Phx-Suns.Net

In2ition wrote:I did the simulator 5 times, and the Suns got #4 pick the first 4 times and picked Tatum. On the 5th chance, they won and took Ball.

Played it 5 times too, lakers got #1 the first time while the Suns got #1 the next 4 times straight after that.

Odds of winning the lottery: 19.1 percent

That makes me sick. 2nd worst record in the league and yet less than a 20% chance at the first pick.

In2ition wrote:I did the simulator 5 times, and the Suns got #4 pick the first 4 times and picked Tatum. On the 5th chance, they won and took Ball.

My first 7 times we had a top 3 pick and took ball or Jackson.

Split T wrote:

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

ShelC wrote:I like Tatum more than Jackson.

I like them exactly the same. Would be happy with either. I think Tatum has Carmelo esque socring ability in the half court in his future.

Hmm, I think Tatum will be a very good offensive player, I just don't think we need another mostly offense wing right now. Booker and Warren are good offensive players and poor defenders. It would be nice to have a wing that plays defense. And Jackson is no slouch on offense. He's more athletic than Tatum, a better ball handler, and a better passer.

I think youre undreselling Tatums defensive ability and upside. He's a good athlete, moves well laterally, has good length. I think he'll be just fine on that end.

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

Split T wrote:

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

ShelC wrote:I like Tatum more than Jackson.

I like them exactly the same. Would be happy with either. I think Tatum has Carmelo esque socring ability in the half court in his future.

Hmm, I think Tatum will be a very good offensive player, I just don't think we need another mostly offense wing right now. Booker and Warren are good offensive players and poor defenders. It would be nice to have a wing that plays defense. And Jackson is no slouch on offense. He's more athletic than Tatum, a better ball handler, and a better passer.

I think youre undreselling Tatums defensive ability and upside. He's a good athlete, moves well laterally, has good length. I think he'll be just fine on that end.

Very possible, I still think Jackson is just as good a prospect overall and a better fit for us. Warren becomes essentially useless with Tatum here and Jackson is a better compliment to booker IMO. I think booker and Tatum are both primary scoring options in the NBA and wouldn't exactly mesh that well. They could be successful, but they'd do better apart.

Tatum is more fundamentally sound offensively. Jackson's form is a concern. Watching him play, he also got a lot of garbage buckets he won't get in the league. Tatum is smoother, has NBA moves and spots he can get to to knock down the jumper. He also has a solid post up game. I just like him more right now.

ShelC wrote:Tatum is more fundamentally sound offensively. Jackson's form is a concern. Watching him play, he also got a lot of garbage buckets he won't get in the league. Tatum is smoother, has NBA moves and spots he can get to to knock down the jumper. He also has a solid post up game. I just like him more right now.

I don't disagree, Tatum is definitely more polished as a scorer. And I won't claim you're wrong in liking him more. He's a very good player and I won't be upset with him if he ends up our pick.

https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/850099547279949825

This has been especially true of some young players, like Booker, rookie power forward Marquese Chriss and fourth-year center Alex Len, who are 1-of-18, 5-of-28 and 0-of-14 when it comes drawing charge calls this season. (Those numbers are pretty abysmal, considering that the leaguewide average charge rate is 40 percent.)

Wow, someone needs to teach these guys how to draw a charge. 6 for 60 combined.

Pretty important piece of Suns' news..... http://mediatakeout.com/mto-exclusive-r ... ics-prove/

n4th4n wrote:Pretty important piece of Suns' news..... http://mediatakeout.com/mto-exclusive-r ... ics-prove/

The comments thread on this is the best thing I've read in a long time.

O_Gardino wrote:

n4th4n wrote:Pretty important piece of Suns' news..... http://mediatakeout.com/mto-exclusive-r ... ics-prove/

The comments thread on this is the best thing I've read in a long time.

or the worst

Playing the point is not the same as being a point guard of course.

Even when we get a high draft pick it seems hard.

Is there really and out right correct pick if we do somehow get the 1st pick in the draft?

I don't see any of these guys being the next Lebron James, Abdul Jabar, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Shaq or Michael Jordan.

I certainly hope that we have done our homework if we do pick either Ball or Fultz. If we do we must get rid of both Bledsoe and Knight and really need to get something in return.

I actually think that drafting Jackson makes a whole lot of sense while keeping Bledsoe and even possibly Knight.

We certainly cannot afford another Alex Len.

I still think Fultz is the better prospect, but I spent some time considering ball today and have a better understanding of why he makes sense for us. I was thinking of all the point guards that have won championships since the first Isiah Thomas and realized that pass first point guards rarely win. Chris Paul, Steve Nash, and John Stockton never won titles and Kidd didn't until well after his prime. I was wondering why we should pick ball when championship teams don't have ball like point guards. You have a lot of role player point guards, then scoring point guards like Tony Parker, Kyrie Irving, and Steph Curry who had other stars take on a lot of the playmaking responsibility(draymond, Lebron, and the spurs system gets a lot of credit). That leaves Chauncey Billups and Rajon Rondo. Chauncey was a balanced point guard that won because they played as a team and went up against that disastrous Malone,Payton, Kobe, Shaq team that was completely dysfunctional. But the Rondo situation was very intriguing to me.

Rondo was the point guard and orchestrated the offense, but they had the perfect pieces around him. KG was the locker room alpha and defensive backbone that took a lesser role on offense to fit in. Ray Allen had become one of the best players in the league without the ball in his hands. Pierce allowed Rondo to run the offense, but was always there to be a go to scoring threat when needed. Rondo balanced keeping everyone involved and knowing when to score very well, but it helped that he had the big 3 to fall back on.

My point in all this is I think Boston is a good blue print for our team in the future if we happen to draft ball. In short, Ball will be more effective with the ball in his hands so he needs star players that don't necessarily need the ball. They can be off the ball offensive weapons(Ray Allen) or defensive anchors(KG). But like rondo, ball is not a primary scoring option and that's why booker is so important. Booker can play the Paul Pierce role and be the go to scorer when needed. This was one of the shortcomings of the Nash teams, everyone was too reliant on Nash to help them score.

I think Ball/Booker/Bender/Chriss is a good core, but I think it's missing one piece. Probably a defensive stud, cuz those 4 arent exactly goint to scare anyone defensively.

JustWinBaby wrote:I certainly hope that we have done our homework if we do pick either Ball or Fultz.

I just hope we get that choice.

A defensive stud like this guy:

[youtube][/youtube]

Superbone wrote:

JustWinBaby wrote:I certainly hope that we have done our homework if we do pick either Ball or Fultz.

I just hope we get that choice.

Who do you pick between the two. I can see points for both of them. However a defensive minded super athletic guy like Jackson is something you need more than a point guard IMO. He also reportedly has a good handle great court vision and is a willing and able passer. Could he be the next Kawii Leonard?

Draft.net has Boston taking him with the 1st pick.

I am in Split T's corner and while great point guards are pretty to watch they really have not won very many rings. I would expect virtually every championship team has a 6'7 - 6'8 athletic freak that dominated their position. Guys like Lebron, Kobe, Leonard, Thompson, Jordan. While Russell got a lot of the credit in Boston the Celtics always had superb wings. Hell the Lakers had Jabar and Worthy but Magic was their best player IMO. He was a hell of a lot more than a point guard and IMO maybe the best all around player of all time. I always despised the Lakers. I think it was more jealousy than anything else.

Whatever happens we do have something to look forward to or so it appears.

JustWinBaby wrote:

Superbone wrote:

JustWinBaby wrote:I certainly hope that we have done our homework if we do pick either Ball or Fultz.

I just hope we get that choice.

Who do you pick between the two. I can see points for both of them. However a defensive minded super athletic guy like Jackson is something you need more than a point guard IMO. He also reportedly has a good handle great court vision and is a willing and able passer. Could he be the next Kawii Leonard?

Draft.net has Boston taking him with the 1st pick.

I am in Split T's corner and while great point guards are pretty to watch they really have not won very many rings. I would expect virtually every championship team has a 6'7 - 6'8 athletic freak that dominated their position. Guys like Lebron, Kobe, Leonard, Thompson, Jordan. While Russell got a lot of the credit in Boston the Celtics always had superb wings. Hell the Lakers had Jabar and Worthy but Magic was their best player IMO. He was a hell of a lot more than a point guard and IMO maybe the best all around player of all time. I always despised the Lakers. I think it was more jealousy than anything else.

Whatever happens we do have something to look forward to or so it appears.

Between the two I think you've got to go Fultz for all the reasons mentioned. But it's not an easy, clear cut choice. But yeah, I agree we should end up with somebody very good.

Unless Ball is head and shoulders ahead of Fultz on defense, which I've not seen or read, I think I would lean Fultz. But again, I'm still clinging onto my dream scenario of trading down for two high lotto picks and getting Jackson and Ntklitina. It's like RW just said, with Booker and his relative lack of D, we need the right type of players around him, and at this point I prefer guys who build their games on D over guys that build it on O. Honestly if I knew that Tatum was going to be the next Carmelo, then I really am not very interested in him.