CelticsStrong
Around the League => The Draft => Topic started by: Fireworks_Boom! on March 29, 2017, 08:22:18 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2DHVAnrNlk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2DHVAnrNlk)
He is a beast. Has height. Has a good head on his shoulders. Has a beautiful outside shooting stroke. Can penetrate the lane with ease.
God I hope we get #1 pick and draft this kid.
Sign Gordon Hayward. Draft Fultz. Maybe kick the tires on signing Taj Gibson to replace Amir Johnson.
Championship team right there.
PG: Thomas/Fultz
SG: Bradley/Smart/Rozier
SF: Hayward/Brown/Nader
PF: Crowder/Gibson/Yabusele
C: Horford/Olynyk/Zizic
-
Depends who drafts No. 1. If Celts, sure, a high likelihood he goes 1. If the Lakers, rather doubt it, they'd be better off with Ball or even Jackson. Others I'm unsure.
-
Ball says he is better than Fultz
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19024163/lonzo-ball-says-better-fellow-nba-draft-prospect-markelle-fultz
no matter who the #1 and #2 pick of the draft is, I am already liking the rivalry slowly brewing between the two. Just imagine Boston/Lakers split the #1 and #2 pick, just imagine the chatter for years to come
Smart vs Randle
Brown vs Ingram
Fultz vs Ball
it'll be an interesting debate who got it right in 5 years when all our players are either hitting their prime or have played 2-3 years
-
Ball says he is better than Fultz
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19024163/lonzo-ball-says-better-fellow-nba-draft-prospect-markelle-fultz
no matter who the #1 and #2 pick of the draft is, I am already liking the rivalry slowly brewing between the two. Just imagine Boston/Lakers split the #1 and #2 pick, just imagine the chatter for years to come
Smart vs Randle
Brown vs Ingram
Fultz vs Ball
it'll be an interesting debate who got it right in 5 years when all our players are either hitting their prime or have played 2-3 years
Great idea to re-ignite this rivalry. Adam Silver, are you listening?
-
Ball says he is better than Fultz
so far the ball family does nothing but talk......
-
Ball says he is better than Fultz
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19024163/lonzo-ball-says-better-fellow-nba-draft-prospect-markelle-fultz
no matter who the #1 and #2 pick of the draft is, I am already liking the rivalry slowly brewing between the two. Just imagine Boston/Lakers split the #1 and #2 pick, just imagine the chatter for years to come
Smart vs Randle
Brown vs Ingram
Fultz vs Ball
it'll be an interesting debate who got it right in 5 years when all our players are either hitting their prime or have played 2-3 years
I simply can't imagine any scenario where the Celtics and Lakers have two of the best players in the game who develop a long-time rivalry with each other.
This could get good.
Mike
-
I could easily see Jackson being the first pick. Fultz doesn't play much defense. He's a surprisingly bad FT shooter for someone with such a smooth jumper. Jackson shows a higher IQ in my estimation. Fultz is one of those guys that just gets buckets, but there's no guarantee he's more than Jamal Crawford.
-
I picture Marcus Smart walking on to the court .
In his hand is a pair,of leashes .
On the end of each leash is Brown and Fultz .
Coached to be aggressive ......these young pit bulls are going to terrorize opponents on the offensive end.
Maybe it won't be fair to other teams .......but I don't care ;D
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
-
Ball says he is better than Fultz
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19024163/lonzo-ball-says-better-fellow-nba-draft-prospect-markelle-fultz
no matter who the #1 and #2 pick of the draft is, I am already liking the rivalry slowly brewing between the two. Just imagine Boston/Lakers split the #1 and #2 pick, just imagine the chatter for years to come
Smart vs Randle
Brown vs Ingram
Fultz vs Ball
it'll be an interesting debate who got it right in 5 years when all our players are either hitting their prime or have played 2-3 years
I've got to say, I do like Ball's confidence/swagger more than Fultz, who seems lesser in that regard. You could see it in their game against each other. Ball was out for blood, and Fultz just seemed like "meh." That's my only worry with Fultz.
-
Ball says he is better than Fultz
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19024163/lonzo-ball-says-better-fellow-nba-draft-prospect-markelle-fultz
no matter who the #1 and #2 pick of the draft is, I am already liking the rivalry slowly brewing between the two. Just imagine Boston/Lakers split the #1 and #2 pick, just imagine the chatter for years to come
Smart vs Randle
Brown vs Ingram
Fultz vs Ball
it'll be an interesting debate who got it right in 5 years when all our players are either hitting their prime or have played 2-3 years
I'm liking your thinking. TP!
-
1) Transcendental talents have lead their teams deep in the NCAAs. Fultz could not even lead his to the NCAAs. I thought the same thing last year for Ben Simmons. The kid is talented but not talented enough to carry his team to the tourney.
2) Fultz just a few years was not highly regarded. I think this is a strength as well as a weakness. The kid has clawed his way to the top. But his record in high school, indicates he played on the freshman and JV team. Most studs play varsity early. Not Fultz.. He did stick with it though and never gave up.
Entering his sophomore season, Fultz hit a growth spurt. His height, combined with his high basketball IQ, equipped him to play every position. “I think that kind of helped [his] overall game,” said Corey McCrae, who coached Fultz on jayvee. Fultz said he never got discouraged, that he just believed it would all work out, but the decision to table his varsity debut undoubtedly fueled Fultz. He ended his sophomore season behind schedule on the modern recruiting calendar, but he was eager to make up ground. “I never got frustrated, really,” Fultz says, adding that “I love the game, so no matter if I’m playing JV or varsity, I’m going to do it to the best of my ability.”
https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/06/17/markelle-fultz-2016-basketball-recruiting-washington-dc
3) He can be passive and takes what is given to him. I again see this as both a strength and weakness. Being passive can be a weakness if one never asserts himself but taking what is given to you can make one efficient and effective.
Fultz is a better player than Ball, is not even up for debate. If Ball is lucky, he will have a Kevin Martin type of shot but his shot is worse off than that one. Will bringing it across your body work in the NBA? Fultz has a nice shot with no hitches. Ball is a great college player but his shot is ugly. I never believe what a guy named Ball, says ever.
Jackson is the best prospect out of the three with the most potential. He is not the best player at this point. But he has great size, is the most athletic I would say and room to grow. It will be a hard call for Danny. Does taking Fultz make IT a goner? What about Rozier or Smart? Are there any franchise guys in this draft? Do we use the draft to address our glaring front court weakness or take best player available?
-
1) Transcendental talents have lead their teams deep in the NCAAs. Fultz could not even lead his to the NCAAs. I thought the same thing last year for Ben Simmons. The kid is talented but not talented enough to carry his team to the tourney.
2) Fultz just a few years was not highly regarded. I think this is a strength as well as a weakness. The kid has clawed his way to the top. But his record in high school, indicates he played on the freshman and JV team. Most studs play varsity early. Not Fultz.. He did stick with it though and never gave up.
Entering his sophomore season, Fultz hit a growth spurt. His height, combined with his high basketball IQ, equipped him to play every position. “I think that kind of helped [his] overall game,” said Corey McCrae, who coached Fultz on jayvee. Fultz said he never got discouraged, that he just believed it would all work out, but the decision to table his varsity debut undoubtedly fueled Fultz. He ended his sophomore season behind schedule on the modern recruiting calendar, but he was eager to make up ground. “I never got frustrated, really,” Fultz says, adding that “I love the game, so no matter if I’m playing JV or varsity, I’m going to do it to the best of my ability.”
https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/06/17/markelle-fultz-2016-basketball-recruiting-washington-dc
3) He can be passive and takes what is given to him. I again see this as both a strength and weakness. Being passive can be a weakness if one never asserts himself but taking what is given to you can make one efficient and effective.
Fultz is a better player than Ball, is not even up for debate. If Ball is lucky, he will have a Kevin Martin type of shot but his shot is worse off than that one. Will bringing it across your body work in the NBA? Fultz has a nice shot with no hitches. Ball is a great college player but his shot is ugly. I never believe what a guy named Ball, says ever.
Jackson is the best prospect out of the three with the most potential. He is not the best player at this point. But he has great size, is the most athletic I would say and room to grow. It will be a hard call for Danny. Does taking Fultz make IT a goner? What about Rozier or Smart? Are there any franchise guys in this draft? Do we use the draft to address our glaring front court weakness or take best player available?
I just cant agree that Jackson has more potential than Fultz.
Jackson projects to be a poor man's Kawahi Leonard at best, and at age 18, Fultz already possesses the absolutely complete offensive game that NBA players strive for.
He has almost no major holes in his offensive game. His handles, his shooting, his finishing ability with both hands.
I honestly can't remember seeing a freshman with his triple threat scoring ability. Can you?
He is like Evan Turner with a 3 point shot and he actually finishes at the rim under contact.
At 6'5" with a 6'10" wingspan he can easily play SG or even SF in the NBA with some time in the gym. He has enormous hands and length and uses that length at every opp.
I agree that he coasts at times, but he busted his a$$ to get from playing JV to becoming the #1 prospect in the world.
Jackson is a great talent with tremendous upside, but Fultz is a potential superstar/top 5 talent with his skill and size.
To see a kid with his size that can shoot mid range, drive, and shoots 40% from 3 so consistently is very,very rare.
Anyway just my opinion but i do agree Jackson and Fultz should go ahead of Ball.
edit: PS keep in mind that Jackson is 14 months older than Fultz too- which is a long time at this stage of development.
-
1) Transcendental talents have lead their teams deep in the NCAAs. Fultz could not even lead his to the NCAAs. I thought the same thing last year for Ben Simmons. The kid is talented but not talented enough to carry his team to the tourney.
2) Fultz just a few years was not highly regarded. I think this is a strength as well as a weakness. The kid has clawed his way to the top. But his record in high school, indicates he played on the freshman and JV team. Most studs play varsity early. Not Fultz.. He did stick with it though and never gave up.
Entering his sophomore season, Fultz hit a growth spurt. His height, combined with his high basketball IQ, equipped him to play every position. “I think that kind of helped [his] overall game,” said Corey McCrae, who coached Fultz on jayvee. Fultz said he never got discouraged, that he just believed it would all work out, but the decision to table his varsity debut undoubtedly fueled Fultz. He ended his sophomore season behind schedule on the modern recruiting calendar, but he was eager to make up ground. “I never got frustrated, really,” Fultz says, adding that “I love the game, so no matter if I’m playing JV or varsity, I’m going to do it to the best of my ability.”
https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/06/17/markelle-fultz-2016-basketball-recruiting-washington-dc
3) He can be passive and takes what is given to him. I again see this as both a strength and weakness. Being passive can be a weakness if one never asserts himself but taking what is given to you can make one efficient and effective.
Fultz is a better player than Ball, is not even up for debate. If Ball is lucky, he will have a Kevin Martin type of shot but his shot is worse off than that one. Will bringing it across your body work in the NBA? Fultz has a nice shot with no hitches. Ball is a great college player but his shot is ugly. I never believe what a guy named Ball, says ever.
Jackson is the best prospect out of the three with the most potential. He is not the best player at this point. But he has great size, is the most athletic I would say and room to grow. It will be a hard call for Danny. Does taking Fultz make IT a goner? What about Rozier or Smart? Are there any franchise guys in this draft? Do we use the draft to address our glaring front court weakness or take best player available?
I just cant agree that Jackson has more potential than Fultz.
Jackson projects to be a poor man's Kawahi Leonard at best, and at age 19, Fultz already possesses the absolutely complete offensive game that NBA players strive for.
He has almost no major holes in his offensive game. His handles, his shooting, his finishing ability with both hands.
I honestly can't remember seeing a freshman with his triple threat scoring ability. Can you?
He is like Evan Turner with a 3 point shot and he actually finishes at the rim under contact.
At 6'5" with a 6'10" wingspan he can easily play SG or even SF in the NBA with some time in the gym. He has enormous hands and length and uses that length at every opp.
I agree that he coasts at times, but he busted his a$$ to get from playing JV to becoming the #1 prospect in the world.
Jackson is a great talent with tremendous upside, but Fultz is a potential superstar/top 5 talent with his skill and size.
To see a kid with his size that can shoot mid range, drive, and shoots 40% from 3 so consistently is very,very rare.
Anyway just my opinion but i do agree Jackson and Fultz should go ahead of Ball.
Well said Chambers. +1 My good man.
And might I add, He's twice the athlete that Evan Turner ever was. Interesting prospect and I love that the last mock I looked at had him going to the Celtics first.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
I think you have to give Fultz more credit as an elite shot maker and distributor. He has a better assist:turnover ratio than ball too.
Ask yourself.
When have we seen anyone score the ball from 3, mid range and in the paint this well? He's a scoring machine.
That's what he's elite at.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
I think you have to give Fultz more credit as an elite shot maker and distributor. He has a better assist:turnover ratio than ball too.
Ask yourself.
When have we seen anyone score the ball from 3, mid range and in the paint this well? He's a scoring machine.
That's what he's elite at.
As long as he's matched up with inferior talent. Struggled against the elite teams.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
I think you have to give Fultz more credit as an elite shot maker and distributor. He has a better assist:turnover ratio than ball too.
Ask yourself.
When have we seen anyone score the ball from 3, mid range and in the paint this well? He's a scoring machine.
That's what he's elite at.
As long as he's matched up with inferior talent. Struggled against the elite teams.
hard to judge when hes facing double and triple teams all day.
Teams cant do that vs. Tatum or Jackson.
That said, Fultz is a star scorer for sure, but I dont think its at all unreasonable to project Tatum as a better one.
If you think Fultz is gonna be a low 20s ppg guy and Tatum is gonna be a potential scoring leader you can still take tatum over Fultz.
I wouldnt, but I think a rational person could do it.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
I think you have to give Fultz more credit as an elite shot maker and distributor. He has a better assist:turnover ratio than ball too.
Ask yourself.
When have we seen anyone score the ball from 3, mid range and in the paint this well? He's a scoring machine.
That's what he's elite at.
I did not know he had a better a/to ratio than Ball. That is impressive.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
I think you have to give Fultz more credit as an elite shot maker and distributor. He has a better assist:turnover ratio than ball too.
Ask yourself.
When have we seen anyone score the ball from 3, mid range and in the paint this well? He's a scoring machine.
That's what he's elite at.
As long as he's matched up with inferior talent. Struggled against the elite teams.
hard to judge when hes facing double and triple teams all day.
Teams cant do that vs. Tatum or Jackson.
That said, Fultz is a star scorer for sure, but I dont think its at all unreasonable to project Tatum as a better one.
If you think Fultz is gonna be a low 20s ppg guy and Tatum is gonna be a potential scoring leader you can still take tatum over Fultz.
I wouldnt, but I think a rational person could do it.
If Tatum had Fultz's athleticism i'd agree with you, or if he was a Klay Thompson type knock-down shooter. I have a hard time envisioning him as a top-tier SF with his athleticism.
-
missed a bunch of games with knee soreness.
Isnt a wow-type athlete, so its possible that he struggles to get his shot in the NBA.
Not superlative as a defender.
Hes not a guy with many flaws. If you really wanted to make an argument against Fultz, you would focus more on the strengths of guys like Jackson Tatum and Ball than you would the weaknesses of Fultz.
Jackson is an elite athlete, who plays elite defense, is an elite passer, and is an elite competitor.
Ball is truly a gifted passer who has unlimited range.
Tatum is a gifted scorer.
If you pick dont pick Fultz it is because you believe one of those guys elite traits is transcendent in the order of Stephen Curry's shooting or something of the like.
This is my thinking as well.
I think you have to give Fultz more credit as an elite shot maker and distributor. He has a better assist:turnover ratio than ball too.
Ask yourself.
When have we seen anyone score the ball from 3, mid range and in the paint this well? He's a scoring machine.
That's what he's elite at.
As long as he's matched up with inferior talent. Struggled against the elite teams.
hard to judge when hes facing double and triple teams all day.
Teams cant do that vs. Tatum or Jackson.
That said, Fultz is a star scorer for sure, but I dont think its at all unreasonable to project Tatum as a better one.
If you think Fultz is gonna be a low 20s ppg guy and Tatum is gonna be a potential scoring leader you can still take tatum over Fultz.
I wouldnt, but I think a rational person could do it.
If Tatum had Fultz's athleticism i'd agree with you, or if he was a Klay Thompson type knock-down shooter. I have a hard time envisioning him as a top-tier SF with his athleticism.
Athleticism? Paul Pierce says hi
-
I really wouldn't put Fultz behind anyone but you could argue that the team needs more size therefore drafting Jackson or Tatum may be the preferred player. But going off BPA it's got to be Fultz.
-
I just cant agree that Jackson has more potential than Fultz.
I know but you have a man crush on Fultz. I was addressing the original poster and playing devil's advocate.
But quite a few folks think he has the most potential.
Jackson has arguably the most potential out of all the prospects due to his crazy athleticism and his ability to be an impact player in virtually all facets of the game
http://hardwoodhoudini.com/2017/02/09/hh-draft-profile-josh-jackson/
Josh Jackson is a high level prospect with a lot of potential in the NBA ... He has the size and athletic ability to play two positions in the NBA on both sides of the ball ... He’s a competitor with a great motor, and the rare type of guy who can create offensive out of defense ... He’ll need to work on his shot to take his game to the next level, but Jackson appears to have a high floor, as well as the ceiling of an All-Star level player.
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/josh-jackson
Here are some ratings of the top players in the 2016 class. He is ahead of Fultz this list is based on play and potential. One list had him at one, most do, and the bottom one at two. Fultz was four.
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=highschool
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/news/_/id/170377/josh-jackson
I also think Ainge will look past his character issues because they are competitive in nature. Who else played that way? Ainge himself.
Through four games, Jackson's reputation has proved true in this regard: His competitive nature. He hates losing in every facet, be it a possession, a series, a battle for a ball, anything. This competitiveness also forms a certain aggressiveness, and because of that, the one issue plaguing Jackson early into his college career is foul trouble. In the Jayhawks' 83-63 victory vs. UAB in the CBE Classic on Monday, Jackson picked up his second whistle midway through the first half.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/what-weve-seen-so-far-from-kansas-josh-jackson-the-potential-no-1-nba-pick/
Now if Fultz comes in and has a better workout and we are lucky enough to pick first then you have to take him.
-
http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2017/04/boston_celtics_draft_2017_mark_1.html
(Fultz has) been close with Isaiah Thomas since their workouts at Washington this summer. "I've talked to him a lot," Fultz says. And yes, the family is well aware that Boston currently has the best odds at the No. 1 pick. "We always talk about the opportunity. That would be the craziest backcourt. The way he scores, the way I can pass, and the way I can score... we can switch between the one and two."
So it's official. IT and Fultz have been talking about playing together. Gotta say think this is the first draft where I'm going to be absolutley crushed if we miss out on a prospect. The added value to bringing in a cost controlled, top flight stud into our backcourt is borderline immeasurable.
Stylistically it would probably look something like Lillard McCollum but FWIW I do think we would need some legit size in the middle for it to work to it's full capability. The Blazers looked like a new team when they added Nurkic mainly because of the defensive attention he pulls in around the basket. Maybe Zizic is that guy but if he's not we would really need a new option next to Horford to get the most out of Fultz/IT.
-
according to what scal says, the celtics love fultz as the number one pick. i would not mind that in the least. as much as i like jackson, i think fultz will be the better nba player eventually.
-
I hope if we do land the #1 pick, Danny Ainge doesn't go ape nuts and draft Lonzo Ball or some nobody.
And if the Lakers somehow land the #1 pick, I hope they get Lonzo Ball.
-
according to what scal says, the celtics love fultz as the number one pick. i would not mind that in the least. as much as i like jackson, i think fultz will be the better nba player eventually.
I'm not even convinced Jackson would be the pick at 2 or 3. I've got Fultz ahead of the pack by a mile but there are some legitimate concerns with Jackson that have to be considered.
Jackson was recently arraigned for a vandalism incident.
Jackson's jump shot is streaky at best, broken at worst.
I think there's a fair bit of skillset redundancy with Jaylen when considering Jackson.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still advocating BPA but Jayson Tatum is already so close to Jackson without most of the warts that IMO you can consider the level below BPA and ask yourself if Taytum is 2B to Jackson's 2A do you take Jackson or the guy with a hair less potential but way closer to being complete in Taytum.
For transparency sake my Celtics Draft Board goes...
1. Markelle Fultz
2. Jason Tatum
3. Josh Jackson
4. Malik Monk
5. De'Aaron Fox
6. Jonathan Issac
7. Dennis Smith Jr.
8. Lonzo Ball
9. Lauri Markanen
10. Zach Collins
-
I hope if we do land the #1 pick, Danny Ainge doesn't go ape nuts and draft Lonzo Ball or some nobody.
And if the Lakers somehow land the #1 pick, I hope they get Lonzo Ball.
I'm absolutely hoping for a world where L.A. gets Ball, we get Fultz and every game for the next 10 years is a classic.
-
I think Fultz is the clear #1 because I think his offensive game is so well rounded and high level. I dont have any questions about his offense in the pros. I think his D will be fine. I have very few questions about him.
With Jackson I question his handle and his shot.
With Tatum its his east - west movement and his high handle.
I think both will be fine with more space in the NBA. Tatum moreso than Jackson with the space.
With Ball I have a host of questions. Is he coachable? Can he be more than a one dimensional scorer? What is he in HC with the ball in his hands? These are major concerns that I have about him.
-
I just cant agree that Jackson has more potential than Fultz.
I know but you have a man crush on Fultz. I was addressing the original poster and playing devil's advocate.
But quite a few folks think he has the most potential.
Jackson has arguably the most potential out of all the prospects due to his crazy athleticism and his ability to be an impact player in virtually all facets of the game
http://hardwoodhoudini.com/2017/02/09/hh-draft-profile-josh-jackson/
Josh Jackson is a high level prospect with a lot of potential in the NBA ... He has the size and athletic ability to play two positions in the NBA on both sides of the ball ... He’s a competitor with a great motor, and the rare type of guy who can create offensive out of defense ... He’ll need to work on his shot to take his game to the next level, but Jackson appears to have a high floor, as well as the ceiling of an All-Star level player.
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/josh-jackson
Here are some ratings of the top players in the 2016 class. He is ahead of Fultz this list is based on play and potential. One list had him at one, most do, and the bottom one at two. Fultz was four.
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=highschool
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/news/_/id/170377/josh-jackson
I also think Ainge will look past his character issues because they are competitive in nature. Who else played that way? Ainge himself.
Through four games, Jackson's reputation has proved true in this regard: His competitive nature. He hates losing in every facet, be it a possession, a series, a battle for a ball, anything. This competitiveness also forms a certain aggressiveness, and because of that, the one issue plaguing Jackson early into his college career is foul trouble. In the Jayhawks' 83-63 victory vs. UAB in the CBE Classic on Monday, Jackson picked up his second whistle midway through the first half.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/what-weve-seen-so-far-from-kansas-josh-jackson-the-potential-no-1-nba-pick/
Now if Fultz comes in and has a better workout and we are lucky enough to pick first then you have to take him.
Lets not bring HS ranking into this. Towns was 9th in his class and everytime I watched him he was far ahead of Alexander and Turner as far as NBA prospects. It wasnt close.
-
Every time I see this thread, I keep on thinking it should read "Convince me Markell Fultz is the #1 pick". How many times have some of you seen Fultz actually play? I will fully admit that I have not seen him play, since I unfortunately missed the Washington v UCLA game on national TV. Was that Washington's only nationally broadcasted game?
I definitely am concerned about his leadership, especially since he's supposed to be a point guard. He "led" his team to a 9-22 record. I highly doubt he was playing with 11 or so walk-ons from the local YMCA, so I don't want to hear about him having inferior talent.
In another thread, I saw someone had a link to a Fultz highlight reel that was about 18 minutes long. I gave up watching about half-way through since I believe I had only seen 1 or 2 passes from a POINT GUARD! It seems like every poster is talking about how great of a scorer this kid is. That is great, but can he lead a team, control the tempo of a game, or create better shots for his team?
I have seen Lonzo Ball play many times. He is probably the best PG I have seen since Jason Kidd and Magic. If there is a play that needed to be made, Ball always seemed to be in position to make the play happen, whether it was passing, scoring, rebounding, or blocking a shot. He could control the tempo of a game and created easier shots for his teammates, whether it was in the open or half court. BTW, Ball (3.04) does have a better assist to turnover ratio tan Fultz (1.84).
I know guys come and go in college, so team records should be taken with a grain of salt. Here is UCLA's record for the last three seasons: 22-14, 15-17, and 31-5. Here is Washington's record: 16-15, 19-15, 9-22. Looking from the outside, UCLA was on a downward trend, while Washington showed a slight improvement before this past season. The change in records was dramatic for both of these schools with their star freshmen PG's.
Part of me sees the Fultz v Ball rivalry, as something similar to games 1 and 2 of this Celtics Bulls series. A true PG in Rondo (Ball), who knows how to control a game, absolutely destroyed Isaiah Thomas (Fultz) and the Celtics. I love IT, but he is more of a scorer than a PG and is only a PG by default because of his height.
-
Every time I see this thread, I keep on thinking it should read "Convince me Markell Fultz is the #1 pick". How many times have some of you seen Fultz actually play? I will fully admit that I have not seen him play, since I unfortunately missed the Washington v UCLA game on national TV. Was that Washington's only nationally broadcasted game?
I definitely am concerned about his leadership, especially since he's supposed to be a point guard. He "led" his team to a 9-22 record. I highly doubt he was playing with 11 or so walk-ons from the local YMCA, so I don't want to hear about him having inferior talent.
In another thread, I saw someone had a link to a Fultz highlight reel that was about 18 minutes long. I gave up watching about half-way through since I believe I had only seen 1 or 2 passes from a POINT GUARD! It seems like every poster is talking about how great of a scorer this kid is. That is great, but can he lead a team, control the tempo of a game, or create better shots for his team?
I have seen Lonzo Ball play many times. He is probably the best PG I have seen since Jason Kidd and Magic. If there is a play that needed to be made, Ball always seemed to be in position to make the play happen, whether it was passing, scoring, rebounding, or blocking a shot. He could control the tempo of a game and created easier shots for his teammates, whether it was in the open or half court. BTW, Ball (3.04) does have a better assist to turnover ratio tan Fultz (1.84).
I know guys come and go in college, so team records should be taken with a grain of salt. Here is UCLA's record for the last three seasons: 22-14, 15-17, and 31-5. Here is Washington's record: 16-15, 19-15, 9-22. Looking from the outside, UCLA was on a downward trend, while Washington showed a slight improvement before this past season. The change in records was dramatic for both of these schools with their star freshmen PG's.
Part of me sees the Fultz v Ball rivalry, as something similar to games 1 and 2 of this Celtics Bulls series. A true PG in Rondo (Ball), who knows how to control a game, absolutely destroyed Isaiah Thomas (Fultz) and the Celtics. I love IT, but he is more of a scorer than a PG and is only a PG by default because of his height.
thanks for sharing the insights -- Tommy Point!
-
Every time I see this thread, I keep on thinking it should read "Convince me Markell Fultz is the #1 pick". How many times have some of you seen Fultz actually play? I will fully admit that I have not seen him play, since I unfortunately missed the Washington v UCLA game on national TV. Was that Washington's only nationally broadcasted game?
I definitely am concerned about his leadership, especially since he's supposed to be a point guard. He "led" his team to a 9-22 record. I highly doubt he was playing with 11 or so walk-ons from the local YMCA, so I don't want to hear about him having inferior talent.
In another thread, I saw someone had a link to a Fultz highlight reel that was about 18 minutes long. I gave up watching about half-way through since I believe I had only seen 1 or 2 passes from a POINT GUARD! It seems like every poster is talking about how great of a scorer this kid is. That is great, but can he lead a team, control the tempo of a game, or create better shots for his team?
I have seen Lonzo Ball play many times. He is probably the best PG I have seen since Jason Kidd and Magic. If there is a play that needed to be made, Ball always seemed to be in position to make the play happen, whether it was passing, scoring, rebounding, or blocking a shot. He could control the tempo of a game and created easier shots for his teammates, whether it was in the open or half court. BTW, Ball (3.04) does have a better assist to turnover ratio tan Fultz (1.84).
I know guys come and go in college, so team records should be taken with a grain of salt. Here is UCLA's record for the last three seasons: 22-14, 15-17, and 31-5. Here is Washington's record: 16-15, 19-15, 9-22. Looking from the outside, UCLA was on a downward trend, while Washington showed a slight improvement before this past season. The change in records was dramatic for both of these schools with their star freshmen PG's.
Part of me sees the Fultz v Ball rivalry, as something similar to games 1 and 2 of this Celtics Bulls series. A true PG in Rondo (Ball), who knows how to control a game, absolutely destroyed Isaiah Thomas (Fultz) and the Celtics. I love IT, but he is more of a scorer than a PG and is only a PG by default because of his height.
So you haven't seen him play. Your entire exposure is a highlight reel and then you start listing concerns. If you don't want to hear about inferior talent then frankly don't post. The whole point of being here is to express an opinion and to learn something. You didn't do your own research and now if you're going to say you don't want any actual facts that might contradict your premade conclusion then why bother even posting?
So I'm going to assume that you actually do want to learn something about Fultz/Balla nd their various situations in order to further your understanding why Fultz is the #1 pick.
Fultz played on a horrible Washington Huskies team. There was only one upperclassman who played more than 15 minutes per game. Most of these guys were Sophomores who were not highly touted coming out of High School and have really no future in basketball. Washington lost Andrew Andrews, Dejounte Murray and Marquese Chriss leaving Fultz with no one to play with. So trying to use last years' record to predict the 2016 season is folly. You can't do that with a gutted team. The preseason predictions had them about 10th in the Pac 12 and they finished 11th. This was a team so bad that they ranked 228th in defensive efficiency. The days of a Larry Bird being able to carry a lousy college team ended in the 80s.
Nor can you use UCLA's record from 2015 to predict 2016. UCLA was a much more loaded team and they were predicted to finish 3rd in the Pac 12 which is exactly where they ended. Aaron Holiday didn't start a game for UCLA but would have been the Huskie's 2nd best player. So lay that concern to rest. Your attempt to equate prior records with expectations just doesn't hold here.
Highlight reels aren't a great way of assessing a player. Anyone can look like a 1st round pick in one. However, Ball and Fultz may very well be the best two prospects coming out of college in the same year since Oden/Durant a decade ago. They're both generally ranked higher than Ben Simmons from last year in terms of NBA potential. These guys look to be the real thing.
Ball is certainly the better passer. He's gifted at it in a way that can't be taught. He's incredible in transition and his BB IQ is practically off the chart. He has a weird shooting motion but sinks them consistently and his release is quick enough to compensate for the lower release point. He's tall and lanky but lacks the athleticism needed to be a great defender. The biggest knock on him is his inability to create shots. He's going to need a team built around him because he can't create. That's the biggest knock on him and that's significant. He'd be a very good #1 pick.
Fultz is a very good but not truly gifted passer despite your highlight reel video. The guy can find people but on his team they often weren't worth finding. It's interesting that his A-TO ratio is actually better than Kris Dunn's, who was proclaimed as a great passing PG last year. Give him Ball's team and I bet his assist numbers equal Balls while his TOs go down somewhat. His assist percentage of 36% was also 2nd in the nation (and no, Ball wasn't first). But what makes Fultz scary is that this is a guy who can create his own shot like IT but stands 6'4" and has a reach of 6'10". He was 2nd in the nation off the pick and roll - a Brad Stevens staple. He has the talent and athleticism to create his shot against most anyone at any time. That's a talent that can't be taught.
The knock on Fultz is that he looks lazy at times. I don't know why - maybe it's personality, due to losing, frustration, whatever - but at times he just looks like he'd rather be somewhere else. There's no evidence of a personality issue at this time but he simply looks bored. He also needs to refine his game in many areas - defensively he gambles too much, his FT% was 65% (of course, Balls was only 67%) which is too low for a 41% 3 point shooter and he has to learn to play within himself. But he has the highest upside of anyone out there this year and that's why he's seen as the #1. There's a reason why his NBA comps are often Westbrook and Harden - that's where his ceiling is. And I'd take a guy whose ceiling is at two guys who just put up historic numbers.
As for this series, IT can get shut down because there's often no one else who can create and he's not big enough to deal with long defenders. Rondo is a difficult matchup for him because of Rondo's 6-10 wingspan and his defensive oriented game. But let's face it, the Cs lost game 1 because they got murdered on the boards. You don't win when you give up 20 offensive boards. Game 2 was just a bad game. In that game IT destroyed Rondo. In game 2, the Cs sucked and pretty much every Celtic was outplayed by their counterpart - again you can't attribute it to Rondo when Horford gets destroyed by Robin Lopez.
-
Every time I see this thread, I keep on thinking it should read "Convince me Markell Fultz is the #1 pick". How many times have some of you seen Fultz actually play? I will fully admit that I have not seen him play, since I unfortunately missed the Washington v UCLA game on national TV. Was that Washington's only nationally broadcasted game?
I definitely am concerned about his leadership, especially since he's supposed to be a point guard. He "led" his team to a 9-22 record. I highly doubt he was playing with 11 or so walk-ons from the local YMCA, so I don't want to hear about him having inferior talent.
In another thread, I saw someone had a link to a Fultz highlight reel that was about 18 minutes long. I gave up watching about half-way through since I believe I had only seen 1 or 2 passes from a POINT GUARD! It seems like every poster is talking about how great of a scorer this kid is. That is great, but can he lead a team, control the tempo of a game, or create better shots for his team?
I have seen Lonzo Ball play many times. He is probably the best PG I have seen since Jason Kidd and Magic. If there is a play that needed to be made, Ball always seemed to be in position to make the play happen, whether it was passing, scoring, rebounding, or blocking a shot. He could control the tempo of a game and created easier shots for his teammates, whether it was in the open or half court. BTW, Ball (3.04) does have a better assist to turnover ratio tan Fultz (1.84).
I know guys come and go in college, so team records should be taken with a grain of salt. Here is UCLA's record for the last three seasons: 22-14, 15-17, and 31-5. Here is Washington's record: 16-15, 19-15, 9-22. Looking from the outside, UCLA was on a downward trend, while Washington showed a slight improvement before this past season. The change in records was dramatic for both of these schools with their star freshmen PG's.
Part of me sees the Fultz v Ball rivalry, as something similar to games 1 and 2 of this Celtics Bulls series. A true PG in Rondo (Ball), who knows how to control a game, absolutely destroyed Isaiah Thomas (Fultz) and the Celtics. I love IT, but he is more of a scorer than a PG and is only a PG by default because of his height.
Nice post and welcome to CB!
I do have some issues with your assertions though...
1. Ball is the best point guard since Jason Kidd and Magic. Well, define best... Do you think he'll be better than CP3, Russell Westbrook, John Wall, Steph Curry, James Harden, Kyrie Irving, Damion Lillard? I don't. Something a of those players have in common is that they have all world scoring ability and I'm, not sure that Ball does. If he was as good as those players wouldn't he be the consensus number 1 pick?
So then despite the team record, ATO, charisma, and overall hype surrounding Ball why is he almost unilaterally considered an inferior prospect to Fultz by the draft analysis community? Because "best" isn't the right word to use when describing Ball. It'd be more correct to say "purest" point guard since Kidd and Magic.
Lonzo is capable of running a Kidd and Magic style offense that, aesthetically, is basketball at its purest. But personally I don't think it's necessarily conducive to winning championships. Historically in the playoffs teams that play this way(Kidd's Nets, Jason Williams Kings, Nash's Suns) almost always run into athletic defenses that muck up the game and expose the full-court team's inability to grind out wins when things get tough.
I've watched a fair bit of Fultz and I've watched probably 3 games of Lonzo Ball. The problem is that the Lonzo Ball game that sticks out most in my mind is when he ran into the athletes on Kentucky in the tournament and was run off the floor. When Lonzo ran against a player in De'Aaron Fox that has NBA caliber speed and athleticism he wilted. Gone was the up and down high flying offense and in its place was a tentative half court heavy attack where his backups Holiday and Alford shined and Lonzo sulked.
He was exposed. He lacked the ability to separate from Fox on offense and the lateral quickness to stay in front of him on defense. Suddenly that ugly three point form that had gone in all year was negated because he actually had an NBA defender in his face harassing him and his low release point. This game was absolutely indicative of what I'd imagine a Lonzo Ball lead team will run into in the playoffs and I just want no part of that in Boston.
2. Fultz's team was garbage in college so his teams will lose in the NBA.So why then do I dismiss Fultz's 9-22 record when I kill Ball for largely just one game? Fultz is clearly a poor leader and we need our point guard to lead the rest of the roster right? Well I harken back to one of Bill Simmons rules From the Book of Basketball: Your best player does not necessarily need to be your leader. If you have a strong locker room culture already in place you don't need for your high-profile rookie to come in and lead things. You need them to come in and dominate their matchup which is something Fultz is capable of on any given night.
I just always go back to the belief that if you have Fultz on your team his skill set will fit in around what you already have. He doesn't ask much of his teammates, he just asserts his will on the other team and I am 100% confident that if you put him on the Celtics, Fultz wouldn't change a thing about his own approach but our rotation would fit in around him.
With Ball we'd have to change the system from top to bottom and read headlines about Lavar barking about how its the team's fault if things don't go well. No thanks, I'll take Fultz over Ball 10 times out of 10.
P.S. I've probably never pushed an agenda harder on Celticsblog so people can feel free to bring up these posts if Ball ends up being a stud and Fultz flops. I'm just completely confident in this line of thinking.
-
So you haven't seen him play. Your entire exposure is a highlight reel and then you start listing concerns. If you don't want to hear about inferior talent then frankly don't post. The whole point of being here is to express an opinion and to learn something. You didn't do your own research and now if you're going to say you don't want any actual facts that might contradict your premade conclusion then why bother even posting?
So I'm going to assume that you actually do want to learn something about Fultz/Balla nd their various situations in order to further your understanding why Fultz is the #1 pick.
Fultz played on a horrible Washington Huskies team. There was only one upperclassman who played more than 15 minutes per game. Most of these guys were Sophomores who were not highly touted coming out of High School and have really no future in basketball. Washington lost Andrew Andrews, Dejounte Murray and Marquese Chriss leaving Fultz with no one to play with. So trying to use last years' record to predict the 2016 season is folly. You can't do that with a gutted team. The preseason predictions had them about 10th in the Pac 12 and they finished 11th. This was a team so bad that they ranked 228th in defensive efficiency. The days of a Larry Bird being able to carry a lousy college team ended in the 80s.
Nor can you use UCLA's record from 2015 to predict 2016. UCLA was a much more loaded team and they were predicted to finish 3rd in the Pac 12 which is exactly where they ended. Aaron Holiday didn't start a game for UCLA but would have been the Huskie's 2nd best player. So lay that concern to rest. Your attempt to equate prior records with expectations just doesn't hold here.
Highlight reels aren't a great way of assessing a player. Anyone can look like a 1st round pick in one. However, Ball and Fultz may very well be the best two prospects coming out of college in the same year since Oden/Durant a decade ago. They're both generally ranked higher than Ben Simmons from last year in terms of NBA potential. These guys look to be the real thing.
Ball is certainly the better passer. He's gifted at it in a way that can't be taught. He's incredible in transition and his BB IQ is practically off the chart. He has a weird shooting motion but sinks them consistently and his release is quick enough to compensate for the lower release point. He's tall and lanky but lacks the athleticism needed to be a great defender. The biggest knock on him is his inability to create shots. He's going to need a team built around him because he can't create. That's the biggest knock on him and that's significant. He'd be a very good #1 pick.
Fultz is a very good but not truly gifted passer despite your highlight reel video. The guy can find people but on his team they often weren't worth finding. It's interesting that his A-TO ratio is actually better than Kris Dunn's, who was proclaimed as a great passing PG last year. Give him Ball's team and I bet his assist numbers equal Balls while his TOs go down somewhat. His assist percentage of 36% was also 2nd in the nation (and no, Ball wasn't first). But what makes Fultz scary is that this is a guy who can create his own shot like IT but stands 6'4" and has a reach of 6'10". He was 2nd in the nation off the pick and roll - a Brad Stevens staple. He has the talent and athleticism to create his shot against most anyone at any time. That's a talent that can't be taught.
The knock on Fultz is that he looks lazy at times. I don't know why - maybe it's personality, due to losing, frustration, whatever - but at times he just looks like he'd rather be somewhere else. There's no evidence of a personality issue at this time but he simply looks bored. He also needs to refine his game in many areas - defensively he gambles too much, his FT% was 65% (of course, Balls was only 67%) which is too low for a 41% 3 point shooter and he has to learn to play within himself. But he has the highest upside of anyone out there this year and that's why he's seen as the #1. There's a reason why his NBA comps are often Westbrook and Harden - that's where his ceiling is. And I'd take a guy whose ceiling is at two guys who just put up historic numbers.
As for this series, IT can get shut down because there's often no one else who can create and he's not big enough to deal with long defenders. Rondo is a difficult matchup for him because of Rondo's 6-10 wingspan and his defensive oriented game. But let's face it, the Cs lost game 1 because they got murdered on the boards. You don't win when you give up 20 offensive boards. Game 2 was just a bad game. In that game IT destroyed Rondo. In game 2, the Cs sucked and pretty much every Celtic was outplayed by their counterpart - again you can't attribute it to Rondo when Horford gets destroyed by Robin Lopez.
My biggest issue is how everyone around here is so convinced that Fultz is the best prospect by a mile, when he barely had any national exposure on TV. Like I said, I only recall Washington being on National TV once, and that was against Ball and UCLA. You would think Fultz had games on ESPN and CBS twice a week with the way people praise him so much in these forums. It's one thin to watch a player and another to just read a draft report. I don't recall reading when you said you have seen him play, which was basically the only question I had in my entire post.
Like I said in my post, I don't want to hear about the so-called inferior talent on the Washington team. You mentioned how Washington lost Andrews, Murray, and Chriss. If I recall, didn't they have one of the highest ranked prospects initially commit to them next year before ultimately changing his mind? It seems to me that Washington is not struggling to get talent to their school. How many schools in the nation can claim they had as many NBA players drafted between last year and this upcoming draft? The answer, not many. Was is just a massive coincidence that this Washington team had the best player in college basketball, but decided to recruit JV talent that wouldn't start on a Division III team?
I'm sorry, but I find it almost impossible for a so called number 1 pick, who arguably plays the most important position in college basketball, to only lead his team to 9 wins. I just think we need to pump the brakes on Fultz, and look past the numbers because intangibles also matter when your in a position to draft in the top 4.
When I referred to the highlight reel, I was basically referencing that he seems to be more of a scoring PG than a pure PG. Besides Stephen Curry two years ago, when was the last team to win a title, where their PG was the leading scorer? I have always been of the mindset, that your PG can not be your go to scorer, and have any hopes of winning a championship.
-
Nice post and welcome to CB!
I do have some issues with your assertions though...
1. Ball is the best point guard since Jason Kidd and Magic. Well, define best... Do you think he'll be better than CP3, Russell Westbrook, John Wall, Steph Curry, James Harden, Kyrie Irving, Damion Lillard? I don't. Something a of those players have in common is that they have all world scoring ability and I'm, not sure that Ball does. If he was as good as those players wouldn't he be the consensus number 1 pick?
So then despite the team record, ATO, charisma, and overall hype surrounding Ball why is he almost unilaterally considered an inferior prospect to Fultz by the draft analysis community? Because "best" isn't the right word to use when describing Ball. It'd be more correct to say "purest" point guard since Kidd and Magic.
Lonzo is capable of running a Kidd and Magic style offense that, aesthetically, is basketball at its purest. But personally I don't think it's necessarily conducive to winning championships. Historically in the playoffs teams that play this way(Kidd's Nets, Jason Williams Kings, Nash's Suns) almost always run into athletic defenses that muck up the game and expose the full-court team's inability to grind out wins when things get tough.
I've watched a fair bit of Fultz and I've watched probably 3 games of Lonzo Ball. The problem is that the Lonzo Ball game that sticks out most in my mind is when he ran into the athletes on Kentucky in the tournament and was run off the floor. When Lonzo ran against a player in De'Aaron Fox that has NBA caliber speed and athleticism he wilted. Gone was the up and down high flying offense and in its place was a tentative half court heavy attack where his backups Holiday and Alford shined and Lonzo sulked.
He was exposed. He lacked the ability to separate from Fox on offense and the lateral quickness to stay in front of him on defense. Suddenly that ugly three point form that had gone in all year was negated because he actually had an NBA defender in his face harassing him and his low release point. This game was absolutely indicative of what I'd imagine a Lonzo Ball lead team will run into in the playoffs and I just want no part of that in Boston.
2. Fultz's team was garbage in college so his teams will lose in the NBA.So why then do I dismiss Fultz's 9-22 record when I kill Ball for largely just one game? Fultz is clearly a poor leader and we need our point guard to lead the rest of the roster right? Well I harken back to one of Bill Simmons rules From the Book of Basketball: Your best player does not necessarily need to be your leader. If you have a strong locker room culture already in place you don't need for your high-profile rookie to come in and lead things. You need them to come in and dominate their matchup which is something Fultz is capable of on any given night.
I just always go back to the belief that if you have Fultz on your team his skill set will fit in around what you already have. He doesn't ask much of his teammates, he just asserts his will on the other team and I am 100% confident that if you put him on the Celtics, Fultz wouldn't change a thing about his own approach but our rotation would fit in around him.
With Ball we'd have to change the system from top to bottom and read headlines about Lavar barking about how its the team's fault if things don't go well. No thanks, I'll take Fultz over Ball 10 times out of 10.
P.S. I've probably never pushed an agenda harder on Celticsblog so people can feel free to bring up these posts if Ball ends up being a stud and Fultz flops. I'm just completely confident in this line of thinking.
I apologize, but I thought it was self explanatory when I referred to Magic and Kidd. I was making the comparison from a pure PG perspective that also has the ability to score when his team needs it, and can make any play on the court because they just instinctively understand the game. As for the other PG's that you mentioned, other than Chris Paul, their more scorers than facilitators. Speaking of Paul, I always wonder why his teams have not been more successful. The only answer I can come up with, is that maybe he is too controlling on the court.
As for your other point, Fultz doesn't have to be a leader, but as a PG, he needs to make his teammates better. Like I already admitted, I didn't see him play, but from afore something doesn't pass the smell test.
-
My biggest issue is how everyone around here is so convinced that Fultz is the best prospect by a mile, when he barely had any national exposure on TV. Like I said, I only recall Washington being on National TV once, and that was against Ball and UCLA. You would think Fultz had games on ESPN and CBS twice a week with the way people praise him so much in these forums. It's one thin to watch a player and another to just read a draft report. I don't recall reading when you said you have seen him play, which was basically the only question I had in my entire post.
Like I said in my post, I don't want to hear about the so-called inferior talent on the Washington team. You mentioned how Washington lost Andrews, Murray, and Chriss. If I recall, didn't they have one of the highest ranked prospects initially commit to them next year before ultimately changing his mind? It seems to me that Washington is not struggling to get talent to their school. How many schools in the nation can claim they had as many NBA players drafted between last year and this upcoming draft? The answer, not many. Was is just a massive coincidence that this Washington team had the best player in college basketball, but decided to recruit JV talent that wouldn't start on a Division III team?
I'm sorry, but I find it almost impossible for a so called number 1 pick, who arguably plays the most important position in college basketball, to only lead his team to 9 wins. I just think we need to pump the brakes on Fultz, and look past the numbers because intangibles also matter when your in a position to draft in the top 4.
When I referred to the highlight reel, I was basically referencing that he seems to be more of a scoring PG than a pure PG. Besides Stephen Curry two years ago, when was the last team to win a title, where their PG was the leading scorer? I have always been of the mindset, that your PG can not be your go to scorer, and have any hopes of winning a championship.
Having lived in DC last year, I saw Fultz play HS ball at DeMatha who always has a great team and pro prospects. I also caught a few of his games regionally while on the the road this year. So yes, to answer your question, I have seen him play. He looks to be [dang] good. Bad teams don't get national TV exposure.
If you "don't want to hear" about the truth then fine I'll lie to you. Fultz is 8 feet tall and plays like Zeus. Better? To use your logic, Anthony Davis sucks because the Pels can't win. Or that somehow he's driving off pending FAs. Neither works. The Huskies recruited a bunch of good froshes and unexpectedly had them all leave for the NBA. They were gutted and didn't recruit well enough to backfill. This happens with mid-tier teams. Fultz got the short end of the stick on that one.
Again, you've already admitted you've never seen him play. You don't know a thing beyond the Huskies miserable record and a couple of stats you can read on Basketball Reference. Do you really want to argue with someone who actually has seen him play? Do you really think your thinly veiled allusions to somehow Fultz driving off potential recruits with no evidence to back it up somehow works as logic around here?
I'll tell you what. Here's a link to a complete game - probably Fultz's worst all year that I saw him play and one of Ball's best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXj3uzlcEQ8 Watch it and then tell us what you think about the various talent that surrounds each player.
-
Nice post and welcome to CB!
I do have some issues with your assertions though...
1. Ball is the best point guard since Jason Kidd and Magic. Well, define best... Do you think he'll be better than CP3, Russell Westbrook, John Wall, Steph Curry, James Harden, Kyrie Irving, Damion Lillard? I don't. Something a of those players have in common is that they have all world scoring ability and I'm, not sure that Ball does. If he was as good as those players wouldn't he be the consensus number 1 pick?
So then despite the team record, ATO, charisma, and overall hype surrounding Ball why is he almost unilaterally considered an inferior prospect to Fultz by the draft analysis community? Because "best" isn't the right word to use when describing Ball. It'd be more correct to say "purest" point guard since Kidd and Magic.
Lonzo is capable of running a Kidd and Magic style offense that, aesthetically, is basketball at its purest. But personally I don't think it's necessarily conducive to winning championships. Historically in the playoffs teams that play this way(Kidd's Nets, Jason Williams Kings, Nash's Suns) almost always run into athletic defenses that muck up the game and expose the full-court team's inability to grind out wins when things get tough.
I've watched a fair bit of Fultz and I've watched probably 3 games of Lonzo Ball. The problem is that the Lonzo Ball game that sticks out most in my mind is when he ran into the athletes on Kentucky in the tournament and was run off the floor. When Lonzo ran against a player in De'Aaron Fox that has NBA caliber speed and athleticism he wilted. Gone was the up and down high flying offense and in its place was a tentative half court heavy attack where his backups Holiday and Alford shined and Lonzo sulked.
He was exposed. He lacked the ability to separate from Fox on offense and the lateral quickness to stay in front of him on defense. Suddenly that ugly three point form that had gone in all year was negated because he actually had an NBA defender in his face harassing him and his low release point. This game was absolutely indicative of what I'd imagine a Lonzo Ball lead team will run into in the playoffs and I just want no part of that in Boston.
2. Fultz's team was garbage in college so his teams will lose in the NBA.So why then do I dismiss Fultz's 9-22 record when I kill Ball for largely just one game? Fultz is clearly a poor leader and we need our point guard to lead the rest of the roster right? Well I harken back to one of Bill Simmons rules From the Book of Basketball: Your best player does not necessarily need to be your leader. If you have a strong locker room culture already in place you don't need for your high-profile rookie to come in and lead things. You need them to come in and dominate their matchup which is something Fultz is capable of on any given night.
I just always go back to the belief that if you have Fultz on your team his skill set will fit in around what you already have. He doesn't ask much of his teammates, he just asserts his will on the other team and I am 100% confident that if you put him on the Celtics, Fultz wouldn't change a thing about his own approach but our rotation would fit in around him.
With Ball we'd have to change the system from top to bottom and read headlines about Lavar barking about how its the team's fault if things don't go well. No thanks, I'll take Fultz over Ball 10 times out of 10.
P.S. I've probably never pushed an agenda harder on Celticsblog so people can feel free to bring up these posts if Ball ends up being a stud and Fultz flops. I'm just completely confident in this line of thinking.
I apologize, but I thought it was self explanatory when I referred to Magic and Kidd. I was making the comparison from a pure PG perspective that also has the ability to score when his team needs it, and can make any play on the court because they just instinctively understand the game. As for the other PG's that you mentioned, other than Chris Paul, their more scorers than facilitators. Speaking of Paul, I always wonder why his teams have not been more successful. The only answer I can come up with, is that maybe he is too controlling on the court.
As for your other point, Fultz doesn't have to be a leader, but as a PG, he needs to make his teammates better. Like I already admitted, I didn't see him play, but from afore something doesn't pass the smell test.
No need to apologize for healthy dialogue I was probably just splitting hairs. But I'm of the belief that the 1 to 5 system is a bit of an antiquated concept anyways. As long as they are a fit on the court it makes a lot more sense to look at roles than positions.
The role Lonzo will play is a complete facilitator. The role Markelle Fultz will play is a primary scorer.
Plenty of teams have won championships without a pure facilitator but you can count on one hand the amount of teams that have won championships without a dynamic scoring threat. At the end of the day just think what Fultz does is intrinsically more valuable. Its not that it's necessarily harder to find than what Ball does, guy's like Lonzo show up once in a blue moon. I just don't think at the end of the day Ball is necessary like what Fultz is.
Nash won the MVP over Kobe but who got the ring?
As for the makes his teammates better thing, Fultz averaged 23, 6 and 6 on solid percentages. Lorenzo Romar got fired after this season and with those kind of averages I think NBA decision makers view the issue with Romar's system and the teammates than a problem with Fultz's game. He sure as [heck] never had any teammates as good as TJ Leaf, Bryce Alford, or Ike Anigbogu.
-
If you want to cherry pick games to dismiss players, then check out Fultz against Arizona. Allen just physically dominates Fultz. Granted Allen's 24, but that's the kind of size and athleticism Fultz will encounter at the next level.
I saw Fultz in 3 or 4 games and just never came away that impressed. That's reason enough for me. I saw Ball in probably 10 games and was continually impressed. He has truly elite passing skills, shoots well from 3, rebounds well and plays good team D. I'm not a pro scout, and could well be wrong, but I'd take Ball over Fultz.
-
If you want to cherry pick games to dismiss players, then check out Fultz against Arizona. Allen just physically dominates Fultz. Granted Allen's 24, but that's the kind of size and athleticism Fultz will encounter at the next level.
I saw Fultz in 3 or 4 games and just never came away that impressed. That's reason enough for me. I saw Ball in probably 10 games and was continually impressed. He has truly elite passing skills, shoots well from 3, rebounds well and plays good team D. I'm not a pro scout, and could well be wrong, but I'd take Ball over Fultz.
Balls inablity to create for himself terrifies me. I dont see him getting that jumper off in the NBA.
-
Every time I see this thread, I keep on thinking it should read "Convince me Markell Fultz is the #1 pick". How many times have some of you seen Fultz actually play? I will fully admit that I have not seen him play, since I unfortunately missed the Washington v UCLA game on national TV. Was that Washington's only nationally broadcasted game?
I definitely am concerned about his leadership, especially since he's supposed to be a point guard. He "led" his team to a 9-22 record. I highly doubt he was playing with 11 or so walk-ons from the local YMCA, so I don't want to hear about him having inferior talent.
In another thread, I saw someone had a link to a Fultz highlight reel that was about 18 minutes long. I gave up watching about half-way through since I believe I had only seen 1 or 2 passes from a POINT GUARD! It seems like every poster is talking about how great of a scorer this kid is. That is great, but can he lead a team, control the tempo of a game, or create better shots for his team?
I have seen Lonzo Ball play many times. He is probably the best PG I have seen since Jason Kidd and Magic. If there is a play that needed to be made, Ball always seemed to be in position to make the play happen, whether it was passing, scoring, rebounding, or blocking a shot. He could control the tempo of a game and created easier shots for his teammates, whether it was in the open or half court. BTW, Ball (3.04) does have a better assist to turnover ratio tan Fultz (1.84).
I know guys come and go in college, so team records should be taken with a grain of salt. Here is UCLA's record for the last three seasons: 22-14, 15-17, and 31-5. Here is Washington's record: 16-15, 19-15, 9-22. Looking from the outside, UCLA was on a downward trend, while Washington showed a slight improvement before this past season. The change in records was dramatic for both of these schools with their star freshmen PG's.
Part of me sees the Fultz v Ball rivalry, as something similar to games 1 and 2 of this Celtics Bulls series. A true PG in Rondo (Ball), who knows how to control a game, absolutely destroyed Isaiah Thomas (Fultz) and the Celtics. I love IT, but he is more of a scorer than a PG and is only a PG by default because of his height.
thanks for sharing the insights -- Tommy Point!
One problem is that the insights are wrong. He admits he has not watched Fultz, and he gave up watching a highlight reel halfway through. If there is any skill that Fultz has that surpasses his scoring ability it is his passing. The kid is a skilled passer. Better than Ball in my opinion.
-
If you want to cherry pick games to dismiss players, then check out Fultz against Arizona. Allen just physically dominates Fultz. Granted Allen's 24, but that's the kind of size and athleticism Fultz will encounter at the next level.
I saw Fultz in 3 or 4 games and just never came away that impressed. That's reason enough for me. I saw Ball in probably 10 games and was continually impressed. He has truly elite passing skills, shoots well from 3, rebounds well and plays good team D. I'm not a pro scout, and could well be wrong, but I'd take Ball over Fultz.
Balls inablity to create for himself terrifies me. I dont see him getting that jumper off in the NBA.
two other worries i have over ball i have voiced before.
his defensive effort is suspect. defense, so far, has not been a top priority it seems. too often, opposing players would blow right by him. or he would be lazy on the switch.
next, unless i missed it in the last few games, ball still has taken ZERO jump shots while moving to his right. zero is not a good number. can he move right and shoot well? we have no proof of that so far. is this an artifact of him shooting from the left side of his head? maybe.
but in the nba, if he cant shoot moving right, he is in trouble.
but yes, he is a great passer and seems to have a great set shot as well.
-
My biggest issue is how everyone around here is so convinced that Fultz is the best prospect by a mile, when he barely had any national exposure on TV. Like I said, I only recall Washington being on National TV once, and that was against Ball and UCLA. You would think Fultz had games on ESPN and CBS twice a week with the way people praise him so much in these forums. It's one thin to watch a player and another to just read a draft report. I don't recall reading when you said you have seen him play, which was basically the only question I had in my entire post.
Like I said in my post, I don't want to hear about the so-called inferior talent on the Washington team. You mentioned how Washington lost Andrews, Murray, and Chriss. If I recall, didn't they have one of the highest ranked prospects initially commit to them next year before ultimately changing his mind? It seems to me that Washington is not struggling to get talent to their school. How many schools in the nation can claim they had as many NBA players drafted between last year and this upcoming draft? The answer, not many. Was is just a massive coincidence that this Washington team had the best player in college basketball, but decided to recruit JV talent that wouldn't start on a Division III team?
I'm sorry, but I find it almost impossible for a so called number 1 pick, who arguably plays the most important position in college basketball, to only lead his team to 9 wins. I just think we need to pump the brakes on Fultz, and look past the numbers because intangibles also matter when your in a position to draft in the top 4.
When I referred to the highlight reel, I was basically referencing that he seems to be more of a scoring PG than a pure PG. Besides Stephen Curry two years ago, when was the last team to win a title, where their PG was the leading scorer? I have always been of the mindset, that your PG can not be your go to scorer, and have any hopes of winning a championship.
Having lived in DC last year, I saw Fultz play HS ball at DeMatha who always has a great team and pro prospects. I also caught a few of his games regionally while on the the road this year. So yes, to answer your question, I have seen him play. He looks to be [dang] good. Bad teams don't get national TV exposure.
If you "don't want to hear" about the truth then fine I'll lie to you. Fultz is 8 feet tall and plays like Zeus. Better? To use your logic, Anthony Davis sucks because the Pels can't win. Or that somehow he's driving off pending FAs. Neither works. The Huskies recruited a bunch of good froshes and unexpectedly had them all leave for the NBA. They were gutted and didn't recruit well enough to backfill. This happens with mid-tier teams. Fultz got the short end of the stick on that one.
Again, you've already admitted you've never seen him play. You don't know a thing beyond the Huskies miserable record and a couple of stats you can read on Basketball Reference. Do you really want to argue with someone who actually has seen him play? Do you really think your thinly veiled allusions to somehow Fultz driving off potential recruits with no evidence to back it up somehow works as logic around here?
I'll tell you what. Here's a link to a complete game - probably Fultz's worst all year that I saw him play and one of Ball's best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXj3uzlcEQ8 Watch it and then tell us what you think about the various talent that surrounds each player.
Dude, chill out. Why are you taking so offense to me questioning this overwhelming notion that Fultz is by far and away the #1 pick? I never said I didn't want the Celtics to pick Fultz. Well, thanks to you, I went onto nbadraft.net and saw the D'Angelo Russell comparison. Needless to say, I just threw up in my mouth. But you saw him in high school, so he must be great.
-
Watch the Lakers take Fultz and leave us hanging with Ball and his daddy
-
Watch the Lakers take Fultz and leave us hanging with Ball and his daddy
There is no doubt in my mind that if the Lakers get the #1 pick they will spend it on Fultz. They have no one there that will buck popular opinion on this.
-
Quote
Watch the Lakers take Fultz and leave us hanging with Ball and his daddy
If Ainge trusts him enough, I trust his ability to evaluate guards. But I think we need some frontcourt help.
-
I think Fultz is a great prospect, but I've seen him labeled by members as "the best prospect since Lebron" and a future top-5 player.
What separates him from a guy like Kyrie and launches him into Harden / Westbrook / Durant territory?
-
My biggest issue is how everyone around here is so convinced that Fultz is the best prospect by a mile, when he barely had any national exposure on TV. Like I said, I only recall Washington being on National TV once, and that was against Ball and UCLA. You would think Fultz had games on ESPN and CBS twice a week with the way people praise him so much in these forums. It's one thin to watch a player and another to just read a draft report. I don't recall reading when you said you have seen him play, which was basically the only question I had in my entire post.
Like I said in my post, I don't want to hear about the so-called inferior talent on the Washington team. You mentioned how Washington lost Andrews, Murray, and Chriss. If I recall, didn't they have one of the highest ranked prospects initially commit to them next year before ultimately changing his mind? It seems to me that Washington is not struggling to get talent to their school. How many schools in the nation can claim they had as many NBA players drafted between last year and this upcoming draft? The answer, not many. Was is just a massive coincidence that this Washington team had the best player in college basketball, but decided to recruit JV talent that wouldn't start on a Division III team?
I'm sorry, but I find it almost impossible for a so called number 1 pick, who arguably plays the most important position in college basketball, to only lead his team to 9 wins. I just think we need to pump the brakes on Fultz, and look past the numbers because intangibles also matter when your in a position to draft in the top 4.
When I referred to the highlight reel, I was basically referencing that he seems to be more of a scoring PG than a pure PG. Besides Stephen Curry two years ago, when was the last team to win a title, where their PG was the leading scorer? I have always been of the mindset, that your PG can not be your go to scorer, and have any hopes of winning a championship.
Having lived in DC last year, I saw Fultz play HS ball at DeMatha who always has a great team and pro prospects. I also caught a few of his games regionally while on the the road this year. So yes, to answer your question, I have seen him play. He looks to be [dang] good. Bad teams don't get national TV exposure.
If you "don't want to hear" about the truth then fine I'll lie to you. Fultz is 8 feet tall and plays like Zeus. Better? To use your logic, Anthony Davis sucks because the Pels can't win. Or that somehow he's driving off pending FAs. Neither works. The Huskies recruited a bunch of good froshes and unexpectedly had them all leave for the NBA. They were gutted and didn't recruit well enough to backfill. This happens with mid-tier teams. Fultz got the short end of the stick on that one.
Again, you've already admitted you've never seen him play. You don't know a thing beyond the Huskies miserable record and a couple of stats you can read on Basketball Reference. Do you really want to argue with someone who actually has seen him play? Do you really think your thinly veiled allusions to somehow Fultz driving off potential recruits with no evidence to back it up somehow works as logic around here?
I'll tell you what. Here's a link to a complete game - probably Fultz's worst all year that I saw him play and one of Ball's best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXj3uzlcEQ8 Watch it and then tell us what you think about the various talent that surrounds each player.
Dude, chill out. Why are you taking so offense to me questioning this overwhelming notion that Fultz is by far and away the #1 pick? I never said I didn't want the Celtics to pick Fultz. Well, thanks to you, I went onto nbadraft.net and saw the D'Angelo Russell comparison. Needless to say, I just threw up in my mouth. But you saw him in high school, so he must be great.
You're ignorant. That's not a problem. But that you seem revel wallowing in it like a hog in his own crap is not going to further the disucssion. Don't come here professing your ignorance, repeatedly state that you don't want to know the truth and then proceed to argue with people who actually know more than you do. You asked the question and now you don't like the answer you got. So don't tell me to "chill out". Instead, go learn something so you can actually contribute.
There is never a guaranteed lock coming out of college (Oden) but Fultz ticks off virtually every box on the checklist. The difference between Ball and Fultz? Ball may very well need a system built around him to succeed. With Fultz you can use him to build the system.
PS - the De'Angelo Russell comparison is really a lousy one. Russell doesn't have anywhere near the same athleticism or shot creation skills. It's an absolute crap comparison only made because they're both 6'5". They might as well be comparing Yabu to Draymond Green.
-
I think Fultz is a great prospect, but I've seen him labeled by members as "the best prospect since Lebron" and a future top-5 player.
What separates him from a guy like Kyrie and launches him into Harden / Westbrook / Durant territory?
Hard work and three inches?
Kyrie just put up 25ppg a game to go along with 5 assists. That's not anything to scoff at. So we're starting at a high level. But what's the difference between those kinds of guys? It's the work they put in.
Beyond that, the biggest knock on Irving was his lack of durability and the limited amount of games he played before he turned pro. The durability thing has turned out to be somewhat true, playing in fewer than 60 games in half of his 6 seasons. Kyrie also is a massive defensive liability and doesn't see the court particularly well. His college stats bear that out - averaging fewer than 5 assists - and was an exceptionally poor rebounder (3.4). I also think that with his limited exposure scouts didn't get to really analyze his BBIQ whereas they're high on both Fultz and Ball in that regard.
Fultz is a bit more athletic and significantly longer. He shouldn't have as much of a problem getting his shot off. But ultimately - like every other gifted player - he's going to be a 2nd tier All-Star unless he puts in the work. There's no NBA combine test for heart. Westbrook put in the work every year for the past 8. He's doubled his rebounding rate. He's greatly improved his assist rate. He actually has a 3 point shot now. He worked his butt off. Harden did something similar. He improved his rebounding and assist rate every year while actually not becoming a total liability on the defensive end. While this years' stats actually look like abnormalities rather than natural growth, the work was put in and you could see the improvement in his game every year. I don't get the same feeling from Kyrie - he just seems too content to let King James do the heavy lifting and coasts on defense. But then again the same thing was said about Harden and look at him now.
Personally, I'm just [dang]ed happy to have a top 4 pick. That's just a beautiful thing.
-
I think Fultz is a great prospect, but I've seen him labeled by members as "the best prospect since Lebron" and a future top-5 player.
What separates him from a guy like Kyrie and launches him into Harden / Westbrook / Durant territory?
Hard work and three inches?
Kyrie just put up 25ppg a game to go along with 5 assists. That's not anything to scoff at. So we're starting at a high level. But what's the difference between those kinds of guys? It's the work they put in.
Beyond that, the biggest knock on Irving was his lack of durability and the limited amount of games he played before he turned pro. The durability thing has turned out to be somewhat true, playing in fewer than 60 games in half of his 6 seasons. Kyrie also is a massive defensive liability and doesn't see the court particularly well. His college stats bear that out - averaging fewer than 5 assists - and was an exceptionally poor rebounder (3.4). I also think that with his limited exposure scouts didn't get to really analyze his BBIQ whereas they're high on both Fultz and Ball in that regard.
Fultz is a bit more athletic and significantly longer. He shouldn't have as much of a problem getting his shot off. But ultimately - like every other gifted player - he's going to be a 2nd tier All-Star unless he puts in the work. There's no NBA combine test for heart. Westbrook put in the work every year for the past 8. He's doubled his rebounding rate. He's greatly improved his assist rate. He actually has a 3 point shot now. He worked his butt off. Harden did something similar. He improved his rebounding and assist rate every year while actually not becoming a total liability on the defensive end. While this years' stats actually look like abnormalities rather than natural growth, the work was put in and you could see the improvement in his game every year. I don't get the same feeling from Kyrie - he just seems too content to let King James do the heavy lifting and coasts on defense. But then again the same thing was said about Harden and look at him now.
Personally, I'm just [dang]ed happy to have a top 4 pick. That's just a beautiful thing.
This is such a good point. With any of these players we're projecting what they will become, and that comes with hard work and being in a good situation. It's why the draft is such a crapshoot.