« Reply #1271 on: November 21, 2018, 12:29:08 PM »
From ESPN:
Sixers coach Brett Brown and general manager Elton Brand said they weren't aware of any issues with Fultz prior to Brand receiving a call from Brothers on Tuesday morning, saying that the 20-year-old guard would not be playing until at least next week.
"There's nothing we saw medically that didn't allow him to play," Brand told reporters after the team practiced at its Camden, New Jersey, facility Tuesday afternoon. "He played last night. He played two days ago.
"Ever since Jimmy Butler came [last week] and [Fultz] wasn't starting, I thought he played pretty well. I was proud of him the way he bounced back from a lot of things."
Brand also seemed bemused as to why Fultz couldn't have an appointment take place sometime before next week.
"I don't know how long he's going to be out," Brand said. "I know Monday is the consultation. I asked, 'Why Monday?' He said, 'It was the best day they could get an appointment.'
So is this Sixers dysfunction or Fultz team dysfunction or a combination?
Either way, I'm curious what Ainge and the Celtics saw that convinced them to skip Fultz in the draft that apparently nobody else saw.
they did interviews with his teachers and guidance counselors to learn more about Fultz mentality. Also fultz Had a bad workout with us
it was more than just that
Yeah, it was definitely more than the workout. Like, what did they find out about him when they spoke to his teachers and old coaches, etc?
what i meant is that it was more than both of those things
Probably. I'm curious what that thing or things were that turned them off that, apparently, no other team saw.
I think now we might be getting into revisionist history.
Of course now that Fultz looks like a bust, the C's and all of us would love to believe that guru Danny and Co. knew Fultz would be a bust, they're just that good.
But it may actually be that they liked Fultz but that they just liked Tatum better. Or maybe they thought Fultz and Tatum were about equal, but they would rather have Tatum + additional pick over just Fultz.
We also don't know that no other team saw it. We know LA supposedly didn't want to trade up, we know Philly did. The media seemed to think Fultz was the unanimous #1 sure, but we don't know what all 30 teams were thinking.
That's all true. We don't know for sure how everyone had the teams ranked and we don't actually know for sure that Ainge would've taken Tatum #1 if Philly didn't make the trade. My recollection, though, is that Fultz and Ball were the consensus top 2 and Tatum/Jackson were the consensus next 2 (at least that was the reporting) and the Celtics actively got out of the first spot so they could take someone other than one of those 2 who is now, clearly, the best of the 4.
Given just how far Fultz has fallen, I'm incredibly curious was led Aing and the C's to that decision.
Logged
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008