Help me out with this logic, please

[Roy H.]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

[PAOBoston]

I see what you did there.

But for real, I don't think Fultz or IT are comparable. While both are good scorers, I think IT relies on his speed/quickness more than Fultz does. Fultz seems to have a different game than him.

The people who say IT hurts the offense are on crack. Let's re-visit again Tuesday night after the game when the C's barely put up 70 pts and Smart shoots 3-15 from three and they get blowed out by the Cavs.

[jbpats]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

[KGBirdBias]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

I said this exact thing yesterday but most don't think IT ever goes back to the bench and how do you pay him to come off the bench.

I don't think starting is the key. To me, it's the minutes played and when the minutes are played that's important.

[tazzmaniac]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

I said this exact thing yesterday but most don't think IT ever goes back to the bench and how do you pay him to come off the bench.

I don't think starting is the key. To me, it's the minutes played and when the minutes are played that's important.

Starting is a big deal to the players.  Remember how well Ray took Bradley starting over him for the good of the team.  Memphis really had to coddle Z-Bo to get him to accept coming of the bench.  IT is not going to want to come off the bench especially after having his best season becoming all-star and all-nba.  Next season is also a contract year so going back to the bench would undoubtedly hurt him financially.   

[Eddie20]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

You're only mentioning the offensive side of the ball. On defense, where Thomas is constantly exploited, Fultz has the size, length, and athleticism to potentially be a plus defender.

It's like comparing Okafor and Horford and asking why one is a 4 time all-star, the other a bench player on a lowly team, yet their stats are fairly similar.

[mr. dee]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

I said this exact thing yesterday but most don't think IT ever goes back to the bench and how do you pay him to come off the bench.

I don't think starting is the key. To me, it's the minutes played and when the minutes are played that's important.

Starting is a big deal to the players.  Remember how well Ray took Bradley starting over him for the good of the team.  Memphis really had to coddle Z-Bo to get him to accept coming of the bench.  IT is not going to want to come off the bench especially after having his best season becoming all-star and all-nba.  Next season is also a contract year so going back to the bench would undoubtedly hurt him financially.

Starting is only a big deal with players who have egos like Ray. Ginobili was just selected as an all-star for the first time in 2005 but Pops put him on the bench as a sparkplug in the post season. Manu never complained about his role.

[tarheelsxxiii]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

He can score at will against starters or 2nd units.  He would struggle defensively against both, too. 

If IT is a 6th man on your hypothetical team, who the heck are the starters? Brow, KAT, CP3? It's a fun game to play, but...

[cltc5]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

For the record, and you can check my posts.  I'm in the lonzo ball and josh Jackson camp.  I don't think fultz will do much in the NBA to be honest.  I think ball fills a need for scoring and passing as does Jackson.  Ideally:

Smart/It
Ball
Brown
Crowder
Zizic

With Nader, rozier, yabusle off the bench.  It won't be a 6th man and rightfully so as he's earned the right to start but man, the aforementioned crew would have a hard time scoring with him at the point.  That's why I say trade him and get some picks and maybe a big that we can bring in to work with Zizic.  Demarcus cousins maybe

[cltc5]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

I'm with you and you make a good argument that some who can't see oast their fandom can't understand.  Unfortunately I think IT's ego gets in the way for the betterment of the team which is another reason I'm not as high in him as some may be.  All accolades due him but their is no I in team only in IT

[Surferdad]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

Roy, you have over 30,000 posts.  Do you really not know the answer, or are you baiting us for the sake of conversation?

BPA

[jbpats]

My defense for IT being a 6th man is simple, his defensive inefficiency against the NBA elite is obvious. If he came off the bench he'd be able to score at will against other bench players or gassed starters. Also, and more importantly, he would be guarding other bench players which takes a lot of pressure off him on the defensive side of things. During the Washington series I thought he should come off the bench and that we should start Bradley and Smart. Beal/Wall were having their way with IT on the offensive end. Why not start Smart in his place to tire them out, make them work harder right off the bat?

Here is my thread from earlier in the year, people were not happy with it, but I am sticking by it even to this day.. minus the start Jonas part, he has let me down (except for last night).. ANNNNNND maybe starting Terry wasn't a good call, although he has shown promise this playoffs.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=87995.0

He can score at will against starters or 2nd units.  He would struggle defensively against both, too. 

If IT is a 6th man on your hypothetical team, who the heck are the starters? Brow, KAT, CP3? It's a fun game to play, but...

I'm old school and prefer a pass first PG. John Stockton is my favorite non-celtic of all time. Unfortunately these guys are a dying breed. CP3 would be ideal on "my team" although he is getting old, so i'd probably say of what's out there Wall would be my first choice.

[Roy H.]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

You're only mentioning the offensive side of the ball. On defense, where Thomas is constantly exploited, Fultz has the size, length, and athleticism to potentially be a plus defender.

It's like comparing Okafor and Horford and asking why one is a 4 time all-star, the other a bench player on a lowly team, yet their stats are fairly similar.

Well, part of the argument is that IT hurts the offense. Wouldn't a similar player do that?

And, bigger size doesn't mean better defense. Defensive potential, perhaps, but not necessarily results. Look at Kyrie, a guy that IT compares to favorably. Is he a 6th man who doesn't deserve a max contract? The only difference is, IT has shown that he can be the best player on a playoff team.

[Roy H.]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

Roy, you have over 30,000 posts.  Do you really not know the answer, or are you baiting us for the sake of conversation?

BPA

Oh, I'd absolutely take Fultz. I'd be thrilled if he turns into IT 2.0.

I just don't understand why some of the folks jonesing for him continually bash IT. Fultz and IT are going to both approach the game with a scorer's mentality.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I keep reading that Fultz is like IT offensively, except 6'4". Most fans wouldn't be surprised to see Fultz someday put up 25 points and 6 assists.

I'm also reading that IT hurts our offense and that he should be a 6th man.

So, why are we taking Fultz again? Using the #1 pick on a 6th man who would stagnate our offense sounds like a horrible idea.

Roy, you have over 30,000 posts.  Do you really not know the answer, or are you baiting us for the sake of conversation?

BPA

Oh, I'd absolutely take Fultz. I'd be thrilled if he turns into IT 2.0.

I just don't understand why some of the folks jonesing for him continually bash IT. Fultz and IT are going to both approach the game with a scorer's mentality.

They both use the hesitation move a lot.....and expertly done. IT 2.0 with a 6'10'' wingspan and 8'6'' standing reach is a better IT