# Morrison vs. Deng



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

I have predicted that Pax/Skiles will have to make the choice between Deng and Morrison this off season. I believe that Morrison is exactly the kind of go-to player the Bulls want, but Deng is a great talent and has youth and experience (rare quality). Of course we would all take Aldridge/thomas first to fill the need, but there is a good chance that we will pick 3rd and Morrison will be the best available player. Of course we could take Bargani but that depends on his work outs, he might slip when he is matched up against stronger american players.

so do you trade the pick, go with our 2nd need in SG and pick Roy, do you trade down? Can Deng convert to SG and be the long defensive SG we need? Personally I see the bulls picking Morrison and either trading him to a team like boston/Indiana/Portland who would all love him or, do you trade Deng and build the team around morrison/hinrich/gordon? historically #3 picks have been pretty good. If we could get Okafor for Sweetney/Deng+16 would you take him? If we signed Gooden our 06-07 lineup would be Gooden/Morrison/Okafor/Gordon/Hinrich bench Nocioni/Chandler/Duhon. I think that makes us one of the elite teams in the East if they all stay healthy, IMO. 

So let the argument begin.
Morrison - everyone will say he is slow, and has diabetes, and can't guard in the NBA. but most of those people are those who just watched his stats or scouting reports but never saw how clutch he can be and how great of a teammate he could be. Does he have more potential then Deng?

Deng - is not much more athletic than Morrison (argue if you like but Morrison is not a stiff like people think) and has much less range. He does have good defensive skills and long arms. He has a high basketball IQ and does work hard. he is also very young, younger than Morrison. Can he ever be a star? Can he be a star on the Bulls?

I say Deng will always be a Prince kind of player in chicago, but Morrison can thrive because he will become the go-to player. I don't know if Deng wants to be a go-to player. I go with Morrison, but it also depends on what we could get for Deng. I would like to hear what others say.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Morrison will not be as good as Deng or Nocioni!!!!! Plus he's not athletic enough on a team full of marginally athletic players. Plus he doesn't fill a NEED.

Pax would be better served trading the pick than drafting Morrison.


Maybe some team will fall in love with the kid and give up the farm to get him!


:gopray:


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

ok that is one for deng. but for the record i 4door said in 2006 that morrison will have a better career than deng or noc. mark it down, and we will meet here again in 10 years to debate who was right. lets say around 8pm.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

4door said:


> ok that is one for deng. but for the record i 4door said in 2006 that morrison will have a better career than deng or noc. mark it down, and we will meet here again in 10 years to debate who was right. lets say around 8pm.


"Better" is a relative term.

I see Morrison having a few years of 22-25 point scoring, maybe 6 rebs, 2 assists and 38-40% from the arc. But I see Deng being a 17/8r/3a/1stl type of player, not just being "capable" of that but actually being that with the Bulls. And I see Nocioni becoming an 18/9r/2a/1stl guy that gets a lot of minutes even with Deng blooming, actually. Both players are too good to keep on the bench, and whoever we get as our next young big (Aldridge, I hope) will have to get more development minutes at the C spot.

24 ppg, 6 r, 2 a on great field %'s but bad defense versus a 17/8/3/1 type of guy that can lock down on D... I might take the latter.

Adam Morrison = Peja Stojakovic
Luol Deng = Jamal Mashburn with more length
Andres Nocioni = slightly worse defending version of Artest

Of those three, I like Mash and Artest more than Peja, who is definitely a more gifted and more prolific scorer than either of the other two.


----------



## bullstown4life (May 2, 2006)

Showtyme said:


> "Better" is a relative term.
> 
> I see Morrison having a few years of 22-25 point scoring, maybe 6 rebs, 2 assists and 38-40% from the arc. But I see Deng being a 17/8r/3a/1stl type of player, not just being "capable" of that but actually being that with the Bulls. And I see Nocioni becoming an 18/9r/2a/1stl guy that gets a lot of minutes even with Deng blooming, actually. Both players are too good to keep on the bench, and whoever we get as our next young big (Aldridge, I hope) will have to get more development minutes at the C spot.
> 
> ...


I think you nailed that one pretty good. I too would rather have those 2 than a Peja copy..


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

here's my thinking:

a bulked up off-season Berto trained and enhanced 3rd year player DENG *>>>* a rookie morrison playing his first NBA season and dealing with the grind of 82 games against competition he has never _in his life_ seen the likes of. who would you rather have guarding a vince carter type? exactly. 

yes, morrison is a competitive guy, but in his rookie season to think he would really be any kind of "leader" or a guaranteed 20pt per game guy is just projecting onto him. he's good, but he will need to adjust to the rigors of the big time. 

so i vote AFRO BULL!


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Showtyme said:


> "Better" is a relative term.
> 
> I see Morrison having a few years of 22-25 point scoring, maybe 6 rebs, 2 assists and 38-40% from the arc. But I see Deng being a 17/8r/3a/1stl type of player, not just being "capable" of that but actually being that with the Bulls. And I see Nocioni becoming an 18/9r/2a/1stl guy that gets a lot of minutes even with Deng blooming, actually. Both players are too good to keep on the bench, and whoever we get as our next young big (Aldridge, I hope) will have to get more development minutes at the C spot.
> 
> ...


First, if Morrison is scoring 25 ppg then you take him and don't look back. That makes him a star and a better player than Sojakovic, who's only had one year of scoring around 24 points (and he was an MVP contender that year).

Second, Nocioni isn't a slightly worse defending version of Artest. He's a much worse defending version of Artest. RonRon is a versatile defender, Noc has trouble with quicker players and really is more effective at guarding the 4's. Look at his opponent PER by position:

SF- 18.0
PF- 15.4

I've said this repeatedly, but to me, Noc really isn't an effective SF. He gets outplayed there pretty regularly. He does pose matchup problems as a quick PF and that's where he should be utilized.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

One difference not yet mentioned is that I KNOW Deng can play at a reasonably high level in the NBA because he's done it. I THINK Morrison can play well in the league, but I thought the same about a lot of guys including Eddie Griffin, Fizer, Dermarr Johnson, "Tractor" Traylor and was wrong.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

One problem for the Bulls is that we're sort of married to Ben Gordon because he's our best scorer, esp. in late game situations. Morrison seems to have this ability, albeit in college, but unlike Gordon, also has prototypical size for his position. Drafting Morrison would give us a chance to find a full time, athletic SG without having to worry about moving Gordon to the bench. We can then shop Gordon and Deng and probably get something really nice in return.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> One problem for the Bulls is that we're sort of married to Ben Gordon because he's our best scorer, esp. in late game situations. Morrison seems to have this ability, albeit in college, but unlike Gordon, also has prototypical size for his position. Drafting Morrison would give us a chance to find a full time, athletic SG without having to worry about moving Gordon to the bench. We can then shop Gordon and Deng and probably get something really nice in return.


1. I totally agree with you, getting a scorer like Morrison who can put up 20+ppg changes everything for the bulls and other guys can be moved. Maybe like Iggy for Ben kind of deal or Luol for Emeka (just examples) but if we know we have a star everything changes

2. Comparing Deng to Mashburn is pretty good but Mash was more of a pure scorer, but how can you say Noc will become as good as Artest when they are the same age? Noc will be 27 this year, this is his prime and I don't see him putting up better than 18/6 in the NBA, but that is fine he is a good player and a good defender but he will never be a star. I don't like the Peja comparison because Morrison is much more of a competitor, maybe compare Adam Morrison to Chris Mullin who was a stud in college and had an Hall of Fame Career. 

3. So if we do draft 3rd (my prediction) and Thomas/Aldridge are gone do we all agree we have to pick Morrison because he will at least have the best trade value (more than Gay or Roy). Where do you ship him to? And if you really think he can be a Peja kind of player, do you trade a 21 year old Peja???? Who do we get in return???


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

I see nothing similar between Peja's game and Morrison. Morrison controls the ball, penetrates with a quick first step, finishes creatively at the rim, draws contact and goes to the line, passes well and can shoot. Peja's a one dimensional spot up jump shooter.

Mashburn and Deng are different players. I don't see the comparison. Mashburn was a monster (physically stronger), a far better shooter and penetrator in the half court, created off his own dribble and was averaging 24 points per game by his second year. Deng is a string bean, gets his points on cuts, curls, spot up jump shots (which he's not so hot at) and in the open court. He's a 14 ppg scorer in his second season. His own team projects him to be a 17 ppg guy. He's not Mashburn.

Offensively, I think the Noc/Artest comparison is valid, except Artest dribbles alot more than Noc. Defensively, Noc invokes irritation, Artest fear.

I hate to pull a Sam Bowie and miss out on a potential star.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

Jello Biafra said:


> I see nothing similar between Peja's game and Morrison. Morrison controls the ball, penetrates with a quick first step, finishes creatively at the rim, draws contact and goes to the line, passes well and can shoot. Peja's a one dimensional spot up jump shooter.
> 
> Mashburn and Deng are different players. I don't see the comparison. Mashburn was a monster (physically stronger), a far better shooter and penetrator in the half court, created off his own dribble and was averaging 24 points per game by his second year. Deng is a string bean, gets his points on cuts, curls, spot up jump shots (which he's not so hot at) and in the open court. He's a 14 ppg scorer in his second season. His own team projects him to be a 17 ppg guy. He's not Mashburn.
> 
> ...


great post, 100% agree. Morrison could be just a jumpshooter if he wanted, but he can do more. A Paul Pierce comparison is at least closer than Peja. It is hard to tell what Deng will become when he fully matures, he is only 20-21 right? And Mashburn played on some bad teams so he/kidd/jackson put up big numbers but I would argue that Deng will never be as good as Mashburn. Artest/Noc is close but because they are the same age and Artest is already so much better I don't see Noc ever becoming that good.

The Sam Bowie comment is right on, if Morrison becomes a 20-25ppg player in this league and we traded him on draft day because we already have a SF I think we will be really kicking ourselves. It would have been like Miami saying that they don't need Wade because they already have Eddie Jones. Players can always be moved, I think we have to pick the best available player, and if it is Morrison we HAVE to take him regardless of Deng/Noc.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

4door said:


> It would have been like Miami saying that they don't need Wade because they already have Eddie Jones.


uhh, not exactly. Luol Deng is 21. Same age as Morrison, more or less. Noc is hitting his prime as we speak. Eddie Jones was 30+ when Wade was drafted and already starting to deteriorate. 

I mean, I agree with the premise that *if* Pax and the Bulls' scouts truly believe Morrison is easily the best player in the draft that we should take him and sort out the duplication later. But that analogy is off. Not to mention, I don't see Morrison being that great in the NBA. Reminded me of Glenn Robinson, but more devoted and less athletic, to be honest.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Reminded me of Glenn Robinson, but more devoted and less athletic, to be honest.


 Heck thats not a bad comparison, I mean Glenn was one of the most dangerous players in the NBA early in his career and was allways a great shooter. We are talking about a 20+ppg 6 3 guy, so if Morrison can do that for us in a year or 2 i would be extreamly happy.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Heck thats not a bad comparison, I mean Glenn was one of the most dangerous players in the NBA early in his career and was allways a great shooter. We are talking about a 20+ppg 6 3 guy, so if Morrison can do that for us in a year or 2 i would be extreamly happy.


I guess. I just felt like his contributions on the offensive end were somewhat empty because he didn't pass all that well and didn't play any defense. 

Morrison didn't strike me as being quite as dominant in college as Glenn...and it was against inferior competition to what the Big Dog faced. I think he'll be a solid player, but I don't think passing on him would be a Bowie/Jordan moment or anything.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I'm in favor of drafting one of the Bargnani/Thomas/Aldridge group and passing on Morrison.

It's not that I don't think that Morrison can be a good pro, but I don't see how he fits in with this group. If we lose Deng opposing 3's and big 2's are going to have a field day against us. Noc, for all of his hustle, gets out-quicked by most small forwards. Morrison hasn't proven he can guard anybody. Assuming that Noc is part of the long term plans, and I think all signs point to yes on that front, we have to have an athletic option to guard the opponents' best 2 or 3. Unless Morrison ends up being a total stud or the reincarnation of Larry Bird I just don't think he's a very good fit...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I guess. I just felt like his contributions on the offensive end were somewhat empty because he didn't pass all that well and didn't play any defense.
> 
> Morrison didn't strike me as being quite as dominant in college as Glenn...and it was against inferior competition to what the Big Dog faced. I think he'll be a solid player, but I don't think passing on him would be a Bowie/Jordan moment or anything.


I dont know if Morrison was just as dominant as Glenn but there is no doubt that Morrison scored on and faced some very tough defenses. Morrison on a nightly basis saw triple teams and double teams and he still lead the nation in scoring, that alone is pretty damn impressive. 

Also here are some videos of Adam Morrison. It seems like hes a player that people are going to Love to hate if hes on the opposite team. I hope hes on our team because I would for the Bulls to lose a game because of this kid. 

This guy is a maniac, sooo intense almost Ron Artest like only does damage to himself Though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAbL_zXJUBU&search=adam morrison

Who says this kid aint got HOPPS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utyt8lVhwOM&search=adam morrison

Wow can you imagine Morrison doing this after hitting a game wining shot for the Bulls in DETROIT!!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDcr4hl2_58&search=adam morrison

Overrall this guy is nuts but you want him on your team and you dont want to play against him.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I'm in favor of drafting one of the Bargnani/Thomas/Aldridge group and passing on Morrison.
> 
> It's not that I don't think that Morrison can be a good pro, but I don't see how he fits in with this group. If we lose Deng opposing 3's and big 2's are going to have a field day against us. Noc, for all of his hustle, gets out-quicked by most small forwards. Morrison hasn't proven he can guard anybody. Assuming that Noc is part of the long term plans, and I think all signs point to yes on that front, we have to have an athletic option to guard the opponents' best 2 or 3. Unless Morrison ends up being a total stud or the reincarnation of Larry Bird I just don't think he's a very good fit...


Well alot of the same things can be said about Bargnani, Thomas and Aldrige, I mean we barely know anything about Bargnani, from what people are saying is that hes a jump shooting big man who as of now cant play in the inside so i dunno how much help Bargnani can bring to our team, Thomas at 6'9 215 will get eaten alive by NBA PF's, Aldrige looks to be the logical and safe pick for the Bulls but no guarantee he will turn into a stud. As for Morrison your atleast getting a proven scorer.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I dont know if Morrison was just as dominant as Glenn but there is no doubt that Morrison scored on and faced some very tough defenses. Morrison on a nightly basis saw triple teams and double teams and he still lead the nation in scoring, that alone is pretty damn impressive.


It is. Don't get me wrong, I think Morrison is good. But Glenn Robinson was a one-man team in the Big Ten back when the Big Ten was a very powerful conference and people weren't leaving the college early in droves. So he was facing double and triple teams too, and against a stronger talent pool. He was good in the NBA, but not a franchise player or "winner" IMO. I think he would have been best off being a 2nd option to a superstar, and surrounded by guys who could cover his defensive problems. He was never really on a team like that before he washed out.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> It is. Don't get me wrong, I think Morrison is good. But Glenn Robinson was a one-man team in the Big Ten back when the Big Ten was a very powerful conference and people weren't leaving the college early in droves. So he was facing double and triple teams too, and against a stronger talent pool. He was good in the NBA, but not a franchise player or "winner" IMO. I think he would have been best off being a 2nd option to a superstar, and surrounded by guys who could cover his defensive problems. He was never really on a team like that before he washed out.


Yeah no doubt Robinson faced some pretty damn good teams in College, but there is a big difference between Morrison and Robinson, and that difference is how both approach the game Morrison will allways give 110% night in and night out Glen did not. Morrison plays as if he has to prove to the world that a white kid with Diabetes can be just as good as any ACC superstar and he has proved that hes not only as good as anyone in the major conferences but also better. Morrison is the type of player who will get better and better each year because of his work ethic and thats something the Bulls could really use.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah no doubt Robinson faced some pretty damn good teams in College, but there is a big difference between Morrison and Robinson, and that difference is how both approach the game Morrison will allways give 110% night in and night out Glen did not. Morrison plays as if he has to prove to the world that a white kid with Diabetes can be just as good as any ACC superstar and he has proved that hes not only as good as anyone in the major conferences but also better. Morrison is the type of player who will get better and better each year because of his work ethic and thats something the Bulls could really use.


Great point. The Big Dog was indeed a dog. We'll see what happens - I'd rather see us go for size in the draft, but that's partly because I'm a big Deng fan (and Noc fan lately too, naturally). It would not shock me if Morrison was the best player in this draft when the dust settles, but it wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't, either. I don't have a great feel for it right now.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'd rather have a slasher who can defend & shoot rather than a 1 dimensional SF...

Morrison will be Wallyworld in the nba


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

The ROY said:


> I'd rather have a slasher who can defend & shoot rather than a 1 dimensional SF...


Yeah, but we can get a tall 2 that can do those things as well. Morrison and Gordon are very similar, but if Morrison truly proves to be a 22-25 point scorer (have my doubts, but would like to play devil's advocate in this case) he's a more prototypical SF than Gordon is a SG.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> I'd rather have a slasher who can defend & shoot rather than a 1 dimensional SF...
> 
> Morrison will be Wallyworld in the nba


 I think a huge problem we have here in Chicago is that we overrate our players, Wally Szerbiak would either be the best or second best player on our team. Alot of guys on here talk about Wally as a joke in the league, but we forget that hes a former allstar and he did light us up for 44 points once. Wally has been trying to stay healthy since 2003 and when healthy hes proved that hes a very good player at this level, also Wally is the type of player that doesnt shoot much he only averages 12.1 FGA per game for his whole career, hes a 45+ % shooter the only problem offcourse is he lacks the desire to demand the ball and the desire to get better thats something that Adam Morrison does not lack. 

Wally's best year was this year offcourse averaging 20 ppg on almost 50% shooting in 40 games for Minny shooting only 14 times a game, then averaging 17 ppg on 47% shooting averaging 13 FGA pergame for the Celtics. Compare that to Ben Gordon who averaged 16 points on 42% shooting and averaging 14 FGA per game. Say all you want about Defense and how important it is, but there is no doubt that you need guys who can score to win in this league Yeah San Antonio and Detroit won the NBA title but they had guys on their teams that would score 30 points every game and have someone who would make a huge basket whenever its needed. The Bulls just dont have that.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> I think a huge problem we have here in Chicago is that we overrate our players, Wally Szerbiak would either be the best or second best player on our team. Alot of guys on here talk about Wally as a joke in the league, but we forget that hes a former allstar and he did light us up for 44 points once. Wally has been trying to stay healthy since 2003 and when healthy hes proved that hes a very good player at this level, also Wally is the type of player that doesnt shoot much he only averages 12.1 FGA per game for his whole career, hes a 45+ % shooter the only problem offcourse is he lacks the desire to demand the ball and the desire to get better thats something that Adam Morrison does not lack.
> 
> Wally's best year was this year offcourse averaging 20 ppg on almost 50% shooting in 40 games for Minny shooting only 14 times a game, then averaging 17 ppg on 47% shooting averaging 13 FGA pergame for the Celtics. Compare that to Ben Gordon who averaged 16 points on 42% shooting and averaging 14 FGA per game. Say all you want about Defense and how important it is, but there is no doubt that you need guys who can score to win in this league Yeah San Antonio and Detroit won the NBA title but they had guys on their teams that would score 30 points every game and have someone who would make a huge basket whenever its needed. The Bulls just dont have that.


Very true. I think the people who do not like Morrison compares him to Big Dog and Wally, but those guys are 20ppg players! And I don't see how anyone can say that Morrison does not have more heart and gives more effort and cares cares about the team more than those two players. A healthy Big Dog or Wally that is actually motivated to WIN, would be a GREAT addition to this team. And those are comparisons by the people WHO DON'T WANT HIM HERE. Those of us who really believe in this kid see glimpses of Larry Bird, one of the best any of us have ever seen. So if he is somewhere between Bird and a motivated/healthy Wally how can we pass on him???


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

and Noc will be an unrestricted free agent after next year. Don't we need to protect ourselves from this? I have a very strong feeling Noc will be playing in San Antonio after next year because of a few key reasons.
1. 1/2 of his national team will also be playing there
2. weather
3. spanish being spoken more (this can be argued)
4. tim duncan
5. nba titles


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

Bulls fans, im baised, but ill give you my opinion.

if i had the pick and Adam was available, id friggin take him.

You guys have two picks in this draft. If you guys nabbed morrison and then say Sheldon Williams or one of the several other bigs with NBA talent in this draft then you are going to be in awesome shape for next year.

Forget the KG talk. if you guys want to be the best in the east, id go with the three headed offensive monster of kirk, ben, and adam. Plus draft some size up front. Sheldon could be available plus many others. This could be a huge draft for you. you get interior help and size, plus morrison, and **** you guys are in business.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I think a huge problem we have here in Chicago is that we overrate our players, Wally Szerbiak would either be the best or second best player on our team. Alot of guys on here talk about Wally as a joke in the league, but we forget that hes a former allstar and he did light us up for 44 points once. Wally has been trying to stay healthy since 2003 and when healthy hes proved that hes a very good player at this level, also Wally is the type of player that doesnt shoot much he only averages 12.1 FGA per game for his whole career, hes a 45+ % shooter the only problem offcourse is he lacks the desire to demand the ball and the desire to get better thats something that Adam Morrison does not lack.
> 
> Wally's best year was this year offcourse averaging 20 ppg on almost 50% shooting in 40 games for Minny shooting only 14 times a game, then averaging 17 ppg on 47% shooting averaging 13 FGA pergame for the Celtics. Compare that to Ben Gordon who averaged 16 points on 42% shooting and averaging 14 FGA per game. Say all you want about Defense and how important it is, but there is no doubt that you need guys who can score to win in this league Yeah San Antonio and Detroit won the NBA title but they had guys on their teams that would score 30 points every game and have someone who would make a huge basket whenever its needed. The Bulls just dont have that.


I think a huge problem we have here on these boards is that some posters overrate scoring.

How much did Wallyworld help the Celts after the pickup?

Thank you.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

nbanoitall said:


> Bulls fans, im baised, but ill give you my opinion.
> 
> if i had the pick and Adam was available, id friggin take him.
> 
> ...


I could not have said it better myself.
1. PICK MORRISON
2. PICK SHELDON...100% Agree
3. FORGET ABOUT KG 

great post.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I could not have said it better myself.
> 1. PICK MORRISON
> 2. PICK SHELDON...100% Agree
> 3. FORGET ABOUT KG
> ...


The only downside is that I doubt Shelden drops out the top 10, let alone falls to 16.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

true, but there are always draft day surprises. Shelden has some big knocks against him like, he is only 6-9 and plays center, and he stayed 4 years so his potential is less than other younger players like O'Bryant. Shelden like Reddick can really go anywhere from mid-lotto to end of the 1st Round. I could go on forever about great college players that slipped into the late 2nd round.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

4door said:


> true, but there are always draft day surprises. Shelden has some big knocks against him like, he is only 6-9 and plays center, and he stayed 4 years so his potential is less than other younger players like O'Bryant. Shelden like Reddick can really go anywhere from mid-lotto to end of the 1st Round. I could go on forever about great college players that slipped into the late 2nd round.


He's not 6 '9''. That would be fine size for an NBA 4. He's probably a shade under 6' 8''.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

They should hire you and PC Load Letter for the draft workouts, screw the measuring tape i say!


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

step said:


> The only downside is that I doubt Shelden drops out the top 10, let alone falls to 16.


there are other options, like a guy from peoria


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I think a huge problem we have here on these boards is that some posters overrate scoring.
> 
> How much did Wallyworld help the Celts after the pickup?
> 
> Thank you.


Not much, but was he ever really that much of an upgrade over Ricky Davis? It's not like they got him for peanuts.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think a lot of people are overrating Morrison myself. Sure, he had a great deal of success on the collegiate level but his footspeed is very slow for the NBA and again...he is NOT a good defender. He can improve on those things some and I am sure he will be a decent player but I don't think he is nearly as good as a lot of you are making him out to be. I think the Peja comparison was definitley apt, he certainly isn't any Paul Pierce or Larry Bird. If I am gambling for a superstar I would take Brandon Roy before Morrison myself.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Everyone loves the Bird-Morrison comparisons but they are way off base. Bird was bigger and a much better rebounder and passer. They are both white though, and Morrison does have a high release on his jumper.


----------



## hirschmanz (Jun 3, 2005)

here's a different philosophy, supported by a few above posts.

Pick Morrison. 
Not because he's the best player available, not because he fills a need, but because he has the most upside. If he turns out to be the next Larry Bird, then kudos to you!
If not, you still have another first rounder this year, and new york's first rounder (as well as your own I believe) next year, which should be a supremely loaded bigman class.

I don't think morrison will be a superstar, more of a third or second option who can score in bunches. However, he is too good to pass up. And, its not an all or nothing gambit.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

hirschmanz said:


> here's a different philosophy, supported by a few above posts.
> 
> Pick Morrison.
> Not because he's the best player available, not because he fills a need, but because he has the most upside. If he turns out to be the next Larry Bird, then kudos to you!
> ...


Let's say you had the #5 pick, would you pick Foye only on the fact that he has the most upside of anyone left on the board?

That aside, I question Morrison's upside as well (definately not his heart). I also don't think his diabetes is of any concern, as a few people have questioned. He should be able to live a normal life as long as he takes care of himself.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I also don't think his diabetes is of any concern, as a few people have questioned. He should be able to live a normal life as long as he takes care of himself.


NBA basketball is not a normal life. Not by a long shot.

I have no clue to the health situation, but have read he may have a very difficult time putting on needed muscle.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Let's say you had the #5 pick, would you pick Foye only on the fact that he has the most upside of anyone left on the board?
> 
> That aside, I question Morrison's upside as well (definately not his heart). I also don't think his diabetes is of any concern, as a few people have questioned. He should be able to live a normal life as long as he takes care of himself.



There is a world of difference playing 30 games in a college season with some travel with diabetes and playing 95+ games in an NBA season (including preaseason). I don't think the difficulty of playing a long NBA season with diabetes should be discounted.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Is Morrison that much better than Mike Miller would have been if Miller had stayed 3 years in college?

As good as a junior as Melo was as a frosh? (Of course, his frame isn't as good as Melo)

The styles are a bit different, but do people project him as to be significantly better on O than Manu.

Most of the kids that led the NCAA in scoring never even got a cup of tea in the pros. I just don't think he should even be under consideration for us.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> There is a world of difference playing 30 games in a college season with some travel with diabetes and playing 95+ games in an NBA season (including preaseason). I don't think the difficulty of playing a long NBA season with diabetes should be discounted.


And the medical staff is world's better on any NBA team than on a college team. I think it's pretty safe to say that Morrison had to monitor his own levels in college. I doubt he has to do that in the NBA unless it is at home.

I don't have diabetes, so I really can't really comment on the feeling a person gets. However, there were a couple of diabetics on my high school swim team that never had a problem in practice or meet. They could "feel" when their body was starting to get a little off and would either eat something or go take their shot. Those 5-hr per day practices were harder than anything I have done, and that includes a couple of years I ran cross-country.

I'm not trying to make a direct comparison of my life to the rigors of the NBA, and I certainly am no doctor. I just think the diabetes thing is overblown because it was used as a way to hype Morrison and his overcoming all the odds, heart of a champion kind of thing they were going for with Morrison & Gonzaga.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

I started this thread hoping people would debate if Deng or Morrison will be the better player in the future, but instead it like always turns into people bashing Morrison for "being too slow" "bad defense" etc. Well that is ok, but do any of you fear that we will lose Noc to San Antonio after next year? he is unrestricted and SA will have a low salary cap and 1/2 of Noc's national team playing for him. The climate/culture is probably more similar to his country also. If we lose Noc doesn't that create a need that Morrison would fill?


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Ya just what we need a coach with a temper,then we trade Deng and get a cry baby in return.Good thinking :biggrin:


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

It is not about who is better, Deng or Morrison, i think they will both be excellent players some day. The point is we have Deng and we dont need another small foward. We need size, inside scoring, and a defensive SG, period.

david


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

but it will become an issue if Noc leaves next year to the Spurs (very good chance) and if Thomas/Aldridge are gone when we draft (also good chance). I don't know if Deng will ever be a go-to player and I do think Morrison will be. That is a big difference, and it makes Morrison a better player for this team. Could you imagine the Spurs saying that they don't need Duncan because they already have Robinson, or Miami saying they don't need Wade because they already have Jones. You can debate that these players were getting old so it was easier to draft a replacement (you can say the same about drafting Kirk Hinrich when you have Jamal Crawford or Ben Gordon when you have Kirk Hinrich), but in the end you have to draft the best player available and even though we need a long SG and a scoring post player but they might not be there. So we have to take Morrison, and then we must look at Deng/Noc/Morrison and begin to question which one or two players works the best for the future of this team. Noc is an unrestricted FA in a year, Deng may never be a go-to player, Morrison may not be able to guard quicker players. They all have negatives, which one do we take if this happens?


----------



## hirschmanz (Jun 3, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> Let's say you had the #5 pick, would you pick Foye only on the fact that he has the most upside of anyone left on the board?
> 
> That aside, I question Morrison's upside as well (definately not his heart). I also don't think his diabetes is of any concern, as a few people have questioned. He should be able to live a normal life as long as he takes care of himself.


its definitely a risk, I just don't see it costing that much if it bottoms out.
the upside is worth it, in my opinion.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

A trade idea for the pro-Morrison crew:

Luol Deng and Chicago's pick (16th) for Mickael Pietrus and the Warriors pick (9th)?

Even on both sides?


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

step said:


> A trade idea for the pro-Morrison crew:
> 
> Luol Deng and Chicago's pick (16th) for Mickael Pietrus and the Warriors pick (9th)?
> 
> Even on both sides?


If we can get Shelden Williams at 9 I would do it. If they would let us trade Songalia for one of their young big men like Beindrins (spelling?) then I would do it for sure. The PG/SG/SF would be locked for the future. If Williams had a solid Rookie year and we picked up 2 big men free agents, I would be a very happy fan. Also, I think Pietrus will be BETTER than Deng, that guy is a real sleeper like I always said Diaw was (really). In the right system Pietrus could even take the starting spot from Ben. Drafting Williams would give us Antonio Davis 2, but without the 13M contract and 15 years younger. Tough, solid every night, and a great teammate.

without Free Agents (Nene, Pryzbella, Wilcox, Gooden, Ely all possible)
PF Williams/Songalia
SF Morrison/Nocioni
C Chandler/Sweetney
SG Gordon/Pietrus
PG Hinrich/Duhon/Pargo


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If we can get Shelden Williams at 9 I would do it.


Quite possible, he's projected at 14 on nbadraft.net, 8 on draftexpress and hoopshype. Though if I had the choice I'd probably take O'Bryant.



> If they would let us trade Songalia for one of their young big men like Beindrins (spelling?) then I would do it for sure.


With the rumours of them wanting to get rid of Murphy, I highly doubt they'd want Songalia, even if he could become a cheap replacement.

I'm still not sold on Morrison, but I am on my idea :clown: though I would be tempted to see if we could get their 2nd rounder aswell, to use on James White.

Like above, without free agents.
Draft: Bargnani and O'Bryant

PF Chandler, Allen
C Sweetney, O'Bryant
SF Nocioni, Bargnani
SG Gordon, Pietrus
PG Hinrich, Duhon
Songalia is missing from there, I still haven't made up my mind for this scenario. I would prefer he picked up his player option, that way we're not locked into anything long term just yet.

Have Bargnani on the wing (he seems quick enough) and give him limited minutes at the 4 until he gets stronger, confident and is well adjusted. Nocioni and Pietrus can split the minutes on the wing later on.

Still would probably need another big in the middle, I never thought I'd say this but I'd probably go after Nene, as Ben Wallace seems sort of unrealistic at this point in time. But in the end I probably would be ok with whoever is the cheapest out of Przybilla or Nene.

Another idea I've been mulling over is Chandler for PJ Brown, would they do it?
Rumours have Brown wanting out to a contender, I just don't see many wanting to trade for a 36yr old earning $9M. I would be curious to read a Hornets fan opinion, as I believe West and Chandler would make a decent pair.

Eventhough I can see Chandler being of some use, especially when paired with some size, I believe the pros outweigh the cons in this one. Not only do we get out of Chandler's contract, we get an expiring one in return. Combine this with with our cap space (which would be over the max if we don't go crazy in extending Hinrich, Nocioni, Sweets and Pietrus), our youth and pick swap, we'd could put together a very tempting offer for any superstar on the block at the deadline.

Probably should of made another thread for the last bit, but meh.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

step said:


> Quite possible, he's projected at 14 on nbadraft.net, 8 on draftexpress and hoopshype. Though if I had the choice I'd probably take O'Bryant.
> 
> 
> With the rumours of them wanting to get rid of Murphy, I highly doubt they'd want Songalia, even if he could become a cheap replacement.
> ...



1. trading Chandler for PJ Brown is something I have been screaming for all year, salaries match up and the Hornets need young players up front and Brown needs to go back to the playoffs. and we won't have to pay Chandler the 50M+ he is owed from us which makes it much easier to sign our "core." At this point we need to come to the conclusion that Chandler is just a taller Reggie Evans, he will never even me a Camby kind of player. I like him as a back up PF but not at 10M per year for 5 more years.

2. None of us have actually seen Bargani play so to think a 7-0 can just play SF in the NBA is a bit of a stretch. I am very scared of picking him, but I do trust Pax/Skiles so if they work him out and think he is the best player than I will too. But Adam Morrison is the best prospect I have seen this year but a large margin IMO.

3. I really don't like O'Bryant. I watched him in the MVC (SIU alum) and he NEVER dominated players 5-6 inches smaller than him. He reminds me of another mid-major big man that gets into the lotto because there are so few center prospects in the draft. The draft has a vey bad history of taking 7-0 stiffs before solid players because of their size. I would rather have Williams because you know exactly what you will get, Antonio Davis part 2. Which at 22 years old and only 2-3M a year for 4 years would make me very happy.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> I think a huge problem we have here on these boards is that some posters overrate scoring.
> 
> How much did Wallyworld help the Celts after the pickup?
> 
> Thank you.


How well where they doing without him? The Celts still sucked. How great did Minnisoda do with the Great KG ? Wally is an injury prone player, but when healthy hes a very good player plain and simple. Adam Morrison has more desire more skills and more heart then Wally so dont expect Adam Morrison to be the Next Wally. 

Where would the Cavs be without Lebron James OVERRATED scoring.
How about The Lakers without Kobes OVERRATED Scoring.
How about Miami without Dwayne Wades Overrated Scoring.
How about Washington without Arenas?

These teams would be garbage without the scoring that these guys provide for their teams so dont tell me that scoring is overrated. The Bulls would be a lottery team without Ben Gordon.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> None of us have actually seen Bargani play so to think a 7-0 can just play SF in the NBA is a bit of a stretch. I am very scared of picking him, but I do trust Pax/Skiles so if they work him out and think he is the best player than I will too. But Adam Morrison is the best prospect I have seen this year but a large margin IMO.


It's amusing, I'm quite scared of picking Morrison, we're on the opposite sides of the spectrum on this one. Well sort of, as I'm still wary on picking Bargnani. His potential factor is just so high, if all goes according to plan he's 2nd coming of Dirk, if it doesn't he'll be the 2nd coming of Keith Van Horn. How can you pass that up? But then how can you pass up what seems to be the second coming of Bird? 


> 3. I really don't like O'Bryant. I watched him in the MVC (SIU alum) and he NEVER dominated players 5-6 inches smaller than him. He reminds me of another mid-major big man that gets into the lotto because there are so few center prospects in the draft. The draft has a vey bad history of taking 7-0 stiffs before solid players because of their size. I would rather have Williams because you know exactly what you will get, Antonio Davis part 2. Which at 22 years old and only 2-3M a year for 4 years would make me very happy.


Considering the current free agency crop, the only way it seems to add talent is from this draft, which is a scary thought. I can easily make a case for and against for both players, it's tough to decide. I won't bother with Shelden, but O'Bryant is another player with huge upside, he just is so young and so big it's hard not to think what if. He seems like a guy who's getting used to his body, almost like he just discovered himself for the first time. With alot of work I think he could easily turn into a 15-10 type of player, solid production but nothing special. Or maybe his upside and height is just clouding my judgement and he's more likely destined to be a stiff.

This draft annoys me at times, you can go so many different ways. Next post I could easily say pick Roy and Shelden, which coincidentally is my favourite route to go, I'm just not sure if it's the best one.

Hinrich, Duhon
Gordon, Roy
Nocioni, Pietrus
Williams, Songalia, Allen
Brown, Sweets
And if we did a consolidation trade, we'd have enough players left over to cover the gaps.

Argh! I'm stuck in a never ending loop, changed my opinion quite a few times in the time it took to write the post originally, been sitting here editing it according every time. I thought it would never end!


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i cant think of one dominant scorer in the NBA who is anywhere near as unathletic as Morrison. this is the typical guy that can do a lot in college and little in the pros. in the tournament he went against some athletes, and he was far from dominant... in the pros, he'll go up against wayyy more.



and this is not to say that every NBA player has to be a freakish athlete; but Morrison does not strike me as a guy who will offset his athletic problems by "doing all the little things."


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i cant think of one dominant scorer in the NBA who is anywhere near as unathletic as Morrison. this is the typical guy that can do a lot in college and little in the pros. in the tournament he went against some athletes, and he was far from dominant... in the pros, he'll go up against wayyy more.
> 
> 
> 
> and this is not to say that every NBA player has to be a freakish athlete; but Morrison does not strike me as a guy who will offset his athletic problems by "doing all the little things."


I think many of the things that applied to Bird apply to Morrison:



> The Bird myth goes that he got no favors from his DNA but scraped by on his wits and work ethic. While he couldn't jump high, it's ludicrous to suggest that a man who continually outclassed the best athletes in the world wasn't blessed with natural athletic ability.


Div 1 ball ain't easy. Morrison was one of the best.



> many of the qualities that made him great—his court vision, his anticipation, his leadership—are stereotypes associated with white basketball virtue. Take a look at these tidbits from Morrison's nbadraft.net scouting report: "Old school right down to the stripes on the socks ... Like a coach on the floor ... Great intangibles, competes and inspires others to play hard ... Fundamentally solid, does all the little things to help his team win ... Sees the floor well, and is creative finding teammates for baskets ... Runs decent, but needs a head of steam." Let's run that through the racial translator: "[White] right down to the [white] on the [white] … Like a [white] on the [white] … [White, white] and [white] … [White], and is [white] … [White], but [he's really slow and also he's white]."


http://www.slate.com/id/2132097/?nav=tap3


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i cant think of one dominant scorer in the NBA who is anywhere near as unathletic as Morrison. this is the typical guy that can do a lot in college and little in the pros. in the tournament he went against some athletes, and he was far from dominant... in the pros, he'll go up against wayyy more.
> 
> 
> 
> and this is not to say that every NBA player has to be a freakish athlete; but Morrison does not strike me as a guy who will offset his athletic problems by "doing all the little things."


There is also a thing called adjustment period. There were no players who dominated every game they had a chance to play at least two games in the tournament, with Joakim Noah probably being the closest to dominating every game. Don't forget that the NCAA tournament is a one-and-done playoff as well. In the NBA playoffs teams and players are given seven game series to make adjustments over the course of a series and have many chances to "redeem" themselves, much like Shaq did against the Bulls and Gordon and Hinrich did, to some extent, after horrendous Game 5s. Dwyane Wade, injured hip and all, found a way to score in Game 5 despite a dropoff in his athleticism after the injury.

When I look at Morrison, I see the huge scoring improvement he had from sophomore to junior year, and that's an encouraging sign that he still has A) a lot of potential and B) the mental ability to make slight adjustments and improvements (ie, more ways to score) to his game. Many of us can see that Morrison has beefed up his junior season, and that enabled him to enhance his inside scoring ability, while his outside shooting stroke improved tremendously, making him even harder to guard. Plus, I don't know too many people who actually work on their circus shots as part of their regular basketball routine.

Hey, if Nocioni can find a way to consistently to perform the way he did in the playoffs (and he's allegedly not very athletic), why can't Morrison?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nocioni is plenty athletic.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> How well where they doing without him? The Celts still sucked. How great did Minnisoda do with the Great KG ? Wally is an injury prone player, but when healthy hes a very good player plain and simple. Adam Morrison has more desire more skills and more heart then Wally so dont expect Adam Morrison to be the Next Wally.
> 
> Where would the Cavs be without Lebron James OVERRATED scoring.
> How about The Lakers without Kobes OVERRATED Scoring.
> ...


First things first. Are you comparing Morrision to Wally Z. Or are you comparing his impact to LeBron, Kobe, Wade and Arenas?

If it's the former, that's a waste of a top 5 pick for our team given our needs. If it's the later, let's just say we can agree to disagree about your projection.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Just to sum up my viewpoint - If Morrison projects to be a #2 scorer on an NBA team, he just doesn't fit for us. We have guys like Gordon and Deng (@ the same position) that fit that bill.

I just don't see him as the main focal point on O on an championship contending NBA team on O. Just IMHO.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Just to sum up my viewpoint - If Morrison projects to be a #2 scorer on an NBA team, he just doesn't fit for us. We have guys like Gordon and Deng (@ the same position) that fit that bill.
> 
> I just don't see him as the main focal point on O on an championship contending NBA team on O. Just IMHO.


who is the main focal point on I on the Pistons? Morrison can put up 20+ppg in the NBA, Deng will never do that, Gordon may but I doubt that. If we drafted Morrison right now he would be the best offensive player we have. Watching the bulls during that Miami series the thing we need more than post players were a reliable scorer. Gordon is great 1/2 the time, Morrison can do that every game.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

If you're not emotionally invested in Adam Morrison, I don't think the Larry Bird comparison holds up. And that's not meant to diminish Adam Morrison, since I'd imagine he'll turn out to be a pretty good player, it's just that I don't think his game has that 3rd dimension like Larry Bird had. Whenever I watch him, I usually come to the same conclusion that VF does. He's always struck me as a Glenn Robinson/Wally/Dirk/Glen Rice kinda guy. A skilled shooter/scorer primarily, with a few peripheral elements to his game. Which isn't bad, but it's just not quite Larry Bird.

I think people just like to project this heroic defeat-all-odds blue collar-hero image onto him that exists in reality to an extent, but not to the degree that most people would like to think it is, and they try to caste him as something that's greater than he actually is. I imagine he'll still be a very good player though.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

4door said:


> who is the main focal point on I on the Pistons?


Who out of the Pistons' starters is defending at the level of success that Morrison will have in the NBA? 

Deng looks a whole lot more like an upgrade to Tahshawn Prince than Morrison.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Deng looks a whole lot more like an upgrade to Tahshawn Prince


How so? I'm barely seem them as equal, let alone Deng being an "upgrade" to Prince.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Who out of the Pistons' starters is defending at the level of success that Morrison will have in the NBA?
> 
> Deng looks a whole lot more like an upgrade to Tahshawn Prince than Morrison.


Deng/Prince will always be above average players, they are very good at what they do and can really help a team win games. But Morrison will be a very special player. people are really hating on him for no reason. he has this stigma as being so slow and a terrible defender, which just isn't true. on the offensive end no one has even begun to argue that morrison will be a stud putting up 20+ppg in the NBA. The worry is about his defense (his basketball IQ, leadership, team work, work ethic, intensity, competitive nature, etc are all as high as anyone else on the court and no one will argue that). So there are several things that come into play when talking about defense. 
1. size - he is 6'8, long, and 220 so he will not be undersized
2. quickness - biggest knock, less quick than many SFs but not slow like people say
3. experience - I work in the CPS and I always guard teenagers much much quicker than me but they are often times shut down because I know HOW to play defense, and most of these kids just haven't learned yet. A player like Dikembe is much much less athletic than Chandler right now but Chandler doesn't understand how to play defense. "basketball IQ" and willingness to learn and work on defense is what will make the difference with Morrison. Length/quickness/jumping does not make you a great defender, understanding how to play defense makes you a great defender.

Morrison will be a special offensive player, and an average defender (Dirk minus a few inches). That is better IMO than Deng or Prince.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

4door said:


> who is the main focal point on I on the Pistons? Morrison can put up 20+ppg in the NBA, Deng will never do that, Gordon may but I doubt that. If we drafted Morrison right now he would be the best offensive player we have. Watching the bulls during that Miami series the thing we need more than post players were a reliable scorer. Gordon is great 1/2 the time, Morrison can do that every game.



I think it is entirely possible that Deng could put up 20+ ppg.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Deng/Prince will always be above average players, they are very good at what they do and can really help a team win games. But Morrison will be a very special player. people are really hating on him for no reason. he has this stigma as being so slow and a terrible defender, which just isn't true. on the offensive end no one has even begun to argue that morrison will be a stud putting up 20+ppg in the NBA. The worry is about his defense (his basketball IQ, leadership, team work, work ethic, intensity, competitive nature, etc are all as high as anyone else on the court and no one will argue that). So there are several things that come into play when talking about defense.
> 1. size - he is 6'8, long, and 220 so he will not be undersized
> 2. quickness - biggest knock, less quick than many SFs but not slow like people say
> 3. experience - I work in the CPS and I always guard teenagers much much quicker than me but they are often times shut down because I know HOW to play defense, and most of these kids just haven't learned yet. A player like Dikembe is much much less athletic than Chandler right now but Chandler doesn't understand how to play defense. "basketball IQ" and willingness to learn and work on defense is what will make the difference with Morrison. Length/quickness/jumping does not make you a great defender, understanding how to play defense makes you a great defender.
> ...


interesting points; i'm intrigued by the possiblity of morrison as i believe his talent, moxie (read:jib) and b-ball IQ could be the ingredients for a "star".
however, i'm reserving judgment about all these guys until after the workout period when gm's and such get closer looks at these guys to see who's really going to rise to the top. i look at the deng/morrison debate somewhat like dumars did when he had prince and had the opportunity to draft carmelo anthony; all knew/felt anthony was a special talent; prince was a 4 year senior, skinny BUT had shown flashes of being something really good. dumars drafted darko, and well, we know the rest.

that stated, if none of the bigs impresses in the workouts, i just have a feeling the guy who's going to *look* like the best player available post workouts is rudy gay. that's not to say i think they *should* draft him, cause unless he looks like the big 2 everyone's salivating for, and gay's "disappearing" issues are cast aside, a minor "project" big man (LA, TT, or AB) is probably the wisest. way to go


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> interesting points; i'm intrigued by the possiblity of morrison as i believe his talent, moxie (read:jib) and b-ball IQ could be the ingredients for a "star".
> however, i'm reserving judgment about all these guys until after the workout period when gm's and such get closer looks at these guys to see who's really going to rise to the top. i look at the deng/morrison debate somewhat like dumars did when he had prince and had the opportunity to draft carmelo anthony; all knew/felt anthony was a special talent; prince was a 4 year senior, skinny BUT had shown flashes of being something really good. dumars drafted darko, and well, we know the rest.
> 
> that stated, if none of the bigs impresses in the workouts, i just have a feeling the guy who's going to *look* like the best player available post workouts is rudy gay. that's not to say i think they *should* draft him, cause unless he looks like the big 2 everyone's salivating for, and gay's "disappearing" issues are cast aside, a minor "project" big man (LA, TT, or AB) is probably the wisest. way to go


1. the workouts are tough because there is a history of guys who do well in the workouts and then crap in the league, and guys who aren't even drafted ending up better. so you never really know.

2. the Darko vs. Carmelo/Wade situation is a VERY good example. There are people on this board that would do exactly what Dumars did and I am very much against it. You don't pick inferior players to fill a need, the draft is a crap shoot, it always has and it is only getting worse. pick the best player period! trade one of your player, trade that player, keep both players but always go with talent. Pax/Skiles knows this, that is why they basically put out lineups of almost all PGs and SFs Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Noc for example, but they are the best players he has so it makes sense. ALWAYS GO WITH THE BEST PLAYER!!! And Morrison will be a 20ppg a scorer, how can we not want that?

3. I think Rudy Gay has slipped the most out of any player this year. I have heard him as low as #8 now, he used to be the #1 pick just 2 months ago. I think people will see him as a Josh Smith kind of player someone with all the physical skills in the world but needs to develop some basketball skills. no doubt he is a great athlete, but he does disapear from games, and he never demands the ball. that is why a player like Morrison is needed on the Bulls, he WANTS the ball in his hands when the clock is going down. He wants all the pressure on him, and that is something no one else in this draft or free agent class can give us.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i agree with most everything except in dumars case, i don't believe dumars believed he was taking the lesser player; milicic was a 7' talent who they could afford to let develop. the fact that larry brown et al didn't give him a chance was not talent related; nor was the idea of not taking wade or melo; billups/hamilton was a lock at guard as was the rapidly developing prince at the 3. history bears out that dumars made the right decision, no slap at darko.

re; morrison-workouts: i disagree here; most of the time the workouts are mano a mano with other top talent. the workouts are how ben gordon shot up to the #3 pick, as did wade's workout in miami being a primary reason riley didn't pass on him either. football workouts are quite different in that they don't actually play football, whereas in basketball there's scrimmages, drills, and one on one evaluations that make a world of difference. i'll agree about gay somewhat, but he's an intriguing prospect in the sense that he's the type of guy who gets GM's fired, as he'll flop completely or turn into the next tracy mcgrady.

my bottom line; *if * the bull take morrison, i won't be upset even though he's not my first choice (my gut and game evaluations tell me aldridge is a player); i'll be confident they see what i see; a guy with intangibles/immeasurables who could/might be the next larry bird.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

I think its quite simple. Deng, Nocioni and Morrison can not all be on the same roster and not have their effectiveness severely diminished. So unless Morrison knocks Paxon and Skiles' socks off to such a degree that they want to trade one of their favourite players, it isnt going to happen. I lineup of Hinrich, Gordon and Morrison is far from viable on the defensive end. They'd get killed by all the contending teams. Drafting Morrison would have to be done with some major trades envolving some of our best players. That would take a lot of balls to do for a guy that has argueable NBA adaptability.

Morrison could work really well for the Bobcats beside Wallace.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

mgolding said:


> I think its quite simple. Deng, Nocioni and Morrison can not all be on the same roster and not have their effectiveness severely diminished. So unless Morrison knocks Paxon and Skiles' socks off to such a degree that they want to trade one of their favourite players, it isnt going to happen. I lineup of Hinrich, Gordon and Morrison is far from viable on the defensive end. They'd get killed by all the contending teams. Drafting Morrison would have to be done with some major trades envolving some of our best players. That would take a lot of balls to do for a guy that has argueable NBA adaptability.
> 
> Morrison could work really well for the Bobcats beside Wallace.



morrison/gordon will be average defenders, Hinrich is above average. This "morrison can't play Defense" is a joke, but i like to hear it because I can't wait to bring these posts back up in a year...ha ha. hopefully he proves you wrong as a bull. And like I said before, Nocioni will probably be gone in a year!!! Why would he not go to the Spurs? His whole national team will be playing there by then, he will be a full-time started on a championship team who can pay him as much as the Bulls (MLE...Bulls can't go much more if they are going to re-sign Deng also). Also, weather/culture will be closer to Argentina. So if we know he will be leaving, doesn't Morrison become a need not just best available player?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

4door said:


> morrison/gordon will be average defenders, Hinrich is above average. This "morrison can't play Defense" is a joke, but i like to hear it because I can't wait to bring these posts back up in a year...ha ha. hopefully he proves you wrong as a bull. And like I said before, Nocioni will probably be gone in a year!!! Why would he not go to the Spurs? His whole national team will be playing there by then, he will be a full-time started on a championship team who can pay him as much as the Bulls (MLE...Bulls can't go much more if they are going to re-sign Deng also). Also, weather/culture will be closer to Argentina. So if we know he will be leaving, doesn't Morrison become a need not just best available player?


I believe Nocioni will be a restricted free agent next year, which means the Bulls can match any offer and keep him. In any case, they have his Bird rights which means they can offer him as much as they like, regardless of cap considerations.

So, unless San Antonio gets significantly under the cap, which is very unlikely, Nocioni won't be leaving unless the Bulls don't want him.

Morrison makes sense if the Bulls have a trade for the ever rumored available Garnett in mind :

Morrison, Chandler,Gordon and 2nd round pics for Garnett.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

4door said:


> who is the main focal point on I on the Pistons? *Morrison can put up 20+ppg in the NBA*, Deng will never do that, Gordon may but I doubt that. If we drafted Morrison right now he would be the best offensive player we have. Watching the bulls during that Miami series the thing we need more than post players were a reliable scorer. Gordon is great 1/2 the time, *Morrison can do that every game*.




i'll believe _that_ when i see it.

in light of skiles' interview on the radio saying the bulls would most likely take the best player available when they pick i doubt if it's morrison. i see tyrus or aldridge with the knicks pick and not morrison (he'll be long gone) with the 16. 

*i also think that deng could absolutely put up 20+ ppg - plus he will always be a better defender.*

just wait until deng has a complete off season of weight and strength training (like he was unable to have last summer) before dismissing him so quickly!!

and how exactly do you "know" nocioni will go to the spurs? its all just speculation at this point. and from the quotes i read from pax at the end of the season, nocioni will be a redbull for many, many more years!


EDIT: i can see the point mcbulls is making about a possible trade though. the only way morrison gets picked by the bulls is to pull a blockbuster trade. but even then, i have my doubts.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Hasn't anybody learned from these types of comparisons in the past. 

Bargnani is the next Dirk like Skita was the next Dirk
Morrison is the next Bird 
Harold Miner is the next MJ
Kobe is the next MJ
LeBron is the next Magic

Don't draft players based on what their ceiling is, draft them based on what they've done and their natural ability. Watch lots of games and how they play against different opponents. Study their mental makeup. That being said, I'd prefer Aldridge and Thomas to Morrison largely because we need somebody who can score down low. Right after the tournament I was in favor of drafting Thomas, but Aldridge is what we need more. A guy who can score with his back to the basket, rebound, and block shots. Thomas is going to be good, but Aldridge will be equally as good with an actual post game. I'd try to trade the pick if Morrison was the last guy left, but wouldn't be hurt if we took him, because I see him as a 20 ppg scorer in the L simply because of his almost superhuman ability to get his shot off under any circumstance which is very important in the NBA.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I believe Nocioni will be a restricted free agent next year, which means the Bulls can match any offer and keep him. In any case, they have his Bird rights which means they can offer him as much as they like, regardless of cap considerations.
> 
> So, unless San Antonio gets significantly under the cap, which is very unlikely, Nocioni won't be leaving unless the Bulls don't want him.
> 
> ...


these ideas for Garnett are just plain stupid. he couldn't win a title with in his 20s with tons of talent around him, you want to give up our #1 pick, our best big man, and our #1 scorer and put Garnett around 2 point guards, 2 small forwards and the weakest bench in the NBA. we would win as many games as Minny did this year. I mean come on! Garnett can not do it alone!


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I believe Nocioni will be a restricted free agent next year, which means the Bulls can match any offer and keep him. In any case, they have his Bird rights which means they can offer him as much as they like, regardless of cap considerations.
> 
> So, unless San Antonio gets significantly under the cap, which is very unlikely, Nocioni won't be leaving unless the Bulls don't want him.
> 
> ...



hoopshype has him as as an unrestricted free agent, he was not drafted so he does not have a rookie contract. he will be gone after next season to the spurs, you can count on that. unless we decide we want to throw big money at Noc and not Deng, if that is the case why not pick morrison and trade deng now? can't sign both...curry/chandler proved that last summer.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> i'll believe _that_ when i see it.
> 
> in light of skiles' interview on the radio saying the bulls would most likely take the best player available when they pick i doubt if it's morrison. i see tyrus or aldridge with the knicks pick and not morrison (he'll be long gone) with the 16.
> 
> ...


Deng is much like Prince in the fact that he doesn't care if he puts up huge numbers, he just wants to win and plays in the flow of the game. He was not even the #1 scorer on his HIGH SCHOOL TEAM, he was 3rd or 4th option on his COLLEGE TEAM, he is 3rd or 4th option IN THE NBA, what makes you think that he can be or wants to be a teams go-to scorer? It takes more than talent, it is just a different approach to the game, Deng does not approach the game as a scorer and Morrison does. He has always been the #1 guy on his team, he wants the ball and calls for it. Every team needs a guy who can just take over, Deng can't do that because he doesn't want to, Morrison does. That is why I like Morrison more than Deng, we need a #1 scorer. If we had a superstar Deng would be a perfect teammate, but we need a 20ppg scorer and Morrison is the only one in the draft and there isn't one in the free agent class (Harrington can put up 18ppg as long as he is playing on the worst team in the NBA).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

1st lets evaluate the players involved.

Luol Deng , agood scorer , very good defender, good rebounder great teammate, the kind of player every team needs , but in my opinion will not make or break the bulls especially with nocioni around.

Morrison possibly a great player in the glen robinson/chris mullin(sorry deng is more birdlike than morrison, bird rebounded passed and was an unstoppable scorer) mold with great intangibles, but not likely to really be an asset much without the ball in his hands , so if he isn't a superstar he will wind up being an overpaid although efficient jumpshooter who can score much like a van horn, tim thomas, jalen rose or wally z.

i personally wouldn't bother getting morrison with the interior problems the bulls have, but with all things being equal i would take a chance on him. ben gordon is basically what he is , but he appears unable to take a step towards a true star in the nbasince he cant seem to play more than 30 min. a game a star should be at 35 minutes because his team needs him that much...i watch the suns play and i think his impact could be replaced with tim thomas of all people no problem. and since gordon is the bulls resident go to guy if the bulls were ok inside i'd go for him ....but the bulls aren't and deng is plenty good so it really isn't worth taking the chance.

da grinch says no to adam


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

Morrisons rookie year, I think Deng will be better, he has more talent I believe too for a NBA player.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

NeTs15VC said:


> Morrisons rookie year, I think Deng will be better, he has more talent I believe too for a NBA player.



I believe Morrison will have a better year in many areas than Deng next year even though Deng has more experience (but younger). Does anyone want to bet me that Morrison averages more points per game than Deng does next year? I'll bet tickets to 1 game. any takers??? I really believe morrison is a special player, Glenn Robinson with heart is a good comparison, but if Glenn Robinson had heart he would have been a HOF player (even though his 20ppg was nothing to laugh at). In 10 years we will all be laughing at those people who said that they "didn't need Adam Morrison." No he won't be Bird, just like Wade won't be Jordan but they will be special in their own way and only a fool would turn away talent like that because he doesn't fit into "your plans." One injury, one trade, one signing and those plans are gone. Always pick the best player, and his name is Adam Morrison.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

4door said:


> I started this thread hoping people would debate if Deng or Morrison will be the better player in the future, but instead it like always turns into people bashing Morrison for "being too slow" "bad defense" etc. Well that is ok, but do any of you fear that we will lose Noc to San Antonio after next year? he is unrestricted and SA will have a low salary cap and 1/2 of Noc's national team playing for him. The climate/culture is probably more similar to his country also. If we lose Noc doesn't that create a need that Morrison would fill?


San Antonio won't have cap room and we'll own his bird rights 

I doubt he goes anywhere


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> San Antonio won't have cap room and we'll own his bird rights
> 
> I doubt he goes anywhere


the bulls/spurs will both offer him the whole MLE, that will be the max the spurs can offer and the bulls won't want to offer more because they will have to sign Deng/Gordon the next year and they will have to re-sign Hinrich/Duhnon next summer. If the money is the same, why would Noc not want to play with his national team +Parker/Duncan and win titles instead of make the playoffs in Chicago? Noc even seems like the kind of guy who would take a pay cut to win a title, remember the will also have Scola on their team also, so that is 4 players from the national team, I have heard rumors of them signing Walter Hermann also, so that would pretty much be their whole team!


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

The Bulls will have a dilemma in the draft because they need size in the worst possible way so they may be forced to draft a player like LaMarcus Aldridge, but it will be tough to pass on a player like Adam Morrison. Morrison is a special talent. He and Dwyane Wade are the two best pure scorers I've seen on the college level in the last 5-10 years. He has the total offensive reportoire and can do virtually whatever he wants on the floor, especially when his jumper is falling. It's rare to find 6'8 players with his skill-set. Deng is a quality player and a better defender than Morrison, but he doesn't have the type of toughness or killer instinct you look for in a go-to player. Morrison has a tremendous killer-instinct. He's very aggressive and lives to rip the heart out of the opposition. Most importantly he projects into being a franchise-player and go-to scorer, which the Bulls currently lack. I'm not sure what they'll do, but in my opinion Morrison is the safest pick in the draft.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Morrison did in his 4th year what Carmelo Anthony did in 1. I'm not high on O'B either to be honest. I'm a Knicks fan but I've watched the bulls a bit. I want the Knicks to take Tyrus Thomas BAD but I see the Bulls seriously looking at him #1 2 or 3 because he is a freak who will be sick defensively. Chandler and Tyrus defensively would be pure domination. Offensively that would be an interesting pair to watch develop as well.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

knicksfan said:


> Morrison did in his 4th year what Carmelo Anthony did in 1. I'm not high on O'B either to be honest. I'm a Knicks fan but I've watched the bulls a bit. I want the Knicks to take Tyrus Thomas BAD but I see the Bulls seriously looking at him #1 2 or 3 because he is a freak who will be sick defensively. Chandler and Tyrus defensively would be pure domination. Offensively that would be an interesting pair to watch develop as well.



#1 you are a knicks fan, so I hate you (not really, just your team)

#2 Morrison was a junior not a senior

#3 Anthony had a better team around him and didn't put up 28ppg, he never had the heart of Morrison/basketball IQ/desire/team work/etc.

#4 Chandler can't dominate when he is on the bench with 4 fouls. He has a 60M contract, do you want him for Mo Taylor/D. Lee? We would waive Taylor so you can have him back if you want. You guys can recreate the Tim Floyd Era Chicago Bulls, I think Marcus Fizer is free, he could use a whole MLE.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

4door said:


> #3 Anthony had a better team around him and didn't put up 28ppg


Yep, he put up 22 as a frosh. As a frosh (and 10 months older comparatively), Morrison was putting up half that.

Melo blocked about as many shots in his frosh year as Morrison did in his career. 

As a frosh, Melo has more assists than Morrison's Jr year and the same turnovers. Also had 2x as many bounds.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/anthoca01.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15399

*Here is the kicker - Melo is all of 2 months older than Morrison

Deng is 10 months younger than Morrision*


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

don't know where to post it, so i'm thinking i might as well post it here: morrison is a really fun guy for me to follow, and i can only believe it'll grow from here when he becomes a pro.

i acknowledge all the criticisms of his game, as well as the fans who boast of it, but none of his 'traits' really matter to me. he just seems so... unique (for lack of a better term) and i wouldn't be surprised to see him succeed/fail because of it. i can't imagine him being a star at the nba level because of his overly 'normal' physical gifts, i can't imagine him being a bust because of his fire and commitment, i can't imagine him just playing a role because... well, he's not your typical "instant offense" weapon and he certainly won't be washing the glass with his rebounding or scrubbing the floors with his defense, but i also see him as having too _much_ value for such a limited role anyway.

in other words, he doesn't fit no matter how i look at him. i'd love to see the guy prove everybody wrong and become something/someone this league has never seen before (be it good or bad). such a unique prospect, imo.

peace


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Yep, he put up 22 as a frosh. As a frosh (and 10 months older comparatively), Morrison was putting up half that.
> 
> Melo blocked about as many shots in his frosh year as Morrison did in his career.
> 
> ...


and melo came out as a 20ppg scorer, just as I see Morrison being. Morrison is a much better shooter, higher basketball IQ, better teammate, and will work harder than Melo, but Melo is more athletic and will grab more boards and blocks. Melo is a similar player to me as Glenn Robinson, check out his stats in college. but he never became great not because of physical skills but desire. i don't know if melo has the desire to be the best player he can be, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

4door said:


> and melo came out as a 20ppg scorer, just as I see Morrison being. Morrison is a much better shooter, higher basketball IQ, better teammate, and will work harder than Melo, but Melo is more athletic and will grab more boards and blocks. Melo is a similar player to me as Glenn Robinson, check out his stats in college. but he never became great not because of physical skills but desire. i don't know if melo has the desire to be the best player he can be, but that is just my opinion.


how in the world is it possible to throw so many stereotypes out at once ...ones that aren't all true by the way.

melo works plenty hard in his time in the nba he has worked on his body and become a much better athlete he runs and jumps much better than he did as a frosh in syr.

i dont know morrison is a smarter player than melo , if they never fed melo he would still get near 20 a game because he scores in so many ways, in the nba morrison might really only have his jumpshot, while anthony can post up, off.rebound , get out on the break, isolate and hit spot up j's .

there is no telling if morrison can even make a solid transition to the pro's because his body is so mediocre for the nba, and do get me started on defense no amount of knowledge is going to help him , if he wasn't a standout at it on the college level than i have serious doubts he will be anything but a liability on it in the pro's.

and glenn robinson never became great because his game was limited , he never had the kind of handle or passing ability a guy like grant hill had so it limited what he could do as a scorer and a focal point.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

4door said:


> and melo came out as a 20ppg scorer, just as I see Morrison being. Morrison is a much better shooter, higher basketball IQ, better teammate, and will work harder than Melo, but Melo is more athletic and will grab more boards and blocks.


How the heck is Morrison the better teammate and higher bball IQ? Morrison only averaged 1.8 assist per game. He was mainly a good teammate by putting the ball in the hole. All of Melo's teammates are wearing NCAA championship rings. That's a good teammate. In 3 years, Morrison couldn't get his crew to the Final 4.



4door said:


> Melo is a similar player to me as Glenn Robinson, check out his stats in college. but he never became great not because of physical skills but desire. i don't know if melo has the desire to be the best player he can be, but that is just my opinion.


Actually, looks like Glen Robinson's stats are much more similar to Morrison's in college. 30 ppg.Robinson being a much bette rebounder.

Isn't this poor Robinson \ Antonthey comparison done. Melo had a better year at age 21 in the pros than Robinsonn ever had. Robinson was a scoring machine in college (30ppg) at the same age as Melo's past fantastic year in the pros. Who does that sound like?


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> how in the world is it possible to throw so many stereotypes out at once ...ones that aren't all true by the way.
> 
> melo works plenty hard in his time in the nba he has worked on his body and become a much better athlete he runs and jumps much better than he did as a frosh in syr.
> 
> ...



1. yes melo worked on his body because he was out of shape. he was being paid millions of dollars and he didn't put in the same effort as others to get his body in the best possible shape, that tells me something about a player. morrison has diabetes and is almost insane with his eating habits, he eats the exact same food at the exact same times to control his blood sugar. people think he is some stiff, like he is so slow but they are totally wrong. he is an average athlete, a great player, and as hard of a worker as anyone else in the game. for some reason because he got so much press, people started to hate him for some reason, I mean I'm not saying JJ Reddick will be an all-star, but I never understood the negative views of such a good player.

2. i love hearing people who say that morrison is only a jumpshooter, because then I either know that they haven't watched him very much (maybe a game or two) or they know nothing about basketball. I love hearing because I feel like I don't have to debate anymore because I can't ever prove anything either way, so I just quit trying.

3. Melo and Morrison are different players, I agree that Melo will go more in the paint and post up than Morrison, but I don't really see how that makes one better than the other. Syracuse and Gonzaga just ran two totally different offenses, it benefited both players, i don't exactly see your point but good job of looking up stats and linking them. I will agree that Melo had a great run as a freshman, and I take nothing away from that. 

4. you don't want to get started about defense, so I too won't get started. I know for a fact that basketball is 90% knowledge of the game, and I agree Morrison has to work on his defense but knowing the kind of player he is and his work ethic I don't see why he can not continue to improve on this area. But I guess all players just finish maturing in college and never improve on anything, so i won't get started either.


5. I personally watched a heck of alot of Purdue games with Glenn Robinson just killing people, he was the most dominant scorer in college that I may have ever seen. Everything with that guy was mental, his skills were good enough to make him a 20ppg player but he didn't want to make himself great, he didn't want to pass the ball, he didn't want to learn anything else, all he wanted to do was score. he had all the physical skills to do anything he wanted in the NBA, he just didn't have the desire to do it. that is what seperated guys like Robinson from Morrison. also their games were very different, but both could score at will.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

4door said:


> 1. yes melo worked on his body because he was out of shape. he was being paid millions of dollars and he didn't put in the same effort as others to get his body in the best possible shape, that tells me something about a player. morrison has diabetes and is almost insane with his eating habits, he eats the exact same food at the exact same times to control his blood sugar. people think he is some stiff, like he is so slow but they are totally wrong. he is an average athlete, a great player, and as hard of a worker as anyone else in the game. for some reason because he got so much press, people started to hate him for some reason, I mean I'm not saying JJ Reddick will be an all-star, but I never understood the negative views of such a good player.
> 
> 2. i love hearing people who say that morrison is only a jumpshooter, because then I either know that they haven't watched him very much (maybe a game or two) or they know nothing about basketball. I love hearing because I feel like I don't have to debate anymore because I can't ever prove anything either way, so I just quit trying.
> 
> ...


1.melo was in good enough shape to lead his college team to a title, if adam came out as a junior in melo's draft there is no doubt morrison would be drafted after anthony....because its a certainty if melo was in this draft he would go #1. and if was not in shape how could he dominate the college level?

2.i said he might only be a jumpshooter , there is no guarentee he will be a star at all, he isn't athletic enough to really do much but score, he doesn't handle or pass well enough to be a point forward , his 1st step is not at the level of basically any star 3. not a gifted boarder runner or rebounder. i'm not calling him a stiff but if he cant be an elite scorer he might not be much more than that because there is no way to say his game translates, plenty of guys who were pure shooters in college couldn't get the space they needed to be dominant in the pro's.

3.going inside is an option , if morrison's J isn't going that day what does he do ? melo goes inside , runs the floor , plays the passing lane, gets offensive boards when his J isn't working, its better to be able to go in than not be able, period.

4.quick question can knowledge help morrison lock t-mac or LBJ? i dont think it can, these guys are the best in the world , you can have all the scouting reports in the world , know their tendencies watch film on them and the guys still drops 40 on you . morrison isn't considered a good defender in college, (where are all his bball smarts on this side of the floor i wonder) what makes anyone think he is going to be a good defender in the pro's, truthfully there is no proof he can defend the jalen rose's of the world.

5. glenn robinson dropped 21.9 pts 6.4 reb. 2.5 ast. shot 45% from the field with 1.44 steals his rookie year .

i think there is more than a good chance adam matches none of those stats his 1st year, something to think about when you are comparing robinson in such a bad light seeing how its almost a sure thing his rookie year will be superior to morrison's.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't know too many people who can defend T-Mac, Lebron, or Kobe. Sure, Artest and Bowen have that ability, but those players will still get their 20+ points becasue those players know how to get their shots off against superb defenders, and they make those shots. How many T-Macs, Lebrons, and Kobes are there in the NBA?

Morrison has proven, at the Division I level, to be able to get his shots and get those shots against the more prestigious programs in the nation. Players that don't have superior athleticism learn how to get by on craftiness and creativity. And though the number of those types of players is relatively small, Morrison already proved he can get by. There aren't too many players coming out of college who already have developed a very effective fadeaway jumper, and Morrison has. Plus, he was the focal point of opposing defenses every night, getting double- and triple-teams many times over. Say Morrison were on the Bulls. Does one really think Morrison will constantly be getting double-teams when there are proven shooters like Hinrich, Gordon, and Nocioni on the floor with him?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> I don't know too many people who can defend T-Mac, Lebron, or Kobe.


i don't think that's the whole issue.

On our team who does he guard on the Wiz? The Pistons? The Nets?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Morrison has proven, at the Division I level, to be able to get his shots and get those shots against the more prestigious programs in the nation.


Of Morrison's peers, the best guys, Prestigious programs or not, were playing in the pros. Ala Melo and LeBron and Deng.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> I don't know too many people who can defend T-Mac, Lebron, or Kobe. Sure, Artest and Bowen have that ability, but those players will still get their 20+ points becasue those players know how to get their shots off against superb defenders, and they make those shots. How many T-Macs, Lebrons, and Kobes are there in the NBA?
> 
> Morrison has proven, at the Division I level, to be able to get his shots and get those shots against the more prestigious programs in the nation. Players that don't have superior athleticism learn how to get by on craftiness and creativity. And though the number of those types of players is relatively small, Morrison already proved he can get by. There aren't too many players coming out of college who already have developed a very effective fadeaway jumper, and Morrison has. Plus, he was the focal point of opposing defenses every night, getting double- and triple-teams many times over. Say Morrison were on the Bulls. Does one really think Morrison will constantly be getting double-teams when there are proven shooters like Hinrich, Gordon, and Nocioni on the floor with him?


did he ?

what do uconn, memp, ucla and the u of wash. have in common?

all have good nba level defenders at small forward( gay , carney, afflalo and roy) all are good nba caliber athletes and they were the 4 teams that beat gonzaga this year, i would say they are the 4 best defenders morrison faced this past season . 

i dont know if its really possible to be so sure his skills can translate at the next level. i'm not saying they cant but people seem so sure of something that is anything but a sure thing.

every college star is the focal point of opposing Defenses it doesn't make them a star at the next level , quincy douby avg. like 24 points a game in the big east this past season and most of the attributes people put on morrison would apply to him as well....the thing is this its not really about what you do at the college level its what you do and are projected to do in the pro's.

also there is this point the bulls are built on defense 1st having a sieve at an important scoring position for bulls could prove dangerous to the team make up , its not like kirk or ben can be expected to come over and switch on your avg. 3 if they are lighting morrison up.

also the bulls run an offense that is based on kickouts and isolations i cant really see morrison being too adept at either especially early in his career, he would be reduced to a spot up shooter in the bulls offense because unlike luol or nocioni he isn't really an whirling dervish who picks up points with rebounding running the break or hustle plays as well as on kickouts.

if the bulls pick up morrison they would have to build an offense around him....i dont know i'm comfortable with that idea.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I don't know if Morrison can play defense...he NEVER played any defense in college. If we draft him, I don't believe he will start for a Scott Skiles team. I keep hearing, drive and IQ but he never passes the ball unless he gets stopped by a defender, he plays no defense and is slow as molasses. The difference between Gordan and Morrison on the defensive end is Gordon has the athletic ability to be a good defender...Morrison has the athletic ability to be below average defender. Morrison is a less athletic Keith Van Horne/Wally S. Actually before Keith got hurt, he was a very good basketball player. I don't believe we need another player who plays below the rim. We lose games because of a lack of size, athleticism and experience, not because of a lack of scoring. 

question for 4door...do you believe Morrison will have to be double teamed to be stopped? If the answer is no, then we don't need Morrison. If he doesn't have to be double teamed like Wade, Kobe, Pierce etc...can't guard anybody, doesn't pass, can't rebound, too slow to beat any small forward in the league down the floor, then what makes him special??? He can shoot but so can Deng, Gordon, Kirk, Noc etc...


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Noce is better than both of them. I say the minute you lock him in for 6 mill a year (should you get that lucky) you immediately start shopping Deng for whatever it is you need, cause Deng will bring back a lot more than Noce, but IMO will never be as good and will demand more in pay than Andres. People need to realize that Noce is about to establish himself as the Ginobili of SFs. IMO a BRILLIANT move by Paxson. When it comes to signing Noce I don't think you could praise John Paxson enough, kinda like the Duhon pick.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> 1.melo was in good enough shape to lead his college team to a title, if adam came out as a junior in melo's draft there is no doubt morrison would be drafted after anthony....because its a certainty if melo was in this draft he would go #1. and if was not in shape how could he dominate the college level?
> 
> 2.i said he might only be a jumpshooter , there is no guarentee he will be a star at all, he isn't athletic enough to really do much but score, he doesn't handle or pass well enough to be a point forward , his 1st step is not at the level of basically any star 3. not a gifted boarder runner or rebounder. i'm not calling him a stiff but if he cant be an elite scorer he might not be much more than that because there is no way to say his game translates, plenty of guys who were pure shooters in college couldn't get the space they needed to be dominant in the pro's.
> 
> ...



you brought up Melo, I think they are different players, but if your theory is that Morrison didn't do what Melo did as a Freshman so Morrison will be a bad player, that is just crazy. Glenn Robinson always put up good numbers but never won games. he looked like a HOF player when he first came out but he never had the desire to be the best he can be, and he never brought his game up to the next level when the game really mattered. And as far as Lebron and TMac, there aren't very many people in the world that can defend those guys. so who do you think we should take...do you think Thomas/Aldridge could stop Shaq or Amare? I mean come on??? We have to pick the best available player and i think that is Morrison, if you don't like him that is personal but to say we shouldn't pick him because his stats are not as good as Glenn Robinson in college is just plain stupid.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

4door said:


> the bulls/spurs will both offer him the whole MLE, that will be the max the spurs can offer and the bulls won't want to offer more because they will have to sign Deng/Gordon the next year and they will have to re-sign Hinrich/Duhnon next summer. If the money is the same, why would Noc not want to play with his national team +Parker/Duncan and win titles instead of make the playoffs in Chicago? Noc even seems like the kind of guy who would take a pay cut to win a title, remember the will also have Scola on their team also, so that is 4 players from the national team, I have heard rumors of them signing Walter Hermann also, so that would pretty much be their whole team!


Noc will have to be re-signed next year with Kirk. Duhon, Deng, and Gordon the following year. Unless you are talking about a contract extension this offseason to Noc, but I didn't think that's what you were intending.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

4door said:


> you brought up Melo, I think they are different players, but if your theory is that Morrison didn't do what Melo did as a Freshman so Morrison will be a bad player, that is just crazy. Glenn Robinson always put up good numbers but never won games. he looked like a HOF player when he first came out but he never had the desire to be the best he can be, and he never brought his game up to the next level when the game really mattered. And as far as Lebron and TMac, there aren't very many people in the world that can defend those guys. so who do you think we should take...do you think Thomas/Aldridge could stop Shaq or Amare? I mean come on??? We have to pick the best available player and i think that is Morrison, if you don't like him that is personal but to say we shouldn't pick him because his stats are not as good as Glenn Robinson in college is just plain stupid.



actually you couldn't be more wrong , yourself, johnston797 and knicksfan all posted about carmelo in the last couple of pages before i ever did.( i didn't care to back further to see if others were doing it )

you are the one comparing melo and glenn robinson in a negative light to morrison when both robinson and anthony were better college players than morrison and likely to at least be better pro's initially if not for their entire careers.

how do you know what glenn robinson's motivations were and melo's for that matter and yet that morrison will be some sort of workaholic ....as i've said melo was in good enough shape to lead his team further and be a better player than morrison in college and the he worked on his body and game and got even better...significantly better . if morrison is such a hard worker and they weren't why at the same points in their development were they better than him?

melo and morrison are the same age and carmelo is avg. 26 points agame in the pro's i doubt very much if melo was in college he couldn't get 28 especially since was already getting 22 as a frosh , just like i doubt very much if morrison was a nugget the last few years he could get 26 .

and i have said that if morrison isn't going to be an elite scorer(read melo -lebron-t-mac-kobe) level worthy of the bulls focusing their offense around him , they are better off just going for a big because thats where the team's weakness is...they have gordon as its resident sharpshooter and deng is plenty good enough and a more well rounded player...morrison is uneeded duplication.

if morrison were so good he would be considered the only franchise player in this draft at this point its very easy to see him going 3rd -5th depending on the ping pong balls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This seems like the Morrison "fan boy" thread. I don't think Morrisson is going to make the transition to the NBA nearly as well as some people seem to think. He isn't that atheletic, he is slow footed, a very poor defender, all of those things will cause him to struggle in the NBA. He may be able to figure those things out in time but I wouldn't bet the farm on it and thats exactly what the Bulls would be doing if they drafted him IMO.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> This seems like the Morrison "fan boy" thread. I don't think Morrisson is going to make the transition to the NBA nearly as well as some people seem to think. He isn't that atheletic, he is slow footed, a very poor defender, all of those things will cause him to struggle in the NBA. He may be able to figure those things out in time but I wouldn't bet the farm on it and thats exactly what the Bulls would be doing if they drafted him IMO.



what *ace* said. 


:greatjob:


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> This seems like the Morrison "fan boy" thread. I don't think Morrisson is going to make the transition to the NBA nearly as well as some people seem to think. He isn't that atheletic, he is slow footed, a very poor defender, all of those things will cause him to struggle in the NBA. He may be able to figure those things out in time but I wouldn't bet the farm on it and thats exactly what the Bulls would be doing if they drafted him IMO.


The only way I draft Morrison is if we are planning a draft day trade.

I'm lower on Morrison than most as a NBA talent, and he doesn't make sense at all to me on the Bulls given our current group of players.

A better rebounding version of Wally-world I think is a fair comparison. Morrison may end up worse defensively too.


----------

