Do we need a Point Guard?

[Eric_Suede]

Asking for you guys to help me out. Keep in mind I'm a NBA guy. Honestly I stopped watching college basketball once UMASS became irrelevant in the late 90's. So keep in mind I don't really know how good these prospects really are. I'm listening to reports over & over with people claiming this draft is supposed to be really deep. I'm a bit confused. When I look at our roster, There's absolutely NOTHING that tells me we're weak at the PG position. With IT & Smart I would think our PG position is already on lock. Our weakness as far as i'm concerned is at the SF position or perhaps we could really use a dominant Center.

 So my question is this.... If the draft is supposedly so deep Why is there no talk of a potential all-star Center or Forward being spoken of. Why are all the talks "Fultz or Ball". Are those 2 really that good? Is this a scenario where they have Allen Iverson type talent whereas you'd be a fool not to take them 1 or 2? Isn't there a coveted Center in the draft mix or high volume scoring Forward that's available and if so why are there no talks of the Celtics surprising everyone and taking them first?

[wdleehi]

It just happens the best talent in this draft isn't big men. 


The best play the positions the Celtics already have depth (G and SF).   

The PGs just seems to be better.

[PhoSita]

From what I understand there really isn't anybody with size who is on the same level as Fultz.

The closest would be Josh Jackson.  The comp for him is Andre Iguodala or maybe Stephen Jackson.  Some people really like Jonathan Isaac, but most seem to agree his ceiling is "elite role player."

When you get the #1 pick, you take the no-doubt top prospect.  Don't overthink it.


The Celts already have one elite pick and roll creator.

There's no harm in having two.  Especially when the one you already have is a free agent in a year and will soon face an uncertain aging process given his size.

[kozlodoev]

1. We have a PG.
2. Fultz is not a PG.

[Eric_Suede]

From what I understand there really isn't anybody with size who is on the same level as Fultz.

The closest would be Josh Jackson.  The comp for him is Andre Iguodala or maybe Stephen Jackson.  Some people really like Jonathan Isaac, but most seem to agree his ceiling is "elite role player."

When you get the #1 pick, you take the no-doubt top prospect.  Don't overthink it.


The Celts already have one elite pick and roll creator.

There's no harm in having two.  Especially when the one you already have is a free agent in a year and will soon face an uncertain aging process given his size.

Understood, it's just weird. Every sports show I listen to are singing the same "deep draft" song. So my first thought is always.."soooo not one of the potential all star game changers are big men?" I wouldn't be upset at a Fultz pick but............. I'm just wondering if they're really that good that's all. My mindset at the moment is "trade the #1 pick and let's get a Solid all star that would make us legit championship contenders NOW" The Nets are going to suck next year so we may not get #1 again but I think it's safe to assume we're in for a high pick next year as well so again unless Fultz is the 2nd coming of AI whereas his talent is on the "Super Duper/he'll compete for league MVP in the next 3 years"  level. I'm for making that vet push now.
 
 As for Ball...... I honestly don't even want to deal with the Lavar circus that comes with drafting Lonzo. He's a perfect fit for the Lakers. Curious to research and see if there are any other high profile prospects. Fultz from what I understand is a PG/SG. He can play the 2. I understand that. I'm still kind of hoping to find that Paul George type player.

[mqtcelticsfan]

From what I understand there really isn't anybody with size who is on the same level as Fultz.

The closest would be Josh Jackson.  The comp for him is Andre Iguodala or maybe Stephen Jackson.  Some people really like Jonathan Isaac, but most seem to agree his ceiling is "elite role player."

When you get the #1 pick, you take the no-doubt top prospect.  Don't overthink it.


The Celts already have one elite pick and roll creator.

There's no harm in having two.  Especially when the one you already have is a free agent in a year and will soon face an uncertain aging process given his size.

Understood, it's just weird. Every sports show I listen to are singing the same "deep draft" song. So my first thought is always.."soooo not one of the potential all star game changers are big men?" I wouldn't be upset at a Fultz pick but............. I'm just wondering if they're really that good that's all. My mindset at the moment is "trade the #1 pick and let's get a Solid all star that would make us legit championship contenders NOW" The Nets are going to suck next year so we may not get #1 again but I think it's safe to assume we're in for a high pick next year as well so again unless Fultz is the 2nd coming of AI whereas his talent is on the "Super Duper/he'll compete for league MVP in the next 3 years"  level. I'm for making that vet push now.
 
 As for Ball...... I honestly don't even want to deal with the Lavar circus that comes with drafting Lonzo. He's a perfect fit for the Lakers. Curious to research and see if there are any other high profile prospects. Fultz from what I understand is a PG/SG. He can play the 2. I understand that. I'm still kind of hoping to find that Paul George type player.

The consensus is that Fultz has the potential to be a franchise guy and none of the big men profile as one. You take Fultz to pair with IT and then figure out what to do with the other guards on the roster.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Many front offices seem to believe that there are a slew of guys in this draft that can become potential all-stars.  This group is made up of mostly PGs and SFs.

There are two guys that are believed to be potential franchise players, both of which are PGs.  Fultz has been considered a cut above the rest all season.  The pick should be 1 of these 2.

Fultz can also play alongside IT, if IT is to be resigned.  They'd complement each other very well, as Fultz is built more like a SG but can handle all the responsibilities of a PG and SG. 

[Roy H.]

Can an NFL draft be deep without having a franchise QB?

Of course it can. Similarly, an NBA Draft can be deep without having a franchise big man. The strength at the top of this draft is its guards and wings.

[snively]

1. We have a PG.
2. Fultz is not a PG.

Fultz is just as much a PG as Isaiah.

[droopdog7]

The most recent PG's drafted #1 are Magic Johnson, Allen Iverson, Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, and John Wall.  This ain't the NFL where you could drop 10 slots in the first round and not lose much in terms of talent.

In the NBA if you have a chance to grab a generational talent, then you don't think twice about it regardless of your team makeup.  Fultz is the surest guy in the draft to reach that potential.

[BitterJim]

Do we need a PG? Not, probably not. But what we do need is talent.  And if Fultz is the most talented player in the draft (which most agree he is), then you take him, whether he's a PG, a PF, a TE, a QB, or SS.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Yes. A one who can defend.

[chiken Green]

CBS with a young Raw freak athlete in Brown and now a generational Talent in Fultz..  This is scary good man, scary scary good..

[kozlodoev]

1. We have a PG.
2. Fultz is not a PG.

Fultz is just as much a PG as Isaiah.

Maybe. But I meant about Demetrius Jackson

[mctyson]

I know this might be slightly off-topic, but you never draft at #1 for need.  You always take the prospect that is the most coveted and/or highly rated.  It works out well more often that not as there are rarely any true busts at #1.