Take Jackson.
- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)
Fultz doesn't check as many boxes. Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.
Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?
Nope. They have some things in common though. Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player. Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court). Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots. Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.
Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.
I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.
While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.
Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket. Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4. Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2. I agree, not a lot of overlap.
Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential. Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player? Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.
There was this skinny kid from Philadelphia, about an inch taller than Fultz, who was drafted #13 in 1996. He was a scoring machine. He probably represents Fultz' upside "potential" as a scoring machine.
He's not a popular guy among Celtic fans, but he did have a helluva career.
Fultz actually has a lot of potential on defense as well, by the way. Tremendous wingspan (his dimensions are similar to Wade's). He's a lot younger than Jackson. I don't think it's quite fair to characterize him as just a one-way player yet. Especially if we are talking about 'potential'.
Fultz is not the same size as Kobe Bryant. Kobe's a legit 6'6". It's hard for me to even imagine Kobe being as apathetic about defense and losing as Fultz was.
Well, given that we don't have any sort of independent combine event type measurement, we don't really know how 'legit' that 6' 6" is. Not that it matters. That's a red-herring.
However you might feel about Fultz' psychology, that nevertheless is his 'potential' as a scoring talent in this league. Fultz has all the check-boxes to be a high-volume, high-efficiency and extremely versatile scoring guard in the NBA. He has shot-making body control that is 'Kobe-like'. He may never ever reach such a lofty ceiling, but again, we are talking about his potential.
You're making my point for me. In the last 40 years, how many times has a 6'4" guard who doesn't play D led a championship team? I'm not trying to draft Gilbert Arenas. I'm trying to win #18.
No, as koz pointed out, the Celtics are trying to draft the best player available.
And the "doesn't play D" is just your little projection so let's ignore that.
Teams win titles. And an awful lot of those teams have had at least one elite scoring guard on them. Whether that player was the "leader" of the team is a separate issue.
Michael Jordan clearly was the 'leader' of his team on the way to 6 rings. Kobe was the clear leader on one of his 4, but Shaq was the man on 2 of them and Gasol, though perhaps not the 'leader' was arguably the best player on the other. Curry was pretty clearly the leader on his title team. Wade ... that can generate debate as to who the leader of his various teams were. But nevertheless he has multiple rings.
That's a lot of rings in the pockets of just 4 elite scoring guards in the last 30 years. Two of them taller than Fultz. One shorter. One the same height.
I've probably forgotten a player or two. Those were just off the top of my head.