Jump to content

Markelle Fultz


Blue
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think Ball is just a bigger Rubio. That shot isn't going to be pretty in the NBA, he was MIA in crunch time in college. He's a real good passer, can help facilitate on the break but he ain't going to pour in 18+ a night at the NBA level.

 

I'd probably take him 5th or lower. Fultz clearly better. Tatum much better. I like Fox better. Hell, I even like Zach Collins better

I may like Monk better than I like Ball too. Big concern with Monk is can he pass the ball well enough in the pros, and size may be able to shut him down because he's not very big or long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I may like Monk better than I like Ball too. Big concern with Monk is can he pass the ball well enough in the pros, and size may be able to shut him down because he's not very big or long. 

 

Monk's upside has to be Bradley Beal. I like Beal, but he's a scorer and that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They say Balls game compares to Jason Kidd. Who would you compare Fultz game too?

 

Kidd was an excellent defender. Ball is not. But I understand the passing aspect.

 

Fultz has been compared to a CP3, but I wouldn't compare him to CP3. I think he's more of a scorer than CP3. Fultz isn't going to sling up 3s like Damian Lillard, but could score like Dame. 

 

I really see Fultz as a 20ppg 8 assist 5 reb type guy. He's going to be really good if they can get players around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monk's upside has to be Bradley Beal. I like Beal, but he's a scorer and that's about it.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but Monk has a chance of being the best scorer in this draft. At worst, maybe he's Ben Gordon. If he was 3 inches taller, he'd be the 2nd pick in the draft though, I truly do believe that. he's just not very big or long. Maybe he learns to distribute the basketball better at the pro level; he didn't really need to do that at Kentucky. right now the thing that kills him is he's a tweener. 

 

They say Balls game compares to Jason Kidd. Who would you compare Fultz game too?

Russell Westbrook; not quite as athletic, but a little more polished as a PG and passer. But he is a freak athletically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but Monk has a chance of being the best scorer in this draft. At worst, maybe he's Ben Gordon. If he was 3 inches taller, he'd be the 2nd pick in the draft though, I truly do believe that. he's just not very big or long. Maybe he learns to distribute the basketball better at the pro level; he didn't really need to do that at Kentucky. right now the thing that kills him is he's a tweener. 

 

Russell Westbrook

 

Really, Westbrook? He's not THAT athletic. I think he's a score first PG --- but Westbrook? That's a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, Westbrook? He's not THAT athletic. I think he's a score first PG --- but Westbrook? That's a stretch.

I edited it to add that:

 

"not quite as athletic, but a little more polished as a PG and passer. But he is a freak athletically"

 

I think he plays the game at a slightly lesser speed, but don't forget that Russell wasn't quite as explosive before the NBA program kicked in either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Fultz more of a CJ McCollum but better athlete and not quite the shooter

Fultz is a really good shooter. He has great touch from the outside and gets his shot off with relative ease. 

 

I think his ability in the paint to weave through traffic is a bigger strength - and finish among size - but for his age he's a really polished shooter. Could use some work from the line.

 

In regards to Fultz; when the only question scouts can ask about you is how high is your motor, you don't have any real weaknesses. I have also found questioning an 18 year old's motor is just stupid; especially one that just played for a 9 win team in college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fultz is pretty sick with his floater too. Fultz needs to add range though, I'll say that. He rarely pulled up from 3 in college and that line is closer than nba

He gets a lot of elevation on his jumper - even from three - which isn't always great but his form is really nice. He took 5 threes a game in college though, so hardly a shot he avoided. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but don't think as many were catch and shoot as you think; or were corner threes. He pulled up a decent amount on the break. He was so good around the bucket though it's hard to blame him for driving in those situations.

 

http://i.imgur.com/40F5C7W.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ball is just a bigger Rubio. That shot isn't going to be pretty in the NBA, he was MIA in crunch time in college. He's a real good passer, can help facilitate on the break but he ain't going to pour in 18+ a night at the NBA level.

 

I'd probably take him 5th or lower. Fultz clearly better. Tatum much better. I like Fox better. Hell, I even like Zach Collins better

eh zach collins i think tops out as a solid role player. Floor is a replaceable bench guy.

 

Hes also just not a new age player that provides much value. You want versatility, you want perimeter play, even the dominant big men can step outside and shoot the 3 (Davis, KAT, Cousins, Aldridge, Blake etc). Its almost a must now, cant build around a zach collins type

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, other than Ball wanting to play for Lakers and being a UCLA kid I cannot see why the Lakers would take him #2.

 

Is he better than Russell? I'm not sure. No chance they can both play together. So, you're essentially choosing Ball over Russell. 

Id rather have Lonzo than Russell

 

Russell is nice but think Lonzo has higher upside of making teammates better. Russell a better scorer but thats pretty much it. He cant guard anyone either, isnt close to as bright on the court as Lonzo is, nowhere close as a passer, isnt as long

 

Im not jumping at lonzo but i really dont love the Lakers core. I think Lonzo would step in and be their best player. They are young so maybe these guys develop nicely, but im not loving a Russell/Ingram/Randle core as much as it may have looked nice a couple years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may like Monk better than I like Ball too. Big concern with Monk is can he pass the ball well enough in the pros, and size may be able to shut him down because he's not very big or long. 

My fear with Monk is he becomes a better version of Terrence Ross

 

His ability to pour in buckets would blow me away some games, but then hed disappear and when his shot was off he was completely invisible to the game unlike Fox who easily surpassed him as UKs best player as the season went on.

 

Monk also would drive Cal nuts because hed constantly pass up drives and just settle for deep shots, sometimes deep contested shots. Now hed make a good deal of very difficult shots, no questioning the guys a shot maker and those have big value in the nba, but I dont love guys that settle way too often for low % shots

 

Needs to improve his passing, decision making, and make better use of his athleticism. But i think worst case for Monk is he is a high end scorer off the bench like a Jamaal Crawford type

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ball is just a bigger Rubio. That shot isn't going to be pretty in the NBA, he was MIA in crunch time in college. He's a real good passer, can help facilitate on the break but he ain't going to pour in 18+ a night at the NBA level.

 

I'd probably take him 5th or lower. Fultz clearly better. Tatum much better. I like Fox better. Hell, I even like Zach Collins better

Sharp post here, I agree.

 

Also regarding the Fultz/Westbrook comparison...it's been mentioned but Westbrook was NOWHERE near the athlete coming out of UCLA that he is now. I think he's Fultz' best NBA comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharp post here, I agree.

 

Also regarding the Fultz/Westbrook comparison...it's been mentioned but Westbrook was NOWHERE near the athlete coming out of UCLA that he is now. I think he's Fultz' best NBA comparison.

Weinke we're usually on the same page with these basketball comps; despite your dislike of Thibs.

 

He's actually far more polished at this point too. Odds are he won't have Westbrooks motor because nobody does, but his game is much more composed at the same age and he's much more defined. Becoming the most explosive PG ever isn't likely, but he just need 80% of Russell's explosiveness to be a similar player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...