% of shots at the rim, 29% of shots beyond the arc

Fultz lived in the mid-range.

[spikeslovechild]

Which is the exact role I want for Fultz, a creator and closer at the end of games. I really like Tatum actually, but Fultz averaged as many assists as Tatum in half the mins with one arm. Good scorer, but if healthy, Fultz actually fits more of what we need.

It's always interesting to me another rookie is always picked out while Fultz is hurt, and we should have done that instead. I mean it was Mitchell for a while, that didn't work out too well last night.

We absolutely need a healthy Fultz to help finish out games cause Simmons lack of a jumper and having to feed it to Embiid without much time won't work too well long term.

Tatum as our PF would be so good. He stretches the court and shoots over 50% from 3. He can create his own shot. He can drive. He can defend. He can switch. He can rebound.

Doesn't matter, Tatum wasnt even on our radar. Hell, Ill make the argument that he wasnt on the C's radar till JJ dissed them. Right after the trade who did Ainge go to see? JJ not Tatum. I'd bet that if JJ worked out for Ainge, JJ would be a C's and not Tatum

Not only that Ainge said the player he took at 3 would likely have been the player we took at one. Honestly, the more I think about the deal we jumped to 1 to bypass the Lakers who were reportedly in love with Fultz.

[Unbreakable99]

Tatum is looking like a nice player but that doesn't mean Fultz wont still be better.
I think Tatum was universally disliked by all sixer boards. Goes to tell you most people
don't know jack **** when it comes to evaluating players.

Negrodamus says hi. He ranked Tatum as the best prospect in the draft.

[OleSchool]

(and for the record, if the Sixers had stayed at 3, I heard from someone I trust they would have taken Tatum, not Jackson).

Way to start a sh/t storm

And if the info you got was correct then it was a bad bad trade

[sixerswillrule]

I wanted to take Tatum if we stayed at 3.

But I also wanted to trade up for Fultz and still have high hopes for him.

[ProcessDoctor]

Are Tatum being good and Fultz being good mutually exclusive outcomes? Some comments here sure make it feel that way...

[Kobblehead]

Tatum is a good talent, but he's getting a ratings boost from the environmental structure he feel into. I doubt the early returns on him would be this fruitful had he landed in Sacramento or Phoenix.

I think we would have drafted Monk at #3. Remember all the hoopla surrounding his workout? Embiid, Cov and Simmons were watching at the facility.

[PLO]

Some pretty solid draftniks had Fultz ahead (just) of Simmons as a prospect - he hasn't played a single NBA game uninjured. For many he was the outstanding prospect in this draft - I'm still very happy with the trade and with getting Fultz.

There will be a number of SFs available to us in next years draft but its very thin on quality guards. Getting a Tatum was a luxury that could have happened if the Lakers pick had conveyed but it didn't so it is what it is. My draft rankings from last year haven't really changed much after watching the rooks go around for these first batch of games. I would probably still pick Jon Isaac over Tatum, though I was impressed with the latter at the end of the college season. I had Markkanen at 3rd overall at one stage but was swayed too much by people down on him - I even wrote an email to the Ringer people complaining about their incessant worship of Ball over a guy like Markkanen because Markkanen's elite skill would actually transfer a lot better to the NBA than Ball's would for a lot of reasons.

[PLO]

Tatum is a good talent, but he's getting a ratings boost from the environmental structure he feel into. I doubt the early returns on him would be this fruitful had he landed in Sacramento or Phoenix.

I think we would have drafted Monk at #3. Remember all the hoopla surrounding his workout? Embiid, Cov and Simmons were watching at the facility.

Tatum's a quality player but as you say he's certainly been helped out by landing with the Celtics. He may well have the best debut season of these rookies but he's pretty close to his ceiling already - if he ever gets to be a first or second option on offense I'll have to eat my words. He is really what most of us thought he was going into the draft.

As for the Monk thing I don't think they were ever realistic about drafting him at three - the Fultz trade was already in the pipeline and probably the "show" with Monk was just that.

[76ers]

Tatum is a good talent, but he's getting a ratings boost from the environmental structure he feel into. I doubt the early returns on him would be this fruitful had he landed in Sacramento or Phoenix.

I think we would have drafted Monk at #3. Remember all the hoopla surrounding his workout? Embiid, Cov and Simmons were watching at the facility.

Seriously this x100, for everyone pumping Tatum's tires, how quickly we forget the situation he's in... he was a lottery pick going to a championship contender with a very good head coach. Doesn't get much better than that.

[Ericb5]

All of this is just speculation about several prospects that are more or less at the same talent level.

I thought that the top tier was only Fultz, Jackson and a Ball, but Smith and Tatum were right there, and any of those 5 could have reasonably been taken at number 1.

It wouldn’t have been outrageous is my point.

It is so early right now that I don’t think that anything has changed. Tatum doesn’t look any better than he was supposed to look. We all knew that he was super talented. Him going first wouldn’t have been a shock.

The dirty little secret is that NONE of these guys have superstar talent. They will all probably fall somewhere between good starters and all stars. There could even be a bust in there.

Fultz was traded for because Bryan made the determination that he was the guy that he wanted. He paid the price to get him so history will be very unkind to him if he was wrong, but today we don’t know anything.

The people that think that it was a great move have to be prepared for it to go down in flames, and the people who think it was a bad move should be prepared to be horribly wrong because it could go either way.

What we should all agree on is that we want it to work out. Some of you anti fultz people seem to revel in pointing out how bad he is, but you don’t know anything more than anyone else. Fultz could easily be the best player in the draft, and even if he isn’t, he could easily be good enough for the trade to have been worth it considering the fact that we already have two franchise players, and are trying to build a roster around them. We are no longer in the pure asset acquisition phase.

Can’t we just see what happens instead of constantly trying to measure each other’s dicks about what we thought about these 19 year olds before they were drafted?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mik317]

I was team Fox or Jackson heavy going into the draft. I didn't mind Tatum but I did question his fit, due to not being sure if Simmons could guard as well as he has shown... I also liked Smith in theory too. Ball was the guy I wasn't super high on but was willing to see if it worked. Fultz was the enigma, because I watched very little of him due to how late the games were and how awful that team was..and I didn't want to get attached and miss out on him..so i didn't dig into his tape until after we made the trade....and I thought he was a neat prospect. Didn't blow me away but also didn't have any major unfixable flaws IMO (i.e Ball's jumper, Monks lack of game outside of scoring) and had some great physical tools for his position....and his fit "in theory" at least, was perfect in that he should be able to play multiple different roles for us. Now was that worth trading up to one for? IDK...personally no, because I don't think he was hands down the best like say Simmons was...but I also know that we would have to cash in some of these picks in a risky move sooner or later, couldn't stockpile them forever. I also don't think its the end of the world tho. As of right now, it seems like next year's draft is full of bigs and tweeners with Doncic perhaps being the ideal target for us high up in the draft....and as much as it would suck to gift Boston the finishing piece. they still have assets to get that anyway...and Ainge's lottery luck hasn't exactly been on his side all things considered (finally wins the lottery in a year where guards are the top prospects and he doesn't need any guards....not the worst problem to have but still).

but back to Fultz, despite this injury ****, I still think he's shown some good things when he was hobbling around out there...He never looked like he could'nt get anywhere on the court without screens like he did at UW. His defense, while had some lapses, looked pretty solid for a 19 year old and his wingspan looks like it could be killer. He is also one of the few folks on the roster capable of running a real ass PnR....even with his busted ass shot. So I feel like all of this negativity around him is weird considering the entire context. He is no getting his **** right with the shot...regardless if he's faking it, got the yips, or is actually hurt...the bottom line is that when he returns, it won't be as jank and he can step in and give the team a much needed new element....and thats great. Yes we gave up a lot and so ideally you want him to be great and make Ainge cry himself to sleep....but how about we actually let Fultz get on the court before writing him off? Its super funny to read a lot of posts that read very similar to the Simmons posts prior to the season...in which peeps would use their preconcieved notions to what he'd be and that was the law and the final word.

i mean many peeps on this board pumped up Josh Jackson (self included) and he's been getting wrecked more than he's been doing anything good? Lonzo has his own issues at the moment and yet in that case it's "oh too small of sample size"...and yet a preseason and 3-4 games of a gimp Fultz is more than enough to prove things?

Give all of these rookies time....hell some of the sophmores too. The NBA game is vastly different to the college game and unless you can come into a system (ala Tatum in Boston), its going to be a rough time. Hell even freakazoids like Embiid still has some growing pains to get throught. Speaking of Freaks, remember rookie year Giannis? Not sure if it was salt or not, but I remember some feeling he wouldn't be that great based off of that season either....welp.

too many people (self included) speak on this **** like it is law....

its not

[Unbreakable99]

Tatum is a good talent, but he's getting a ratings boost from the environmental structure he feel into. I doubt the early returns on him would be this fruitful had he landed in Sacramento or Phoenix.

I think we would have drafted Monk at #3. Remember all the hoopla surrounding his workout? Embiid, Cov and Simmons were watching at the facility.

I believe Tatum on the Sixers would have fit him very well. He could have played PF for us and stretch the court while being the 4th option in the starting lineup. Also while Monk did workout for us he had a bad one and missed a lot of shots. I don’t think we would have taken him if we stayed at 3 I remember BC saying they will draft someone who can shoot. Monk can shoot but I think staying at 3and taking him would have been too high and BC may have taken Tatum or Isaac if he was set on taking someone who can shoot while being worthy of the 3rd pick.

[Kobblehead]

Personally, the thing I'm most frustrated with is the fact that Fultz is childlike and wasn't ready to hit the ground running as a professional. I wasn't prepared for that.

I was prepared for Josh Jackson being immature, unstable and a delinquent.
I was prepared for Lonzo Ball's psychotic father.
I was prepared for Fox having no jumpshot and being built like a leotard model.
I was prepared to be patient with Jonathan Isaac as he matured physically and gained an aggressive disposition.

[76ciology]

Tatum is a good talent, but he's getting a ratings boost from the environmental structure he feel into. I doubt the early returns on him would be this fruitful had he landed in Sacramento or Phoenix.

I think we would have drafted Monk at #3. Remember all the hoopla surrounding his workout? Embiid, Cov and Simmons were watching at the facility.

In one interview, Embiid said they’re looking at either Tatum or Josh Jackson.

[76ciology]

Would sitting out Fultz for the entire year to let him work on his shooting be more beneficial than letting him play? By working on his jumper, I mean from good to great shooter than from broke shooter to decent shooter.

Because I think we’re good, as of now, without Fultz. Ben/Biid and JJ/RoCo are good enough for playoffs basketball. There’s also Tj who’s fun to watch as a back-up PG. Even without Fultz, were already entertaining and yet winning.

[Kobblehead]

I think the most amount of development occurs on the court. I'd rather him get back out there. His impact as a slasher and defender was apparent. Those two elements are non-existent with our current Gs. I think we need him. Bayless and McConnell playing 30 minutes a night is not a recipe for success.

[PLO]

The issue with getting Tatum is that we're still left with a dearth of guard talent on our roster. You can argue that Fultz wasn't the right pick but you can't argue about picking that position. Fultz, Fox, DSJ, Frank N or Mitchell were the players we had to target with a top 10 pick (I don't consider Ball a true one guard). The next draft is not exactly flush with great guard prospects. You either draft a really good guard prospect now or overpay for someone whose ceiling we already know about in terms of being championship caliber like Lowry.

[Ericb5]

Would sitting out Fultz for the entire year to let him work on his shooting be more beneficial than letting him play? By working on his jumper, I mean from good to great shooter than from broke shooter to decent shooter.

Because I think we’re good, as of now, without Fultz. Ben/Biid and JJ/RoCo are good enough for playoffs basketball. There’s also Tj who’s fun to watch as a back-up PG. Even without Fultz, were already entertaining and yet winning.

Fultz doesn’t need to “work on his shooting”. He is a natural shooter, and scorer.

When he is physically right he will get back into form. You don’t forget how to ride a bike.

We don’t need Fultz in a basketball sense this year, but assuming he gets healthy soon, he should be playing soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk