Celtics Blog Forums

Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 12:21:27 PM

Title: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 12:21:27 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: triboy16f on November 14, 2017, 12:38:22 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Green-18 on November 14, 2017, 12:43:08 PM
Fultz was highly skilled in college with a ton of raw talent.  The kid clearly has the ability to be an elite scorer in the NBA.  The win/loss argument isn't great when you are comparing Washington to Duke.  If you remove intangibles from the equation then Fultz is a prospect with the upside to be an elite NBA player.  I don't believe that the 76ers organization places the same value on character/work ethic as the Celtics do.  To be honest I'm not sure how many organizations trust the ability of their coaches to maximize the talent of high draft picks.  This leads to the perceived ceiling of players like Tatum to be much lower.  Fultz appeared to be the closest to a transcendent talent at face value. 

By no means am I saying that this is the right approach but I think it explains why Philly moved up in the draft.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: slamtheking on November 14, 2017, 12:46:26 PM
Philly seems to pick according to the general-consensus draft board. 

They wouldn't have been the only ones to take Fultz at number one.  I suspect there are only a handful of GMs who wouldn't have an even fewer who had Tatum at the top of their draft rating.

Picking the consensus BPA at the time of their pick would explain them taking Okafor over Porzingis as well.  with Noel and Embiid already in the fold, Porzingis would seem like a better forward to pair with them.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: triboy16f on November 14, 2017, 12:47:38 PM
Fultz was highly skilled in college with a ton of raw talent.  The kid clearly has the ability to be an elite scorer in the NBA.  The win/loss argument isn't great when you are comparing Washington to Duke.  If you remove intangibles from the equation then Fultz is a prospect with the upside to be an elite NBA player.  I don't believe that the 76ers organization places the same value on character/work ethic as the Celtics do.  To be honest I'm not sure how many organizations trust the ability of their coaches to maximize the talent of high draft picks.  This leads to the perceived ceiling of players like Tatum to be much lower.  Fultz appeared to be the closest to a transcendent talent at face value. 

By no means am I saying that this is the right approach but I think it explains why Philly moved up in the draft.

Coupled with a ton of losses and no interest in playing strong D

KD was a raw talent but also was a winner. Showed intensity



Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 14, 2017, 12:48:12 PM
I think they figured Simmons would effectively be the PG in terms of ballhandling, so they wanted a scoring guard to help their backcourt. They didn't have Redick at that point but a backcourt slasher who can pressure the interior D would help free up their shooters as well.

Tatum's logical NBA position is the same as Simmons' although their skillsets are different, so that probably mattered too.

Finally they clearly thought Fultz was good enough that there was a good chance we'd take him #1 if they didn't trade up to snag him. Oops!
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Fafnir on November 14, 2017, 12:51:37 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Fafnir on November 14, 2017, 12:56:19 PM
Finally they clearly thought Fultz was good enough that there was a good chance we'd take him #1 if they didn't trade up to snag him. Oops!
Lakers reportedly would have taken Fultz over Ball, so I think they thought the only way to get him was to trade up.

If they viewed Tatum as a 4 it makes more sense, especially if they didn't want Ball (two ball handlers who can't shoot is a no go)
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Green-18 on November 14, 2017, 12:56:34 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.

Exactly.  Most teams don't have a true organizational philosophy in regards to player development.  The plan is to acquire talent until you finally strike gold.     
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 12:56:43 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.

I find it interesting that Philly and the consensus view chose to ignore winning in the calculus. They also chose to ignore potential shooting issues, as well as potential defensive issues and health issues. Fultz missed a decent amount of time near the end of his one year in college.

Maybe Tatum appeared to be "less athletic", but he was polished and ready to contribute. I think he would have been a perfect fit next to high end potential players in Simmons and Embiid.

I know its super early, but I think there's a chance that Fultz is just another high end pick (like Noel and Okafor) that is not part of Philly's long term plan.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Fafnir on November 14, 2017, 12:58:58 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Green-18 on November 14, 2017, 12:59:25 PM
Fultz was highly skilled in college with a ton of raw talent.  The kid clearly has the ability to be an elite scorer in the NBA.  The win/loss argument isn't great when you are comparing Washington to Duke.  If you remove intangibles from the equation then Fultz is a prospect with the upside to be an elite NBA player.  I don't believe that the 76ers organization places the same value on character/work ethic as the Celtics do.  To be honest I'm not sure how many organizations trust the ability of their coaches to maximize the talent of high draft picks.  This leads to the perceived ceiling of players like Tatum to be much lower.  Fultz appeared to be the closest to a transcendent talent at face value. 

By no means am I saying that this is the right approach but I think it explains why Philly moved up in the draft.

Coupled with a ton of losses and no interest in playing strong D

KD was a raw talent but also was a winner. Showed intensity

Hence why I mentioned removing intangibles from the equation.  I am in complete agreement regarding his lack of intensity and effort.  Philly approached the draft with an emphasis on talent and nothing else.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Green-18 on November 14, 2017, 01:04:14 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.

I find it interesting that Philly and the consensus view chose to ignore winning in the calculus. They also chose to ignore potential shooting issues, as well as potential defensive issues and health issues. Fultz missed a decent amount of time near the end of his one year in college.

Maybe Tatum appeared to be "less athletic", but he was polished and ready to contribute. I think he would have been a perfect fit next to high end potential players in Simmons and Embiid.

I know its super early, but I think there's a chance that Fultz is just another high end pick (like Noel and Okafor) that is not part of Philly's long term plan.

I think the answer to your first point is that the Sixers don't have any faith in their ability to develop talent.  This results in an approach that consists of drafting the best raw talent regardless of intangibles.  I'm not comparing players but John Wall is a good example of a PG that would have been a great player no matter where he was drafted.  Teams like Philly are hoping that they can hit on the same type of player.   

Teams are afraid of prospects like Tatum because they aren't sure how to maximize his talent. 
 
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 14, 2017, 01:08:54 PM
Finally they clearly thought Fultz was good enough that there was a good chance we'd take him #1 if they didn't trade up to snag him. Oops!
Lakers reportedly would have taken Fultz over Ball, so I think they thought the only way to get him was to trade up.

If they viewed Tatum as a 4 it makes more sense, especially if they didn't want Ball (two ball handlers who can't shoot is a no go)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Makes the deal make more sense for them because Ball and Simmons would be a really bad fit.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: mmmmm on November 14, 2017, 01:09:00 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.

I find it interesting that Philly and the consensus view chose to ignore winning in the calculus. They also chose to ignore potential shooting issues, as well as potential defensive issues and health issues. Fultz missed a decent amount of time near the end of his one year in college.

Simmons also did not win much in college and neither, for that matter, did Jaylen Brown.

I think good GMs don't put too much stock in how well the player's NCAA team performs because they aren't drafting the player's team.  They are drafting the player.

Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: BitterJim on November 14, 2017, 01:09:41 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 14, 2017, 01:10:42 PM
Finally they clearly thought Fultz was good enough that there was a good chance we'd take him #1 if they didn't trade up to snag him. Oops!
Lakers reportedly would have taken Fultz over Ball, so I think they thought the only way to get him was to trade up.

If they viewed Tatum as a 4 it makes more sense, especially if they didn't want Ball (two ball handlers who can't shoot is a no go)
if they viewed Tatum as a 4 in this era of positionless basketball, it makes more sense that their GM And front office is a joke.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 14, 2017, 01:13:27 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: No Nickname on November 14, 2017, 01:19:14 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Fafnir on November 14, 2017, 01:20:03 PM
Finally they clearly thought Fultz was good enough that there was a good chance we'd take him #1 if they didn't trade up to snag him. Oops!
Lakers reportedly would have taken Fultz over Ball, so I think they thought the only way to get him was to trade up.

If they viewed Tatum as a 4 it makes more sense, especially if they didn't want Ball (two ball handlers who can't shoot is a no go)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Makes the deal make more sense for them because Ball and Simmons would be a really bad fit.
There was so much Ball hype I'm not surprised you missed it. I think they were leaking reports because they thought the C's might take Tatum/Jackson and that's why Magic wasn't 100% in on the Ball hype till he knew Fultz wasn't going to be available.

There was a period where articles like this were out there from very connected Lakers reportser: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2714648-lonzo-ball-may-be-a-star-but-los-angeles-lakers-have-questions-ahead-of-draft
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: BitterJim on November 14, 2017, 01:21:37 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.

I find it interesting that Philly and the consensus view chose to ignore winning in the calculus. They also chose to ignore potential shooting issues, as well as potential defensive issues and health issues. Fultz missed a decent amount of time near the end of his one year in college.

Maybe Tatum appeared to be "less athletic", but he was polished and ready to contribute. I think he would have been a perfect fit next to high end potential players in Simmons and Embiid.

I know its super early, but I think there's a chance that Fultz is just another high end pick (like Noel and Okafor) that is not part of Philly's long term plan.

Didn't those also apply to Tatum?  He was a good FT and midrange shooter, but there were questions about his 3 pointer.  He wasn't a great defender in college, either, although he was considered to have good "defensive potential" (as was Fultz).  Tatum also missed time his freshman year (not appearing in any of Duke's first 8 games after he sprained his foot in October)

Fultz definitely had some question marks/red flags, but let's not pretend that Tatum didn't have some as well
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Fafnir on November 14, 2017, 01:23:48 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
There was somewhat but he shot better than Tatum everywhere except from the line. Even if he wasn't an elite shooter he projected well onto adequate territory for a PG with his ability to drive and passing ability.

Instead it became a disaster of near Lonzo Ball proportions with regards to his shot.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 01:29:06 PM
I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.

I find it interesting that Philly and the consensus view chose to ignore winning in the calculus. They also chose to ignore potential shooting issues, as well as potential defensive issues and health issues. Fultz missed a decent amount of time near the end of his one year in college.

Maybe Tatum appeared to be "less athletic", but he was polished and ready to contribute. I think he would have been a perfect fit next to high end potential players in Simmons and Embiid.

I know its super early, but I think there's a chance that Fultz is just another high end pick (like Noel and Okafor) that is not part of Philly's long term plan.

Didn't those also apply to Tatum?  He was a good FT and midrange shooter, but there were questions about his 3 pointer.  He wasn't a great defender in college, either, although he was considered to have good "defensive potential" (as was Fultz).  Tatum also missed time his freshman year (not appearing in any of Duke's first 8 games after he sprained his foot in October)

Fultz definitely had some question marks/red flags, but let's not pretend that Tatum didn't have some as well

I was impressed by how Tatum improved as his team got into the conference and even NCAA tourney. Unlike Fultz and Harry Giles, he led his team to meaningful wins at the end of the year (besides their loss to S. Carolina).

Having hindsight is huge, but I think people were attracted to Fultz's flashy game and Damian Lillard/Harden projections. At this point (super early), I'm not sure if he will be better than D'angelo Russell.

On the other hand (wearing green goggles mind you), the sky is the limit for Tatum. He looks just as good as Pierce in his rookie year.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: kozlodoev on November 14, 2017, 01:32:42 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 01:39:14 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 14, 2017, 01:40:56 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.
yup the rumor was he had a bad workout in Boston too. Danny was asked how the workout went


“You know how I feel about workouts by themselves,” he said. “You don’t really take much from them.”

Ainge was reluctant to go into detail about impressions of the workout because the Celtics remain in the early stages of their draft preparations. But he said there was value in spending time with Fultz and learning more about him, both as a person and a player.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: mmmmm on November 14, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.

Or, they simply saw a lot of good things in Tatum.

It's a false dichotomy to assert that because they liked Tatum (plus a pick) more that they must have NOT liked Fultz.   

Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: RIPRED on November 14, 2017, 01:46:10 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.

There is a massive difference in the quality of competition he faced in SL versus what he currently faces in the NBA.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: kozlodoev on November 14, 2017, 01:48:15 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.
There was talk that Fultz didn't shoot great during his Celtics workout either.

I can see what the team may have loved about Tatum: well-spoken, strong family background, character guy, spent one year in a great college program. But I doubt even they imagined things were going to unfold as they have so far.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: kozlodoev on November 14, 2017, 01:50:53 PM
yup the rumor was he had a bad workout in Boston too. Danny was asked how the workout went


“You know how I feel about workouts by themselves,” he said. “You don’t really take much from them.”

Ainge was reluctant to go into detail about impressions of the workout because the Celtics remain in the early stages of their draft preparations. But he said there was value in spending time with Fultz and learning more about him, both as a person and a player.
http://www.weei.com/blogs/weei/espns-jeff-goodman-dh-markelle-fultz-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot-ball-well-workout-celtics
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 01:52:59 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.

Or, they simply saw a lot of good things in Tatum.

It's a false dichotomy to assert that because they liked Tatum (plus a pick) more that they must have NOT liked Fultz.

You are right.

I was thinking that they didn't like Fultz for the first pick. I imagine if Fultz was available at #10 and they had the 10th pick, Danny would have pulled the trigger on him.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 14, 2017, 02:16:28 PM
I think the only way you pick a guard at #1 is if he has some really special talent. Kyrie and John Wall each were unanimously the 1 pick. You can tell fultz isn’t a special shooter from his free throws.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: DooVoo on November 14, 2017, 02:26:43 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.

There has been some analytical data being done that shows that poor free shooting in college is a major red flag and could give a lot of insight into someone's future as a shooter in the NBA. So Ainge might have been already weary of Fultz.

Fultz had other issues. Even before the shoulder injury he was reportedly messing around with his shot cause he wanted a quicker and higher release. He was finding it hard to get his shot off against NBA level players he was playing pickup games with. He also was said to feel his shot was too slow coming off the ball and wanted it out of his hands quicker. He knew he was going to be the #1 pick but he was trying to get his game more ready for the NBA. Admirable, but it might have exposed flaws or created new ones.

So the red flags might have been happening way before the draft and a smart GM pays attention to stuff like this. 
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: tazzmaniac on November 14, 2017, 02:28:38 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes. 
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Birdman on November 14, 2017, 02:53:04 PM
Cause they listen to the so called experts who said fultz was a no brainer
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: green_bballers13 on November 14, 2017, 02:55:23 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Moranis on November 14, 2017, 03:03:35 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters. 
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 14, 2017, 03:31:25 PM
Over at the Sixers forum, they’re having huge arguments about the trade, fultz, and Tatum. Some are saying the trade was a robbery and Celtics won, saying Tatum is amazing, and others saying Tatum isn’t that good “he’s only scoring like 14 pts”  ;D ;D the coping Sixers fans are hilarious: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1625825&start=1340#start_here
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: No Nickname on November 14, 2017, 03:53:51 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.

There is a massive difference in the quality of competition he faced in SL versus what he currently faces in the NBA.

Oh jeez, gimme a break.  It's not like SL is filled with 2nd graders. But more precisely, I'm talking about Fultz' ability and willingness to shoot/make outside shots.  He didn't seem to have a problem with that in SL.  But he looked like a completely different player in the regular season. 

My point isn't to compare the quality of SL and the NBA.  But that his playing style changed drastically.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: celticsclay on November 14, 2017, 03:54:53 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters.

Instead of cherry picking random arbitrary numbers lets just go through their rotation players and decide if they are good shooter (also even die hard Philly fans wouldn't call McConnell a good shooter, that is fairly hilarious)

Embiid - Shooting 22% from 3 on 3 pointers a game. Most 76er fans are pretty adamant that they would like to see him shoot less 3's right now. He shot 37% last year which is great for a rookie. Right now though he is not much more than an average shooter
Simmons - Has not hit one. Is obviously not a good shooter
Reddick - All-time great shooter
Amir Johnson - Shooting 12% on 3's, not a good 3 point shooter
Covington - Between average and very good shooter (35% and 33% last two years, 50% this year)
Anderson - He is a career 29% shooter from 3 that is renowned for being a bad shooter. He is shot a bit better this year but it is on 44 shots. Would be similar to Marcus Smart becoming a shooter if he takes a huge leap.
Saric - Shot 32% last year, 37% this year. Probably an average shooter
McConnell - Shoots very few 3 pointers (11 all year, is considered a poor shooting guard overall)

Out Injured -but would be in rotation
Bayless - Good shooter
Fultz - Can't physically shoot, not a good shooter.

Calling that team loaded with shooters when they only clearly good ones are Reddick and Covington is fairly ridiculous. Furthermore, if the metrics you choose make Justin Anderson and TJ McConnell good shooters you either have a small sample size or bad metrics. Both players are known for being hustle players that survive on their grit in SPITE of their shooting.

Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on November 14, 2017, 03:56:20 PM
I love when Danny trades with someone and gets exactly what he wants, even though no one is bidding against the team that he is trading with.

6ers got their sights on Fultz and thought that Simmons & Tatum would be in each other's way.  They did the double 1st overall protection set up and thought that was enough.  I think we're going to get the 3rd overall pick in the 2019 draft from the Kings, plus we have Tatum.  We'll get another amazing rookie right when Jaylen gets his first contract, so we'll still have a high impact young guy on a good contract to balance out our cap.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Boris Badenov on November 14, 2017, 04:00:43 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

To be fair, there were questions about how his shooting would translate based on his 65% on free throws.  But yeah, it wasn't nearly as big of a concern as it is now.
exactly. The signs were there. Even during phillys workout we all saw he shot badly: https://youtu.be/aUmw6anaSps
Wow. That looks so bad.

Ballhandling looks poor, brings the ball down on spot-up shots, can't make threes, free throws have a hitch.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was Demetrius Jackson of Phil Pressey working out.

The other side of this argument is "everyone else thought he'd be a perennial all star". Fortunately, Danny and Brad aren't everyone else.

They clearly saw some alarming things in Fultz's workouts. I imagine Tatum looked NBA ready in his Celtics workouts.

Or, they simply saw a lot of good things in Tatum.

It's a false dichotomy to assert that because they liked Tatum (plus a pick) more that they must have NOT liked Fultz.

That quote should be cut and pasted into every thread about Kyrie Irving and Isaiah Thomas.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Moranis on November 14, 2017, 04:10:43 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters.

Instead of cherry picking random arbitrary numbers lets just go through their rotation players and decide if they are good shooter (also even die hard Philly fans wouldn't call McConnell a good shooter, that is fairly hilarious)

Embiid - Shooting 22% from 3 on 3 pointers a game. Most 76er fans are pretty adamant that they would like to see him shoot less 3's right now. He shot 37% last year which is great for a rookie. Right now though he is not much more than an average shooter
Simmons - Has not hit one. Is obviously not a good shooter
Reddick - All-time great shooter
Amir Johnson - Shooting 12% on 3's, not a good 3 point shooter
Covington - Between average and very good shooter (35% and 33% last two years, 50% this year)
Anderson - He is a career 29% shooter from 3 that is renowned for being a bad shooter. He is shot a bit better this year but it is on 44 shots. Would be similar to Marcus Smart becoming a shooter if he takes a huge leap.
Saric - Shot 32% last year, 37% this year. Probably an average shooter
McConnell - Shoots very few 3 pointers (11 all year, is considered a poor shooting guard overall)

Out Injured -but would be in rotation
Bayless - Good shooter
Fultz - Can't physically shoot, not a good shooter.

Calling that team loaded with shooters when they only clearly good ones are Reddick and Covington is fairly ridiculous. Furthermore, if the metrics you choose make Justin Anderson and TJ McConnell good shooters you either have a small sample size or bad metrics. Both players are known for being hustle players that survive on their grit in SPITE of their shooting.
Fultz was a 41+% shooter in college and you are claiming he is a not a good shooter.  That one is pretty funny.  He obviously has something wrong with him, maybe he never gets it fixed, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Luwawu-Cabarrot is a good shooter (much more comfortable in the pros in his second year).  So is Saric (again much more comfortable in year 2).  Anderson is young, but is currently shooting 37.5% on 2.7 attempts a game.  That is certainly respectable.  Are we supposed to just ignore those numbers?.  Bayless is a lot better shooter than just good.  When he gets attempts, he is 40%+ shooter in the pros (again when he gets attempts).  Redick, as you acknowledge, is one of the best shooters in NBA history.  Covington started off last year terribly, and finished at his career worst 33.3% (the prior 2 years though he was 37.4 and 35.3), but since that start has been near a 50% shooter (which he is at this year).

Embiid has struggled this year.  Simmons, Johnson and Holmes don't shoot any three's (nor should they).  As for, McConnell he is 5 of 11 this year.  He clearly doesn't shoot many from deep, but he is making the best of them.  His rookie year he shot 34.8 before shooting a very poor 20 last year.  I'd say he is much closer to a 35% shooter than a 20% shooter.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: keevsnick on November 14, 2017, 04:20:41 PM
Too be fair to the sixers it's waaaay to early to say the made the wrong pick. Fultz may yet cone back and end up a top player. They didn't draft him for the first 14 games of 2017.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: celticsclay on November 14, 2017, 04:25:16 PM
They must have thought that Tatum had some major flaws, right?

They drafted Ben Simmons as their point guard, then drafted Fultz the next year, as their point guard?

Tatum is already better than Saric. Better than Okafor, Reddick, and Fultz.

Obviously we have a new perspective that Fultz has limped out of the gates, but Fultz didn't win in Washington, and Tatum won at Duke. Tatum has a more refined offensive game, and would have been a perfect fit next to Simmons and Embiid.

Did they think Fultz would play the 2 guard? How good is he without the ball in his hands?

Bc they thought he was the consensus #1
 
They were wrong

And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 

Lakers drafting Ball was in the bag....

Their gm is garbage. 76ers roster has no design. Just a collection of talent that step on each other toes. No shooters
Redick isn't a shooter?  Covington's shooting has been streaky in past year's but he's been killing it this year.  Bayless can shoot.  Korkmaz isn't ready to play yet but shooting is a strength of his.  Embiid, Simmons, Covington and Redick are good fit and definitely not stepping on each other's toes.

I don't think Redick is part of their long term future. Covington may be, but I put him in the Smart/Bradley/Crowder camp.... If you can sign them at short $, great. If not, Cya.

Lonzo and Simmons would not be a good pairing. I think this is obvious.
Philly has 10 players that have played at least 100 minutes this year.  Only 3 of those players are shooting less than 2.7 three's a game, they are Simmons, Johnson, and McConnell.  McConnell is a good shooter, the other two are not.  Of the 7 players with at least 2.7 three attempts a game, only Embiid is shooting less than 37.5%.  In other words, the Sixers are loaded with shooters.

Instead of cherry picking random arbitrary numbers lets just go through their rotation players and decide if they are good shooter (also even die hard Philly fans wouldn't call McConnell a good shooter, that is fairly hilarious)

Embiid - Shooting 22% from 3 on 3 pointers a game. Most 76er fans are pretty adamant that they would like to see him shoot less 3's right now. He shot 37% last year which is great for a rookie. Right now though he is not much more than an average shooter
Simmons - Has not hit one. Is obviously not a good shooter
Reddick - All-time great shooter
Amir Johnson - Shooting 12% on 3's, not a good 3 point shooter
Covington - Between average and very good shooter (35% and 33% last two years, 50% this year)
Anderson - He is a career 29% shooter from 3 that is renowned for being a bad shooter. He is shot a bit better this year but it is on 44 shots. Would be similar to Marcus Smart becoming a shooter if he takes a huge leap.
Saric - Shot 32% last year, 37% this year. Probably an average shooter
McConnell - Shoots very few 3 pointers (11 all year, is considered a poor shooting guard overall)

Out Injured -but would be in rotation
Bayless - Good shooter
Fultz - Can't physically shoot, not a good shooter.

Calling that team loaded with shooters when they only clearly good ones are Reddick and Covington is fairly ridiculous. Furthermore, if the metrics you choose make Justin Anderson and TJ McConnell good shooters you either have a small sample size or bad metrics. Both players are known for being hustle players that survive on their grit in SPITE of their shooting.
Fultz was a 41+% shooter in college and you are claiming he is a not a good shooter.  That one is pretty funny.  He obviously has something wrong with him, maybe he never gets it fixed, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Luwawu-Cabarrot is a good shooter (much more comfortable in the pros in his second year).  So is Saric (again much more comfortable in year 2). Anderson is young, but is currently shooting 37.5% on 2.7 attempts a game.  That is certainly respectable.  Are we supposed to just ignore those numbers?. Bayless is a lot better shooter than just good.  When he gets attempts, he is 40%+ shooter in the pros (again when he gets attempts).  Redick, as you acknowledge, is one of the best shooters in NBA history.  Covington started off last year terribly, and finished at his career worst 33.3% (the prior 2 years though he was 37.4 and 35.3), but since that start has been near a 50% shooter (which he is at this year).

Embiid has struggled this year.  Simmons, Johnson and Holmes don't shoot any three's (nor should they).  As for, McConnell he is 5 of 11 this year.  He clearly doesn't shoot many from deep, but he is making the best of them.  His rookie year he shot 34.8 before shooting a very poor 20 last year.  I'd say he is much closer to a 35% shooter than a 20% shooter.

it is on 44 shots. Considering he is about to turn 24 and has shot over 300 3's in the pro's at a 29% clip, yea, you can ignore it for the time being. Do I really have to tell you that?
Regarding Bayless the guy played 3 games last year, is currently out indefinitely with a different wrist injury and will be very unlikely to be on the team next. It probably doesn't matter if he shoots well in these 12 games across 2 seasons.

Regarding Fultz, right now he is not considered a good shooter. You can think that is funny but it there were concerns from our staff about his shooting, he shot 65% from the free throw line and is trying to work on his form to improve his shooting....

I follow the 76ers pretty closely and most of their beat writers and fans acknowledge that shooting is currently a bit of a weakness for the team (this is also one of the reason Klay Thompson is their dream). You saying they are loaded with shooters and trotting out Justin Anderson's stats for 44 3 point attempts seems pretty disingenuous. I am not really understanding your angle on this.

Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 14, 2017, 04:47:31 PM
we Philly

what we do!

 :)
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 14, 2017, 04:48:16 PM
They bought into the hype machine, a lot of folks here did as well.  Fultz was supposed to the Golden Child of this draft, aka the Chosen one.   I recall some here were very angry when we passed on him.   I for one was relieved we didn't get him.  I knew they were hiding something by hiding him for a long part of the season last year.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 14, 2017, 05:08:42 PM
They bought into the hype machine, a lot of folks here did as well.  Fultz was supposed to the Golden Child of this draft, aka the Chosen one.   I recall some here were very angry when we passed on him.   I for one was relieved we didn't get him.  I knew they were hiding something by hiding him for a long part of the season last year.
yup good point . Then they unhid him for draft workouts and he was terrible. Red flag if I’ve ever seen one
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: jdz101 on November 14, 2017, 06:28:29 PM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.

Summer league is against other substandard rookies or pros that wont make NBA teams.

There are numerous guards that look pretty good in summer league that will never be good enough to hold a spot on an NBA roster.

Whilst some parts of his shooting form can translate, the jump from summer league to the actual league is absolutely huge. He cant just flip a switch and look like how he played in summer league in the big league.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: mr. dee on November 14, 2017, 07:30:06 PM

Simmons also did not win much in college and neither, for that matter, did Jaylen Brown.


Brown Bears have a better record than Washington St. and they made it in the second round of Pac-12. Washington St. didn't even quality.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Moranis on November 15, 2017, 08:25:13 AM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.

Summer league is against other substandard rookies or pros that wont make NBA teams.

There are numerous guards that look pretty good in summer league that will never be good enough to hold a spot on an NBA roster.

Whilst some parts of his shooting form can translate, the jump from summer league to the actual league is absolutely huge. He cant just flip a switch and look like how he played in summer league in the big league.
all true, but it has very little to do with shooting and much more to do with athleticism, strength, and overall ability.  Guys just don't forget how to shoot.  Fultz clearly has something wrong with him.  Maybe it is all mental and not physical, but there is clearly something wrong.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: jdz101 on November 15, 2017, 08:40:35 AM
Fultz's shooting was not an issue in college! The fact that it's become an issue is the reason everyone is freaking out, he was a good shooter in college.

He even looked pretty darned good in the Summer League.  Something happened in between SL and the preseason.  Did he get some bad advice from a trainer and try to change his shot?  Was he injured?

If he can just revert back to what he was doing in SL he'll be fine.  He has the skills.  The only question is whether he has some sort of confidence issue that he can't get over.

I expect he'll return to form and by the end of the year he'll be a key part of their rotation.

Summer league is against other substandard rookies or pros that wont make NBA teams.

There are numerous guards that look pretty good in summer league that will never be good enough to hold a spot on an NBA roster.

Whilst some parts of his shooting form can translate, the jump from summer league to the actual league is absolutely huge. He cant just flip a switch and look like how he played in summer league in the big league.
all true, but it has very little to do with shooting and much more to do with athleticism, strength, and overall ability.  Guys just don't forget how to shoot.  Fultz clearly has something wrong with him.  Maybe it is all mental and not physical, but there is clearly something wrong.

Well scapular muscle imbalance is a failure of his and his training staff to recognize problems that he was having in his training and his physical development from a boys athlete to a men's professional athlete. The pain associated with that would affect his shooting.

With that said, the change in competition is everything to his shooting. I don't believe fultz has the athleticism or legspeed to get clear from his opponents in the nba. That's a far bigger problem than a temporary shoulder issue or a lack of confidence. If he can't get open or use his moves to overpower NBA players, he's not a number one pick. When he attacked nba guys going to the rack, he didn't have any physical advantage that a Tatum or a Dennis Smith has. He was reasonably slow, not particularly explosive, and there was no threat of a jumpshot.

Once his shoulders get right I'm sure his shot will get better, but the other stuff I mention doesn't just fix overnight.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 15, 2017, 08:41:04 AM
Seemed like Fultz mania overtook Boston fans , including me to an extinct.  Huge build up of him as our most certain pick .

But ....when he came to visit .     It was not much rolling out of the red carpet by the Front office .  ai seems all I ever heard is DA took him to like McDonalds or something fast and cheap. Seemed the Celtics brass were more,or less going though the motions to me now.  I think Danny is not lying about taking Tatum no matter what . I started to think , somethings up ,  after the fultz visit.

Some much wiser college fans were skeptical in the background all along .

He maybe way more immature than anybody thought.  Where Brown and Tatum are wiser for their age.

Fultz might needed 1-2 more college years to mentally mature.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: timpiker on November 15, 2017, 10:00:05 AM
I think Philly thought the only thing they were missing was a PG and they thought Fultz was the consensus #1 pick so they went out and got him.  Thankfully, Danny doesn't pay attention to pundits and trusts his scouts and his own eyes and saw what we've all been watching - Tatum is an exceptional player.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: mmmmm on November 15, 2017, 10:40:32 AM

Simmons also did not win much in college and neither, for that matter, did Jaylen Brown.


Brown Bears have a better record than Washington St. and they made it in the second round of Pac-12. Washington St. didn't even quality.

If you looked at the talent on their respective rosters, arguably, that CAL team was a bigger disappointment than the Washington team (not Washington State) that Fultz played on.    Neither roster was great but the UW roster was horrific.    Sans Fultz, it's doubtful they would beat some top prep teams.

The main point remains:  You don't draft a player because of how good or bad his team is.   Because you aren't drafting the team.  You draft the player.   

PHI didn't make a 'bad pick' of Fultz because his college team sucked any more than they made a 'good pick' of Okafor because the latter's team won the NCAA title.

Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: DooVoo on November 15, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
Too be fair to the sixers it's waaaay to early to say the made the wrong pick. Fultz may yet cone back and end up a top player. They didn't draft him for the first 14 games of 2017.

Fultz was not a high ceiling player. He is not an elite athlete or was someone who needed a few years to develop. His strength was that his offensive skill set was suppose to NBA ready. And under the right coach and system maybe they could get him to play defense. He was considered a safe pick who would reach his level rather quickly. So the fact he can't shoot and has been this awful to start his career is very concerning.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: CelticsElite on November 15, 2017, 04:13:31 PM
Funny thing is fultz shooting was always concern as his free throws were as bad as deandre Jordan’s bad years. If you’re a good shooter, free throws are easiest to you
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: Big333223 on November 15, 2017, 05:05:22 PM
Funny thing is fultz shooting was always concern as his free throws were as bad as deandre Jordan’s bad years. If you’re a good shooter, free throws are easiest to you
Well that simply isn't true. Fultz shot .649 from the line in college, a mark Deandre Jordan has never really come close to in his best years.
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: ImShakHeIsShaq on November 15, 2017, 05:09:41 PM
It's far too early to say much of anything except that I'm glad DA has set us up for a wonderful fan life!!! Fultz will figure it out soon enough!
Title: Re: Why Did Philly Take Fultz over Tatum?
Post by: libermaniac on November 15, 2017, 05:11:12 PM
And the mistep by them was .... If they knew Celts didnt want him at #1, why not just sit tight at #3 and draft him anyways? 
There was always the risk that the C's would find another trade partner - for a veteran.