# Tyrus's 3rd year: boom or bust?



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

This coming year will be Tyrus's third year, typically the year you can begin to put the "boom" or "bust" label on a player. 

In your opinion, will Tyrus Thomas boom or bust this season?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I say he will boom, with the help up Rose's point guard play. Also because he will be able to get significant playing time because he will only have to compete against Gooden, Noah, and Aaron Gray.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

I'm hoping boom, but who knows.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

hm the 3 Tyrus doubters didn't explain themselves.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

I say boom. He will average something around 15ppg, 9rpg, 2bpg if given around 30 minutes a night


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I say he will boom, with the help up Rose's point guard play. Also because he will be able to get significant playing time because he will only have to compete against Gooden, Noah, and Aaron Gray.


If his future is tied to Rose's, Year 3 won't be his bust-out year. Rose still needs to learn how to be an NBA point guard before he can actually start reversing the career trajectories of his teammates.

Who knows...maybe I'm underestimating Rose's impact this year, but I'm not expecting a whole lot from him right away. Thus, I picked "still in question."


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I have no idea. I'm thinking if he starts and stays out of foul trouble, he can average about 15 and 8.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

The Krakken said:


> I have no idea. I'm thinking if he starts and stays out of foul trouble, he can average about 15 and 8.


I completely agree. Tyrus has to stay out of foul trouble this year. If he can, he's up for a boom year. If he can't, it will be a bust season.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Even if he booms it's not going to be a big boom. Like a "Looks like he'll get another 4-5 years in the league" kind of boom.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> Even if he booms it's not going to be a big boom. Like a "Looks like he'll get another 4-5 years in the league" kind of boom.


So... even if he "booms".... you think he has limited potential? Most people seem to think he's raw, but not lacking in potential...


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

I'll explain my answer.

I think its a "bust" in consideration of where he was picked and passing on what we needed (low post presence like Aldridge).

I'm now 33. I don't get up to the rim like I used too... don't have the blinding first step... but I can hold my own against the Antelopes I play with. 

There are athletes and there are players.

Very rarely do you get a guy that is both.

Thomas is certainly an athlete... but he isn't a player. Point him in the general direction and say run... and he will better than most bigs. Say jump and he will. Say block and he will.

But that intuitive feel for the game? He just dosn't have it. Thats not to say that Aldridge is... or that there was a "Better" choice per say for the bulls at that pick... but more to the point of... the "good ones" come out with a real sense of what they do and when to do it.

They might try to hard, or move too fast or...

But always you see some semblance of "getting it".

This isn't a point guard trying to learn the ropes... Its a guy being asked to play the 3-4. The skills aren't there. The confusion is.

I'd love to think that this is Shawn Kemp (sans the kids and coke) and that 100MPH eventually settles down to a 20-10 type of bruiser on the block... but... I'm not seeing it mentally. 

I don't see a guy with a back to the basket game. I don't see a guy that has vision on the floor. 

Hopefully Rose's ability to finish means Thomas's man has to sag off to help during penetration... leaving thomas with some easy dunks... but thats not an indication of Thomas as it is for Rose.

I like Thomas... and would like to think him capable of being a top 15 power forward in the game. But reality is what it is... no consistency and a total lack of understanding the game at times.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Dornado said:


> So... even if he "booms".... you think he has limited potential? Most people seem to think he's raw, but not lacking in potential...


I don't know about "most people". I do know that a lot of people had doubts about whether he can find a position in the NBA being a slim 6-8 guy with no jumpshot. Much of the optimism about his potential comes with the big "If he ever develops a midrange jumper", and 2 years into his career I just don't see that happening. If that is indeed the case, then yes I do think his potential is rather limited. Right now I would say the best case scenario for him would be Kenyon Martin minus the injuries (which is a pretty good player), but in all likelihood he will be Stromile Swift with a slightly more functional brain.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'm going for boom, IF he is used properly. No more SF bullcrap. No more jerking him every little mistake (foul) he commits. And, of course, significant playing time. The sky is the limit. He could be a defensive-oriented Stoudemire type, or Shawn Kemp. I'd be real happy with either of those, and the Bulls would be great if Rose and he both turned out to their maximum potential.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I'm going for boom, IF he is used properly. No more SF bullcrap. No more jerking him every little mistake (foul) he commits. And, of course, significant playing time. The sky is the limit. He could be a defensive-oriented Stoudemire type, or Shawn Kemp. I'd be real happy with either of those, and the Bulls would be great if Rose and he both turned out to their maximum potential.


I agree with you, but I really hope he doesn't end up like the drugged out baby making dude! hehe!

But yeah as a player I could see Amare, a prime Kemp might be a reach, but possible.

Their play is similar enough.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ALdNck0f2o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ALdNck0f2o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Dornado said:


> So... even if he "booms".... you think he has limited potential? Most people seem to think he's raw, but not lacking in potential...


he has potential, but only because he doesn't possess basketball skills. if he gains basketball skills, with his athleticism he could be a good player. but him just suddenly developing those skills is doubtful. to me, his future is tied entirely to rose.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I said he might make it to Gerald Wallace level, but I don't even see that. Aldridge is worlds better than this dud.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

People comparing him to Aldridge really need to look at the entire situation. Aldridge has a significant advantage in both collegiate and pro playing time, so that counts for a lot. Aldridge also has no ceiling like Tyrus, and isn't the defender or rebounder that Tyrus is. Depends on what you're looking for.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> I said he might make it to Gerald Wallace level, but I don't even see that. Aldridge is worlds better than this dud.


Their numbers and production are in fact very close when you level out their playing time. Aldridge logged like 35 minutes a game last season. Tyrus had some great games when given the opportunity. He's a superior rebounder and not that far behind offensively; at least not as far as people make it out to be. 

Not sure I'd call his 3rd year either "boom" nor "bust". Somewhere in between, where we see steady improvement. Give the kid 30 minutes a night, and he'll post solid 12-14 ppg, 8 rebound, 2+ block type of numbers. As others said, he'll improve as D. Rose improves.

Also, anyone who saw his stroke in summer league should know that his jumper is coming around. Looked very solid from 15 feet in (not just the makes, but the form and soft touch).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Stop leveling out for playing time. They are the same age and Thomas is still playing summer league. This guy is going to be a bust. It's okay to say it.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

HKF said:


> Stop leveling out for playing time. They are the same age and Thomas is still playing summer league. This guy is going to be a bust. It's okay to say it.


He wanted to play Summer League to develop some kind of chemistry with Rose. Durant volunteered to play Summer League ball, would you consider him a bust? I wouldn't.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Durant is a vastly better player than Tyrus and this is not up for debate. The fact is, Tyrus is still raw as Sushi and has no discernible NBA talent other than using athleticism. Not good. The guy was a bad pick. ADMIT IT.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> Stop leveling out for playing time. They are the same age and Thomas is still playing summer league. This guy is going to be a bust. It's okay to say it.


Stop pretending like production-per-minutes is meaningless to look at. 

His production RATE is about as good a stat as we can base off right now, since he hasn't been given a good opportunity.

Besides -- we knew he was the more raw prospect when we drafted him. 

It's also okay to say that Aldridge is friggin overrated, and that Tyrus Thomas is not as far behind him as people like to say. Give the kid a chance for crying out loud.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> Durant is a vastly better player than Tyrus and this is not up for debate. The fact is, Tyrus is still raw as Sushi and has no discernible NBA talent other than using athleticism. Not good. The guy was a bad pick. ADMIT IT.


Alright, I submit all knowing one.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Thing is... potential that can't get off the bench on a bad team is really telling.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

HKF said:


> Durant is a vastly better player than Tyrus and this is not up for debate. The fact is, Tyrus is still raw as Sushi and has no discernible NBA talent other than using athleticism. Not good. The guy was a bad pick. ADMIT IT.


I agree about Durant being better than Tyrus.

Tyrus can dunk, block, and rebound. Tyson Chandler can dunk, block, and rebound. So if Tyrus doesn't develop any other kind of game, he will be similar to Tyson Chandler.

Now if Tyrus can develop that mid-range game, your looking at Shawn Marion without the 3(his shot look good in SL)

Now if he bulks up, you could probably seeing a very poor man's Amare Stoudemire.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

LoyalBull said:


> Thing is... potential that can't get off the bench on a bad team is really telling.


Do you mean on a bad team, or a bad season?

Tyrus' rookie year was on a 49 win team. His 2nd year was spent behind veterans who were expected to play ahead on him, Smith & Wallace. (And he did technically get "off the bench" for 18 min/game...the problem was he could've been playing upwards of 28-30)

The trade with the Cavs helped things, but Noah was clearly the benefactor there. Tyrus was still playing mostly behind Drew Gooden. 

Smith & Gooden are respectable NBA players. The problem here was with log jam, and with coaches not wanting to shaft minutes from the vets who played his same position.

And I'd prefer this doesn't sound like I'm calling Tyrus a future all-star or anything. I just get sick of all this bust talk, like Tyrus has blown some big opportunity. The reality is that he hasn't been given a fair shot yet and I want to see what he can do with a real opportunity. 

Take for instance the month of March, his minutes were a joke: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4132/gamelog;_ylt=AmKt_xDatyYxod9LRdXG5DKkvLYF . Boylan was favoring Gooden and Nocioni at PF more times than not. 

Then you see some glimpses in April once he finally gets some PT. I want to see what the kid can do with, a) a coach who actually shows some faith in him, and b) a PG who can help him get feeds near the basket.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

HKF said:


> Stop leveling out for playing time. They are the same age and Thomas is still playing summer league. This guy is going to be a bust. It's okay to say it.


Let's see... one guy joined a team that had just made the playoffs... the other guy joined a team that had just won 21 friggin' games... you think maybe, just maybe, the competition for minutes was different on those two teams?

This year, one guy had to sit down while the coach played small ball and gave entitlement minutes to Ben Wallace, the other guy got to play 35 minutes a night... there was no PJ Brown, Joe Smith or multiple-time-DPOY-overpaid-minute-sucking-Ben Wallace in front of Aldridge... additionally, while both teams used 1st round picks on centers last year, ours played... why is that not fair game as part of the conversation if you're comparing the two?

Personally, I think Tyrus Thomas could be the next Horace Grant, which is fine by me... but it is also a specific type of player, one that defends, rebounds and brings great athleticism... to me, that has a great deal of value.

Sure, Lamarcus Adridge could be the next David Robinson.... or Pau Gasol... but the fact that he got to play 35 minutes a game is important... you'll see some other players... Rony Seikaly, Armon Gilliam, Chris Gatling... find a way to produce when given the minutes, and are hardly world beaters.

I don't see how 'opportunity' is such a taboo. 

Also... I usually think its a little silly to consider a pick a bust after 2 years, let alone being forced to "ADMIT IT" in all capital letters.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I'd say this a make or brake year for Tyrus, how couldn't it? Three years in the league and he's still hasn't done anything during season to really prove he was worth the pick. I like him, and love his athleticism. I think he's a phenom shot blocker, and a really good dunker. He can jump out of the jump, and has a ton of heart. He still has all the tools in tact that warranted him being picked where he was, it's time that he starts applying them. Hopefully that jumper is improving as much as you guys seem to think it is. If he plays bad this year, he's still got a chance to bust out one of these years because of his age, but that athleticism isn't going to be there for his whole career. He's got to start making good on it soon.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

GregOden said:


> I'd say this a make or brake year for Tyrus, how couldn't it? Three years in the league and he's still hasn't done anything during season to really prove he was worth the pick. I like him, and love his athleticism. I think he's a phenom shot blocker, and a really good dunker. He can jump out of the jump, and has a ton of heart. He still has all the tools in tact that warranted him being picked where he was, it's time that he starts applying them. Hopefully that jumper is improving as much as you guys seem to think it is. If he plays bad this year, he's still got a chance to bust out one of these years because of his age, but that athleticism isn't going to be there for his whole career. He's got to start making good on it soon.


I'd say if it isn't this season, next season is his very last chance.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

HKF said:


> Durant is a vastly better player than Tyrus and this is not up for debate. The fact is, Tyrus is still raw as Sushi and has no discernible NBA talent other than using athleticism. Not good. The guy was a bad pick. ADMIT IT.


Actually, the timing Tyrus has for rebounding and blocking shots is not just athleticism. Tyrus also has better than average handle for a 4. He also seems to have a decent jump shot these days.

I'm not saying Durant won't be the better player, but calling him a bad pick at this point is premature and saying he has no "discernible" NBA talent is just wrong. So, sorry, but nobody needs to "ADMIT IT."


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

P to the Wee said:


> I'd say if it isn't this season, next season is his very last chance.


That's exactly it. Let him play out his rookie contract before making harsh judgments (we're only halfway there afterall). Many of the glimpses we've seen have been pretty good ones.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You guys hang on to this potential for too long. I said this before the dude was drafted. The funny thing is when he busts and Aldridge is an all-star this is going to look even dumber.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

HKF said:


> You guys hang on to this potential for too long.* I said this before the dude was drafted.* The funny thing is when he busts and Aldridge is an all-star this is going to look even dumber.


So you formed this opinion before he even stepped out on the NBA hardwood... sounds like you're not the most objective here.... ADMIT IT.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

P to the Wee said:


> Tyrus can dunk, block, and rebound. Tyson Chandler can dunk, block, and rebound. So if Tyrus doesn't develop any other kind of game, he will be similar to Tyson Chandler.


all tyrus can do offensively is dunk. he can be a pf version of chandler, but even then he has to improve his defense and rebounding and needs to learn to stop trying to do things on offense he isn't capable of.

just look at tyrus's numbers. almost half of his shots were jumpshots that he shot 35% on. one third of his shots were "close" attempts where he shot 34%(and was blocked almost one fourth of the time). the only thing he actually did well was dunk the ball(14% of his shots at 92% shooting).


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> all tyrus can do offensively is dunk. he can be a pf version of chandler, but even then he has to improve his defense and rebounding and needs to learn to stop trying to do things on offense he isn't capable of.
> 
> just look at tyrus's numbers. almost half of his shots were jumpshots that he shot 35% on. one third of his shots were "close" attempts where he shot 34%(and was blocked almost one fourth of the time). the only thing he actually did well was dunk the ball(14% of his shots at 92% shooting).


Same for Marion, Amare, Kemp, heck even Shaq....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Same for Marion, Amare, Kemp, heck even Shaq....


that's not at all true. your best argument would be dwight howard but he's an even better athlete than tyrus.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> that's not at all true. your best argument would be dwight howard but he's an even better athlete than tyrus.



In regards to the dunking... yes it is true.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> In regards to the dunking... yes it is true.


check the numbers. 82games.com helps in that regard. it will show you the percentage of their shots are jumpshots, close, dunks, or tips and gives you their efg% at each one. your statement that those other guys can just dunk(especially in comparison with tyrus) is very wrong.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

HKF said:


> Stop leveling out for playing time. They are the same age and Thomas is still playing summer league. This guy is going to be a bust. It's okay to say it.


Why don't you quit trolling and spreading blatant lies? Tyrus is 13 months younger, so NOT the same age. Tyrus only played one year of college ball, to Aldridge's 2. Tyrus also was on the bench due to retarded coaches giving vets entitlement minutes, when Lamarcus played a lot right away due to the team absolutely sucking when he got there.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Why don't you quit trolling and spreading blatant lies? Tyrus is 13 months younger, so NOT the same age. Tyrus only played one year of college ball, to Aldridge's 2. Tyrus also was on the bench due to retarded coaches giving vets entitlement minutes, when Lamarcus played a lot right away due to the team absolutely sucking when he got there.


you do realize that last season, aldridge played more(and much better) and his team was much better than the bulls, right?


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

I hope we hang onto him for 2 more seasons in the hope he gets better, have a contract dispute with him, sign him and then trade him for an expiring contract. Then we won't use that expiring contract to trade for anyone like Gasol and we might be lucky enough to score a high draft pick in 2012. I'm getting old, I like some continuity in life.


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I agree with you, but I really hope he doesn't end up like the drugged out baby making dude! hehe!
> 
> But yeah as a player I could see Amare, a prime Kemp might be a reach, but possible.
> 
> ...




hopefully drose could be his gary payton then



I said boom because I hate to go against the bulls, but may I say one thing... 

The bulls are terrible when it comes to molding young and sometimes raw talent.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> you do realize that last season, aldridge played more(and much better) and his team was much better than the bulls, right?


I never said otherwise. Point is, the guy I replied to was outright lying (and trolling) and I called him on it. I have never been too impressed with Aldridge, in the limited times I've watched them. I liked Tyrus better at draft time, and still do to be honest. IMO, the Bulls have ALWAYS had inept coaches when it comes to big men, and it just carried over to Tyrus being the latest victim. Tyson was the previous one, who was jerked around in Chicago, even though he had talent, and blew up as soon as he left and got some good coaching (and great PG play). 

Portland being 8 games ahead much better? Did the Blazers undergo a coaching change, from dumb to dumber? Didn't think so. They also had no depth, and no log jams, unlike the Bulls. Apples to oranges, just like with the players since they are so different, even though they do technically both play PF.

Tyrus played lights out at times, when given decent minutes. It's hard to get in a groove and play well when the coach jerks you at the slightest mistake, which a team with no depth, like Portland, doesn't do because the backups aren't worth a crap. As I said before in other threads, I like Portland just fine, and have been a fan of theirs twice (early 90s and late 00s, due to the players on the team) but they have no depth and are still far from an elite team now. They might get there IF the young guys all pan out, but so far, you have all hype in Oden, along with no real PG, an injury-prone SG who is good but not a dominant player at all, and a PF that is in my opinion, nothing special either. Good? yes. Great/special? not even close. It really depends on what type of player you want more at PF. I personally prefer the defensive shot blockers and rebounders, which is what Tyrus should be elite at if he's ever given a proper chance.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I never said otherwise. Point is, the guy I replied to was outright lying (and trolling) and I called him on it. I have never been too impressed with Aldridge, in the limited times I've watched them. I liked Tyrus better at draft time, and still do to be honest. IMO, the Bulls have ALWAYS had inept coaches when it comes to big men, and it just carried over to Tyrus being the latest victim. Tyson was the previous one, who was jerked around in Chicago, even though he had talent, and blew up as soon as he left and got some good coaching (and great PG play).
> 
> Portland being 8 games ahead much better? Did the Blazers undergo a coaching change, from dumb to dumber? Didn't think so. They also had no depth, and no log jams, unlike the Bulls. Apples to oranges, just like with the players since they are so different, even though they do technically both play PF.
> 
> Tyrus played lights out at times, when given decent minutes. It's hard to get in a groove and play well when the coach jerks you at the slightest mistake, which a team with no depth, like Portland, doesn't do because the backups aren't worth a crap. As I said before in other threads, I like Portland just fine, and have been a fan of theirs twice (early 90s and late 00s, due to the players on the team) but they have no depth and are still far from an elite team now. They might get there IF the young guys all pan out, but so far, you have all hype in Oden, along with no real PG, an injury-prone SG who is good but not a dominant player at all, and a PF that is in my opinion, nothing special either. Good? yes. Great/special? not even close. It really depends on what type of player you want more at PF. I personally prefer the defensive shot blockers and rebounders, which is what Tyrus should be elite at if he's ever given a proper chance.


saying you'd still want tyrus over aldridge was enough. there was no reason for you to go on posting the rest of that. and then to pretend portland wasn't much better than the bulls last season when the blazers had a .500 record and played in the west. and then to claim portland has no depth when they are actually one of the deepest teams in the league now.

come on man. you just posted three paragraphs of bull****.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> saying you'd still want tyrus over aldridge was enough. there was no reason for you to go on posting the rest of that. and then to pretend portland wasn't much better than the bulls last season when the blazers had a .500 record and played in the west. and then to claim portland has no depth when they are actually one of the deepest teams in the league now.
> 
> come on man. you just posted three paragraphs of bull****.


What's so bull**** about it? I tend to agree with him.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> What's so bull**** about it? I tend to agree with him.


anyone that would currently take tyrus over aldridge has some other reason other than who the better basketball player is when making that choice.

portland's 41-41 in the west speaks for itself against the bulls 33-49 in the east.

and the blazers are one of the deepest teams in the league this season. their bench to start the year is bayless, rudy, outlaw, frye, and joel. the three frontline players are all starter quality(granted below average starters, but isn't that what most good bench players are?) and the two backcourt guys are top 10 rookies this season.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> saying you'd still want tyrus over aldridge was enough. there was no reason for you to go on posting the rest of that. and then to pretend portland wasn't much better than the bulls last season when the blazers had a .500 record and played in the west. and then to claim portland has no depth when they are actually one of the deepest teams in the league now.
> 
> come on man. you just posted three paragraphs of bull****.


The western conference is a different conference... not a different league... I'm getting sick of people discounting any kind of accomplishment by a team in the Eastern Conference... 

The west had more "good" teams... but it also had 4 of the 5 worst records in the NBA... and, guess who had the best team in the NBA? The Celtics, Pistons and Cavs, for example, all had _better_ winning percentages against the Western Conference than they did the Eastern Conference...

The western conference is currently the better conference... but its not like we're talking AL dominating the NL here, let alone as much of a difference people make it out to be.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> anyone that would currently take tyrus over aldridge has some other reason other than who the better basketball player is when making that choice.
> 
> portland's 41-41 in the west speaks for itself against the bulls 33-49 in the east.
> 
> and the blazers are one of the deepest teams in the league this season. their bench to start the year is bayless, rudy, outlaw, frye, and joel. the three frontline players are all starter quality(granted below average starters, but isn't that what most good bench players are?) and the two backcourt guys are top 10 rookies this season.


First, people can have their own opinions about who is the better basketball player is, Tyrus or Aldridge, that is why we are here on these forums. In this instance it can be a defense or offense issue, or potential issue. Of course there is the preference of close shooting or jump shooting PF's. 

Whether portland or chicago has the better record is irrelevant really in the discussion of Tyrus, especially considering Tyrus was given very little time this season to play.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> First, people can have their own opinions about who is the better basketball player is, Tyrus or Aldridge, that is why we are here on these forums. In this instance it can be a defense or offense issue, or potential issue. Of course there is the preference of close shooting or jump shooting PF's.


people can have whatever opinion they want, but aldridge has shown that he's a better basketball player than tyrus. aldridge actually made a higher percentage of jump shots, close shots, and dunks that tyrus last season. this is a case of picking between a clearly better basketball player or a better athlete who hasn't been able to translate that into very good basketball skills.



> Whether portland or chicago has the better record is irrelevant really in the discussion of Tyrus, especially considering Tyrus was given very little time this season to play.


the person i was responding to said that the only reason aldridge got to play more was because his team was worse. that certainly was not true last season. team record is irrelevant in determining which individual player is better, but in this case team record is relevant is dismissing the idea that tyrus gets less minutes because his team is better.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I never said otherwise. Point is, the guy I replied to was outright lying (and trolling) and I called him on it. I have never been too impressed with Aldridge, in the limited times I've watched them. I liked Tyrus better at draft time, and still do to be honest. IMO, the Bulls have ALWAYS had inept coaches when it comes to big men, and it just carried over to Tyrus being the latest victim. Tyson was the previous one, who was jerked around in Chicago, even though he had talent, and blew up as soon as he left and got some good coaching (and great PG play).
> 
> Portland being 8 games ahead much better? Did the Blazers undergo a coaching change, from dumb to dumber? Didn't think so. They also had no depth, and no log jams, unlike the Bulls. Apples to oranges, just like with the players since they are so different, even though they do technically both play PF.
> 
> Tyrus played lights out at times, when given decent minutes. It's hard to get in a groove and play well when the coach jerks you at the slightest mistake, which a team with no depth, like Portland, doesn't do because the backups aren't worth a crap. As I said before in other threads, I like Portland just fine, and have been a fan of theirs twice (early 90s and late 00s, due to the players on the team) but they have no depth and are still far from an elite team now. They might get there IF the young guys all pan out, but so far, you have all hype in Oden, along with no real PG, an injury-prone SG who is good but not a dominant player at all, and a PF that is in my opinion, nothing special either. Good? yes. Great/special? not even close. It really depends on what type of player you want more at PF. I personally prefer the defensive shot blockers and rebounders, which is what Tyrus should be elite at if he's ever given a proper chance.


:dancingpadlock: we've reached critical mass where this thread is either parody or utter homerism.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

I would say 10 points 6 rebounds, 1 assist, 1.5 blocks in about 20-25 minutes. Basically this year an average NBA player in terms of production. If Tyrus could be like Joe Smith of last season for the Chicago Bulls, I would be very happy.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> people can have whatever opinion they want, but aldridge has shown that he's a better basketball player than tyrus. aldridge actually made a higher percentage of jump shots, close shots, and dunks that tyrus last season. t*his is a case of picking between a clearly better basketball player* or a better athlete who hasn't been able to translate that into very good basketball skills.
> 
> 
> the person i was responding to said that the only reason aldridge got to play more was because his team was worse. that certainly was not true last season. team record is irrelevant in determining which individual player is better, but in this case team record is relevant is dismissing the idea that tyrus gets less minutes because his team is better.


Offense is 1/2 of the game.

In the other half... you know, defense... Tyrus is far superior.

82games.com ranked Tyrus Thomas as the #2 defender in the _league_ as a rookie, based on his Defensive Composite Score. link He's a game-changing help-side defender, and has the tools to guard a variety of players...

They're very different players, and I'll concede that (in his extended minutes) Aldridge's numbers look better... that doesn't mean he's a better basketball player, doesn't mean he _will_ be a better basketball player, and it doesn't make him more valuable to a team.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Offense is 1/2 of the game.
> 
> In the other half... you know, defense... Tyrus is far superior.
> 
> ...


82games.com didn't rank him that way, jon nichols did. and looking at the formula he used, it doesn't look like it's a stat i'd put a ton of stock into.

tyrus is not a far superior defender than aldridge. the difference between aldridge and tyrus on the offensive end is much larger than any difference that may exist on the defensive end. and yes aldridge absolutely is a better basketball player, it's extremely likely that he will continue to be so for the rest of his career, and yes he is more valuable to his team as well.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Offense is 1/2 of the game.
> 
> In the other half... you know, defense... Tyrus is far superior.
> 
> ...


Don't waste your time with him. He won't even consider it anyway. Everyone could see Tyrus's ability to be an elite defender and rebounder his rookie year. He was just screwed around too much.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> 82games.com didn't rank him that way, jon nichols did. and looking at the formula he used, it doesn't look like it's a stat i'd put a ton of stock into.
> 
> *tyrus is not a far superior defender than aldridge.* the difference between aldridge and tyrus on the offensive end is much larger than any difference that may exist on the defensive end. and yes aldridge absolutely is a better basketball player, it's extremely likely that he will continue to be so for the rest of his career, and yes he is more valuable to his team as well.


Yeah, it is just one guys statistical metric... but it does, at least to a degree, measure someones abilities as an NBA defender, and Tyrus graded out quite well.

As for Tyrus not being the far superior defender... well, I encourage you to watch the actual games.


----------



## anru321 (Jul 13, 2002)

Thomas is a terror on help defense but he gets bullied around in the post when playing man to man with a PF with good size.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I love how you guys say that Tyrus was on a "bad team" and the Bulls were "much worse" than the Blazers, yet you also ignore that he played on a 49 win team the year before when the Blazers sucked rocks. If you ask me, the team argument just isn't that important when talking about Tyrus Thomas. In his 2 seasons thus far, he's had veteran players logjamming his position which has prevented an opportunity from arising. And you know what, I'm fine with it because the kid needed development time. I'm just asking for a fair chance in years 3 & 4 before the bust label gets put on him. He's really showed some nice flashes, and he is nowhere NEAR the offensive stiff that Tyson Chandler is. Watch the two of them shoot jumpers (or even free throws) and it's not even close. 

Further, you guys are talking about Mr. All-Star Aldridge like he carried the Blazers all on his own. Remember that he is also playing with Brandon Roy who is a pretty darn good playmaking combo-guard. Not saying that's the only reason for his production, but it's 1 major factor that helped Aldridge. Thankfully Tyrus Thomas has a promising PG to put the ball in his hands and run the break now. 

The whole point is that the 2 guys are in different situations, it's apples to oranges at this point in time. Gotta wait until their rookie contracts are up before making a fair judgment. There's nothing dumber than making this comparison when Aldridge is coming off a career year, and Tyrus still has yet to get a fair shot.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I
> 
> The whole point is that the 2 guys are in different situations, it's apples to oranges at this point in time. Gotta wait until their rookie contracts are up before making a fair judgment. There's nothing dumber than making this comparison when Aldridge is coming off a career year, and Tyrus still has yet to get a fair shot.


I agree. Let's just see what Tryus does this year. Hopefully he will get a full chance to show what he can do. They may be always connected because of the trade but they do have entirely different games. Also there was no question that Tryus wasn't as NBA ready when he came out. After three years that all should even out.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Let's see... one guy joined a team that had just made the playoffs... the other guy joined a team that had just won 21 friggin' games... you think maybe, just maybe, the competition for minutes was different on those two teams?


If you have seen Aldridge's first year - you would notice that he did not get any minutes until Randolph got hurt. He was stuck behind Pryzbilla, Magloire and Randolph on the depth list and had to fight through this loaded front-court while coming off a shoulder injury. Yet, in the 1 month of real burn time he got that rookie year - he made such an impression that the team traded Randolph and let Magloire walk away.

I would say that Aldridge won his minutes fair and square. The kid can score against most NBA defenders. If anything - we have seen that the more Aldridge plays - the more Portland wins. Chicago's fortunes seem to be inverse when you look at the win total and compare it to TT's average playing times. Hope it works better for you next year - I wonder if it will however. Rose is going to take some time to adjust to the NBA game - if only because he plays such a hard position to master. I would not put all my Tyrus eggs in the Rose basket just yet...

Do with this info as you want - but at this point - TT looks like the Travis Outlaw's of defense - an amazing athlete that is more often lost on the court than not and only excels on one side of the court. Great value for a 6th man - but the question looms about value for the 2nd or 4th pick.

At least Travis was an end of the 1st round pick...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Chicago's fortunes seem to be inverse when you look at the win total and compare it to TT's average playing times.


You're kind of assuming a causal relationship here.... couldn't a realistic interpretation also be that the coaching staff was more likely to give him garbage time minutes in games we were out of? 

I definitely didn't mean to say that Aldridge didn't have _any_ competition... but the fact of the matter is the Bulls were coming off of a playoff season and had just signed Ben Wallace... that equates to "win now" mode, as opposed to "development" mode, and Tyrus' playing time reflected that. The situations were much different, and that really was the point... that those things should be taken into consideration... not that Tyrus was necessarily the better player.

(I actually posted many a time urging us to draft Aldridge... I just don't think its fair to close the book on T-Time this early.)


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I love how you guys say that Tyrus was on a "bad team" and the Bulls were "much worse" than the Blazers, yet you also ignore that he played on a 49 win team the year before when the Blazers sucked rocks.


the only reason i mentioned the blazers being a better team was because someone else said that the only reason aldridge got to play more was because his team was terrible. their first year in the league, aldridge got to play more and his team was definitely worse. their second year in the league, aldridge got to play more and his team was definitely better. so my whole point in bringing that up was to show that person that they were incorrect.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Chicago's fortunes seem to be inverse when you look at the win total and compare it to TT's average playing times.


This is such a baseless claim that I don't know where to begin. (I won't run this into the ground since Dornado already touched on it)

Just please remember that the Bulls' problems as a 33 win team last year went FAR beyond Tyrus Thomas' capabilities. We were losing games regardless of when/where Tyrus was playing. I'm not going to make stuff up and say that we were better when Tyrus was playing, but I certainly don't think we were worse. I know the kid had some pretty nice games when given the opportunity, and I also know his minutes were very inconsistent that I don't know how he could possibly have a comfort zone in the NBA yet.

And for the record, I don't doubt Tyrus' skills for a second. He is more than just an athlete; in fact he has some very good basketball skills compared to your average PF. The one thing that holds him back right now is decision making. He takes some bad shots and has been trying too hard to make an impression. He always looks his best when playing within the flow of the game, so I really hope Del ***** can pound that into him (and of course, design a system that accommodates that).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

We once had a big here who people said didn't have offensive skill and whose game was predicated entirely on defense. Now that guy is an acclaimed player. Chris Paul makes a big difference. Let's see if Derrick Rose can do the same thing for Tyrus in a year or two. Tyrus is already light-years more skilled than Tyson was (though shorter).


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

yodurk said:


> This is such a baseless claim that I don't know where to begin. (I won't run this into the ground since Dornado already touched on it)


Baseless? It is based on facts. Go look at average minutes and win total and you will come to the same conclusion. Taking it to the next level and saying that he is the cause is something else - one that I did not do. If anything - you are the one to blame for making the connection. 

It was just that I found the argument that was used to describe Aldridge's play time as a "given" because the team he joined was bad as lacking. If anything - Aldridge has won his play time so far - and the results seem to indicate that having won this time is beneficial to the team. Can't say the same about Tyrus so far. Hope he gets it to that place - but so far - he has not.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> If anything - Aldridge has won his play time so far -


over whom? the blazers *gave* away zach randolph a career 20-10 player, (think they thought lamarcus was a given for those numbers?) and there's been no comp for playing time since. i won't say aldridge hasn't done well, cause he has, but the comparison can't be made definitively due to the overall sucktitude of the bulls coaching staff, who were guilty of stunting not only thomas, but it appears now as though tyson chandler and thabo sefolosha were affected as well.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Baseless? It is based on facts. Go look at average minutes and win total and you will come to the same conclusion.


Ok, I copy & pasted Tyrus' stats into a spreadsheet and did some quick averages. My grand conclusion based on the facts is:

a) When the Bulls won, Tyrus averaged 16 min/game. When the Bulls lost, Tyrus averaged 16 min/game. (This included the 8 games where he had zero minutes, hence why the 16 is less than his 18 per game average). Conclusion: No difference.

b) When factoring out the DNP's, Tyrus averaged 19 min/game in Bulls wins. He averaged 17 min/game in Bulls losses. Conclusion: No difference.

c) When Tyrus played 20 or more minutes, the Bulls had 14 wins & 17 losses (45% winning %). When Tyrus played less than 20 minutes (including the DNP's), the Bulls had 19 wins & 32 losses (37% winning %). Conclusion: The Bulls won more when Tyrus was on the floor; although I will say no difference since I won't discount easier competition as the factor.

d) When Tyrus played 20 or more minutes, he averaged 11 points per game, 7.2 rebounds, 1.7 blocks (the minutes average here is 26 min per game). Conclusion: Respectable numbers.

I'm sorry, but those are the facts. Not trying to be mean here or anything, just objective.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Upon second glance of these numbers, I almost think this is positive evidence toward Tyrus Thomas' impact on games, if anything. I would gladly take 26 min/game, 11 pts, 7 reb, and 1.5 blocks from him this year. And if that turns into winning 45% of our games, it's definitely a step forward from last year.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

BULLHITTER said:


> over whom? the blazers *gave* away zach randolph a career 20-10 player, (think they thought lamarcus was a given for those numbers?


They gave him away for a reason. Because they believed that Aldridge would be able to give them the same or close offensive production in the long run with much better defensive production. Hard to argue that it has not worked so far - because it sure seems like it did...


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Ok, I copy & pasted Tyrus' stats into a spreadsheet and did some quick averages. My grand conclusion based on the facts is:


Good for you. I will take your word on these averages and it seems that my use of simple averages was not the complete story. Just like the claim that Aldridge was not stuck behind veterans for play time was not really based on facts.

Anyway - good luck to Tyrus in the future. I sure hope he shows better than he has so far - or that his coaches believe in him more than previous coaching staffs have.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

This has gone from a TT discussion... to a my guy is better... to a our division is better... to a our team is better...

As I see it, both guys are OK and thats about it. 

LA is very steady and respectfully productive. He is the epitome of an NBA rotation guy, a younger and not as talented (yet) version of Drew Gooden. He will get you 15 & 9, and demand a max contract. I watched 20+ Blazer games last year and was always having to look and see if he was actually on the floor because he was so quiet much of the time.

TT is a uber athlete, with very average basketball skills who needs to develop the mental side of his game before he can be successful. Yep he will either blow up or become a rotational energy guy for some other team. He could not connect with Skiles but that is not entirely hard to understand, he needs to build a bond quickly with VDN to advance his career. If the Bulls use Gooden's expiring contract in a deal, he may find himself in the same situation as LA (after the Z Bo deal), then the Bulls will see what they have. I did notice when TT was in the game each time he played.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

Neither imo. Tyson will be the same player he has always been. A decent defender, who blocks a ton of shots, but gets out muscled by bigger centers. He still can't shoot, and only has 1 offensive move, DUNKING! Tyson will not make any improvments to his game at all.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> LA is very steady and respectfully productive. He is the epitome of an NBA rotation guy, a younger and not as talented (yet) version of Drew Gooden. He will get you 15 & 9, and demand a max contract. I watched 20+ Blazer games last year and was always having to look and see if he was actually on the floor because he was so quiet much of the time.


so aldridge is a less talented version of a player he's already better than and is going to regress in his 3rd year and stay at that level for the rest of his career. that seems very likely.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> so aldridge is a less talented version of a player he's already better than and is going to regress in his 3rd year and stay at that level for the rest of his career. that seems very likely.


Do you think his scoring average will go up with the addition of Oden and Fernandez? Only one basketball to go around.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Do you think his scoring average will go up with the addition of Oden and Fernandez? Only one basketball to go around.


I am going to guess that it would be a lot harder to double team Aldridge next year with Oden on the floor and he will be able to finish on a lot more fast breaks initiated by Oden's blocks/rebounds. I am going to guess that his scoring average will go up a little. If anything - his rebounds will go down - as he will probably play further away from the basket on defense and possibly on offense as well and one would assume that Oden will clean a lot of the boards that Aldridge might have got.

Fernandez, btw - if we are to take anything from the Olypics - is good at creating for the bigs (check out Gasol's stat line in the China game) - if anything - he will give the Blazers a 2nd guard/wing that can create for the bigs. Bayless is the one we have yet to see as effective in creating for others.

The goal, however, is to win more games - not to deal with individual stats - I doubt any Blazers fans would be upset at a small reduction in rebounds and possibly points (something I doubt will happen) - if the win total goes up.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Good for you. I will take your word on these averages and it seems that my use of simple averages was not the complete story. Just like the claim that Aldridge was not stuck behind veterans for play time was not really based on facts.
> 
> Anyway - good luck to Tyrus in the future. I sure hope he shows better than he has so far - or that his coaches believe in him more than previous coaching staffs have.


I actually should be thanking you for bringing up that topic. I never would've done that little analysis, and I'm pretty sure it hasn't been brought up here before. I find it pretty encouraging that Tyrus' numbers were that good when he actually got playing time. Hence, it seems very reasonable that if he gets around 30 minutes a night, we could realistically expect 12-14 ppg, 8 reb, 2 blk type of production. And assuming that we get the usual production from our guards + Luol Deng, we should be looking at a decent turnaround from last year (.500 + playoffs?). Not that Thomas is the sole reason, just that it's one less gap in our lineup if he can produce like that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

andalusian said:


> They gave him away for a reason. Because they believed that Aldridge would be able to give them the same or close offensive production in the long run with much better defensive production. Hard to argue that it has not worked so far - because it sure seems like it did...


It's pretty unfair to say Randolph was given away because they believed Aldridge would equal his production. They gave Randolph away, largely, because his off the court issues and poor attitude made him too much of a pain to keep. Having Aldridge may have made it an easier decision, but this wasn't a moved based solely on production by any means.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TheDarkPrince said:


> Neither imo. Tyson will be the same player he has always been. A decent defender, who blocks a ton of shots, but gets out muscled by bigger centers. He still can't shoot, and only has 1 offensive move, DUNKING! Tyson will not make any improvments to his game at all.



I believe you mean Tyrus, rather than Tyson. Tyrus has clearly improved his jump shot, and has good handle for a PF, so your characterization of his skill set and lack of improvement just isn't true.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's pretty unfair to say Randolph was given away because they believed Aldridge would equal his production. They gave Randolph away, largely, because his off the court issues and poor attitude made him too much of a pain to keep. Having Aldridge may have made it an easier decision, but this wasn't a moved based solely on production by any means.


I am sorry - but this is not how I read it. Randolph was given away because his on-court production was not worth the salary he was owned and the time he commanded on the court would have been a hindrance to Aldridge's development - he plays one side of the floor only. The off-court issues made it easier to justify it even if the move did not pan on the court - but it was quite clear that the Blazers have seen that when Randolph went down and Aldridge got the time in his place - the team played much better overall.

The fact that they were able to get Fernandez thanks to the trade exception they got from this deal was just the cherry on top.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Hey guys I'm back in Chicago with the internet, it's nice to see this thread still going. I see Tyrus's "boom" is still winning :biggrin:


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Hey guys I'm back in Chicago with the internet, it's nice to see this thread still going. I see Tyrus's "boom" is still winning :biggrin:


Where did you go?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Tyrus Thomas is physically and mentally an 8th grade version of Amare Stoudemire.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

The '93 Heat said:


> Tyrus Thomas is physically and mentally an 8th grade version of Amare Stoudemire.


Amare Stoudamire was 6'9" with a 39 inch vertical in the 8th grade?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

P to the Wee said:


> Where did you go?


the dirty dirty SOUTH :uhoh:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Amare Stoudamire was 6'9" with a 39 inch vertical in the 8th grade?


Tyrus Thomas is not 6'9".


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

The '93 Heat said:


> Tyrus Thomas is not 6'9".


Okay, we'll try this again....

Amare Staudamire was 6'8.25" with a 39.5" vertical in the 8th grade?


And, since you just happen to be trolling in the Bulls forum... enjoy:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u3OtKHGNotY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u3OtKHGNotY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

So height has everything to do with physical presence? I guess Tyrus is more physical than Ben Wallace was when he was winning all those awards just because he is a few inches taller?

I stand by my statement that Tyrus is physically and mentally an 8th grade version of Amare Stoudemire.

You could replace Tyrus Thomas with a kangaroo and the only thing that would change is a positive increase in the team's I.Q. The kangaroo might actually be the better defender.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

The '93 Heat said:


> So height has everything to do with physical presence? I guess Tyrus is more physical than Ben Wallace was when he was winning all those awards just because he is a few inches taller?
> 
> I stand by my statement that Tyrus is physically and mentally an 8th grade version of Amare Stoudemire.
> 
> You could replace Tyrus Thomas with a kangaroo and the only thing that would change is a positive increase in the team's I.Q. The kangaroo might actually be the better defender.


You could replace Michael Beasley with a 2nd grade kid and the only thing that would change is a positive increase in the team's offense. The 2nd grade kid might actually be the better defender.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Guys, cut it out. '93 Heat, you aren't a fan of Tyrus Thomas. That's all well and good. Going overboard to the point of trolling is unnecessary.

Bulls fans, play nice. I don't feel like editing anyone's posts today.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

I just don't see him improving. That sucks. He's so cool.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

I would just like to ask a question. Why do people think Tyrus might get 30 minutes when the Bulls already have a productive PF in Drew Gooden? He can score down low, grab rebounds and is more athletic than you might think. Drew Gooden was a former #4 pick(same as Tyrus) and before people start screaming "he is what he is" Gooden is only 26 years old. He's still not in his prime yet.

Now I understand the contract situation and he only has one more year left on his deal but so does Tyrus. Now I want Tyrus to succeed as much as anyone to help this team get back to its winning ways(and I want Noc's minutes given to Tyrus'-hopefully Noc is traded) but I just don't see Tyrus this year getting close to 20 and 10 unless this team is in full rebuilding mode which I don't see Pax and Vinny with it's veteran assistants doing. I see this organization doing some tweaks here and there and reshuffling.

Now if anyone can prove otherwise, please discuss. I see him averaging 10 points 6 rebounds 1 assist 1.5 blocks in 20-25 minutes a game.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

bullybullz said:


> I would just like to ask a question. Why do people think Tyrus might get 30 minutes when the Bulls already have a productive PF in Drew Gooden? He can score down low, grab rebounds and is more athletic than you might think. Drew Gooden was a former #4 pick(same as Tyrus) and before people start screaming "he is what he is" Gooden is only 26 years old. He's still not in his prime yet.
> 
> Now I understand the contract situation and he only has one more year left on his deal but so does Tyrus. Now I want Tyrus to succeed as much as anyone to help this team get back to its winning ways(and I want Noc's minutes given to Tyrus'-hopefully Noc is traded) but I just don't see Tyrus this year getting close to 20 and 10 unless this team is in full rebuilding mode which I don't see Pax and Vinny with it's veteran assistants doing. I see this organization doing some tweaks here and there and reshuffling.
> 
> Now if anyone can prove otherwise, please discuss. I see him averaging 10 points 6 rebounds 1 assist 1.5 blocks in 20-25 minutes a game.


My simple answer to you is that Aaron Gray will not log major minutes, so we will have basically a 3 man rotation at PF at C. So Tyrus or Gooden will most likely play some at C, my guess is Gooden will because he is bigger.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> My simple answer to you is that Aaron Gray will not log major minutes, so we will have basically a 3 man rotation at PF at C. So Tyrus or Gooden will most likely play some at C, my guess is Gooden will because he is bigger.


^ Beat me to it. I see Gooden and Thomas playing together for some stretches. On paper, their games seem to complement each other, and I look forward to seeing how it works out. I hope Vinny D does, too.


----------

