# Sell me on Noah



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I am very down on Noah for reasons I've stated ad nauseum. I don't think I'm alone in those doubts either. It seems, however, like he is a real possibility for the Bulls at nine. For all you Noah fans, why should us Noah doubters not toss our remotes at the TV if he's drafted by the Bulls at 9?


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

Sam Smith mentions that Noah (like his pa) is charasmatic and gives a damn good interview. Check this out: http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/noah_070608.html

I know this might sound trivial, but to a fan who's listened to plenty of stale interviews (Wallace, Hinrich, and Gordon), Noah is a breath of fresh air.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

More pictures like this?


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

HAWK23 said:


> More pictures like this?


Hmm, team appearance is indeed going to take a hit (But it's not like we're in the upper echelons anyway). Someone should bump Sham's "Wow, this franchise is fugly" thread.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Endless energy, hustle play, finishing strong around the rim and possibly getting ejected for picking up a fight with Posey or Rasheed for bodychecking Deng?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

From what he said, Yi sounded damn good.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bQ3y5hTHuP4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bQ3y5hTHuP4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Simply because of this. (Humping the air)


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

bullybullz said:


> Simply because of this. (Humping the air)


That kid can play on my team anyday.:clap:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

He's actually one of the stronger big men in the draft. His weight is deceptive, but he has so low of a body fat for just a human being. His 4.8 bodyfat shows that he is mostly muscle, so he is stronger than his weight would show. He did the bench press 12 times...but probably could have gone on to beat Horford if his agent wasn't scared for his shoulder falling off.

He is a better blocker/rebounder/passer than Horford, and proved to be just as good of a scorer (if not better) than Horford in college.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Best Case: Marcus Camby Meets Boris Diaw
Worst Case: Anderson Varejao

NBA Comparison: Tyson Chandler (higher basketball IQ)


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

Pair Tyrus next to Joakim... That's a great shot blocking duo!

And, hey, did anyone mention he humps the air!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Wow. I wasn't expecting the "Sell me on Noah" thread to make me hate Noah even more than I already do.

Sloth, FWIW, Horford averaged significantly more rebounds than Noah last year so I'm not yet sold on Noah being the better rebounder of the two.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

By the numbers :
Noah 12.0 Pts, 8.4 Rebs, 2.2 Asts
Horford 13.2 Pts, 9.5 Rebs, 2.2 Asts

The two junior teammates have very similar stats although Horford played a few more minutes per game. Yet folks are drooling over the potential PER of Horford, and concluding that Noah can't score. Both conclusions are probably exaggerated. Noah is 2" taller. 

I really like Noah's handles and passing ability. He plays smart team basketball. He's going to fit in quickly and well with the Bulls. No, he won't be a scoring machine, but I don't expect we will be finding a center in this draft who would be. He would have been a top 5 pick in last year's draft, and maybe #1. He's still the same player, although a damaged shoulder may have limited him a bit last year -- possibly making him available at #9.

http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=589&page=playerblog


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Noah is 7 feet tall and may be the only good player who fits that criteria at 9. Did that sell him to ya? No? Did I mention he's great at humping air.:banana: :whoknows:


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

It's funny how posters on this board will drool over a guy like Tyrus Thomas who has relatively little skill but question the ability of a guy who led his team to two national championships in a row with hustle, defense, rebounding, shotblocking, passing, and yes scoring.

I was reading Marty Burns this morning on SI who was going over team needs. He indicated that the Bulls primary need was at power forward because of PJ Brown's leaving. Now last year we used arguably the second pick in the draft to get a power forward and yet our team still needs a power forward. What's going on here?

Anybody who doesn't think that Noah could help this team should start following baseball instead.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> It's funny how posters on this board will drool over a guy like Tyrus Thomas who has relatively little skill but question the ability of a guy who led his team to two national championships in a row with hustle, defense, rebounding, shotblocking, passing, and yes scoring.


19 vs. 22. 

Rare athlete vs. good athlete.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Yup, comparing Noah and Tyrus in that manner is like comparing a 9th grader who is a straight C student to a 6th grader who's an honor roll student. Noah doesn't get more props just because he's in the 9th grade.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> 19 vs. 22.
> 
> Rare athlete vs. good athlete.



I presume you are comparing the athleticism of TT to Noah. FYI, there have been a number of "rare" athletes in the NBA over the years who didn't do anything during their careers. I would take Noah over TT any day. In fact, Paxson would have done that last year.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I would take Noah over TT any day. In fact, Paxson would have done that last year.


Proof?


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Yup, comparing Noah and Tyrus in that manner is like comparing a 9th grader who is a straight C student to a 6th grader who's an honor roll student. Noah doesn't get more props just because he's in the 9th grade.


This is one of the more non-sensical posts I have seen in a while. Are you saying Noah is a "C" or average player and Tyrus is an "A" or superior player?

If Noah came out last year he was the consensus #1 pick. Many, many, basketball "gurus" have indicated this. For heaven's sake, Charlotte drafted Adam Morrison over TT.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Kobe + Noah

>

Gordon + Wallace

I'm sold. If we keep Wallace however, I don't want Noah.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> This is one of the more non-sensical posts I have seen in a while. Are you saying Noah is a "C" or average player and Tyrus is an "A" or superior player?
> 
> If Noah came out last year he was the consensus #1 pick. Many, many, basketball "gurus" have indicated this. For heaven's sake, Charlotte drafted Adam Morrison over TT.


Come on dude, use your brain and some critical thinking skills. That isn't what I said.
What I DID INFER, is that Noah is a *KNOWN quanitity*, and yes, he *will be an AVERAGE player in this league*. A servicable big man, perhaps on a championship team even, but *not in any way shape or form, a franchise changing talent.*

Now based on *AGE and POTENTIAL* (hence the 6th grade comment), Tyrus has the *REAL POTENTIAL* to be a franchise changing talent. I know many 6th grade A students that became c students by the 9th grade or even flunked out. But I know just as many that went to college and graduate school. *Tyrus can go either way*, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

Those who are least likely to fail are also the one's who are least likely to be huge successes, because they never risk anything. Tyrus was a risk I'm glad we took. Noah is less of a risk, but lets not kid ourselves. His ceiling is significantly lower than T2.

That's what I said.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Bulldozer said:


> I'm sold. If we keep Wallace however, I don't want Noah.


I don't get it. Wallace is the present, Noah and TT are the future. Why get rid of either time frame?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm sorry, Paxson would not have picked Noah over Tyrus. Why did Paxson pick Tyrus? I don't have a clip/link of his quote, but I read this on another forum a while back -- Pax essentially said that he picked Tyrus because you have a chance to pick the best talent on the draft you can't pass on the opportunity.

Talent in the NBA is typically defined by a guy's athletic ability and potential to develop into a helluva player. Noah doesn't touch Tyrus in athletism. Both are rebounding and blocking beasts. But Tyrus' ceiling is so much higher than Noahs. Tyrus isn't an offensive threat by any means, but he has shown to hit the long J in college at times. Not often, but he's shown it. Tyrus' impact is felt, maybe not in the box-score, but opponents know when he is in the game. He's shown this last year quite often near the end of the season. Noah came back for his Junior year and did not improve on the offensive end at all. Take his Jumpshot and compare it to Tyrus. Who would you guess has a better chance of developing a consistant one?

I agree with Krakken on what Noah will be -- Solid role player. Someone you'd love to have on your team, but to round out your rotation, not be the foundation of it. This is why I advocate the Yi pick over Noah. Again if we move Big Ben, I will definitely be Pro-Noah in the draft. Again, I won't be disappointed if we pick Noah, but I am not expecting Noah to do more than his current skillset for most of his career. If he can add a consistant J a la Malik/PJ, then I see Noah as having a solid 'PJ' like career. And I think that there is his ceiling.

On other notes, I'm just scared we won't have the chance to pick any bigs. Phoenix likes Noah. West likes Noah, but he won't likely be the pick at 4. Its a possiblity as I read on a Bucks board that the Grizz could go hard after Mo Williams thus making the Noah pick make sense. 

Boston is enamored with the Florida kids. I have been reading this forum run by CelticThug, former poster of Boston's RealGM. He did end up making up some news, but the majority of what he says is legit. Yesterday he said that KG may change his mind about Boston if he can't get dealt to Phoenix. Ford added that to his blog some hours later. A poster on CT's forum said that Doc Rivers has narrowed it down to two guys who have high BBall IQ. The Celts are rumored to like Noah, Brewer, Horford, Yi, Green, and Thronton. BBall IQ to me means = Noah, Brewer, Green, and Thornton with the first three being the likely choices of who they would pick. Noah did not workout for Milwaukee, and the GM seemed to rip him for it as if the Bucks do not need him. Has Noah worked for Charlotte, Atlanta, and Minny.

Ford went on his Podcast and said he has had no confirmation of the Hawes guarantee but knows Minny likes him a lot.

We could see the following happen: 
Oden
Durant

ATL - Horford or Yi or Wright, but I think for once they pick the 'safest' pick and go Horford. Yi is a possiblity.

MEM - Noah/Conley (Could be Noah now. You would smokescreen Conley to 'force' ATL to take him at 3 to try to get Horford). Horford for sure if he is available.

BOS - Noah is a possibility, but likely Brewer/Green to plug in at SF

MIL - Not Noah. They hint at Yi, but I think that is a smokescreen to drive up the value of #6. Conley makes sense if he is around. Otherwise, do they take Brandan Wright as they have said that they liked his workouts. Wright, Noah, and Conley along with one of Green or Brewer would be on board. I'd say they go Conley.

MIN - Out of the Bigs, it is likely Yi and Hawes are definitely available. Noah is a possiblity if he does not go 4/5. Won't be in the running for Yi. If Brandan Wright is available, I do not see them passing on him, otherwise it is Hawes.

CHA - Won't pick Yi. I believe they'd take Brewer over any other player (Hawes, Noah). Wright could slip this far, but Minny would have to be enamored with Hawes.

CHI - Yi would be here and the possiblity of Hawes or Noah (likely not both).


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

charlietyra said:


> It's funny how posters on this board will drool over a guy like Tyrus Thomas who has relatively little skill but question the ability of a guy who led his team to two national championships in a row with hustle, defense, rebounding, shotblocking, passing, and yes scoring.
> 
> I was reading Marty Burns this morning on SI who was going over team needs. He indicated that the Bulls primary need was at power forward because of PJ Brown's leaving. Now last year we used arguably the second pick in the draft to get a power forward and yet our team still needs a power forward. What's going on here?
> 
> Anybody who doesn't think that Noah could help this team should start following baseball instead.


Oh, he'll help that's not what's at issue. The problem is we need interior scoring.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> By the numbers :
> Noah 12.0 Pts, 8.4 Rebs, 2.2 Asts
> Horford 13.2 Pts, 9.5 Rebs, 2.2 Asts
> 
> The two junior teammates have very similar stats although Horford played a few more minutes per game. Yet folks are drooling over the potential PER of Horford, and concluding that Noah can't score. Both conclusions are probably exaggerated. Noah is 2" taller.


The problem is that Horford actually has the better standing reach because Noah has such short arms. It is true that I probably don't give Noah enough credit for his scoring in college. His junior year he averaged something like 14 PPG in 26 MPG which is quite good. I guess i just worry that from a scouting perspective ie the way he scores, his offense won't translate that well to the NBA. 



charlietyra said:


> It's funny how posters on this board will drool over a guy like Tyrus Thomas who has relatively little skill but question the ability of a guy who led his team to two national championships in a row with hustle, defense, rebounding, shotblocking, passing, and yes scoring.
> 
> I was reading Marty Burns this morning on SI who was going over team needs. He indicated that the Bulls primary need was at power forward because of PJ Brown's leaving. Now last year we used arguably the second pick in the draft to get a power forward and yet our team still needs a power forward. What's going on here?
> 
> Anybody who doesn't think that Noah could help this team should start following baseball instead.


I read that article too. I like Marty Burns but he has no idea what he's talking about. 10 out of 10 posters on this board would tell you that our need is a back to the basket scoring _center_. Burns probably just thinks we're set there because we have Wallace but he'll be gone in a few years. 

Tyrus came first so to the extent he and Noah are similar players, it makes more sense to hang on to him and not draft Noah than to take Noah and then trade one of the two. All this "led Florida" stuff is ridiculous. He had two teammates who will be drafted ahead of him and a highly regarded coach. There's no point in drafting him because he's a good team leader.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> I presume you are comparing the athleticism of TT to Noah. FYI, there have been a number of "rare" athletes in the NBA over the years who didn't do anything during their careers. I would take Noah over TT any day. In fact, Paxson would have done that last year.


Whoa. I'd be willing to bet a lot that that Tyrus has the better career and has the better season next year. I actually think you might be right that Pax would've taken Noah last year but his stock has slipped. It's odd that you think the fact that scouts might've liked Noah more a year ago somehow indicates that he's still the best prospect today.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Noah is probably my 3rd choice behind Yi & Hawes, but I'm still confident he'll be a very good NBA player. I don't see him being a star, maybe nothing close, but it's a very safe bet that he'll be a starter for 10+ years (maybe even from the get go).

To be sold on him, look no further than these qualities:
- 7 footer (in shoes)
- Will play either PF or C
- Very athletic...e.g. 37" vertical, deceptive strength
- Endless motor/energy
- Smart on both ends
- Can actually handle the ball some on the fast break (not many bigs would even dare try)

That right there is enough to sell me on a guy for the 9th pick in the draft. I'm not convinced he'll ever score more than 10-12 ppg, but his niche as a fairly versatile big man in all other phases is convincing enough IMO.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Is it really that hard to imagine either Noah or Horford averaging something like 18-20 PPG, 11-13 RPG, 4-5 APG if the other one disappeared, and a big white stiff replaced them? 

Noah definitely played under his ability. He is better than his numbers indicate.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

I can see Noah being similar to David Lee.


----------



## YoYoYoWasup (Nov 14, 2004)

While Thomas is and younger and more athletic, Noah also has some things on TT, such as being a legit 7'0, being a far better passer, and having a greater basketball IQ.

I don't think Noah will be a star, but he will be a very effective NBA player.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

YoYoYoWasup said:


> While Thomas is and younger and more athletic, Noah also has some things on TT, such as being a legit 7'0, being a far better passer, and having a greater basketball IQ.
> 
> I don't think Noah will be a star, but he will be a very effective NBA player.


Being a legit 7'0" isn't much of an advantage when you have the arm length of a far shorter man.


----------



## YoYoYoWasup (Nov 14, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Being a legit 7'0" isn't much of an advantage when you have the arm length of a far shorter man.


Okay, then he's still a better passer and a more intelligent basketball player


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

YoYoYoWasup said:


> Okay, then he's still a better passer and a more intelligent basketball player


Fair enough.

Do you think he's got a chance to be more then an energy, defensive guy in the NBA?


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

Okay, presumably, if you don't like Noah, you are on board with one of the following players:
1) Yi
2) Hawes
3) BPA SF

So compared to Yi:
1) When watching tape of the two, Noah is way stronger, more athletic, and isn't remotely as passive. He's a better passer, more decisive has a better basketball IQ, and is much lower risk. Yi comes from a league that's only had 1 of 3 players successfully stick in the NBA at all. 2 of the 3 washed out completely, and one of those, Wang Zhi Zhi beats Yi like a red headed step child when they match up against him, and the other Menk Bateer beats him up pretty bad as well. This could be partially due to Yi's age, but everyone in the know thinks he's 22 in which case his development curve is no where near so spectacular as people think. Yi shoots 19% from the international 3 which is shorter than the NBA 3, so those saying he has this awesome range are greatly exaggerating. He plays in the post quite a bit, but he's extremely inefficient there and that's being guarded by shorter non athletic players. There is tremendous risk in taking Yi. Oh, and by the way, Yi can't defend anyone in the CBA, so what are his odds of defending someone in the NBA?

2) Hawes. Well let's start with Noah's college PER being about 8 points higher than Hawes. Hawes is a center who can't defend or rebound and is unatheletic by NBA standards. He has nice back to the basket moves, but he was really bothered by UCLA in the tourney when they had a skinny 7 footer (who's name escapes me at the moment) guarding him. He basically couldn't do anything and was awful. Hawes hasn't gone up against any real other big men and scores more on craftiness. He doesn't have the power, strength, or game to dominate at the center position. I have questions about whether his finesse style game will translate to the NBA on offense, and it's almost a given that he's going to be bad defensively for a considerable amount of time (and possibly forever). Plus, when you have a poor defensive center, you are making every other player on your team work harder, because the center is the last line of defense at the hoop. Defense and rebounding are the 2 most important traits for a center to have.

3) BPA SF - That's great, now we have a good player to sit behind Tyrus, Deng, and Nocioni. That will be a huge help.

So let's move on to Noah's strengths;
1) He'll probably be a great defender both help and man at the next level.
2) He fills a need we have as a legit 4/5.
3) He's a great fit for our current offense where we want our big men to run the floor and be good passers in the post
4) He's a great fit for our defense where we require our big men to make quick slides on guards to defend the baseline (where a lot of our players can't handle this and have huge foul trouble because they are too slow to do so). 

In short, Noah's skills translate excellently to what we do on both ends of the court and he fills a position of great need. He probably won't open up a new realm of offensive potential like Hawes or Yi could do if they panned out, but if he pans out, he'd change us from a good defensive team to an elite lockdown defensive team, and he'd still give us much better offense than we currently get out of our front court because of his ability to finish, run the break, pass, and take opposing bigs off the dribble.

Am I absolutely taking Noah at #9 if he, Yi, and Hawes are all there. No, I'm not 100% sold that Noah is the right choice, but if we picked him over both the other guys then I'd still feel okay with that. If he's the only 1 of the 3 left and we take him, then I'm thrilled to take him over the BPA SF guy who has no place on the team.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

While I am still on the Yi bandwagon, I would be very content if we came out with Noah too.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Your points are well taken Doug but I just have a hard time believing we can't do better than a 10 or 12 PPG defense and energy player who duplicates a lot of what we already have on the roster. If that's the case and the BPA SF projects as a Caron Butler type talent, Pax should probably be shopping the pick very hard.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Your points are well taken Doug but I just have a hard time believing we can't do better than a 10 or 12 PPG defense and energy player who duplicates a lot of what we already have on the roster. If that's the case and the BPA SF projects as a Caron Butler type talent, Pax should probably be shopping the pick very hard.


I'm fine with shopping the pick. However, we need a real big man. 

Noah will be a real big man in the NBA. Long term, the only player on the roster his skills overlap is Tyrus Thomas, and they overlap in the 2 most important big man skills (blocking and rebounding). He has one skill which is unique to him, and that's the ability to stand 7 feet tall. Our current tallest (non scrub) is Deng or Tyrus at maybe 6'8. 

If we could trade the pick and get a big man then I'm all for it. I'd love to package the pick + Tyrus and bring in Pau. That seems to me like a good deal for Memphis and for us. I'd do the same package for KG as well which also seems like a good deal for us (though matching KG's salary would require a 9 million dollar PJ S&T and probably the 30 day limit prior to trading the pick after he signs so it'd be very tricky). If we could get someone else exciting for #9 that's a legit big man I'm on board completely though it's really hard to trade for big men so I'd be skeptical of the deals out there.

If we take one of Hawes or Yi instead, I'm fine hoping they develop to. They have unique strengths as well which I ignored in my post because the topic was to sell someone on Noah. I could live with any of those 3 big men. In fact, to be honest, I have a lot of faith in the Bulls scouting department and decision making process in the draft, so I'll be fine no matter who they pick.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I believe Noah is going to play in some allstar games in his career. The kid flat out has talent. He is Tyson Chandler, with better hands, a high basketball IQ, and the ability to finish in traffic. Noah is fundamently sound, except for the form on his jump shoot. He will improve his jump shot, most player over time do. I believe if Camby can develop a jump shot, Noah can too. Noah won't be a great scorer but if Tyson Chandler can average 9.5 pts a game, then I believe Noah will eventually average 13-15 at some point in his career. Actually a 13-15 point scoring center would be above average in the NBA these days.

What separates Noah from other bigs, is his high skill, coordination and athletic ability. I actually think he is very good at taking him man off the dribble.
The biggest issue most people on this board have is Noah isn't a scorer. Well I only see few above average scorers in the draft: Durant, Thornton, Law, Young, Almond. If you look at most mocks only one, Durant, is projected to go in the top ten. If you need a scorer, you take Thornton because he will probably be the best scorer available. 

If you want the best player, you take Noah and you have your center for the next 10 years. I believe Noah will be one of the top 5 players in this draft when everything is said and done.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Incredible posts, Doug.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If our staff can fix Noah's jumpshot and if he can make it Malik/PJ like consistant, then he would be my pick over other bigs. There is no gurantee of that, but I think he has the work ethic/passion to do so.

Doug, I'd love to get Pau with Tyrus and #9. But what else could we add prior to the draft to make it work?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Okay, presumably, if you don't like Noah, you are on board with one of the following players:
> 1) Yi
> 2) Hawes
> 3) BPA SF
> ...


Appreciate the thorough post. 

A) Can Noah really be effective at 5 given his lack of length and bulk? His strength numbers are inflated because of his short arms.

B) The other alternatives being worse than Noah in your eyes is not an argument for taking Noah -- a trade is also a possibility.

C) Noah's offensive game fitting what the Bulls do is not a good argument for taking him either, IMO. Jared Jeffries would fit the Bulls offensive strategy too. The Bulls offensive is the way it is in order to compensate for a lack of an inside presence. Instead of acquiring players to fit this second-best strategy, the Bulls should acquire players that would allow them to switch to a first-best strategy and become a more effective offense.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Okay, presumably, if you don't like Noah, you are on board with one of the following players:
> 1) Yi
> 2) Hawes
> 3) BPA SF
> ...


:cheers: 

Couldn't have said it any better. 

Noah #9.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Is it bad that I really am torn apart on who I like at 9 after I read some well written arguments (Doug and Jeremy). Outside of Oden and Horford, I feel Yi, Hawes, and Noah all bring something different and somehow we should find a scientist who can make a machine to combine their 3 skillsets to form Yi Spenoah. 

As I said earlier, I think Noah is the least risky pick out of the 3. Doug makes a good point that every big man should be able to provide rebounding and blocking. Something I do doubt the abilities of Yi and Hawes in comparison to Noah. Noah could end up being a rich-man's Chandler in the sense that he has higher Basketball IQ and likely has a better workethic. Although Tyson easily beats him in physical abilities. 

I am hoping (tiny chance) that all 3 are on board at 9. Then we know for sure Johnny Boy got the guy he wanted the entire time. 

Over the past week my board has been:
1. Yi
2. Noah
3. Hawes

Last year it was at this point:
1. Aldridge
2. Bargs
3. Ty

Before Ty took over the #1 spot right before the draft. Could Noah do the same?

I don't see a trade a realistic option unless you package Gordon with Duhon and Viktor.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> 2) Hawes. Well let's start with Noah's college PER being about 8 points higher than Hawes. Hawes is a center who can't defend or rebound and is unatheletic by NBA standards. He has nice back to the basket moves, but he was really bothered by UCLA in the tourney when they had a skinny 7 footer (who's name escapes me at the moment) guarding him. He basically couldn't do anything and was awful. Hawes hasn't gone up against any real other big men and scores more on craftiness. He doesn't have the power, strength, or game to dominate at the center position. I have questions about whether his finesse style game will translate to the NBA on offense, and it's almost a given that he's going to be bad defensively for a considerable amount of time (and possibly forever). Plus, when you have a poor defensive center, you are making every other player on your team work harder, because the center is the last line of defense at the hoop. Defense and rebounding are the 2 most important traits for a center to have.


i didn't catch the first UW/UCLA game but 21 and 6 doesn't sound back considering he was down 20 pounds from sickness. 10-11 from the free throw line looks good as well, but again didn't see that game. 6 turnovers is alarming though.

the second UW/UCLA (where UW won) was probably Hawes best game. he was starting to regain his strength towards the end of the year and dropped 13 pts, 15 boards, 5 blocks, 3 assists, and no foul trouble. 

i'd take the second game as a stronger indication of his potential.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> I'm fine with shopping the pick. However, we need a real big man.
> 
> Noah will be a real big man in the NBA. Long term, the only player on the roster his skills overlap is Tyrus Thomas, and they overlap in the 2 most important big man skills (blocking and rebounding). He has one skill which is unique to him, and that's the ability to stand 7 feet tall. Our current tallest (non scrub) is Deng or Tyrus at maybe 6'8.


Thing is, Tyrus' standing reach is actually a year and a half more than Noah's and Tyrus seems to have grown some in the last year. I'm best sold on Noah as a long term replacement for Wallace. Then the questions become how much Tyrus' offense develops and how badly we need a true back to the basket scorer. I don't have a definite answer to either.



dougthonus said:


> If we could get someone else exciting for #9 that's a legit big man I'm on board completely though it's really hard to trade for big men so I'd be skeptical of the deals out there.


Yeah this is a huge issue.



ChiSox said:


> I believe Noah is going to play in some allstar games in his career. The kid flat out has talent. He is Tyson Chandler, with better hands, a high basketball IQ, and the ability to finish in traffic.


I think it's jumping to conclusions quite a big to just more or less assume that Noah will be one of the top five rebounders in the league as well as one of the better players at altering shots in the paint. I realize that athleticism, shot blocking, and rebounding are strengths for both Tyson and Noah but those are elite skills in Tyson's case and I'm not sure Noah projects quite that well. 



ChiSox said:


> Noah is fundamently sound, except for the form on his jump shoot. He will improve his jump shot, most player over time do. I believe if Camby can develop a jump shot, Noah can too. Noah won't be a great scorer but if Tyson Chandler can average 9.5 pts a game, then I believe Noah will eventually average 13-15 at some point in his career. Actually a 13-15 point scoring center would be above average in the NBA these days.


I sometimes think that developing a jumper is less common than people realize. Chandler's offense is underrated in some ways. His FG% of .624 would've been first in the NBA by a good margin if he'd made the eight additional field goals necessary to qualify. Again, it's hard to just assume Noah will be one of the most efficient scorers in the league and if he's not that means he's going to need to get good shots off much more often than Chandler to average 13-15 PPG. I don't see a ton in his game right now that suggests he can approach 15 PPG as an NBA player.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Come on dude, use your brain and some critical thinking skills. That isn't what I said.
> What I DID INFER, is that Noah is a *KNOWN quanitity*, and yes, he *will be an AVERAGE player in this league*. A servicable big man, perhaps on a championship team even, but *not in any way shape or form, a franchise changing talent.*
> 
> Now based on *AGE and POTENTIAL* (hence the 6th grade comment), Tyrus has the *REAL POTENTIAL* to be a franchise changing talent. I know many 6th grade A students that became c students by the 9th grade or even flunked out. But I know just as many that went to college and graduate school. *Tyrus can go either way*, but I'm leaning towards the latter.
> ...


OK, dude


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> OK, dude


In retrospect, I can see that my tone was a bit blustery. My apologies. I'm don't handle having my intelligence questioned very well.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> A) Can Noah really be effective at 5 given his lack of length and bulk? His strength numbers are inflated because of his short arms.


I think so. 



> B) The other alternatives being worse than Noah in your eyes is not an argument for taking Noah -- a trade is also a possibility.


Okay, the alternatives being worse is an argument for what? Taking one of the worse guys? I listed a ton of strengths for Noah as well. He has legit NBA caliber athleticism, rebounding, and shot blocking skills which are among hte most important things for your big men to have. He'll be a great defensive player. He's good at running the break, finishing, passing, and would be an upgrade offensively over probably any big man we have on the team currently (not that it's saying much since our big men are so inept).



> C) Noah's offensive game fitting what the Bulls do is not a good argument for taking him either, IMO. Jared Jeffries would fit the Bulls offensive strategy too. The Bulls offensive is the way it is in order to compensate for a lack of an inside presence. Instead of acquiring players to fit this second-best strategy, the Bulls should acquire players that would allow them to switch to a first-best strategy and become a more effective offense.


Taking a worse player because if they weren't a worse player they'd be able to fill the void we have doesn't work either.

We have a low post scorer. His name is Mike Sweetney. It doesn't matter because he sucks. Getting a different low post player who also sucks wouldn't help us.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Great posts Doug. I think you're right on the money. However, my belief is it's a moot point because Noah will be gone in the top 5.

How do ya feel about BPA (Green?, Brewer?) vs. best big available? 

I'm pretty iffy on Brewer as a fit for us... he really looks like a skinny Thabo.

Green's game looks like a pretty nice fit for what we do. And he'll play immediately. Do you take him and hope for a trade later?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How about... he's a bigtime player from a bigtime program who's not 19?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I'm not sold that a guy that
* scores out as an average athelete
* is not that wide and not strong
* older than most prospects
* has a considerable shorter reach than guys like TT, Deng, Sweetney, Collision 

is a good fit for us or could and would be happy playing some center. Of course, given the kid has the ugliest jumper around is a factor in my thinking.



dougthonus said:


> Okay, presumably, if you don't like Noah, you are on board with one of the following players:
> 1) Yi
> 2) Hawes
> 3) BPA SF


I think another viable option is to trade down and get Splitter and Glen Davis or Splitter and a future 1st.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Okay, the alternatives being worse is an argument for what? Taking one of the worse guys? I listed a ton of strengths for Noah as well. He has legit NBA caliber athleticism, rebounding, and shot blocking skills which are among the most important things for your big men to have. He'll be a great defensive player. He's good at running the break, finishing, passing, and would be an upgrade offensively over probably any big man we have on the team currently (not that it's saying much since our big men are so inept).


Again, you are just higher on him then me. I don't think he'll be a great defender, at least not at the 5. His reach and bulk are prohibitive. And because I don't think he's a five, he's very redundent with Tyrus Thomas while providing only a small percentage of Thomas' upside. 

If no one available is better than Noah than the alternative is to trade the pick to a team that needs a defensive guy with limited offensive skills and get a more useful player. Or trade down. Or trade up. 



dougthonus said:


> Taking a worse player because if they weren't a worse player they'd be able to fill the void we have doesn't work either.
> 
> We have a low post scorer. His name is Mike Sweetney. It doesn't matter because he sucks. Getting a different low post player who also sucks wouldn't help us.


If you think Hawes is as bad as Sweetney than certainly you are justified preferring Noah. 

I personally think that Hawes' offensive upside is just what the Bulls need and that that upside is more useful to the Bulls than what Noah offers, even considering the greater risk. 

I'm not entirely convinced that the Bulls need a true low post scorer either. Getting a big who is an offensive threat would be huge and prevent teams from doubling so aggressively on the guards. Yi might fit that bill.

I'm curious as to what kind of upside you think Noah has. 

I think most would agree that he can be a 8 pt 8 reb and 1.5 block guy with good energy. Do you see him exceeding that substantially?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> How about... he's a bigtime player from a bigtime program who's not 19?


Define bigtime. And why, all things being equal, is a 22 year old is a better pick than a 19 year old?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't see any trade feasible where we bring in an established big, even along the likes of a Collison-level Big. We don't have the contracts to make a trade unless you are touching the core or the rooks.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I think another viable option is to trade down and get Splitter and Glen Davis or Splitter and a future 1st.


Phoenix #24 (Splitter) and #29 (Davis)? They also have the Hawks pick and their own next year.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Mateo said:


> I can see Noah being similar to David Lee.


I see him as Brian Grant/ Anderson Varejao type player.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Noah just has the it factor, the catalyst factor. I just don't see a guy like him disappearing from the spotlight (though he might start slow). I can imagine Marv and Mike Tirico repeating his name over and over in the playoffs.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Noah just has the it factor, the catalyst factor. I just don't see a guy like him disappearing from the spotlight (though he might start slow). I can imagine Marv and Mike Tirico repeating his name over and over in the playoffs.


That's what people said about Adam Morrison last year in an effort to convince those who doubted his actual ability.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

I've never liked Noah, but if Pax selects him on Thursday, I'll trust his judgment and support it. It would be nice to have another reliable big in the lineup who won't be a liability on defense for us. I can't see him demanding the ball on offense a whole lot, and it never hurts to add another player that (hopefully) buys into the team-first mentality.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> How about... he's a bigtime player from a bigtime program who's not 19?


Looks about right to me. Pax has been pretty consistent in his drafting style, with the exception of Ty. And there, at least he somewhat met two of those three.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Define bigtime. And why, all things being equal, is a 22 year old is a better pick than a 19 year old?


A team that wins the NCAA title in consecutive years has a bigtime program. The starting center for that team who makes important plays in important games is a bigtime player. A 22 year old will probably develop into a contributing player on the Bulls a lot faster than a 19 year old -- in time to play significant minutes with Wallace on a championship contender.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



McBulls said:


> I don't get it. Wallace is the present, Noah and TT are the future. Why get rid of either time frame?


Put simply, because I'd rather take the chance of losing a little more in the present to have have Noah, TT, plus someone else in the future. 

I also think there's a substantial risk of Wallace becoming a much less effective player even in the short run. And if that happens, Noah and TT are the present in any case and Wallace is nothing much.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



MikeDC said:


> Put simply, because I'd rather take the chance of losing a little more in the present to have have Noah, TT, plus someone else in the future.
> 
> I also think there's a substantial risk of Wallace becoming a much less effective player even in the short run. And if that happens, Noah and TT are the present in any case and Wallace is nothing much.


Of course the chances of a significant injury or health problem grow rapidly when a player progresses into their 30s. But other than the increased possibility of injury Wallace should age gracefully. 

Wallace's game depends on quickness, strength, jumping ability, great court sense and basketball IQ. The strength, court sense and BB IQ will remain -- which means he'll get rebounds, steals and make crisp passes until he retires. His quickness and jumping ability will decline slowly unless he has an injury (like a recurrence of the back injury he had in the playoffs). Other players lose their jump shots and jump hooks when their knees/ankles/back inevitably wear way -- but jump shots are not a big part of Wallace's game.

The aging process tends to be slower in players that take good care of their bodies. Ben Wallace appears to be a prime example of someone who has taken good care of his body.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

I'm not sure how bulky you have to be in order to be an effective present day NBA center. Noah has enough length, height, athleticism, and energy to match up well with almost any NBA center. In other words, he'll never be a liability on defense or as a rebounder. 

I also think his passing ability and basketball IQ are underrated by the Noah detractors. We might not have the pieces to play the traditional, Spurs style of offense, but Noah definitely fits in with our current style of play and bolsters our strengths - movement, speed, and teamwork. Let's worry about adjusting our offensive style when we actually have the players to do it.

Hawes could become that type of C/PF needed to play the "preferred" style of offense, but then you must take into account the chance of Hawes becoming a liability on the two most important roles of a big man - rebounding and defense. Drafting Hawes wouldn't disappoint me, but I'd have to question how it effects the window of opportunity to compete for an NBA championship. Noah will help now while Hawes looks like he'll need another 2-3 years before becoming a contributor.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Define bigtime. And why, all things being equal, is a 22 year old is a better pick than a 19 year old?



















Seems to be the very kind of player that Paxson likes. Experienced, from a winning college team.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HINrichPolice said:


> I'm not sure how bulky you have to be in order to be an effective present day NBA center. Noah has enough length, height, athleticism, and energy to match up well with almost any NBA center. In other words, he'll never be a liability on defense or as a rebounder.
> 
> I also think his passing ability and basketball IQ are underrated by the Noah detractors. We might not have the pieces to play the traditional, Spurs style of offense, but Noah definitely fits in with our current style of play and bolsters our strengths - movement, speed, and teamwork. Let's worry about adjusting our offensive style when we actually have the players to do it.
> 
> Hawes could become that type of C/PF needed to play the "preferred" style of offense, but then you must take into account the chance of Hawes becoming a liability on the two most important roles of a big man - rebounding and defense. Drafting Hawes wouldn't disappoint me, but I'd have to question how it effects the window of opportunity to compete for an NBA championship. Noah will help now while Hawes looks like he'll need another 2-3 years before becoming a contributor.


I totally agree that Noah will play alot of center in the NBA. Actually, it's funny when people say that today's NBA centers are trending toward thinner/longer/athletic types instead of big bruising 260+ pound types. I mean, it's definitely true that this is occurring, but I think it's always been like that outside of the Shaq era. Most of the great centers of the 70's and 80's were pretty thin, and this only seemed to change as Shaq got into the league. Then all of a sudden the whole league is trying to physically match up with Shaq. Well now that Shaq is declining and reaching retirement age, teams just don't have to do that as much. The most fearful "centers" now are Yao, Dwight Howard, and Amare, and only Yao is a physical mismatch for any team. I could see Noah doing just fine against the likes of Howard, Amare, or most any other center I can think of.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Another big selling point on Noah that just occurred to me is simply his personality and demeanor. This sounds lame, I know, but think about it for a second. Who on the Bulls really THRIVES in the spotlight? Nobody I can think of. We certainly have some nice guys in the locker room, but for the most part our squad is very introverted and tends to shy away from media attention (and perhaps even the leadership role at times!). While Noah is annoying at times, I think he could really balance out the locker room chemistry and take some undue pressure off some other guys. Tyrus Thomas comes to mind more than anyone...he obviously hates talking to the press, so it wouldn't be a bad thing if Noah were here to do twice the talking and let Tyrus sit back and do what's comfortable to him.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> That's what people said about Adam Morrison last year in an effort to convince those who doubted his actual ability.


It's unfortunate that the IT factor gets thrown around to somehow include every player, but it doesn't mean it's not true. When I throw that phrase around, I'm specifically talking about how a player catalyzes his team to win.

I think what was weighing on people's minds about Morrison was him on the floor crying after being eliminated from the tourney. He's a competitor for sure, but he didn't win anything.

At least some of the proof's in the pudding with Joakim. His game's predicated on grabbing rebounds, dishing, and driving in when necessary. His game's built on creating opportunities for his team, unlike Morrison whose team depended entirely on his scoring performances. Plus he's got the Two national championships, and IMHO, watching my school get thrashed firsthand twice by this team, it had more to do with him than Al or Corey (though the second time around it was moreso about that white 3-point shooter who wasn't Corey Brewer).


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DX says Noah and Brewer are working out in Phoenix on Tuesday. I think its a smokescreen to get Yi. DX says they might land the 5th or 7th pick


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Noah has been growing on me slowly and slowly throughout this draft process. Similar to how Tyrus did last year and eventually became my pick. Today, I'm still Yi > Noah, but I have Noah ahead of Hawes. 

You guys should check out ESPN Motion's NBA Section - There is a video clip of the Celtics workout. Noah is in it along with other guys.

Pros:
-In the Celts clip, Rivers talks about how vocal Noah is on the defensive end. Something innate for him but not a trait all guys possess
-7 Feet. Thats huge for this team. Something Hawes and Yi also have.
-Can replace Big Ben eventually
-Most NBA ready out of the bigs
-Fits our team style/mold Today
-Very Vocal -- Can be our leader on the floor
-Has hands to finish at the rim. He is young and has a spring in his step.

Cons:
-Its Noah - You love him or hate him 
-Ugliest J in the NBA?
-No offensive moves what so ever

Now Noah can hit the J from the elbow but it is quite ugly to look at. If he can develop a J out to Malik/PJ's range, then I will be very happy with a Noah selection. Its something Big Ben has tons of opportunities for but no skillset to use.

I still think Yi is the better pick only because he seems very fluid, is tall, more athletic than you think, and could be a matchup nightmare on offense (eventually). 

I would be very happy with either pick. I would be fine with a Hawes pick, but his lack of athletic ability is scaring me in how effective he will be in getting those shots off in the NBA.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> At least some of the proof's in the pudding with Joakim. His game's predicated on grabbing rebounds, dishing, and driving in when necessary. His game's built on creating opportunities for his team, unlike Morrison whose team depended entirely on his scoring performances. Plus he's got the Two national championships, and IMHO, watching my school get thrashed firsthand twice by this team, it had more to do with him than Al or Corey (though the second time around it was moreso about that white 3-point shooter who wasn't Corey Brewer).


Not to knock that argument. But the same points were made about battier when he came out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Not to knock that argument. But the same points were made about battier when he came out.


I wouldn't underrate Battier. How've his teams done everywhere he's played? How've they done after he's left?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

McBulls said:


> A team that wins the NCAA title in consecutive years has a bigtime program. The starting center for that team who makes important plays in important games is a bigtime player. A 22 year old will probably develop into a contributing player on the Bulls a lot faster than a 19 year old -- in time to play significant minutes with Wallace on a championship contender.


Plenty of players have contributed to NCAA title teams and not been bigtime players. The O'Bannon brothers come to mind.

A 22 year old player with limited skills is far less intriguing then a 19 year old player with limited skills because he's got three fewer years to develop those skills.

I hope Paxson does not go the conservative route and sacrifice potential for instant contribution.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

I can't really recall from watching him the past few years, but how is Noah in terms of his frequency with complaining to the refs? I know his unnecessary screaming after the most basic layup was enough to drive me nuts.. If his passion results in him fighting with refs over a lot of calls ala Sheed, that would be something I'd want to weigh into my consideration.

That being said, however, it's nice that we would have Big Ben to teach him the ropes and hopefully prevent him from learning any bad behavioural tendencies. No chance Wallace allows a Rookie to run his mouth for very long.. I think it would be pretty entertaining to see Wallace slap Noah on the backside of his head if he was stepping out of line heh..


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> He has nice back to the basket moves, but he was really bothered by UCLA in the tourney when they had a skinny 7 footer (who's name escapes me at the moment) guarding him. He basically couldn't do anything and was awful. Hawes hasn't gone up against any real other big men and scores more on craftiness. He doesn't have the power, strength, or game to dominate at the center position. I have questions about whether his finesse style game will translate to the NBA on offense


I'm assuming you meant the PAC-10 tourney? UCLA did not have any 7-footers on the team this year, Hawes was facing a platoon of muscular 6'9" players.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

ballafromthenorth said:


> I can't really recall from watching him the past few years, but how is Noah in terms of his frequency with complaining to the refs? I know his unnecessary screaming after the most basic layup was enough to drive me nuts.. If his passion results in him fighting with refs over a lot of calls ala Sheed, that would be something I'd want to weigh into my consideration.
> 
> That being said, however, it's nice that we would have Big Ben to teach him the ropes and hopefully prevent him from learning any bad behavioural tendencies. No chance Wallace allows a Rookie to run his mouth for very long.. I think it would be pretty entertaining to see Wallace slap Noah on the backside of his head if he was stepping out of line heh..


Yeah, don't want to mess with Big Ben Wallace no matter who you are (Ron Artest, you listening??)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



McBulls said:


> Of course the chances of a significant injury or health problem grow rapidly when a player progresses into their 30s. But other than the increased possibility of injury Wallace should age gracefully.
> 
> Wallace's game depends on quickness, strength, jumping ability, great court sense and basketball IQ. The strength, court sense and BB IQ will remain -- which means he'll get rebounds, steals and make crisp passes until he retires. His quickness and jumping ability will decline slowly unless he has an injury (like a recurrence of the back injury he had in the playoffs). Other players lose their jump shots and jump hooks when their knees/ankles/back inevitably wear way -- but jump shots are not a big part of Wallace's game.
> 
> The aging process tends to be slower in players that take good care of their bodies. Ben Wallace appears to be a prime example of someone who has taken good care of his body.


See, I disagree that Wallace is aging gracefully. Last year there were several stretches where he got very little lift and while jump shots aren't a big part of his game, jumping certainly is. 

His strength will also go pretty quickly if his back goes, and he had some back issues throughout the season. That, and not just the playoffs is kind of my concern.

It's not one of those things that's incredibly obvious to the extent he can't play, but he was slower, weaker, and couldn't jump as well. If things get any worse, it could be more than a gradual decline. It could come pretty quick.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



MikeDC said:


> See, I disagree that Wallace is aging gracefully. Last year there were several stretches where he got very little lift and while jump shots aren't a big part of his game, jumping certainly is.
> 
> His strength will also go pretty quickly if his back goes, and he had some back issues throughout the season. That, and not just the playoffs is kind of my concern.
> 
> It's not one of those things that's incredibly obvious to the extent he can't play, but he was slower, weaker, and couldn't jump as well. If things get any worse, it could be more than a gradual decline. It could come pretty quick.


+ 1


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



TripleDouble said:


> + 1


+2


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



MikeDC said:


> See, I disagree that Wallace is aging gracefully. Last year there were several stretches where he got very little lift and while jump shots aren't a big part of his game, jumping certainly is.
> 
> His strength will also go pretty quickly if his back goes, and he had some back issues throughout the season. That, and not just the playoffs is kind of my concern.
> 
> It's not one of those things that's incredibly obvious to the extent he can't play, but he was slower, weaker, and couldn't jump as well. If things get any worse, it could be more than a gradual decline. It could come pretty quick.


If Wallace has real back problems, game over and bad move in retrospect. However, if this is a real fear (i.e., based in fact), forget about moving him...it becomes kind of like trying to get something valuable for Jay Williams after the motorcycle accident. You're just screwed...period.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Green's game looks like a pretty nice fit for what we do. And he'll play immediately. Do you take him and hope for a trade later?


Personally, I only take Green if Hawes, Yi, and Noah are off the board. After that, I might take Green depending on whom is left. 

Look at it this way:
Oden, Durant, Horford, Brandan Wright, Noah, Hawes, and Yi are on my draftboard before Green and Brewer. That's 7 players. After that, you'd have Brewer, Conley, Green, and Wright who'd be the next 4 guys I'd consider. I'm basically putting my head in the sand and hoping that 2 of those 4 are taken before we pick so that one of the other 7 falls to us 

If not, I'm not sure who I'd take next. Any of those players would require us to trade the pick to someone else or make a trade within a year with someone else on the roster or be wasting talent. It's never an ideal situation when you need to make a trade to solve a problem of a glut of players because you rarely get the right value back.

I think Conley and Brewer will go before we pick and solve the problem for me (Jeff Green may as well), however, if not I think I might take Jeff Green next.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Again, you are just higher on him then me. I don't think he'll be a great defender, at least not at the 5. His reach and bulk are prohibitive. And because I don't think he's a five, he's very redundent with Tyrus Thomas while providing only a small percentage of Thomas' upside.


Everyone seems to think he's a 5, but you. I'm not sure what to tell you there. He's definitely not a bulky 5, but I think he's a 5 in the NBA still. I also don't think his upside is much more limited than Tyrus. He's got far more basketball skills and also has great athleticism. I would say Tyrus has more upside, but it's not like he's a lock to achieve it. If Tyrus doesn't pan out, then Noah wouldn't be so redundant anymore. If Tyrus does pan out, I personally think they'd still play well together.



> If no one available is better than Noah than the alternative is to trade the pick to a team that needs a defensive guy with limited offensive skills and get a more useful player. Or trade down. Or trade up.


I do not see a good opportunity for us to trade up or down. It will cost too much to go down, and I don't see anyone giving us something good for just the pick. Picking up a later pick and a mediocre player wouldn't help us at all IMO. I think our best opportunity for trade is to move multiple pieces, with the pick being one of them, for someone like Gasol. However, that's something we do regardless of whom is there if we can do it.



> If you think Hawes is as bad as Sweetney than certainly you are justified preferring Noah.
> 
> I personally think that Hawes' offensive upside is just what the Bulls need and that that upside is more useful to the Bulls than what Noah offers, even considering the greater risk.


Hawes offensive upside is more useful to the Bulls if he pans out. However, you have to consider the likelihood of him panning out. I don't think the likelihood of Hawes becoming a very good offensive NBA player is that great. I'm scared of his ability to translate his game to the next level. 



> I'm not entirely convinced that the Bulls need a true low post scorer either. Getting a big who is an offensive threat would be huge and prevent teams from doubling so aggressively on the guards. Yi might fit that bill.


He might, but he might not. It's hard to tell how well he'll translate as well. He doesn't dominate in the CBA, he's not nearly as good a shooter as people think he is (19% from the shorter international line) and he gets thrown off the block easily by much weaker players than he'll face in the NBA.



> I'm curious as to what kind of upside you think Noah has.
> 
> I think most would agree that he can be a 8 pt 8 reb and 1.5 block guy with good energy. Do you see him exceeding that substantially?


I think he could be more of a 10-12 points, 8-10 boards, 1.5-3 assists, 1-2 blocks, .75-1.25 steal kind of guy. I don't like to just predict stats though, the thing is I think Noah's passing and finishing ability would help alleviate pressure on our guards, and that his defensive ability would fit perfectly into our scheme which is very hard to play.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I think another viable option is to trade down and get Splitter and Glen Davis or Splitter and a future 1st.


I wouldn't be horribly disappointed with that trade though I would not take Glenn Davis who will absolutely suck balls in the NBA. He's like Mike Sweetney except even heavier and with no where near the offensive game. I see no chance at all that he's a viable NBA player.

However, if we could get Splitter, a future 1st that projects to be in the 10-20 range, and a early 2nd rounder or late 1st for #9 and maybe our 2nd rounders then I could live with that.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I'm assuming you meant the PAC-10 tourney? UCLA did not have any 7-footers on the team this year, Hawes was facing a platoon of muscular 6'9" players.


Hmm, I'm not sure then, maybe I'm just mistaken on the team or it was a 6'9 guy who was killing him and I just thought he was taller and I'm going nuts.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Phoenix #24 (Splitter) and #29 (Davis)? They also have the Hawks pick and their own next year.


I can't see any way that Splitter falls to #24, and I can't see why on this earth we'd take Davis at #29. 

I think it'd make more sense to trade with Philly

#9 for #12 and #21 maybe. If Yi, Noah, and Hawes were off the board, then I think I'd be willing to do that trade, because the drop off from #9 to #12 isn't too substantial once we're stuck taking a non big man anyway.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

dougthonus said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure then, maybe I'm just mistaken on the team or it was a 6'9 guy who was killing him and I just thought he was taller and I'm going nuts.


I imagine Hawes was being guarded by Lorenzo Mata when Washington played UCLA. Mata is an alright defensive big at the college level, but he's 6'9''. I didn't see either game, so maybe the stats are misleading - but Hawes put up 21 and 6 in UW first game against UCLA, and 13 and 15 in the second. He shot 50% in both games, though he did turn it over 6 times in the first game. Were his performances somehow just way, way worse than the stats indicate? FWIW, Hawes is probably my least favorite out of the Noah/Hawes/Yi group, just curious...


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I also think there's a substantial risk of Wallace becoming a much less effective player even in the short run. And if that happens, Noah and TT are the present in any case and Wallace is nothing much.


If we could get anything decent for Wallace then sign me up, but I don't think we could.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

dougthonus said:


> I can't see any way that Splitter falls to #24, and I can't see why on this earth we'd take Davis at #29.
> 
> I think it'd make more sense to trade with Philly
> 
> #9 for #12 and #21 maybe. If Yi, Noah, and Hawes were off the board, then I think I'd be willing to do that trade, because the drop off from #9 to #12 isn't too substantial once we're stuck taking a non big man anyway.


That seems like a fair deal in terms of how deep this draft seems to be. But i doubd that Philly would do this because as you said the difference between the #9 and #12 doesn't seem that great, plus a #21 in this years draft would be quite valuable also. You could probably get #6-7 pick with that combination that Philly has.

Plus, i really don't think Paxson will want potentially four rookies on his roster. I think his going to trade one of his second rounders also this year, i don't think he wants to constantly restock the team with a large amount of rookies every year.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

dougthonus said:


> I wouldn't be horribly disappointed with that trade though I would not take Glenn Davis who will absolutely suck balls in the NBA. He's like Mike Sweetney except even heavier and with no where near the offensive game. I see no chance at all that he's a viable NBA player.
> 
> However, if we could get Splitter, a future 1st that projects to be in the 10-20 range, and a early 2nd rounder or late 1st for #9 and maybe our 2nd rounders then I could live with that.


I don't really buy the Glenn Davis / Mike Sweetney comparison. Both fat power forwards, yes, but their games seem totally different to me. Sweetney is a pure post player with pretty much no jump shot to speak of after 4 years in the NBA. Davis already has a decent handle and can shoot the ball pretty well out to the 17 to 20 foot range, though he doesn't have Sweetney's aresnal of post-up moves. History shows that short, fat post players (without Charles Barkley type athleticism) get eaten up in the NBA, but I think Davis has a shot. He's not really a classic post player and, if he keeps the weight off, could be a match-up nightmare of the bench for 15 to 20 minutes a night. The guy is remarkably nimble, Sweetney isn't. He reminds me of a fatter Corliss Williamson...


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

jbulls said:


> I don't really buy the Glenn Davis / Mike Sweetney comparison. Both fat power forwards, yes, but their games seem totally different to me. Sweetney is a pure post player with pretty much no jump shot to speak of after 4 years in the NBA. Davis already has a decent handle and can shoot the ball pretty well out to the 17 to 20 foot range, though he doesn't have Sweetney's aresnal of post-up moves. History shows that short, fat post players (without Charles Barkley type athleticism) get eaten up in the NBA, but I think Davis has a shot. He's not really a classic post player and, if he keeps the weight off, could be a match-up nightmare of the bench for 15 to 20 minutes a night. The guy is remarkably nimble, Sweetney isn't. He reminds me of a fatter Corliss Williamson...


He is a few decades too late in terms of his style of play being successful in this league. Had he be playing in the 80's and early 90's he could have been a less crazier version of Mason, a big strong body with handles and the ability to play both forward positions very well. 

But in this league today, with the speed and athletic ability that everyone seems to possess any advantage that he has with his size is detracted by the opposing players quickness to get to his spots. Plus the fact that the league seems to be totally leaving the power game in the dust with their new found infatuation with the running and no contact game.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Personally, I only take Green if Hawes, Yi, and Noah are off the board. After that, I might take Green depending on whom is left.
> 
> Look at it this way:
> Oden, Durant, Horford, Brandan Wright, Noah, Hawes, and Yi are on my draftboard before Green and Brewer. That's 7 players. After that, you'd have Brewer, Conley, Green, and Wright who'd be the next 4 guys I'd consider. I'm basically putting my head in the sand and hoping that 2 of those 4 are taken before we pick so that one of the other 7 falls to us


Basically sums up how I feel. I'm counting on one of the 7-footers falling to us. If not, I can take Jeff Green and still be content. The catch is that a trade might be in the works, but even if not, Green is solid no matter how you use him.

Probably the worst case scenario is if the first 8 picks go: Oden, Durant, Horford, Wright, Noah, Hawes, Yi, and Green. That would leave us choosing between Conley & Brewer as the BPA. I would call Pax personally and mandate a trade if such a thing occurred. Sure hope it doesn't.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Everyone seems to think he's a 5, but you.


Incorrect. I don't thnk he's a 5 either.



> I also don't think his upside is much more limited than Tyrus. He's got far more basketball skills and also has great athleticism.


You can't have it both ways. He has more basketball skills because he's 3 years older. Tell you what. Lets compare Tyrus Thomas 2 years from now, to Joakim noah this year and see who has more going for them at age 22.



> Hawes offensive upside is more useful to the Bulls if he pans out. However, you have to consider the likelihood of him panning out. I don't think the likelihood of Hawes becoming a very good offensive NBA player is that great.


NBA scouts disagree. I'll take their opinion over yours, and even my own.



> He might, but he might not. It's hard to tell how well he'll translate as well. He doesn't dominate in the CBA, he's not nearly as good a shooter as people think he is (19% from the shorter international line) and he gets thrown off the block easily by much weaker players than he'll face in the NBA.


See above.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

He has a big mouth! Oden and Durant are the 2 franchise players in this draft, and he talks more then those 2 put together. He's not projected to be a star or anything, more like a player who does all the dirty work, really Overrated IMO!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> Everyone seems to think he's a 5, but you. I'm not sure what to tell you there. He's definitely not a bulky 5, but I think he's a 5 in the NBA still.


I think so but a lot of people talk about his size as one of his better attributes, referring to him as a legit 7 footer on a team that needs height, while I think he could be a bit undersized because of his short arms. 



dougthonus said:


> I also don't think his upside is much more limited than Tyrus. He's got far more basketball skills and also has great athleticism. I would say Tyrus has more upside, but it's not like he's a lock to achieve it. If Tyrus doesn't pan out, then Noah wouldn't be so redundant anymore. If Tyrus does pan out, I personally think they'd still play well together.


I think Tyrus' rookie season has actually been underrated quite a bit. The numbers don't jump off the page at you but he showed amazing flashes and produced at the level of an average or maybe even slightly above average NBA player (14.8 PER without accounting for most defensive production) despite being considered very raw. I don't really see it as an issue of whether or not Tyrus will "pan out" at this point, he just needs to avoid regressing. If his only improvement next season is staying on the court longer he'd be tons better than what we had last year and likely much better than Noah will be as a rookie. Considering that Noah projects to be drafted lower than Tyrus, I don't think you can say his potential is close to Tyrus' until he shows as much as Tyrus has at the NBA level.



dougthonus said:


> He might, but he might not. It's hard to tell how well he'll translate as well. He doesn't dominate in the CBA, he's not nearly as good a shooter as people think he is (19% from the shorter international line) and he gets thrown off the block easily by much weaker players than he'll face in the NBA.


I wouldn't say that Yi isn't a good shooter just because he didn't have great range on his jumper in the CBA last year. That doesn't speak towards his shooting form or ability to hit a mid range jumper at all.



dougthonus said:


> I think he could be more of a 10-12 points, 8-10 boards, 1.5-3 assists, 1-2 blocks, .75-1.25 steal kind of guy. I don't like to just predict stats though, the thing is I think Noah's passing and finishing ability would help alleviate pressure on our guards, and that his defensive ability would fit perfectly into our scheme which is very hard to play.


If we draft Noah and he peaks at 10 and 8 which I agree is a legit possibility, people will be disappointed. 



dougthonus said:


> I wouldn't be horribly disappointed with that trade though I would not take Glenn Davis who will absolutely suck balls in the NBA. He's like Mike Sweetney except even heavier and with no where near the offensive game. I see no chance at all that he's a viable NBA player.


I'm not advocating we draft him or anything but everything I've heard about Davis has been very positive. He produced at a high level in college, teams think he would be a 10 ten pick solely if they weren't concerned he'll struggle with his weight in the future, and scouts have said he's light on his feet like a guard.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Were his performances somehow just way, way worse than the stats indicate? FWIW, Hawes is probably my least favorite out of the Noah/Hawes/Yi group, just curious...


I was watching possessions starting with the end of the season and working backwards towards the beginning. Hawes just seemed easy to stop. He didn't look that athletic. He threw up almost exclusively jump hooks from 6 feet or so away and wasn't very consistent. He looked like someone who didn't have enough strength and athleticism for his game to translate at the next level to me. However, he's young, and I know he was recovering from the virus. Maybe he'll be able to add a lot more strength as time goes on. He just seemed too finesse to become a really dominant scorer. 



> I don't really buy the Glenn Davis / Mike Sweetney comparison. Both fat power forwards, yes, but their games seem totally different to me. Sweetney is a pure post player with pretty much no jump shot to speak of after 4 years in the NBA. Davis already has a decent handle and can shoot the ball pretty well out to the 17 to 20 foot range, though he doesn't have Sweetney's aresnal of post-up moves. History shows that short, fat post players (without Charles Barkley type athleticism) get eaten up in the NBA, but I think Davis has a shot. He's not really a classic post player and, if he keeps the weight off, could be a match-up nightmare of the bench for 15 to 20 minutes a night. The guy is remarkably nimble, Sweetney isn't. He reminds me of a fatter Corliss Williamson...


What does history say about fat perimeter PFs? I don't know where the hell you could play Glenn Davis on defense, and on offense, he's going to be what a perimeter guy? I don't know. Glenn Davis seems like a really good guy, and I hope he does well, but I will be absolutely shocked if this guy makes any impact in the NBA. It's not to say I can't be shocked, I'm sure there are a few huge surprises for me every year. I just don't see it.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Glen Davis reminds me a bit of Larry Johnson/Antoine Walker/Anthony Mason, just A LOT heavier. The guy is very skilled. 

Sweets dominated in college but he's never shown the ability to face the basket and create off the dribble. Davis can do a lot of different things with the ball in his hands. He can back you down, he can face up and attack off the dribble, he can really pass the ball, and he can step out and hit the outside shot. Simply put I think he's much too skilled to be a failure. My only concern is he pulls an Oliver Miller and eats his way out of the league.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> You can't have it both ways. He has more basketball skills because he's 3 years older. Tell you what. Lets compare Tyrus Thomas 2 years from now, to Joakim noah this year and see who has more going for them at age 22.


He's a year and a half older. Noah showed more skill last year than Tyrus did this year, and there was a half year difference. How much do you want to split hairs? It'd be great if people actually realized that Tyrus is not 19. He's 20, and will be 21 in 2 months. He was 19 when he was drafted last year and turned 20 a month and a half after that. You know Tyrus ages just like everyone else in the world.



> I think Tyrus' rookie season has actually been underrated quite a bit. The numbers don't jump off the page at you but he showed amazing flashes and produced at the level of an average or maybe even slightly above average NBA player (14.8 PER without accounting for most defensive production) despite being considered very raw. I don't really see it as an issue of whether or not Tyrus will "pan out" at this point, he just needs to avoid regressing. If his only improvement next season is staying on the court longer he'd be tons better than what we had last year and likely much better than Noah will be as a rookie. Considering that Noah projects to be drafted lower than Tyrus, I don't think you can say his potential is close to Tyrus' until he shows as much as Tyrus has at the NBA level.


That's fine, you don't see it as a point of whether he will pan out. That is your opinion. There is a wealth of statistical data that shows very few players with TO rates and Foul rates as high as Tyrus ever successfully improve on them. There is a lot more risk in this than you are letting on.

Who knows where Tyrus would be projected to be drafted in this draft. This draft class is a lot more stacked than the last one. Who knows what Tyrus would have been like in college this year and whether his stock would have gone up or down. He didn't have an NBA campaign that made you think his stock is higher than his draft day. If anything his stock around the league is likely much less than it was on draft day. 

In short, Noah and Tyrus were absolutely viewed as similar rated prospects last year. The fact that you like one more than the other is fair, but I don't know that NBA GMs necessarily would all fall on the same line of a Tyrus vs Noah debate. There have been a lot of talks about teams liking Noah pretty high in the draft still.



> I wouldn't say that Yi isn't a good shooter just because he didn't have great range on his jumper in the CBA last year. That doesn't speak towards his shooting form or ability to hit a mid range jumper at all.


I think you are splitting hairs, but sure. His range isn't as good as most people will expect. I, in turn, fell that makes him a lesser shooter than most people will expect. However, I agree that he is a good mid range shooter.



> If we draft Noah and he peaks at 10 and 8 which I agree is a legit possibility, people will be disappointed.


If we draft Yi and he's back in China in 2 years, because guys who couldn't play 12th man in the NBA beat him like a red headed step child we'll be even more disappointed. If we draft Hawes and find out his finesse game and lack of rebounding, defense, and athleticism don't cut it in the NBA we'll be disappointed. If we draft Jeff Green and realize that we have no room for a SF, and he's not better than our current guys and can't get off the bench or give us good trade value then we'll be disappointed. If we trade the pick for the best package we can and it yields a mediocre player on a worse contract, we'll be disappointed.

In short, no matter what we do, there is the chance that we will be disappointed. If we draft Noah, I expect him to peak at greater than 10/8, but if you take a guy who basically is a low level double double guy, but also plays great man defense, great help defense, and fits our system to a T then I think you won't be disappointed even if the stats aren't as high as you'd hope for. Sorry, I'd love to get a 20/10 big man from our pick via trade or draft, but I don't see any way that it's going to happen. If it does, then I will again be in awe of our scouting departments ability to pick players. 



> I'm not advocating we draft him or anything but everything I've heard about Davis has been very positive. He produced at a high level in college, teams think he would be a 10 ten pick solely if they weren't concerned he'll struggle with his weight in the future, and scouts have said he's light on his feet like a guard.


We'll see, I do not have any faith in Davis's ability to play at the next level. As I said, I hope I am wrong, because he seems like a very good guy. He's someone I will root for, but I don't think he'll make an impact in the NBA.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

dougthonus said:


> He's a year and a half older. Noah showed more skill last year than Tyrus did this year, and there was a half year difference. How much do you want to split hairs? It'd be great if people actually realized that Tyrus is not 19. He's 20, and will be 21 in 2 months. He was 19 when he was drafted last year and turned 20 a month and a half after that. You know Tyrus ages just like everyone else in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Damn you guys sure like to type.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> That's fine, you don't see it as a point of whether he will pan out. That is your opinion. There is a wealth of statistical data that shows very few players with TO rates and Foul rates as high as Tyrus ever successfully improve on them. There is a lot more risk in this than you are letting on.


Man. What Tyrus' turnover and foul rates mean has been debated ad nauseum on this board and I've never found that supposed statistical evidence to be compelling. Basically, what I gleaned from that debate is that Tyrus is a very unique player and hence it's difficult to find good comparables in league history. If you have statistical evidence different than people thinking of a handful players with high foul and turnover rates and looking at their career progression, I'd definitely be interested. That type of statistical is anecdotal though, it doesn't exactly follow the scientific method. 

The foul rates could be an issue if it keeps Tyrus off the court but the fact that he seemed able to play 20-25 MPG later in the season is not meaningless. The turnover rates are included in assessments of his production from last season such as his PER so unless the argument is that a high turnover rate is an indicator of future regression, he seems to have shown he can overcome the turnovers to some extent.



dougthonus said:


> Who knows where Tyrus would be projected to be drafted in this draft. This draft class is a lot more stacked than the last one. Who knows what Tyrus would have been like in college this year and whether his stock would have gone up or down. He didn't have an NBA campaign that made you think his stock is higher than his draft day. If anything his stock around the league is likely much less than it was on draft day.


Wow. I guess we're differing again in our opinions of how much Tyrus showed in his limited minutes last season. From listening to NBA analysts, I don't have the impression that anyone is too concerned by Tyrus' rookie season. Again, for a purportedly highly raw player to produce at roughly a league average level strikes me as exceeding or at the worst, meeting expectations. FWIW, people such as Sam Smith have opined that Tyrus would be the #4 or #5 pick in the draft. Based on what he showed last year, my guess is that he would've produced more if he'd played another year of college ball.



dougthonus said:


> In short, Noah and Tyrus were absolutely viewed as similar rated prospects last year. The fact that you like one more than the other is fair, but I don't know that NBA GMs necessarily would all fall on the same line of a Tyrus vs Noah debate. There have been a lot of talks about teams liking Noah pretty high in the draft still.


That's true. Obviously, LSU's system would be a factor but again I think this is disagreement about how to view Tyrus' rookie season. To me it indicated that he would've improved if he'd played more in college and you seem to think it indicated that his production could've regressed as Noah's did. 



dougthonus said:


> I think you are splitting hairs, but sure. His range isn't as good as most people will expect. I, in turn, fell that makes him a lesser shooter than most people will expect. However, I agree that he is a good mid range shooter.


I don't think it's splitting hairs - saying Yi isn't as good a shooter as people think obscures the fact that he's a strong mid range shooter some - but I otherwise agree.



dougthonus said:


> If we draft Yi and he's back in China in 2 years, because guys who couldn't play 12th man in the NBA beat him like a red headed step child we'll be even more disappointed. If we draft Hawes and find out his finesse game and lack of rebounding, defense, and athleticism don't cut it in the NBA we'll be disappointed. If we draft Jeff Green and realize that we have no room for a SF, and he's not better than our current guys and can't get off the bench or give us good trade value then we'll be disappointed. If we trade the pick for the best package we can and it yields a mediocre player on a worse contract, we'll be disappointed.
> 
> In short, no matter what we do, there is the chance that we will be disappointed. If we draft Noah, I expect him to peak at greater than 10/8, but if you take a guy who basically is a low level double double guy, but also plays great man defense, great help defense, and fits our system to a T then I think you won't be disappointed even if the stats aren't as high as you'd hope for. Sorry, I'd love to get a 20/10 big man from our pick via trade or draft, but I don't see any way that it's going to happen. If it does, then I will again be in awe of our scouting departments ability to pick players.


Yeah, I mean there are more disappointing scenarios for sure but I don't think I'd regret the decision (in some of those instances) just because I think that certain risks are worth taking. I don't think Yi will ever rebound enough to go 20/10 but I get the distinct impression that some pro scouts think his upside is that of an All-Star or at least a borderline All-Star.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I think my board today is 1. Yi 2. Noah 3. Hawes or Green. I'm iffy on Hawes and I think Green would mean a Noce S&T. I'm not sure what I would want.

I will be perfectly okay with a Noah pick now. I do like a lot of things he brings. But I'm taking Yi over him. Yes he has a lot of bust potential, but I feel Noah type of guys can be had in FA or through Smaller Deals or found in Late 1st rounds. Guys who are strictly Rebounding/Defense/Hustle. 

Yi has too much potential for us to pass up. If he develops there is much more to gain. If he doesn't develop, you get a gain if you had Noah but it isn't that large that you would look back upon history and say 'How could they not take Noah?' Not saying Yi is going to be Dirk like, but I think Yi with his athletic ability, freakish '#s', and his ability to hit the mid-range shot gives us a totally new dynamic. The thing that worries me most is his ability to not attack the rim much.

I do think as Bulls fans, it will be simple. Only one will likely be there at 9, and the decision will be if Pax takes him or Green. I do not see Pax taking Hawes as it might be a 'need' pick but one you are making for the sake of it and not his production down the road.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> The foul rates could be an issue if it keeps Tyrus off the court but the fact that he seemed able to play 20-25 MPG later in the season is not meaningless. The turnover rates are included in assessments of his production from last season such as his PER so unless the argument is that a high turnover rate is an indicator of future regression, he seems to have shown he can overcome the turnovers to some extent.


Well I hope Tyrus overcomes both problems. He'd be an average starting player if he could just overcome those things. If he could do both and add a solid 12 footer then he'd become above average. I'm uncertain as to how likely those things are to happen.



> Wow. I guess we're differing again in our opinions of how much Tyrus showed in his limited minutes last season. From listening to NBA analysts, I don't have the impression that anyone is too concerned by Tyrus' rookie season. Again, for a purportedly highly raw player to produce at roughly a league average level strikes me as exceeding or at the worst, meeting expectations. FWIW, people such as Sam Smith have opined that Tyrus would be the #4 or #5 pick in the draft. Based on what he showed last year, my guess is that he would've produced more if he'd played another year of college ball.


I'm not necessarily concerned about Tyrus's rookie season, but it didn't set me on fire either. He is very raw, and had a lot of highlight reel plays. I think because it's been so long since the Bulls had a real athlete that people overrate his upside due to his athletic ability.



> That's true. Obviously, LSU's system would be a factor but again I think this is disagreement about how to view Tyrus' rookie season. To me it indicated that he would've improved if he'd played more in college and you seem to think it indicated that his production could've regressed as Noah's did.


I have no idea what he'd have done in college. I think he could have improved or regressed. In the NBA his rebound rate dropped quite a bit from his college numbers (rebound rate is usually a stat that carries over successfully) and he shot 28% or 20% or something like that on jumpers. His shot blocking and steal numbers were good, and he had a lot of big momentum plays. I don't know how all of that would have translated had he been in college rather than in the NBA though. I'm not pretending that he would have looked better or worse. I can't imagine his stock is higher now than it was on draft day though, but I think that's often true after drafting a player that the stock dips until they prove they're worth it.



> I don't think it's splitting hairs - saying Yi isn't as good a shooter as people think obscures the fact that he's a strong mid range shooter some - but I otherwise agree.


If most people think he has 3 point range (and most people seemed to until recently at least) and find out that he doesn't, would you say that those people will then feel he's not as good a shooter as they thought? I would assume that's very fair, either way, I think we can just agree that he has a good mid range shot. Personally, I always assume a player has 3 point range if someone says he's a good shooter. To me, that is built into being a good shooter. Maybe we disagree on that point though.



> Yeah, I mean there are more disappointing scenarios for sure but I don't think I'd regret the decision (in some of those instances) just because I think that certain risks are worth taking. I don't think Yi will ever rebound enough to go 20/10 but I get the distinct impression that some pro scouts think his upside is that of an All-Star or at least a borderline All-Star.


If in 2 years LaMarcus Aldridge is a better player than Tyrus Thomas will you regret taking Tyrus (maybe you already do, but I will assume not, since you seem quite high on him). I think in the end, regardless of why you took one guy, upside, safety, fit, need, etc, if another player you considered ends up being better you will regret not taking the other player. You may understand why the team took the player it did, but you'll still regret not going the other way. 
\


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

-7 footer (who do we have that's 7 ft.?)

-Loves playing defense (what wins championships?)

-Winning program (What has been Paxson's drafting mantra?)



IMO we lost to Detroit because of a simple lack of size and rebounding (Among other things of course)....But..I just envision Noah on this current team against the Pistons and I instantly have a feeling that Detroit wouldn't have gotten a lot of those 2nd looks if we simply had more height and rebounding hunger.

Occams Razor people...Occams Razor.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

smARTmouf said:


> -7 footer (who do we have that's 7 ft.?)
> 
> .


Throw out the seven footer stuff -- he's got a shorter standing reach than many PFs and even some SFs like Deng.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Throw out the seven footer stuff -- he's got a shorter standing reach than many PFs and even some SFs like Deng.


95% of the game is still played with feet on the ground.

Standing reach for a 7'er is still going to be better than for a 6'7" guy, which is typical of our bigs.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 95% of the game is still played with feet on the ground.
> 
> Standing reach for a 7'er is still going to be better than for a 6'7" guy, which is typical of our bigs.


Not sure I understand this. Standing reach is measured with the feet on the ground. 

Noah has a shorter standing reach than Thomas and perhaps Wallace, who has very long arms. Seeing as that's about it for bigs under contract with the Bulls, I'm not sure who else to compare Noah with.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Everyone seems to think he's a 5, but you. I'm not sure what to tell you there. He's definitely not a bulky 5, but I think he's a 5 in the NBA still.


Do you think Thomas, who has a taller standing reach than Noah, can be projected as a 5? Or does the elevation of Noah's head give him a clear cut advantage over Thomas in terms of ability to play center?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Do you think Thomas, who has a taller standing reach than Noah, can be projected as a 5? Or does the elevation of Noah's head give him a clear cut advantage over Thomas in terms of ability to play center?


It's mass.

Bigger guys are going to be bigger in just about every way. Bigger arms, bigger legs, bigger torsos, and so on. You can put Thomas or Sweetney next to Sheed and Sheed still looks way bigger (because he is). And there's a lot of weight difference between sweets and thomas, but maybe an inch in height.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's mass.
> 
> Bigger guys are going to be bigger in just about every way. Bigger arms, bigger legs, bigger torsos, and so on. You can put Thomas or Sweetney next to Sheed and Sheed still looks way bigger (because he is). And there's a lot of weight difference between sweets and thomas, but maybe an inch in height.


Noah isn't really big. He's got some of the most disproportionately narrow shoulders around and is generally pretty skinny. 

Also, because he's tall and skinny, he has a higher center of gravity and is easier to push around than a shorter player with longer arms.

Do you really think that Sheed has a bigger torso, legs and arms than Sweets? :biggrin:


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Alright first of all i may be a little bit biased but I like Noah alot. I have watched pretty much every game he's played at florida. I live like 15 min away from the uf campus so iv had the opportunity to watch him play in person several times. Honestly, his low post game is decent but not great but I think pretty much everybody already knows that. 

Where he thrives at on offense is with his passing ability, his hustle plays, put backs, and tip-dunks. He is a good finisher around the basket and usually dunks what he can. He's also very good in transition. 

Alot of people seem to be comparing him to Diaw(??), Camby(I just think their games are a little different), and Varejo(Much better than Varejo imo both offensively and especially defensively). IMO I think he reminds me alot more of Rodman than any one else, in the fact that he's a flamboyant player who brings enegry and attitude to the team right away even though his post moves aren' spectactular. He's willing to do all the dirty work, and ultimately what ever it takes for his team to win. He energizes his team and never backs down from phisical play. I think A team like chicago would definately benifit with him on the team. 

I know at florida, even though maybe his post moves werent as polished as Horfords were, or his jumpshot wasn't as nice as Brewer's was, he was the one that was always keeping the team focused and doing the little things to make the team better or to get the team focused. He was the glue to that team. A team like Chicago, who i think is just a player or two away from really controling the east, doesn't need someone coming in expecting to be the man right away and shoot 12-15 shots a game(yi) who possibly could dirupt team chemistry. they already have Deng and gordon for that. They need a young player like Noah who brings that winning attitude to the team and that desire to win, cuase trust me when u see him play in person and u see his passion on the court, even though he's not going to be the next hakeem Olajawon or anything, You know he's is goin to be something special and he's going to find his place in the league. You guys would definately love him on your team if you pick him. He's a hard worker. He's the type of guy, like Rodman, that you either love him or you hate him. You love him win he's on your team but cant stand em when you play him. I personally would love to watch him play for Chicago though and I think he would definately add alot to your team, even if its just by doing the little things at first.:yay:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> Well I hope Tyrus overcomes both problems. He'd be an average starting player if he could just overcome those things. If he could do both and add a solid 12 footer then he'd become above average. I'm uncertain as to how likely those things are to happen.


You're probably just relying on different valuation methods than I am but just to reiterate my point from before, the measurements (primarily PER) I'm using to evaluate Tyrus' as an average NBA player in his rookie season account for the degree to which his turnovers and fouls hurt the team with the extent to which they affect his playing time as the only exception. So, while he'd be a more effective player if he cut down on the turnovers, they don't seem to be preventing him from "panning out."



dougthonus said:


> I'm not necessarily concerned about Tyrus's rookie season, but it didn't set me on fire either. He is very raw, and had a lot of highlight reel plays. I think because it's been so long since the Bulls had a real athlete that people overrate his upside due to his athletic ability.


Raw/highly athletic players have more upside, at least according to conventional wisdom. Scouting is certainly only part of reason I'm high on Tyrus. On a per minute basis, his production in steals and blocks are at an elite level, his rebounding is above average, and his scoring is underrated. People consider him a top notch defender for pretty good reasons and it's not a huge stretch in my mind to think that a player who averages 15 points per 40 minutes as a "raw" 20 year old rookie could someday average 15-20 PPG. There aren't many players who combine that type of offensive and defensive production.



dougthonus said:


> If most people think he has 3 point range (and most people seemed to until recently at least) and find out that he doesn't, would you say that those people will then feel he's not as good a shooter as they thought? I would assume that's very fair, either way, I think we can just agree that he has a good mid range shot. Personally, I always assume a player has 3 point range if someone says he's a good shooter. To me, that is built into being a good shooter. Maybe we disagree on that point though.


Hmm. Ok. Especially since he's a PF, I wouldn't think he was a good three point shooter unless someone called him "a good long range shooter" or "a good three point shooter." You hear the Dirk and Bargnani comparisons some but it hadn't really occurred to me that a lot of people might think that he's a deadly long range shooter.



dougthonus said:


> If in 2 years LaMarcus Aldridge is a better player than Tyrus Thomas will you regret taking Tyrus (maybe you already do, but I will assume not, since you seem quite high on him). I think in the end, regardless of why you took one guy, upside, safety, fit, need, etc, if another player you considered ends up being better you will regret not taking the other player. You may understand why the team took the player it did, but you'll still regret not going the other way.
> \


Maybe it's a matter of semantics. I dislike hindsight bias very much. If you gave me a choice between a 100% chance of winning $1,000 and an 80% chance of winning 100,000 and I took the later and got nothing, I would still believe that I made the right decision even though I'd rather have $1,000 instead of nothing. Whether or not regret would be the right word to describe my emotions there is a matter of word choice I guess.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Power_Ballin said:


> IMO I think he reminds me alot more of Rodman than any one else, in the fact that he's a flamboyant player who brings enegry and attitude to the team right away even though his post moves aren' spectactular. He's willing to do all the dirty work, and ultimately what ever it takes for his team to win. He energizes his team and never backs down from phisical play. I think A team like chicago would definately benifit with him on the team.


Thanks for the insight. I agree that those contributions are valuable, it's just that they're rather derivative of what Thomas and Wallace - who granted is getting up there in age - already bring to the table. What I like best about Noah is that the Bulls are very thin in the front court and someone who's semi-productive coming off the bench for 10 to 25 minutes a game will improve the team even if he's not a very good fit for the team.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> You're probably just relying on different valuation methods than I am but just to reiterate my point from before, the measurements (primarily PER) I'm using to evaluate Tyrus' as an average NBA player in his rookie season account for the degree to which his turnovers and fouls hurt the team with the extent to which they affect his playing time as the only exception. So, while he'd be a more effective player if he cut down on the turnovers, they don't seem to be preventing him from "panning out."


You'd be remiss if you didn't mention this stat about Thomas: #1 in defensive rating.

source


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> You'd be remiss if you didn't mention this stat about Thomas: #1 in defensive rating.
> 
> source


Heh. Right. I do love that stat though I wonder if it's not a bit dubious so I try not to hang my hat on it. Either way, the ability to block shots and collect steals that Tyrus showed as a 20 year old rookie is nothing short of remarkable.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Heh. Right. I do love that stat though I wonder if it's not a bit dubious so I try not to hang my hat on it. Either way, the ability to block shots and collect steals that Tyrus showed as a 20 year old rookie is nothing short of remarkable.


How can a stat that lists Marty Andriuskevicius 2006 season as the greatest defensive season in the 21st century be considered dubious? 

that was only in 9 minutes total all season.

If you limit the search to a reasonable amount of minutes played, say 800 or roughly 10 per game, Thomas' season ranks as the 9th best this century behind guys like Wallace, Robinson, Duncan, Camby and Garnett. The only real outlier reputation wise is Nasterovic.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

dougthonus said:


> What does history say about fat perimeter PFs? I don't know where the hell you could play Glenn Davis on defense, and on offense, he's going to be what a perimeter guy? I don't know. Glenn Davis seems like a really good guy, and I hope he does well, but I will be absolutely shocked if this guy makes any impact in the NBA. It's not to say I can't be shocked, I'm sure there are a few huge surprises for me every year. I just don't see it.


Fair enough. I was responding to your contention that Glenn Davis is a fatter Mike Sweetney. He's not. Body type aside, their games aren't similar. There are a lot of reasons to doubt Davis, and he's going to be a niche player in the league if he is one at all - but those guys just aren't similar players.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

he's more mouth, than game!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> How can a stat that lists Marty Andriuskevicius 2006 season as the greatest defensive season in the 21st century be considered dubious?
> 
> that was only in 9 minutes total all season.
> 
> If you limit the search to a reasonable amount of minutes played, say 800 or roughly 10 per game, Thomas' season ranks as the 9th best this century behind guys like Wallace, Robinson, Duncan, Camby and Garnett. The only real outlier reputation wise is Nasterovic.


Haha. I'm also a huge Marty fan so I really need to embrace this statistic more.

One impression I got when I looked at the league leaders from this season was that I thought it maybe overrated players on good defensive teams. Someone else also noted that big men seem to fair very, very well.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Mike McGraw ranks who the Bulls want most at #9...

1. Noah
2. Hawes
3. Yi
4. Smith (via trade down)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=326052



> It seems very unlikely that centers Joakim Noah and Spencer Hawes would both still be on the board when the Bulls’ turn comes around at No. 9. If either one is available, that player is the odds-on favorite to join the Bulls.
> 
> China’s Yi Jianlian, a multi-skilled 7-footer, may never be a post player, but he’s intriguing enough to merit serious consideration. Colorado State’s Jason Smith also remains in the discussion, most likely through trading down for a lower pick.
> 
> The feeling here is the Bulls would not pass up Noah, are about 75 percent sold on Hawes and would lean toward Yi if both Noah and Hawes are unavailable. If all three are gone, anything can happen. …


Also, on the RealGM board they're saying K.C. Johnson was on TV and said the Bulls would have taken Noah #2 last year, but are not as high on him now as they were back then. That's certainly understandable, but it's not like we have another top 5 pick this year, we're picking #9. If Noah falls that far I don't see how Pax could pass on him, especially if what both McGraw and K.C. are saying is true.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Fair enough. I was responding to your contention that Glenn Davis is a fatter Mike Sweetney. He's not. Body type aside, their games aren't similar. There are a lot of reasons to doubt Davis, and he's going to be a niche player in the league if he is one at all - but those guys just aren't similar players.


Even if Davis is, the idea with him is that you're taking him with a pretty pick rounder. At that point he's potentially a very good value. If he just keeps the weight off, he's an effective player. Sweetney (and Traylor) were picked in the lottery, and there were much higher expectations I think.

--------------------

On Wallace, I don't know that he's damaged goods to the point of being unmovable. IMO at this point it's a real concern, but not a certainty. My thinking is it'd be better to make it someone else's problem. If the Hawks are willing to look at Camby, I don't see why they wouldn't at least consider Wallace. The Celtics and Lakes also seem fairly desperate for immediate help and have expiring or shorter contracts to offer. 

------------

On who to draft, the vibe I get at this point is nobody really feels good about taking Hawes.



dougthonus said:


> If we draft Yi and he's back in China in 2 years, because guys who couldn't play 12th man in the NBA beat him like a red headed step child we'll be even more disappointed. If we draft Hawes and find out his finesse game and lack of rebounding, defense, and athleticism don't cut it in the NBA we'll be disappointed. If we draft Jeff Green and realize that we have no room for a SF, and he's not better than our current guys and can't get off the bench or give us good trade value then we'll be disappointed. If we trade the pick for the best package we can and it yields a mediocre player on a worse contract, we'll be disappointed.


When I assess the probabilities of those outcomes, it makes me think you're underrating Green a bit. I have pretty serious concerns about Hawes working out. I've got somewhat less serious concerns about Yi. I'm pretty certain Green can play in the league.

And we know Deng and Noc can play a little bit of 4 at least. Skiles has always seemed to view Noc as more o a 4 than a 3, and he's logged his best minutes as a 4. So I have a really really hard time thinking there's no room at all for a guy like Green. Not with Scott Skiles as the coach and the league moving in a direction I think you summarized very nicely in your description of Noah. Obviously length would be nice, but much rather take a guy who can play than reach on a guy who we're not sold on as a good fit philosophically with our team or as a player in general.

That obviously doesn't make Green an ideal fit, but I'd take a 75% chance of him being a player over a 25% chance Hawes is a player. If Green can play but not fit, you've at least got some sort of trade options. If Hawes or Yi suck, you've got none at all. I think if they're not sold on one of those two guys, and they don't appear to be but they're dead set on going big, they ought to be trading down. Maybe they can get Smith and one of McRoberts, Splitter or Gray?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



transplant said:


> If Wallace has real back problems, game over and bad move in retrospect. However, if this is a real fear (i.e., based in fact), forget about moving him...it becomes kind of like trying to get something valuable for Jay Williams after the motorcycle accident. You're just screwed...period.


Maybe to clarify a little bit, AD had recurring issues his last couple years in Toronto and his last year with us. But then he suddenly fell apart his last year. 

Take away Wallace's jumping ability, and what do you have but a smaller AD who can't hit a jumper to save his life and won't commit a hard foul. I think he's still somewhat valuable in that capacity, but less so than AD was in his days with us, and maybe less than PJ Brown was.

In short, if we could move him for a tradable deal or two and anything helpful, I'd be all over it.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Standing reach for a 7'er is still going to be better than for a 6'7" guy, which is typical of our bigs.


In this case it's not true though. Luol Deng and Tyrus Thomas both have a standing reach about 2 inches bigger than Noah.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*



MikeDC said:


> Maybe to clarify a little bit, AD had recurring issues his last couple years in Toronto and his last year with us. But then he suddenly fell apart his last year.
> 
> Take away Wallace's jumping ability, and what do you have but a smaller AD who can't hit a jumper to save his life and won't commit a hard foul. I think he's still somewhat valuable in that capacity, but less so than AD was in his days with us, and maybe less than PJ Brown was.
> 
> In short, if we could move him for a tradable deal or two and anything helpful, I'd be all over it.


Wallace has better rebounding and defensive instincts than Antonio Davis. That goes a long way as you age. Charles Barkley was a remarkably effective rebounder at age 36/37...his athleticism was gone, he was often fat and out of shape, and he was 6'5 to boot. But he still rebounded. Can't Wallace do the same to some extent? Besides, wasn't Davis like 36 years old when he was here. Wallace is 32, right? It's a while before he gets to that point.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

SALO said:


> Mike McGraw ranks who the Bulls want most at #9...
> 
> 1. Noah
> 2. Hawes
> ...


Wow. That's in pretty stark contrast to the early reports that we wanted to trade up for Yi. This excites me more about Hawes because it's the first time I've heard the team is at all enthusiastic about him.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> You're probably just relying on different valuation methods than I am but just to reiterate my point from before, the measurements (primarily PER) I'm using to evaluate Tyrus' as an average NBA player in his rookie season account for the degree to which his turnovers and fouls hurt the team with the extent to which they affect his playing time as the only exception. So, while he'd be a more effective player if he cut down on the turnovers, they don't seem to be preventing him from "panning out."


I don't know, I understand your PER argument, but he had a (slightly) below average PER, and couldn't play at a high enough level to earn regular minutes despite having basically absolute crap ahead of him on the depth chart for much of the season. I think there are greater problems in his game than what PER might indicate. 



> Raw/highly athletic players have more upside, at least according to conventional wisdom. Scouting is certainly only part of reason I'm high on Tyrus. On a per minute basis, his production in steals and blocks are at an elite level, his rebounding is above average, and his scoring is underrated. People consider him a top notch defender for pretty good reasons and it's not a huge stretch in my mind to think that a player who averages 15 points per 40 minutes as a "raw" 20 year old rookie could someday average 15-20 PPG. There aren't many players who combine that type of offensive and defensive production.


Raw, highly athletic players are the biggests busts in the NBA as well. Which is why I made it clear that there is risk in him panning out. The NBA has proven that over and over again as well. I can't think of many players who were really raw at 20/21 and then added tons of skill after that. Per minute stats in very limited minutes can be a pretty dicey way to measure production. Especially with a stat like blocks where teams learn to respect you after seeing you a bit more. Considering Tyrus doesn't create his own offense, his offensive production over greater minutes could decrease as well as teams start to look for the cuts and ally oop opportunities and shut them down more.



> Maybe it's a matter of semantics. I dislike hindsight bias very much. If you gave me a choice between a 100% chance of winning $1,000 and an 80% chance of winning 100,000 and I took the later and got nothing, I would still believe that I made the right decision even though I'd rather have $1,000 instead of nothing. Whether or not regret would be the right word to describe my emotions there is a matter of word choice I guess.


Fair enough, if we pick a bust though, and Noah is a good (but not great) player, then I think the vast, vast majority of Bulls fans will 'regret' not taking Noah given that a good big man would be such a huge lift to us. I feel that Hawes and Yi have a much lower floor, and I'm not a big believer in the ceiling of either being that much higher. I wouldn't be upset if we took a chance on one. I could maybe pick one of them on a different day, and after scouting Splitter quite a bit recently, I think his game translates well comparatively too and wouldn't be upset if we took him if we could be guaranteed that he'd come over this year.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> And we know Deng and Noc can play a little bit of 4 at least. Skiles has always seemed to view Noc as more o a 4 than a 3, and he's logged his best minutes as a 4. So I have a really really hard time thinking there's no room at all for a guy like Green. Not with Scott Skiles as the coach and the league moving in a direction I think you summarized very nicely in your description of Noah. Obviously length would be nice, but much rather take a guy who can play than reach on a guy who we're not sold on as a good fit philosophically with our team or as a player in general.


Hmm. I suppose that if we make a concerted effort to play Noc at the 4 only and to play Lu there some each game there are 15-20 MPG available for Green. The problem I see - and it's a good problem i suppose - is that if he plays well, there's no way to up his minutes in future seasons without making a deal.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: One more time- trade Wallace while you still can.*

The descriptions of Wallace's decline all seem overblown to me at this point. Did he really perform that much below expectations? If he was a disappointment, he was only a mild one, in my opinion. I thought he had a significant positive impact on the team this year. For instance, his defensive performance on Shaq in the playoffs was downright masterful. I know he had some stretches, especially early in the season, where he seemed mentally absent, but if he stays healthy I think he's a valuable contributor.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> I don't know, I understand your PER argument, but he had a (slightly) below average PER, and couldn't play at a high enough level to earn regular minutes despite having basically absolute crap ahead of him on the depth chart for much of the season. I think there are greater problems in his game than what PER might indicate.


Obviously there are factors that aren't measured there like the fact that the offense supposedly had to be simplified at times when he was in the game. Still, I think that basically Skiles was mistaken not to play him more minutes considering the players who were ahead of him. Even if you're someone who thinks P.J. brings a lot of defense and intangibles to the game, it's hard to view playing Malik minutes when TT was available to play as anything other than a travesty. It's also worth noting that at certain times in the season, Noc was the guy getting minutes ahead of him. Finally, I think the two tenths of a point below average in PER are pretty much completely meaningless. I like the stat a lot but I don't consider it so incredible that I'm willing to use it with that sort of precision; using it as a more rough tool and rounding makes pretty good sense to me. Any small deficit that exists there would seem to be overcome by Tyrus' defensive contributions that are measured by the stat.



dougthonus said:


> Raw, highly athletic players are the biggests busts in the NBA as well. Which is why I made it clear that there is risk in him panning out. The NBA has proven that over and over again as well. I can't think of many players who were really raw at 20/21 and then added tons of skill after that.


That's why Tyrus' rookie season is so critical to me. I think he established a level of play that makes him a starter or at least a good sixth man in the league. At this point he has to regress to turn into a bust and while that's possible for any player, it doesn't strike me as terribly likely. 20/21 year old players tend to improve whether they're "raw athletes" or not. Certainly some players have improved tons from that age forwards. As I said, conventional wisdom suggests elite athletes can develop even more but in the worst case scenario I think they develop just as well as less athletic players. As far as "adding" skills I guess that depends on exactly what you mean. Tyrus didn't have great success with his jumper last year but he shot it well in the pre-season, seemed comfortable taking it, and has solid form. If he improves that, I certainly wouldn't be shocked that he developed some completely new skill in the off season. 



dougthonus said:


> Per minute stats in very limited minutes can be a pretty dicey way to measure production. Especially with a stat like blocks where teams learn to respect you after seeing you a bit more. Considering Tyrus doesn't create his own offense, his offensive production over greater minutes could decrease as well as teams start to look for the cuts and ally oop opportunities and shut them down more.


I'm a little weary of talk about players "creating their own offense" these days. Sure, the alley oops have to be run for him and maybe teams can adjust to those plays, though I'm not sure why that adjustment doesn't help the team by meaning they're paying less attention to other players. It's going to be hard to take away his scoring on the break because other players simply aren't as fast as he are and can't stop his dunks very easily. Offensive put backs will be hard to stop too unless you make a point of using a bigger or additional player to box him out. A lot of the free throws came on alley oops but he seemed to get to the line with greater frequency towards the end of the season by driving to the basket. That would seem to be the epitome of creating your own offense.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'd love to get Noah in this draft, but I doubt he will be available at #9 or that the Bulls will move up to get him. A couple of intangibles that haven't been mentioned will cause him to be picked earlier.

1. Noah has worked out for any and every lottery team that asked him -- with enthusiasm and against opposition. GMs have to love that.

2. He gives a great interview to the press. Well spoken, albeit a bit brash, knowledgeable, honest and forthright. Presumably he is equally confident in his interviews with management and likable at the dinners they have with him. These qualities shouldn't be underrated when it comes to influencing potential employers.

GMs are going to like this guy, and like the fact that most of their fans will like him as well. He may have modest skills, but fans will pay to see him play. My wife doesn't much care for basketball, but she loves Noah. Women faint for a guy who runs into the stands in his moment of triumph to hug his mom. Paxson may be somewhat undecided about who he wants to draft, but I bet his wife has her mind made up.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

McBulls said:


> I'd love to get Noah in this draft, but I doubt he will be available at #9 or that the Bulls will move up to get him. A couple of intangibles that haven't been mentioned will cause him to be picked earlier.
> 
> 1. Noah has worked out for any and every lottery team that asked him -- with enthusiasm and against opposition. GMs have to love that.
> 
> ...


Pax has a wife?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Pax has a wife?


Actually I don't know, I just assume so. If he's not currently married obviously spousal influence will be reduced.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Even if Davis is, the idea with him is that you're taking him with a pretty pick rounder. At that point he's potentially a very good value. If he just keeps the weight off, he's an effective player. Sweetney (and Traylor) were picked in the lottery, and there were much higher expectations I think.


In retrospect, it's pretty mind blowing that a 6'8'' fat guy with a 28 inch max vert and a 12.90 time in the lane agility test could go in the lottery, but that's exactly what happened with Mike Sweetney.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Pax has a wife?


Actually I don't know, I just assume so. If he's not currently married obviously spousal influence will be reduced.

From Wikipedia :


> Paxson and his wife, Carolyn, reside in Lake Bluff, Illinois. They are the parents of two sons, Ryan and Drew.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Actually I don't know, I just assume so. If he's not currently married obviously spousal influence will be reduced.
> 
> From Wikipedia :


He's still married.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Cool. Thanks McBulls and narek.:worthy:


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

jbulls said:


> In retrospect, it's pretty mind blowing that a 6'8'' fat guy with a 28 inch max vert and a 12.90 time in the lane agility test could go in the lottery, but that's exactly what happened with Mike Sweetney.


It's not that mind blowing when you realize who drafted him. :wink:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

A different view of Noah from a reader of true hoop:



> TrueHoop reader Anna works in the stadium at the University of Florida and has met several Gators: "I've gotten to meet most of the Gator boys. Unfortunately, I never got to meet Taurean Green or Al Horford -- they're not too into the meet-and-greet thing, apparently -- but I've met the others several times. A lot of people have the wrong impression of Joakim Noah. This is due, I think, to his incessant ridiculousness around the time of the tournament and the championship this year. When he's not goofing off, he's actually very intelligent, well-spoken and gracious to the fans (since most of the people there for autographs were unabashedly there just for him). His sister's seriously, seriously drop-dead gorgeous, and he's actually not bad-looking in person. No, really, he's not. People were asking him for crazy things -- one girl asked for him to sign her roommate's socks (new ones still packaged together), another had him sign every issue of the Gainesville Sun that he was on the cover of, another just wanted to touch his hair, and of course, he did everything they asked. Oh, and the only time he dropped his guard was when he hugged a tiny little old woman who was with his family -- he was so delighted to see her, he was like a little kid. I told Chris Richard that my goal in life was to one day be as cool as him, and I meant it. The impression I have of him mostly consists of his fashion sense -- a teal and white tie-dyed cloth members-only jacket with stretch purple cuffs, bright orange sneakers, and huge headphones worn antenna-style on his head over his ears, for instance. I took a picture of my hand up against his (it didn't quite reach the end of his palm) and he laughed the entire time


http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-25-101/Draft-Hopefuls--Unedited.html


----------

