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.
True, However there have been many #1 picks who were busts. I was just asking is Fultz really that good.
There really haven't been many busts at #1:
http://www.landofbasketball.com/draft/number_1_picks.htmLooking at this list over the past 30 years, i would say there have been 6 disaster busts (Bennett, Oden, Bargnani, Brown, Olowokandi, Smith, Ellison), and a 6 other serviceable players that fell short of what you want at #1 (Martin, Brand, Robinson, Johnson, Coleman, Manning) but weren't disasters by any means.
Thats about a 33% chance of having one of those players. The rest are multiple-time All-Stars who lead contenders or champions.
The one big caveat, no pun intended, is that almost all of the under-performers and disasters were bigs, PF or Cs. There are barely any guards on this list and every team plays with 2 guards! It is obvious why - guys who are 6'4" are everywhere on this planet but guys who are 7'0" are far more rare.
The busts at #1 are almost always a reach on size. Historically, guards had to be a LOT better than Forwards or Cs to be in consideration as the best overall prospect. Given the way the league is now that is not as necessary, and so we see PGs and SGs rated as the best prospects more often. But the good thing about guards are that their best talents are easily projectable: Can they shoot? Are they athletic and long enough to defend? Can they handle the ball under pressure?
Fultz by all measures hits these questions at an elite level. I have concerns about his teams 9-22 record last year, but I have to believe that NBA scouts are unanimous on him for a reason.
