# The Official "Tyson Chandler is a Bust thread...



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

Tyson Chandler doesnt have what it takes to be an All-Star in the NBA. Krause's roll of the dice craps out IMO. If Tyson can't earn Bill Cartwright's or Jerry Krause's minutes (which ever you prefer) there is something wrong. He WILL be a solid player one day possiblly, but the kind of player you build a franchise around? No way. 

When you watch him complementing other young players on their dunks in his face, just smiling, "hey, I am sooo glad I am in this game." Or "Nice dunks Amare and Caron". I know its an exhibition, but this was his chance to shine and SHOW us all how great he can be, or, has he already? I get sick of hearing, "he is only 20 years old" and "give him a few years". All the other guys in that game are his age for the most part. The guys who shine in those situations and most importantly, DURING THE SEASON, are the stars. Guys like Amare, JRich, Gil A, Caron, Wags, and even JWill will be All-stars. And when you think about how far behind most of those rooks/sophs are to the actual All-Stars, you see why we could have far superior players instead of Tyson. JRich for instance? While we are at it, I'll take Gilbert A over Trenton Hassell too.

Jerry Krause had this vision of the teen-towers, and it is failing, miserably IMO. His obsessive decisions are making our franchise and fans suffer. We had two 3-peats, he broke them up, made some terrible trades, took a chance, and then failed. I feel that spending more years being patient with this core of players is going to be a waste of time. There is plenty of solid, talented players in the NBA, some will be All-stars and elite players. I don't think Tyson is either and I KNOW this rebuilding plan is one big bust.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

It's only because Tyson's hands are pretty small for a man his size. He just needs to bulk up a little to make up for his tiny hands.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*What?*

Just because he put on a poor performance at the Rookie/Sophomore challenge, he is a bust?

That has to be the least insightful thing Ive heard yet.

The whole point of the game, like you said, it to put on an OFFENSIVE FLOURISH! Defense is hardly played. Chandler's strength right now is his defense. And don't give me that, "well, Chandler didn't even play good defense" crap either.

Look at past All Star games. MJ, Pippen both considered to be great defenders, didn't really play great defense in All Star games. The All Star games are about promotion, via offense. No one wants to pay to see defense. The crowd is there to see an offensive flurry.

That being said, Chandler is 20. I don't care if you are sick of hearing it or not, he is 20. Jermaine O'Neal took 5 years out of HS to become good. That means he was 23 when he had a good impact. Not everyone has the same learning curve. 

Chandler probably won't be a great offensive player, but he has the ability to change a game defensively, using his size, speed, and athleticism. Curry was drafted to be the scoring center. Chandler was drafted to compliment him. They are 1 1/2 seasons into their careers. Give them time.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

So, basically you're whole argument against Tyson ever being an allstar is the fact that he wasn't trying hard in an _exhibition_ rookie-sophomore game? If you watch the actual allstar game, you'll notice that many of the players don't try very hard either. It's a game that has "no bearing on anything", to quote Kevin McHale. That argument makes no sense, I'm sorry.


----------



## SMOOTH1 (Jul 16, 2002)

weill if we go by what u said jwill will be an all-star b/c he had a decnt game at the rook-soph game and because chandler didnt do much he is gonna be a bust,thats a bad way to judge, if you were to judge you should judge by the real games the ones that count, tyson has has a avg season but he has had 2-4 big games while jay has had 1 good and alot of bad games,but with that said im not judging either one of them by a few games it takes yrs but personnally i think both will be good players,not sure how great but they wont be bust


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I would think Chandler would have felt he had something to prove, maybe about not being the number 1 pick. Paul Pierce used this game to show everyone that he should not have been passed on in the draft. It doesn't say anything about Tyson not being aggressive for this game other than he obviously felt he had nothing to prove. That is not that big of a deal.

It looked like Jay wanted to prove he can play free.


----------



## Potatoe (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TwinkieTowers</b>!
> It's only because Tyson's hands are pretty small for a man his size. He just needs to bulk up a little to make up for his tiny hands.



You know what they say about men with small hands (smile)...


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

It didnt take jermaine oneal 5 years to get good, it took him 5 years to get playing time. Tyson has Zero talent and i doubt he will ever develope an all star offensive game, its very rare to make the all star team based on defense alone. im just not very confident in tyson's future. a bigman who has trouble palming the ball? thats a no no :no: , and i thought krause had a thing for guys with big hands.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Zero talent?

Lets not get carried away.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

I have never felt that Chandler was gonna be a great offensive player- as far as I'm concerned anything he gives us on the offensive end is bonus. But Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutumbo are or have been allstars and have had great impacts on their teams without scoring alot. I see Chandler as a sort of Mutumbo with leaping ability (though I do think he has a bit more offensive skill than Mutumbo). You don't have to be a good scorer to be a good player.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Zero talent?
> 
> Lets not get carried away.


if you call jumping for rebounds a talent, then he has one talent.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

*I am not basing this post solely on this game...*

Sorry if you guys took this the wrong way. I could base this thread on this season as well. I used this game as a measureing stick against the rest of the guys in the NBA HIS AGE! He will be a solid player, but the league is full of guys who perform/outperform Tyson. All I hear is how Tyson is the future of the Bulls, yada yada. We made a bad decision drafting him that high. There are many other roads we could have taken that would produce more wins and a more competitive squad. We all talk about BC not playing him. Why doesnt he play? Because he is too far behind, and Marshall is beating him out. Some of the other guys in the rook game are starting on better teams, beating out better players for starting minutes. It's almost like most of the Bulls fans think he is some kind of secret weapon or something. If he can't EARN the minutes on this Bulls team, he will never be worthy of a Top 3 pick. Face it, we rolled the dice and it was a risk we all liked the sound of when it happened, but picking Tyson has held us back, not help us rebuild in the most effient way.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I have never felt that Chandler was gonna be a great offensive player- as far as I'm concerned anything he gives us on the offensive end is bonus. But Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutumbo are or have been allstars and have had great impacts on their teams without scoring alot. I see Chandler as a sort of Mutumbo with leaping ability (though I do think he has a bit more offensive skill than Mutumbo). You don't have to be a good scorer to be a good player.


i do think he'l be a good player, just not an Superstar. though he may make the All Star team as a center for a couple years(eastern conf.). Im sure tyson will develope into a better player then ben wallace(ben is an All Star because the east is so weak). I see Chandler developing into a Marcus Camby who was as much if not more of a game-changer as Big Ben but scored more points.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> i do think he'l be a good player, just not an Superstar. though he may make the All Star team as a center for a couple years(eastern conf.). Im sure tyson will develope into a better player then ben wallace(ben is an All Star because the east is so weak). I see Chandler developing into a Marcus Camby who was as much if not more of a game-changer as Big Ben but scored more points.


How would he ever do that with "zero talent"?


----------



## Tri_N (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Potatoe</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> You know what they say about men with small hands (smile)...


This board is rated G ;-)


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> How would he ever do that with "zero talent"?


by working on his game. _at the moment_ he has zero offensive skills, and i doubt he will ever develope much of an offensive game. but you dont need much to make the all star team as a center these days. 13 and 10 would be adequate but hardly worth the #2 pick.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> by working on his game. _at the moment_ he has zero offensive skills, and i doubt he will ever develope much of an offensive game. but you dont need much to make the all star team as a center these days. 13 and 10 would be adequate but hardly worth the #2 pick.


Uh, talent and skill are two different things. You improve skills, the talent you have is already there. That is why these kids are drafted high. They are drafted because of their talent, and the hopes that they can potentially develop all-star type skills.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

I agree that he had _very little_ offensive skill at this point, but he's got some. He's got nice touch off the glass when he's driving the lane, and he's been knocking down that 15 ft. J lately. That being said, he'll never have a total offensive game in the way that someone like 'Sheed or KG does. Even when those guys were young, they had better ball-handling skills and range on their shot than Tyson.

I do think, however, that the trade to get him was worth it, even if he never averages 20 ppg the way Brand did. Chandler changes his game with his mere presence- the fact that he's 7'2 with his wingspan and hops will prove very important. As he gets better with his defensive rotations and learns how to play help defense, he'll become a true defensive intimidator. Look what Mutumbo has done with roughly the same frame as Tyson and even less hops- they should name the defensive player of the year award after him. The other thing about Tyson is the fact that he is the ultimate trailer on the break- something that will come in handy playing with Jay (if Cartwright ever lets them run ).


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, talent and skill are two different things. You improve skills, the talent you have is already there. That is why these kids are drafted high. They are drafted because of their talent, and the hopes that they can potentially develop all-star type skills.


#2 picks are supposed to have _some_ natural talent in them, tyson dosent have a talented bone in his body. he reminds me of another #2 flop named Raef Lafrents. sure Raef is a decent player who could make the all star team in the East, but was he really worth the #2 pick? 

Even the most raw kids who were drafted in the lottery had some major playground skills that they just never show in a real game. Tyson dosent have anything that he hasnt shown us already, which is basically nothing. Darius Miles comes to mind but can anyone say he isnt talented? Tyson looks like someone you'd want on your team in a pickup basketball game at the YMCA just because he's tall, because thats basically all that he is.

Tyson's inability to palm the ball will prevent him from developing any kind of post game.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> #2 picks are supposed to have _some_ natural talent in them, tyson dosent have a talented bone in his body. he reminds me of another #2 flop named Raef Lafrents. sure Raef is a decent player who could make the all star team in the East, but was he really worth the #2 pick?
> ...


You are still confusing talent and skill. Tyson is very talented. If he wasn't he wouldn't get near the NBA, period. His skill level is very low, however, which hurts him for now.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I agree that he had _very little_ offensive skill at this point, but he's got some. He's got nice touch off the glass when he's driving the lane, and he's been knocking down that 15 ft. J lately. That being said, he'll never have a total offensive game in the way that someone like 'Sheed or KG does. Even when those guys were young, they had better ball-handling skills and range on their shot than Tyson.
> 
> I do think, however, that the trade to get him was worth it, even if he never averages 20 ppg the way Brand did. Chandler changes his game with his mere presence- the fact that he's 7'2 with his wingspan and hops will prove very important. As he gets better with his defensive rotations and learns how to play help defense, he'll become a true defensive intimidator. Look what Mutumbo has done with roughly the same frame as Tyson and even less hops- they should name the defensive player of the year award after him. The other thing about Tyson is the fact that he is the ultimate trailer on the break- something that will come in handy playing with Jay (if Cartwright ever lets them run ).


matumbo sounds like a good comparison, i just hope he can get as strong as deke. cookie monster was the only guy in the league who could hold his own against daddy, and even then he still got abused. i think marcus camby, keon clark or even raef lafrentz seem more reaistic at this point IMO.

IF elton... i mean tyson ends up being a perrenial all defensive team guy then i will have been happy with the trade. we'l see


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Tyson's inability to palm the ball will prevent him from developing any kind of post game.


OK, first off, I think this whole "Chandler's hands are too small" thing has been blown out of proportion ever since Sam Smith wrote that article. He seems to catch the ball just fine (very well in fact when he catches lobs), and he usuallly doesn't lose it when he goes up to get a rebound. The only time he really turns it over alot is when he brings the ball down or tries to put it on the floor, but that might be from his lack of handles more than anything else. He does have to learn to minimize his dribbling and not force things as much, but that'll come with time.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> You are still confusing talent and skill. Tyson is very talented. If he wasn't he wouldn't get near the NBA, period. His skill level is very low, however, which hurts him for now.



what exactly are these talents that you speak of? what does he do that shows you he has talent? because i dont see a talented bone in his body, personally. i do see some potential, but thats just because he's tall


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> what exactly are these talents that you speak of? what does he do that shows you he has talent? because i dont see a talented bone in his body, personally. i do see some potential, but thats just because he's tall


His talents are obvious. He can jump high, he is agile and he has incredible speed and quickness for a man his size. Those are his talents, which have helped him to become a decent defender and rebounder up to this point.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> His talents are obvious. He can jump high, he is agile and he has incredible speed and quickness for a man his size. Those are his talents, which have helped him to become a decent defender and rebounder up to this point.



Hardly worth the 2nd pick though. Boozer has done more in half a season than Tyson has in 1 1/2 yrs, and he was a 2nd rounder. Sooner or later the talent has to turn into production, it has for MANY other guys his age, and the players who have passed him play on good AND bad teams, and almost all of them were drafted later than Tyson.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> OK, first off, I think this whole "Chandler's hands are too small" thing has been blown out of proportion ever since Sam Smith wrote that article. He seems to catch the ball just fine (very well in fact when he catches lobs), and he usuallly doesn't lose it when he goes up to get a rebound. The only time he really turns it over alot is when he brings the ball down or tries to put it on the floor, but that might be from his lack of handles more than anything else. He does have to learn to minimize his dribbling and not force things as much, but that'll come with time.


which article are you talking about? anyhow im sure he can palm the ball when knowbody is hawking im on defense, but he cant grip the ball good enough for him to have any real control of it when inside the paint.

though he dosent neccesarily need to palm the ball but he does need to develope at least _some _ touch around the basket with one hand, and right now he dosent have any kind of soft touch around the rim. this fortunately can be developed with practice.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RayMond Felton</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly worth the 2nd pick though. Boozer has done more in half a season than Tyson has in 1 1/2 yrs, and he was a 2nd rounder. Sooner or later the talent has to turn into production, it has for MANY other guys his age, and the players who have passed him play on good AND bad teams, and almost all of them were drafted later than Tyson.


Boozer also had 3 years at arguably the best basketball school in the country. Please keep things relative. Tyson came out of HS.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> which article are you talking about?


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ndler,1,1315661.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines 



> though he dosent neccesarily need to palm the ball but he does need to develope at least some touch around the basket with one hand, and right now he dosent have any kind of soft touch around the rim


Well he does actually; when they hit with a pass him on the move he has a rather nice touch off the glass.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> His talents are obvious. He can jump high, he is agile and he has incredible speed and quickness for a man his size. Those are his talents, which have helped him to become a decent defender and rebounder up to this point.


Those are tools. Tyson has the Physical Tools to be a great player some day, height, length, agility, speed, athletisicm etc... but talent? he has zero talent. Talent is the ability to do a baby hook bank shot off the glass ala eddy curry, the ability to block a shot on one end, take the ball coast_to_coast and dunk in traffic ala darius miles, The ability take your man off the dribble for the monster finish ala pao gasol/amare stoudamire etc... even the ability to block 5 shots in a span of 7 seconds like eddie griffin.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

You are still confused. Forget it.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*WHAT?*



> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> Those are tools. Tyson has the Physical Tools to be a great player some day, height, length, agility, speed, athletisicm etc... but talent? he has zero talent. Talent is the ability to do a baby hook bank shot off the glass ala eddy curry, the ability to block a shot on one end, take the ball coast_to_coast and dunk in traffic ala darius miles, The ability take your man off the dribble for the monster finish ala pao gasol/amare stoudamire etc... even the ability to block 5 shots in a span of 7 seconds like eddie griffin.


Darius Miles? Talent? 

What has DMiles done? He still hasn't developed anything that resembles a shot. He's athletic, good defender, rangy. Wow, that sounds like Chandler. Difference is, people still seem to say DMiles will break out in time. He just needs time. But then they go on to say that Chandler should be producing now.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Boozer also had 3 years at arguably the best basketball school in the country. Please keep things relative. Tyson came out of HS.



So whats your excuse for Amare being twice the talent and twice the producer?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> You are still confused. Forget it.


no you are, you have no idea what talent is.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Amare*



> Originally posted by <b>RayMond Felton</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> So whats your excuse for Amare being twice the talent and twice the producer?


Amare had an NBA body coming out of HS. Chandler didn't.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: WHAT?*



> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> Darius Miles? Talent?
> ...


Darius Miles has talent, ask everyone who's watched him play. he can handle the rock, pass, etc... basically he can do things on the court. Tyson does things on the floor because he is tall, not because of any real talent he has.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> no you are, you have no idea what talent is.


_A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. 
*Natural endowment* or ability of a superior quality_

IE, being able to run fast for a man that size. Having incredible agility. Something you are born with. You don't practice to improve your talent. You practice to enhance your skill. Otherwise, anyone could be as good as Michael Jordan.

You are confused my friend.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> _A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
> ...



Good ol' Websters........


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Good ol' Websters........


:yes:


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> _A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
> ...


Main Entry: tal·ent
Pronunciation: 'ta-l&nt
Function: noun

4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power : ABILITY



Tyson being tall and running fast isnt a talent bruh. thats a physical tool.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*So.................*



> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> :yes:


How does one go about disproving a dictionary?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> Main Entry: tal·ent
> ...


Right there in your definition, it says "ability". Put that together with my definition and it is crystal clear. Are you saying that people like Michael Johnson and Maurice Green aren't talented? Of course they are, they are talented runners. They were born with that ability and they enhanced it with practice and effort.

You refuse to be enlightened.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Talent is.......*

Main Entry: tal·ent 
Pronunciation: 'ta-l&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, plural of talentum unit of weight or money, from Greek talanton pan of a scale, weight; akin to Greek tlEnai to bear; in senses 2-5, from the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30 -- more at TOLERATE
Date: before 12th century
1 a : any of several ancient units of weight b : a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2 archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3 : the natural endowments of a person
4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power : ABILITY
5 : a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity
synonym see GIFT
- tal·ent·ed /-l&n-t&d/ adjective
- tal·ent·less /-l&nt-l&s/ adjective 


Talent is all of that.............so its a combination of all that. So KC is right, Chandler does have talent.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

*Re: Amare*



> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> Amare had an NBA body coming out of HS. Chandler didn't.


Exactly... thats just one of the reasons he wasnt worth the second pick. The rest of the league didnt share Krause's opinion he was worth the 2nd pick. And if they could draft again, he would go late lottery, not 2nd.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Actually......*

there was a lot of mock drafts predicting

1. Kwame- Was
2. Eddy Curry- LaC
3. Tyson Chandler- GS
4. Pau Gasol- Chi


before the draft.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

Most I saw had him 4th or 5th. The point is hidesight is 20/20 and if they drafted again, no way he goes 2nd. Maybe mid-to late lottery.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

I saw a couple that had Chandler at #1, but most I saw had him right around #2 or #3.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Right there in your definition, it says "ability". Put that together with my definition and it is crystal clear. Are you saying that people like Michael Johnson and Maurice Green aren't talented? Of course they are, they are talented runners. They were born with that ability and they enhanced it with practice and effort.
> ...


isnt it soooo convenient when you can pick and choose what you want to believe out of a definition. 

anyhow...you'r basically saying tyson is talented because he can run and he's tall? wake up my teenie bopper friend. there arent special races in the Olympics for 7 footers. sure he can run fast for a guy his size but there are many guys as fast of not faster then him at 7 feet. the fact that he's 7 foot dosent make him any more talented, what ever happend to that Wu-Tang avatar of yours?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> so you'r basically saying tyson is talented because he can run and he's tall? wake up my teenie bopper friend. there arent special races in the Olympics for 7 footers. sure he can run fast for a guy his size but there are many guys as fast of not faster then him at 7 feet. the fact that he's 7 foot dosent make him any more talented, what ever happend to that Wu-Tang avatar of yours?


Teenie-bopper? Based on yor posts, I would say that you are about 10 years old. Take your lumps and admit you are wrong. Never did I say his height was a talent. If you want to know about my avatar PM me. If you want to learn more about the facts, re-read this thread and then maybe you will understand the definitions from the dictionary. Peace.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> His talents are obvious. He can jump high, he is agile and he has incredible speed and quickness for a man his size. Those are his talents, which have helped him to become a decent defender and rebounder up to this point.


OK lets get back to topic and forget the personal insults. i apologize, but when you come off as a jerk you will get jerk-like responses.

Tyson can jump high but he isnt 'special' in this category.
Tyson is agile but he isnt 'special' in this category.
Tyson does not have 'incredible speed' for a man his size, pretty fast for a man his size? maybe, but not increadibly fast.

conclusion? trading down for Steven Hunter would have been a better idea seeing how he can do all of these as good as tyson anyways.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> OK lets get back to topic and forget the personal insults. i apologize, but when you come off as a jerk you will get jerk-like responses.
> ...


Ok.

I never argued that Chandler was worth the number 2 pick. I argued the notion that he has "zero talent."


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Right there in your definition, it says "ability". Put that together with my definition and it is crystal clear. Are you saying that people like Michael Johnson and Maurice Green aren't talented? Of course they are, they are talented runners. They were born with that ability and they enhanced it with practice and effort.
> ...


Main Entry: tal·ent
Pronunciation: 'ta-l&nt
Function: noun

4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power : ABILITY


sure 'ability' is in the definition, but it is in context with _a special often creative or artistic aptitude _. Tyson's *ability* to run isnt a special often creative aptitude.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok.
> ...


cool. maybe i was too harsh on him there, im just losing patience.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> Main Entry: tal·ent
> ...


Sure it is. He is very fast for his size. He runs the floor well, and he is able to use his quickness to get rebounds a lot of times, because he doesn't have any real strength. How do you think he is able to get so many put backs?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I just looked in the dictionary.

It's true that FJ of Rockaway has talent.

;-)


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I just looked in the dictionary.
> 
> It's true that FJ of Rockaway has talent.
> ...


Everyone does. HaHa.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

In todays rook game, there were at least 10 players who I would rather have production wise, and at least 7-8 talent wise. They are all within a few years in age, yet others are developing at a faster rate, thus making him a bust as a #2 overall pick. I am not hatin, just statin.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This guy is more than just a bust. He's the whole dang statue!

<img src="images/avatars/louie_2.jpg" border="0" alt="">


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

JRich instead of Chandler, hmm. And Curry is a bust too while we are at it. Totally liberal use of top 5 picks. Krause even had some of the fans believing it would work too.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> This guy is more than just a bust. He's the whole dang statue!
> 
> <img src="images/avatars/louie_2.jpg" border="0" alt="">



He has no desire to be more than he is. And that is the main reason he is a bust.


----------



## max6216 (Nov 27, 2002)

maybe i'm seeing something diffrent.but he does have terrible hands.he had one pass go right through his hands as soon as he entered the game.and has fumbled his sure during the season.as for him turning a game around with his defense i must be missing something.how many times this season have we seen players just stroll down the lane for easy scores.and then cartwright yanks him. it's kinda hard to gauge his D when he's on the pine.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> i do think he'l be a good player, just not an Superstar. though he may make the All Star team as a center for a couple years(eastern conf.). Im sure tyson will develope into a better player then ben wallace(ben is an All Star because the east is so weak). I see Chandler developing into a Marcus Camby who was as much if not more of a game-changer as Big Ben but scored more points.


Why is it so hard for some to give Ben his props? He is clearly the best center in the east easily. 

I'm sorry but Chandler will never average 15 rebounds for a season like ben does. Or block 3 shots a game like Ben does. Or guard the oposing teams best big man as effectively as Ben does. Ben is a rebounding/defensive freak...He is Rodman with the ability to block shots. 

I highly doubt Chandler will ever reach Ben's level of play. He might be a better offensive player, but other than that...please.


----------



## PrimeTime (Jan 11, 2003)

Chandler, a bust?...that's funny!

...the bulls' coaching is a bust!

--the problem here is that the bulls draft players....but they waste them.

EXAMPLES:

-Chandler...the man is long & athletic...what do the bulls' coaching staff do?...they want him to play like a big man...they want him backing down players...why not use this guy's strength(which is his length & athleticism)...run high pick and rolls, where he could roll to an alley-oop, or a jump shot, which he prefers...use & expose his strenghts...that's what's wrong with the bulls...damn coaching!

-Jay Williams...the man is an open court player, demands the ball in his hands...what do they do?...isolate him...they waste his talents & strenghts...you're telling me that you're gonna draft a player you saw in college that gives you offensive mobility, and a player who can lead, pass, & create his own shots--and you're gonna run the triangle?...goodness, this coaching staff shouldn't be called a coaching staff...it's a sorry excuse for an nba babysitter...let's see here....you make a mistake, you sit down...you please me, you play...sounds like a baby sitter to me...much so, a 5 year old kid, following his parents...

WAKE up!
--Bulls have players to start building a decent team...but the wrong coaching staff!


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> 
> 
> Why is it so hard for some to give Ben his props? He is clearly the best center in the east easily.
> ...


i agree, Ben is a Freak of Nature, and a MONSTER at that. You can say Tyson is somewhat of a Freak physically but he is no monster. If Tyson can become as good as Ben then i would be somewhat happy, but i would still question the trade becuase as good as Big Ben is, Elton Brand is better.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PrimeTime</b>!
> Chandler, a bust?...that's funny!
> 
> ...the bulls' coaching is a bust!
> ...



to continue with my agenda of spewing anti-krause rhetoric....

I agree, but the problem goes beyond the coaching staff. the problem is in the front office where the trail of sugar-powder ends.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*I have chosen not to respond to posts like*

these. We are making assesments off of an all star game which is abolutely meaningless. Steve Francis scored 0 points last year in an all star-game, 0 mind you in a much more spectacular game. I guess he is a bust too. I don't like to make judgements on players until I see them in practice ( which is the best way to evaluate a player in the short run) or watch them over a long group of games. Chandler is fine, I dont know why you guys always overanalyze stuff. This is not the type of game Chandler would excel in simply because other than JWll no one was looking to pass. He is fine and is progressing on course. His offense will come defense is the hardest thing to learn in the NBA. Relax. and stop arguing over a game no one will even remember a week from now.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Amare*



> Originally posted by <b>RayMond Felton</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly... thats just one of the reasons he wasnt worth the second pick. The rest of the league didnt share Krause's opinion he was worth the 2nd pick. And if they could draft again, he would go late lottery, not 2nd.


Huh ? The Clippers picked Tyson with the 2nd pick in the draft, not the Bulls. Had Elton Brand not been available to them, the Clippers would have kept Chandler. Alvin Gentry even spoke of this recently. The Clippers made that pick for themselves as much as they did it for the Bulls. This has been known for awhile now, even though some people still believe the Clippers really wanted to draft Eddy Curry, which makes absolutely zero sense considering the fact the Bulls could have changed their minds at any time after Tyson was picked, therefore the Clippers would have been "stuck" with Tyson and lost out on Curry. 

It was also widely reported that the Wizards were seriously considering Chandler with the top pick overall, until he and Kwame had a workout against each other and Kwame kicked his butt.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> If Tyson can become as good as Ben then i would be somewhat happy, but i would still question the trade becuase as good as Big Ben is, Elton Brand is better.


I think that almost every team in the league would greatly consider trading away Brand for Wallace, and I think more than 50% of the teams would pull it. I wrote a long post as to why, but I find it annoying and irrelevant, so I erased it. But I think many on the boards will agree that a blanket statement that Brand is better than Wallace is not going to get unanimous approval.

As for the topic at hand...

So, Tyson Chandler = bust? Because of a poor showing in an All-Star game?

Well. I'd say that Amare Stoudemire is showing much more promise... one can't deny that. But we've discussed this, and Amare is a fanatically hard worker, one who FAR surpasses the normal standard for dililgence in the NBA. He doesn't have life outside of basketball, almost at all. His family life... no. Basketball. His school life... no. Basketball. Every day, every spare minute, anything he ever did... basketball. I've heard of people spending 10-15 hours a week in the gym, working on their games, but not like Amare. As far as time spent on game, Amare is ahead of Chandler.

But let's be fair here. A lot of the accusations against Chandler were comparisons against people his age, etc. But if we read the rookie challenge rosters with a little bit of care, we might notice that Kwame Brown, DeSagana Diop, Ousmane Cisse, and Eddy Curry didn't quite make it. 

I assume that when you say that Chandler's a bust because of a poor showing in the rookie challenge game, you are also saying that Diop, Brown, Curry, and Cisse are all complete busts as well. And I think that people will dispute Brown and Curry being deemed busts, or even non-future-All-Stars. 

And even Cisse may still yet have a future in this league.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that almost every team in the league would greatly consider trading away Brand for Wallace, and I think more than 50% of the teams would pull it. I wrote a long post as to why, but I find it annoying and irrelevant, so I erased it. But I think many on the boards will agree that a blanket statement that Brand is better than Wallace is not going to get unanimous approval.
> ...


Kwame and curry are definately not busts. they have real talent, that will help them in the future. i just dont see anything special about tyson.

_im not basing this on one game_, but i did feel that this was the type of game that he'd excel at and so i was somewhat dissapointed.

Tyson will probably end up being a decent player like Raef Lafrentz(lead league in blocks 2 strait years) but hardly worth the #2 pick IMO.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

On the subject of talent vs. skill vs. natural born ability vs. whatever else semantic we're talking about...

Is it easier for a naturally talented player with average skill to excel than a not-so-naturally talented player with good skill?

I'd say that as far as potential goes, the naturally talented player obviously can become much more, because skilll is acquireable while natural-born talent can only be refined.

I'd say, then, that Chandler has natural-born abilities that are far above the others drafted in his class, and actually, I think Eddy Curry comes in second. In this sense, Krause drafted well, although if he was going to get raw yet amazingly physically talented players, he really should have invested more into the coaching that was going to shape and equip them with real NBA games.

But Kwame Brown has had rumors of having chronic asthma, not being able to run full-length regular practices. DeSagana Diop has foot problems that have yet to completely leave him, and with his frame and body weight, I'd expect many more on the way. And Ousmanne Cisse is just undersized for his position, otherwise I think he might have been picked up already (unless it has something to do with his attitude problems).

By the way, what the heck happened to Lenny Cooke? He was supposed to be something special, but now I can't even find him in the NBDL...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> Kwame and curry are definately not busts. they have real talent, that will help them in the future. i just dont see anything special about tyson.


I agree, Johnny, except for the fact that Tyson "brings it," which is rare for a seven footer. Kwame and Eddy have a wealth of offensive skills that will make them great players in the future. Tyson needs to refine his game and add some more skills like dribbling and palming and faking effectively and...well, you get the idea.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Amare*



> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh ? The Clippers picked Tyson with the 2nd pick in the draft, not the Bulls. Had Elton Brand not been available to them, the Clippers would have kept Chandler. Alvin Gentry even spoke of this recently. The Clippers made that pick for themselves as much as they did it for the Bulls. This has been known for awhile now, even though some people still believe the Clippers really wanted to draft Eddy Curry, which makes absolutely zero sense considering the fact the Bulls could have changed their minds at any time after Tyson was picked, therefore the Clippers would have been "stuck" with Tyson and lost out on Curry.
> ...



Sorry chief, but most of the mock I saw had him 4th or 5th. Just because someone mentions him as a number one possiblility, doesnt make it common knoweledge. The Clips took Chandler on the condition that they get Brand. 

No baiting- MikeDC


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> On the subject of talent vs. skill vs. natural born ability vs. whatever else semantic we're talking about...
> 
> Is it easier for a naturally talented player with average skill to excel than a not-so-naturally talented player with good skill?
> ...




I hate to tell you but...Chris Washburn, Benoit Benjamin, Pervis Ellison, Felton Spencer, Brad Sellers and Sam Bowie all had the same qualities Tyson and Eddy have. Just a thought.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

We would be a more competitve team with Elton Brand, not Tyson Chandler, and there is nobody who can prove that isnt the case. Period..


----------



## Tri_N (Aug 19, 2002)

Natural talent is useless when you lack the work ethnic to develop it. Camby was a top five talent coming into this league from the collegiate level. However, he never developed his game nor his body so look at where he is now. I think Camby and Chandler are too exact in term of talent, skill, and attitude that it's scary to predict where Chandler would be 5 years from now. Also, if any of you bother to watch the first Rookie vs Sophomore game, Camby set the record on most rebound until Brand shattered it. Camby is a reach for Chandler if this trend continues. We're trying to develop a basketball team, not the 2002 Beauty Pageant.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> We would be a more competitve team with Elton Brand, not Tyson Chandler, and there is nobody who can prove that isnt the case. Period..


Yeah. We'd be too competitive to be headed anywhere....see the milwakee bucks for reference....


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Right on.

Superstar talent cannot be underestimated. This is the potential that is in Chandler (and a potential that Camby might have met with better conditioning and better luck... Camby was quite a monster in college, one of the few guys that really gave Tim Duncan a problem back in the day). 

I mean, we could probably assemble a team of a few very good players, players that get recognition around the league for being very good. We could trade our young talent to teams that find the young talent fairly valuable. Putting Chandler and Marshall in a trade, Crawford and Fizer in another trade, and I'm sure we could come up with Brand and maybe like Eddie Jones or possibly even Stackhouse, somehow. A team of Rose, Stackhouse and Brand would make us "competitive" a la Milwaukee Bucks, much more competitive than right now. We still have Jay Williams and Chandler, and now with Brand Rose and Stackhouse, we'd have quite a might team. But there was another team, a few years ago, with three very "competitive" players and they still somehow managed to completely stink. 

The Washington Wizards had a dynamic trio in Mitch Richmond, Rod Strickland, and Juwan Howard. Rip Hamilton was a promising young rookie out of UConn. Jahidi White, Aaron Williams, and Michael Smith provided solid role players and rebounding forwards. Chris Whitney was (and still is) a tough point guard, disadvantaged in size but not overly turnover prone, and he can shoot the ball. A team like that, in the lottery? Please. Yet... that's the way it turned out.

Had they kept the superstar in Webber, or even Ben Wallace, when they had them, they might have managed to be more successul in the years following. Instead, Jordan came in and cleaned out the house, getting young talent all around and mixing in a few vets, including himself. And isn't that what the Bulls are doing today?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RayMond Felton</b>!
> Tyson Chandler doesnt have what it takes to be an All-Star in the NBA. Krause's roll of the dice craps out IMO.


IMHO, Tyson has what it takes and only needs time.

Someone whose watched him extensively in games and in practice thinks the same thing---the Daily Herald beat writer.


----------



## Tri_N (Aug 19, 2002)

If Chandler bulks up over the summer, and I mean massively bulk up so he can be fit to play the pf position. When I mean bulk, I don't want Shaq Daddy fat but Amare type of bulk up. If he can do it then there is hope for him but if he can't, then the Bambi comparison isn't far off especially when he's a twig ever since he came into this league.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Right on.
> 
> Superstar talent cannot be underestimated. This is the potential that is in Chandler (and a potential that Camby might have met with better conditioning and better luck... Camby was quite a monster in college, one of the few guys that really gave Tim Duncan a problem back in the day).
> ...



There are no doubt few players with the obvious gifts Tyson Chandler is blessed with. He is a 7 footer (not 7'9" Louie) with long arms, small hands, decent hops, and pretty-boy looks. He has the look of a guy who could be a marketable player in this league. But the fact is, there have been many players who have have similar traits when they were drafted. Some have panned out, some have not. If Tyson had 1/3 of Amare's fire and determination to succeed, he would pan out. I really see him being a Camby type, I guy who brings a lot of tradeable qualities, but hops around from team to team because he doesnt really help you win. Teams are interested in Chandler for his height and the athletic ability he has. But that does not alway translate into a star(Benoit Benjamin, Camby, Dare, Washburn, Sellers to name a few). I think a change of address would do him good. I would at least like him to play starters minutes for our lottery team. It has been a popular excuse to blame Cartwright for him not getting minutes, but I personally am just disappointed that Tyson hasnt EARNED minutes, and am thinking he just doesnt give a damn. He has been handed what little creditals he has, MAKE BC HAVE TO PLAY YOU!!! IMO he just doesnt have what it takes to live up to our expectations. Along with keeping the triangle, trading Brand, Artest and Miller, The Crawford Experiment, hiring both Floyd and BC, drafting Curry and breaking up the dynasty, Chandler is another of Krause's blunders. Krause did a great job fitting the pieces to Micheal's Bulls, but this project is 5 years old and we are not much better than when we started. I like his effort to rebuild ( tank a season or two, get some lotto picks, etc.) but it just hasnt worked IMO. We HAVE been patient and loyal, now I WANT A WINNER. Otherwise, I am just going to live with the idea that our franchises' glory was soley restricted to a single player, Micheal Jordan.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tri_N</b>!
> If Chandler bulks up over the summer, and I mean massively bulk up so he can be fit to play the pf position. When I mean bulk, I don't want Shaq Daddy fat but Amare type of bulk up. If he can do it then there is hope for him but if he can't, then the Bambi comparison isn't far off especially when he's a twig ever since he came into this league.


You can only safely, and legally, put on so much weight in a few months time.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: The Official "Tyson Chandler is a Bust thread...*



> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> IMHO, Tyson has what it takes and only needs time.
> ...



How much time do you think he needs? And in those years it takes him, is he still a Bull when he figures it out. It does take some guys time, but not more than 3-4 years, and the star's usually figure it out after 1-2years. I dont see him playing big minutes until his final contract year with the Bulls. It is almost like Krause doesn't want him to blow up, but IMO neither does Tyson.


----------



## max6216 (Nov 27, 2002)

tyson chandler = lisa leslie


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RayMond Felton</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> There are no doubt few players with the obvious gifts Tyson Chandler is blessed with. He is a 7 footer (not 7'9" Louie)


First of all, where did Louie say he was 7'9". And if he did, Im sure it was a typo. 


> He has the look of a guy who could be a marketable player in this league. But the fact is, there have been many players who have have similar traits when they were drafted. Some have panned out, some have not. If Tyson had 1/3 of Amare's fire and determination to succeed, he would pan out.


Tim Duncan isn't really a fiery type. Yet he is the best PF in the L IMO.


> I really see him being a Camby type, I guy who brings a lot of tradeable qualities, but hops around from team to team because he doesnt really help you win.


Camby was at his best when he played alongside Ewing. Camby was playing his more natural position, PF. What ruined Camby was him playing Center.



> Teams are interested in Chandler for his height and the athletic ability he has. But that does not alway translate into a star(Benoit Benjamin, Camby, Dare, Washburn, Sellers to name a few).


You are right, it doesn't always translate to that. But its way to early to give up on him.



> I think a change of address would do him good. I would at least like him to play starters minutes for our lottery team.


No one is arguing that BC is doing a good job at minute distribution.




> IMO he just doesnt have what it takes to live up to our expectations.


What expectations. By reading your posts, it sounds like you expect nothing from him. Therefore, he must be succeeding that, as he is averaging 5rpg(which is more than nothing.)



> Along with keeping the triangle, trading Brand, Artest and Miller, The Crawford Experiment, hiring both Floyd and BC, drafting Curry and breaking up the dynasty, Chandler is another of Krause's blunders.


Brand wanted out. He said so. Keeping him would have made things worse. Miller was going to leave via FA anyway. Curry was drafted to be our Center of the future. Miller didn't want to be a backup. I wanted to keep Artest too, but at the time, Hassell was doing well.



> Krause did a great job fitting the pieces to Micheal's Bulls, but this project is 5 years old and we are not much better than when we started.


This project(ie Curry, Chandler, Rose) is 1 1/2 years old. And we are better. Look at our home record. We aren't winning on the road, but thats always one of the last pieces to the puzzle.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

People fail to realize this kid came out of *HIGH SCHOOL*. Give him time. Give him 1 or 2 more years to develop. He's already developing a jump shot, and he's developing into a defensive threat. 

I don't know why you guys are calling out Chandler. You should be posting some Krause threads for making us wait this long. He drafted these kids on potential....be patient. 

I know we're all sick of this patience crap because it's been 5 years and we're still losing more then we're winning, but this team has lots of potential to develop. Post this bust crap in 2 years and then it will be logical.


----------



## Tri_N (Aug 19, 2002)

We're calling him out because his body hasn't changed yet ever since he came into the league. He had exactly a year to build up his body but his body is exactly a mirror of himself when he was in HS. The disappointment thing is that so was Camby.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Tri_N*



> Originally posted by <b>Tri_N</b>!
> We're calling him out because his body hasn't changed yet ever since he came into the league. He had exactly a year to build up his body but his body is exactly a mirror of himself when he was in HS. The disappointment thing is that so was Camby.


You never cease to amaze me.

KG hasn't exactly put on a ton of muscle since he came into the L. Neither has Bender.

Not that KG isn't strong.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> Camby was at his best when he played alongside Ewing. Camby was playing his more natural position, PF. What ruined Camby was him playing Center.


you are correct, which is why i do not want to trade eddy unless we get someone who i feel will end up being a star(jrich). Camby was a monster but playing center was bad for his career, he couldnt handle all the banging in the paint.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Which is why........*



> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> you are correct, which is why i do not want to trade eddy unless we get someone who i feel will end up being a star(jrich). Camby was a monster but playing center was bad for his career, he couldnt handle all the banging in the paint.


I really dont want to trade Curry at all. That JRich package is tempting. But moving Chandler to C could ruin him like Camby, in which case, I might not do it.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Tri_N*



> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> You never cease to amaze me.
> 
> KG hasn't exactly put on a ton of muscle since he came into the L. Neither has Bender.
> ...


KG and Bender rely on their versatile skills and dont need to bulk up, they have the skills to play inside and on the perimiter. Tyson isnt as talented nor versatile as those two, nor will he ever be. TC's game is and will always be exclusively in the paint which is why he needs to bulk up to succeed.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: Re: Tri_N*



> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> KG and Bender rely on their versatile skills and dont need to bulk up, they have the skills to play inside and on the perimiter. Tyson isnt as talented nor versatile as those two, nor will he ever be. TC's game is and will always be exclusively in the paint which is why he needs to bulk up to succeed.


Yes, Chandler doesn't have an outside game now. But thats not to say he can't develop one.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Future</b>!
> People fail to realize this kid came out of *HIGH SCHOOL*. Give him time. Give him 1 or 2 more years to develop. He's already developing a jump shot, and he's developing into a defensive threat.
> 
> I don't know why you guys are calling out Chandler. You should be posting some Krause threads for making us wait this long. He drafted these kids on potential....be patient.
> ...


I tend to think the problem is that right now we're seeing other players who came out of high school or didn't go to college (Amare, Yao, Nene, Brown to some extent) who are contributing more than Curry and Chandler.

Hearing Nene vs. the Bulls and then seeing him and Chandler in the rookie game was frightening, to be honest.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I tend to think the problem is that right now we're seeing other players who came out of high school or didn't go to college (Amare, Yao, Nene, Brown to some extent) who are contributing more than Curry and Chandler.
> ...


Yao was a professional in China. 

Amare is in a great situation. He has Marion and Marbury around him, clearly the best players on the team. He isn't asked to be a major offensive weapon yet. Thats not taking away from what he's done though.

Nene - I havent watched him play, and you don't really hear much about him. But from what Ive heard, he's going to be a great player.

Foreigners seem to take less time in adjusting to the NBA now. Look at Gasol last year. This year, look at Welsch, Nene, Ming. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they are more fundamently sound than American players coming out of HS. Thats not to say both can't make great impacts.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Tri_N*



> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, Chandler doesn't have an outside game now. But thats not to say he can't develop one.


 true, very true.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I tend to think the problem is that right now we're seeing other players who came out of high school or didn't go to college (Amare, Yao, Nene, Brown to some extent) who are contributing more than Curry and Chandler.
> ...


110% correct. The thing is, most of the guys we compare Tyson with (Amare, KG, Kobe, Gasol, and other HS's) were all picked AFTER Tyson in the draft their respective years. Tyson's stats tell us we need to compare him to players who went much later in the draft, thus IMO making him a bust as the number #2 pick.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I tend to think the problem is that right now we're seeing other players who came out of high school or didn't go to college (Amare, Yao, Nene, Brown to some extent) who are contributing more than Curry and Chandler


Yao faced pro competition for years before coming here, and in what way has Brown outproduced Chandler and Curry? Last I checked, TY was in the rookie game and Brown wasn't.

***note-don't take this as meaning that I think Chandler or Curry will ever be as good as Yao.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> We're calling him out because his body hasn't changed yet ever since he came into the league. He had exactly a year to build up his body but his body is exactly a mirror of himself when he was in HS. The disappointment thing is that so was Camby.


This is simply not true- Chandler has put on weight since being in the league. He gained 7 lbs. _during the regular season_ last year, something that's nearly impossible given the amount of aerobic activity NBA players have in their lives. He put on more weight over the summer, mostly in his shoulders and back.


----------



## MirageRon (Feb 10, 2003)

I don't think Chandler is a bust yet, but he sure doesn't look nearly as good as Stoudamire. I bet if he was on another team, he would be a lot better by now. This Bulls coaching staff is a joke and I don't think they could develop anyone.


----------



## PrimeTime (Jan 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MirageRon</b>!
> I don't think Chandler is a bust yet, but he sure doesn't look nearly as good as Stoudamire. I bet if he was on another team, he would be a lot better by now. This Bulls coaching staff is a joke and I don't think they could develop anyone.


Thanks for speaking the TRUTH!
--The Bull's could've drafted Amare Stoudamire, yet this kid would look like a BIG BUST in Chicago, the way Bulls fans perceive Jay Williams to be.
--This organization does not know how to develope & use TALENT.
--They feel the need to ease them into the league by playing veterans, rather than throw them into the game & learn first-hand.
--One would figure that this organization would've learned valuable lesson from previous teams drafting highschool players, that they need to PLAY to get better and perfect their craft.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Yao faced pro competition for years before coming here, and in what way has Brown outproduced Chandler and Curry? Last I checked, TY was in the rookie game and Brown wasn't.
> 
> ***note-don't take this as meaning that I think Chandler or Curry will ever be as good as Yao.



Kwame would have scored more than 4 pts and would have given a better effort, but I thought you said it was a meaningless game? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

i didnt have the time to go through all 98 posts in the thread, but here is my two cents.....

tyson has the all the tools to become a great offensive and defensive force in the game, except he lacks one thing. 

its hard to put into words, but has anyone else noticed that when he gets a pass down low or an offensive rebound, he jumps up meekly and sort of lobs it towards he basket?

what this does is create a shot with about a 30%??? chance of going in. this is what seperates him from a garnett or duncan who get full extension of their arms and come down with a commanding force. tyson just needs to realize that if he extends his 7 foot some odd wingspan all the way, it will be tough for even yao ming to come close to him.


----------



## Iknowbeball (Jan 21, 2003)

Concerning Tyson Chandler, if you look at all the high school players it takes at least 4-6 years before you see any sort of talent. Al Harrington is just coming around now. Look what happened when Portland gave up on Jermaine O' Neal! After four years and he is still averaging 8 pts and 7 rebounds a game then knock the guy. later.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Kwame would have scored more than 4 pts and would have given a better effort, but I thought you said it was a meaningless game? You can't have it both ways.


So you have a crystal ball?  
Even if Kwame had scored zero points and made a complete fool of himself, I wouldn't think any less of him. 
The game itself is meaningless, getting named to the game is what's important (and even that isn't terribly important). My point was that the powers that be felt Tyke deserved it more.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Regardless of my concerns, I'm not ready to give up on Chandler or Curry.

I will say, however, that I'd be more comfortable if we only had one high-schooler. It seems hard enough to develop one of them, and I'm not at all sure that we can successfully develop two at once. The Pacers appear to have done this, but they had a lot more veteran talent on their team as they've done it.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> So you have a crystal ball?
> Even if Kwame had scored zero points and made a complete fool of himself, I wouldn't think any less of him.
> The game itself is meaningless, getting named to the game is what's important (and even that isn't terribly important). My point was that the powers that be felt Tyke deserved it more.




I think Haywood is better than Chandler, and would have rather seen him. But lets not get away from the fact that Chandler is a bust based on the REGULAR SEASON, not soley this pitiful performance.


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnjo</b>!
> i didnt have the time to go through all 98 posts in the thread, but here is my two cents.....
> 
> tyson has the all the tools to become a great offensive and defensive force in the game, except he lacks one thing.
> ...



well since no one else seems to care about my assessment, ill reply to it. :sigh: 

Great insight Johnjo.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> Yao was a professional in China.
> ...


\





Lets face the facts, the Amare/Chandler comparisons end with they were both drafted out of high school. Its comparing apples to oranges. Amare is soooo much more of a talent and player already.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnjo</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great insight Johnjo! 

Seriously, it was a good post... although I do think on the brighter side he's more agressive than Curry


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Andre Kirilenko on Tyson*



> [Kirilenko] said so at halftime, trying to goad his teammates into toughening up under the basket.
> "[I said], 'Guys, c'mon, we can't play like that. That's too easy. If you don't play defense, anybody can score on you. Anybody, even [a] 3-year-old who is just starting to play basketball can score without any defense,' " Kirilenko, sounding a lot like his Utah coach, told the sophs. "I talked to Tyson Chandler, and I said 'C'mon Tyson, foul. Foul a guy if [his shot] is easy. Foul him one time; the second time he won't want to go.' "


http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02092003/sports/27812.asp

It appears we weren't the only guys disappointed with Tyson's effort.

I know this is only an exhibition game, but players talk. You don't think Kirilenko's going to go back to his team and tell them to guy right at Tyson the next time they play?


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

*Re: Andre Kirilenko on Tyson*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02092003/sports/27812.asp
> ...



I am glad to see we werent the only ones calling him out. When a guy like Kirilenko implies you are soft, then it must be warranted.


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Great insight Johnjo!
> ...


thanks buddy.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnjo</b>!
> i didnt have the time to go through all 98 posts in the thread, but here is my two cents.....
> 
> tyson has the all the tools to become a great offensive and defensive force in the game, except he lacks one thing.
> ...


I totally agree Johnjo. There's just something awkward about Ty in the post.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I just don't see what everyone else sees.

YES, we concede he's not the basketball freak of nature that Amare is.

YES, his body hasn't changed and though he doesn't have Garnett-like skills, I think we can all safely conclude that Garnett is a super special player. Today's All-Star performance blew me away... I always thought of him as a PF that could just shoot pretty well, like Chris Webber. I didn't TRULY see him as the big man with the guard skills until I watched him closely tonight.

No one heralded Chandler as being a KG player. We HOPE he can resemble KG because his body type is similar and his athleticism is freakish, like KG's. But that's pretty much where the similarities end, eh?

One cannot stop pointing to Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady... even Ricky Davis is useful to point out, considering he came out after only a year of school. I don't buy the "no PT for those on a deep team", because honestly, if O'Neal was playing at an amazing level in his 2nd year in the league, I think Portalnd would have given him SOME minutes, at least more than they gave him. T-Mac eventually DID get PT on the Raptors squad, and I think it's fair to say that it was in response to his growth as a player, not just an opportune time to play him.

Thus, one might say that we see in Chandler today what we might have seen in O'Neal or McGrady had they received SIGNIFICANT playing time in their first two years.

By the way, the #2 pick hasn't been TOTALLY spectacular in recent years. Stromile Swift, Camby, Van Horn, Shawn Bradley, and Danny Ferry have all been #2 picks in the recent past. They are all considered "busts", but more importantly, they provide a history that allows our expectations to leave room for less than superstar players.

Finally, the high school player thing is really important. It adds a HUGE element of patience to see what Chandler will become. Chandler looks a LOT better than Al Harrington and Jermaine O'Neal, when they were at his phase in the league, and both of them are turning out to be very effective players.

To Ray Felton: if, by your remark, you are being scientifically precise in defending the definition of a "bust" at a #2 pick, and calling that judgement on the premise that Chandler's past to this point has been unspectacular (and based on the wildly ungrounded assumption that the past determines the future), then I guess there's not a lot I can say. It's your opinion, and you can have whatever expectations you want. Moreover, you might be right.

But I think the semantics and tone of your post make it sound like you don't think Chandler is even a top 7 or 8 pick in any given draft. He's not becoming a top player in the league, and for whatever reason, you don't see the potential for him to become a top player. This, I think, is a statement with less basis. Expectations of a #2 pick is one thing; saying that a player will never live up to his billing is quite another.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*The problem is NOT the players...*



> Originally posted by <b>RayMond Felton</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMHO I feel the problem is with management and their grand design. As it has been so aptly pointed out, no coach/organization should have the task of raising TWO-FOUR children at once! PLUS, I still say the offensive scheme, WHATEVER you want to call it, is hampering ALL the rookies and sophs on this Bulls team. IT is causing other rookies and sophs from other teams to be better because of THEIR teams offensive devices. Stoudamire? He is just a stud, period. Oh, BTW, I would gladly replace curry/Craw AND EROB with JRichardson and Dunleavy.


----------



## RayMond Felton (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> I just don't see what everyone else sees.
> 
> YES, we concede he's not the basketball freak of nature that Amare is.
> ...



Great unbiased, rational post.

Tyson was a gamble anyway you look at it. But with the recent success of HS's in the NBA, it seemed like a risk worth taking. But in these days of free agency, the window to develop these guys are only about 3 yrs, then you only hope that you have coddled this HS-er enuff that he wants to re-sign, assuming he is worthy of being resigned. The risk-reward with Tyson seemed like it was worth it. We were the worst team in the league and Curry and Chandler bring young excitment. But I am very disappointed in the way we have brought these guys along. The Bulls ARE slightly improved, but it has NOTHING to do with Chandler OR Curry's play. If we were improving based on their development, then my thoughts would be WAY different. Something has to change soon. 
Your point of other #2 busts only supports my concerns with Tyson. What really gets me is that he hasnt MADE the GM/Coach play him. And with his great attitude, it almost gives me the impression he is content, and thats the last thing we want.

I hope Tyson and Curry play extended minutes the 2nd half of the season so we can see for ourselves if he is a bust. We certainly are not going to be in the playoffs the way we are doing it, and I would rather sacrifice a few W's by sitting Marshall just to see if Tyson can cut it( rather see him EARN minutes). And if we planned on developing these guys we probably shouldnt have signed Marshall anyways, as he is good enough to warrent extended minutes, and makes us better by a few games, but takes away from developing the HUGE investment we have made with these HS-ers.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Andre Kirilenko on Tyson*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02092003/sports/27812.asp
> ...


...and the other eighty games that season?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Andre Kirilenko on Tyson*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02092003/sports/27812.asp
> 
> ...


Ty was just not himself during the rookie\softmore game. Usually, he can't keep his feet on the floor on D. In the first half, it looked like he believed that he was not supposed to play D. I still don't know what to think.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Andre Kirilenko on Tyson*



> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> ...and the other eighty games that season?


If Kirilenko can do it, so can every other player who saw it or watched it. It's not like these guys all operate in a vaccuum. Players and coaches watch other teams and other players. When a guy gets a rep for being soft, you can be pretty sure he'll be attacked until he proves otherwise.

Chandler's performance was a step in the wrong direction in that regard.


----------

