I think Philly is still all about taking the best talent and figuring out later, especially with Embiid's injury history and Okafor being a bust for them.
I find it interesting that Philly and the consensus view chose to ignore winning in the calculus. They also chose to ignore potential shooting issues, as well as potential defensive issues and health issues. Fultz missed a decent amount of time near the end of his one year in college.
Maybe Tatum appeared to be "less athletic", but he was polished and ready to contribute. I think he would have been a perfect fit next to high end potential players in Simmons and Embiid.
I know its super early, but I think there's a chance that Fultz is just another high end pick (like Noel and Okafor) that is not part of Philly's long term plan.
Didn't those also apply to Tatum? He was a good FT and midrange shooter, but there were questions about his 3 pointer. He wasn't a great defender in college, either, although he was considered to have good "defensive potential" (as was Fultz). Tatum also missed time his freshman year (not appearing in any of Duke's first 8 games after he sprained his foot in October)
Fultz definitely had some question marks/red flags, but let's not pretend that Tatum didn't have some as well
I was impressed by how Tatum improved as his team got into the conference and even NCAA tourney. Unlike Fultz and Harry Giles, he led his team to meaningful wins at the end of the year (besides their loss to S. Carolina).
Having hindsight is huge, but I think people were attracted to Fultz's flashy game and Damian Lillard/Harden projections. At this point (super early), I'm not sure if he will be better than D'angelo Russell.
On the other hand (wearing green goggles mind you), the sky is the limit for Tatum. He looks just as good as Pierce in his rookie year.