Markelle Fultz a worthy favorite, but not everybody agrees Boston Celtics should draft him

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:My question would be.......if Fultz and Ball switched teams last year, what happens?

I say WAS wins fewer games, and UCLA goes to the Final 4, at least.

Fultz had no top notch team mates, while Ball has three who might be first round picks.  I don't buy into this "leading his team" crap

The question about winning and Fultz is that his teams have never won.
Not in HS.
Not on his AAU team.
Not in college.
Does he make players better or is he a volume scorer because of the amount of shots he takes when his team is down double digits?
In the 13 seasons before Fultz went to Washington, they never won less than 16 games and averaged 21.4 wins per season in those 13 seasons.
Last year Washington won only 9 games.
Is this a concern for Boston or other teams?
We will find out next week.
My guess is this won't be a big concern.
If Boston does not draft Fultz, I don't think it will be because of his college W/L record.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:My question would be.......if Fultz and Ball switched teams last year, what happens?

I say WAS wins fewer games, and UCLA goes to the Final 4, at least.

Fultz had no top notch team mates, while Ball has three who might be first round picks.  I don't buy into this "leading his team" crap

The question about winning and Fultz is that his teams have never won.
Not in HS.
Not on his AAU team.
Not in college.
Does he make players better or is he a volume scorer because of the amount of shots he takes when his team is down double digits?
In the 13 seasons before Fultz went to Washington, they never won less than 16 games and averaged 21.4 wins per season in those 13 seasons.
Last year Washington won only 9 games.
Is this a concern for Boston or other teams?
We will find out next week.
My guess is this won't be a big concern.
If Boston does not draft Fultz, I don't think it will be because of his college W/L record.

you sure sounded like you knew your shit right here....maybe you should do some research before you make such definitive statements

red16russ11 wrote:It's not his fault the Lorenzo Romar couldn't get anyone else to play in WAS.  If Ball went there, to WAS, are you really saying they would have made the tourney?

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:It's not his fault the Lorenzo Romar couldn't get anyone else to play in WAS.  If Ball went there, to WAS, are you really saying they would have made the tourney?

Washington always seemed to have good players.
Michael Porter Jr. committed to Washington but decommitted after Romar was fired after their 9 win season.

We have no idea what their record would have been with Ball at pg.
That's a fruitless discussion.

red16russ11 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:It's not his fault the Lorenzo Romar couldn't get anyone else to play in WAS.  If Ball went there, to WAS, are you really saying they would have made the tourney?

Washington always seemed to have good players.
Michael Porter Jr. committed to Washington but decommitted after Romar was fired after their 9 win season.

We have no idea what their record would have been with Ball at pg.
That's a fruitless discussion.

No, it's actually very pertinent.  Ball played with at least two other kids who will be drafted in the first round.  Fultz played with a bunch of nobodies.  If you would answer someone's question, instead of cowardly skirting the issue, you would perhaps understand that this whole "leadership" thing is crap.  Ball could not have "led" that team of  nobodies to the tourney.  If Ball played at WAS, we'd be questioning HIS leadership skills.  And if Fultz played at UCLA, he'd be everyone's #1.

Don't think I'm alone in my opinions..........but you are!

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:It's not his fault the Lorenzo Romar couldn't get anyone else to play in WAS.  If Ball went there, to WAS, are you really saying they would have made the tourney?

Washington always seemed to have good players.
Michael Porter Jr. committed to Washington but decommitted after Romar was fired after their 9 win season.

We have no idea what their record would have been with Ball at pg.
That's a fruitless discussion.

No, it's actually very pertinent.  Ball played with at least two other kids who will be drafted in the first round.  Fultz played with a bunch of nobodies.  If you would answer someone's question, instead of cowardly skirting the issue, you would perhaps understand that this whole "leadership" thing is crap.  Ball could not have "led" that team of  nobodies to the tourney.  If Ball played at WAS, we'd be questioning HIS leadership skills.  And if Fultz played at UCLA, he'd be everyone's #1.

Don't think I'm alone in my opinions..........but you are!

If you read the story that started this thread, it was league executives concerns, not mine.
To me, winning and losing in HS or college are not a factor.
I judge and analyze players based on other criteria.

RedRuss/Hedley, you were an opinionated know it all and a very divisive person on BDC and the Boston Home Court website.
Now you are here. Great...
It was good here while it lasted...

red16russ11 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

red16russ11 wrote:It's not his fault the Lorenzo Romar couldn't get anyone else to play in WAS.  If Ball went there, to WAS, are you really saying they would have made the tourney?

Washington always seemed to have good players.
Michael Porter Jr. committed to Washington but decommitted after Romar was fired after their 9 win season.

We have no idea what their record would have been with Ball at pg.
That's a fruitless discussion.

No, it's actually very pertinent.  Ball played with at least two other kids who will be drafted in the first round.  Fultz played with a bunch of nobodies.  If you would answer someone's question, instead of cowardly skirting the issue, you would perhaps understand that this whole "leadership" thing is crap.  Ball could not have "led" that team of  nobodies to the tourney.  If Ball played at WAS, we'd be questioning HIS leadership skills.  And if Fultz played at UCLA, he'd be everyone's #1.

Don't think I'm alone in my opinions..........but you are!

If you read the story that started this thread, it was league executives concerns, not mine.
To me, winning and losing in HS or college are not a factor.
I judge and analyze players based on other criteria.

RedRuss/Hedley, you were an opinionated know it all and a very divisive person on BDC and the Boston Home Court website.
Now you are here. Great...
It was good here while it lasted...

Thanks, I'm enjoying my time here.
I only fight with delusional lakers fans, here, there and everywhere.
You are clearly unhappy we have the #1 pick, whilst you have #2, and you are clearly trying to convince yourself and all of us that Ball, or whoever you take, will end up better than Fultz.
I have not heard of any of your other criteria, other than quoting the article at the beginning of this thread.  And, by the way, I was not the first to call you out on this thread for making stuff up...............

bobheckler wrote:I think we need to calm down a bit and stop using heavily loaded adjectives.

Thank you,


bob

.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobheckler wrote:I think we need to calm down a bit and stop using heavily loaded adjectives.

Thank you,


bob

.

relax bob someone had it coming to him

cowens/oldschool wrote:bob don't know what your point is? I didn't see anyone being rude to tj, he tries to be too cute with his words when he clearly was in the wrong and brought it upon himself.

bobheckler wrote:It's just me talking here, not based upon anything specific, but I'm not convinced Danny is going to pick Fultz or, if he does pick him, that he's going to keep him.

It's just a feeling.  I have been looking for reports of the Celtics bringing in players to work out for them and I'm not seeing them.  No reports of Jackson being brought in for a workout like Fultz was, no reports of Tatum being brought in, nor Fox, nor Monk.  Dennis Smith was brought in on 6/7 but, interestingly, there has been zero press coverage of that visit and workout and Jonathon Isaac was worked out.  Unless Danny trades down I do not see him taking either Smith or Isaac with #1.  So, there really is no evidence of disenchantment in Fultz nor excitement about someone else for me to base this opinion on.

Maybe I'm just being too much of a cynic.  The lack of obvious workouts is unusual for Danny and Brad.  I realize they've never been in this situation before, where they DON'T have to make a choice based upon who is left on the board when they pick and that makes it easier.  I've just been watching Danny for so many years.  I've seen how he is.  It's like how, just before an attack, all communication chatter stops.  When Danny stops talking about players and trades that's when something always seems to be in the works and he did make a point of saying that he has been watching all of these top players since AAU and High School.  

Philly told Ben Simmons before the draft last year he was going to be #1.  The presumptive #1 picks often get the word in advance precisely because it's a no-brainer.  Danny hasn't said bupkiss to Fultz.  In fact, Fultz is saying the exact opposite, he said Danny told him nothing is promised and he has to earn it.  I know, that could mean a lot of things or be nothing at all, but what it was not was an embrace of the inevitable, not even after Fultz completed his workout.

Just me, worrying.


bob


.

Ktronic1 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:It's just me talking here, not based upon anything specific, but I'm not convinced Danny is going to pick Fultz or, if he does pick him, that he's going to keep him.

It's just a feeling.  I have been looking for reports of the Celtics bringing in players to work out for them and I'm not seeing them.  No reports of Jackson being brought in for a workout like Fultz was, no reports of Tatum being brought in, nor Fox, nor Monk.  Dennis Smith was brought in on 6/7 but, interestingly, there has been zero press coverage of that visit and workout and Jonathon Isaac was worked out.  Unless Danny trades down I do not see him taking either Smith or Isaac with #1.  So, there really is no evidence of disenchantment in Fultz nor excitement about someone else for me to base this opinion on.

Maybe I'm just being too much of a cynic.  The lack of obvious workouts is unusual for Danny and Brad.  I realize they've never been in this situation before, where they DON'T have to make a choice based upon who is left on the board when they pick and that makes it easier.  I've just been watching Danny for so many years.  I've seen how he is.  It's like how, just before an attack, all communication chatter stops.  When Danny stops talking about players and trades that's when something always seems to be in the works and he did make a point of saying that he has been watching all of these top players since AAU and High School.  

Philly told Ben Simmons before the draft last year he was going to be #1.  The presumptive #1 picks often get the word in advance precisely because it's a no-brainer.  Danny hasn't said bupkiss to Fultz.  In fact, Fultz is saying the exact opposite, he said Danny told him nothing is promised and he has to earn it.  I know, that could mean a lot of things or be nothing at all, but what it was not was an embrace of the inevitable, not even after Fultz completed his workout.

Just me, worrying.


bob


.

No need to. You know we're in a good spot. Draft-wise, the best spot we've been in since Bird.

dboss wrote:Gitters are understandable for Celtis fans.

This is historic.  The Celts coming off of a very good year are sitting atop of the NBA draft.

Dboss