# Pax made a huge mistake



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Michael Beasley is an absolute monster. He's a perennial All-Star and a potential top-10 guy. He's enormously efficient, rebounds like a 7-footer and can knock down any shot out to 23'. He muscles inside, takes SFs off the dribble from the perimeter, runs the floor effortlessly, finishes with power and efficiency, and can grab a board and take it the length of the court ala Pippen. On top of all this is the fact that he has no problems dishing to teammates and takes pride in making the smart pass, and he can bring it defensively with his athleticism and his ability to anticipate. Tonight's Heat-Bulls match is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the value he'll add to his team. NBA front offices are developing anti-Beasley strategies as we speak.

As good as Rose is, he's nowhere near the complete talent that Beasley is -- and he isn't in the same area code in terms of overall effect on the game. I've seen almost every game each has played in college, and I've seen each play live (Mario Chalmers contained Rose in the NCAA Championship -- and it wasn't even Chalmers' best defensive game of the postseason...Rose only scored when Chalmers wasn't in the game tonight). As good as Kansas was this past year, and for all the resources they concentrated on Beasley, KU still couldn't contain him. Beasley was injured, barely played in the first half at Allen Fieldhouse and he still finished with a breathtaking 39/11...and he made it look like he barely broke a sweat. The extremely recent Big XII exploits of Kevin Durant look like an afterthought in comparison. And, quite frankly, Durant's numbers aren't nearly as impressive (to his credit, as if anyone needed a refresher, Durant was a monster as well and, until Beasley came to Kansas State, the most impressive freshman in NCAA history from a statistical point of view).

My questions for Pax:

1. When you already have a very good, experienced backcourt, and when your roster features a young, inexperienced frontcourt, HOW do you pass on one of the single best frontcourt talents the NCAA has ever seen?

2. Who has more immediate trading power -- Michael Beasley, or Hinrich/Gordon?

3. Did the media hype/pressure around Rose affect your decision?

4. The odds that Beasley becomes a superstar are better than the odds that Rose becomes a superstar. Moreover, the odds that Beasley becomes a superstar early in his career are better than the odds that Rose becomes a superstar midway through his career. Knowing this, how do you select Rose over Beasley?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

You could be right... Beasley definitely schooled us today, and looked quite smooth doing it. He does look better than Durant to me, and I consider that a decent sized compliment.

I guess the only answer is a bit cliche, but it really was just one summer league game... when Rose decided to get to the basket, he did... that has considerable value and will get him to the line consistently, something we've lacked. I feel like Rose was deferring to his teammates a lot early, and honestly, his teammates were offensively-challenged... 

He challenged shots on defense and looked like he was floating on air when he went up for a few of those layups...

Beasley is definitely a stud, there's no getting around that... but I think Rose will be an impact player in ways that may or may not show up on the stat sheet... even if Beasley is better, it may not be a "huge mistake".


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

i think its absurd to make this thread at this point. its 1 summer league game. BUT, i agree.



ive said it all along. beasley is that guy who has all star potential in the least amount of time. he was the better player than rose from those workouts. beasley is immensely talented and its undeniable from day one. he's just the complete package. 



again, too early to tell but im willing to go out on a limb that 3-4 yrs from now when most rookies real potential is realized, beasley is going to produce better numbers than rose.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

God dammit my post didnt go through 

Summarised: I agree, but think its too early to make this judgement call - even though your basing it off a years worth of stuff. Will Chicago fans be left thinking 'What if?'.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I've watched college hoops religiously for the last 20 years of my life. Never have I seen a talent like Beasley. And he was my arch-enemy, playing for Kansas State (I'm a Kansas alum)...but I have to give credit where credit is due. He has that combination of quickness, anticipation, coordination, shooting ability, court vision, body control and fearlessness that only comes along once in a long, long, long time. I hate him for saying he'd beat KU this year (he did, once), but I completely respect him. At least he's not wearing purple anymore.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Explain.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Wow, who had the over under on less than 1 NBA game?

I've got no problem with Rose, and always thought highly of Beasley.

The real issue isn't wasn't Rose the right selection...............

Cause I totally agree that PAXSON MAKES MONUMENTAL MISTAKES...........but they were in drafting Tyrus Swift and Blowit Noah..........

Worse part is that we aren't gonna be able to fix the frontcourt easily.

I will say that Gooden may ease the hurt. Tyrus should've concerned everyone today and so should Noah. Not because they suck, which Noah does, but because they haven't progressed at all. Tyrus, where is this so called development? Noah, he's just all talk, no walk.

It's one game...........but VDN has to be wondering what he's gonna do at the Center position.

The other reason you can't judge Rose - there is a legitimate scorer on the Bulls Summer League Squad. Angain..........I agree Paxson made a huge mistake...........in assembling his summer league roster too.

Paxson is a walking GM mistake.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

I respect you as a poster Vincent, so I know your not a sensationalist type that gets caught up in the hype. As a Heat fan, I am ecstatic that we managed to get Beasley and feel he's gonna be a very good player for us. How good? only time will tell...but he made a mockery of every defense thrown at him last season (besides Xavier )


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I've been saying this all along, but Paxson had a no brainer decision, and he ended up ****ing up anyhow. The perimeter has been our strength, with Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni leading us to the playoffs 3 of the past 4 years, with no front court help whatsoever (Malik Allen, Othella Harrington, Ben Wallace, PJ Brown, Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah)...the only real decent play we've had was every other game from Wallace, Chandler's defense and rebounding (although he completely sucked on offense), and Gooden's 18 games or so. Our frontcourt is hot garbage. You have one player, in Beasley who fills a need. Rose is just a luxury. You have one guy, Michael Beasley, who dominated ALL OF THE TIME, and one guy, Derrick Rose, who dominated for FIVE MINUTES IN A GAME HE LOSS. Michael Beasley was the best freshman (statistically speaking) in the history of the NCAA. 

I still don't know how we did not come out of this draft with Michael Beasley. The damn lottery was the Michael Beasley lottery, to decide who gets to take Michael Beasley. 

Not to mention, we just built a contender in Miami. Does Rose/Wade really scare anyone? Two guys with poor jumpshots, that both need to dominate the ball to be effective? They could be pretty decent...but lets go ship off the perfect complement for Wade down to Miami so he can go back to the NBA Finals as early as this year...great idea Pax! Now we not only have to go through Lebron, Dwight, the Celts Trio...but also Wade/Beasley...BRILLIANT!

Michael Beasley is going to be a superstar, and will probably be an allstar this year, and the next 12 years. We can only hope that Derrick Rose becomes something close to as good as Beasley.

And I say this, as someone whose dream the past few years was to trade Hinrich for anything.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MB30 said:


> he made a mockery of every defense thrown at him last season


That's exactly my point. Defenses tried everything, including the dimaond-and-one, throwing hackers at him, and the triple-team (saw that more on him than on Durant), and they still couldn't contain Beasley. He tore every team and every defender he faced to shreds -- and he wasn't playing in the MAC, the Big East or the overrated PAC-10. He did it against the best of the best -- the Big XII this season -- repeatedly. The dude simply knows how to score and rebound regardless of the situation...this sounds cliche, but he's like a shark who doesn't care about its prey -- he just feeds. He's that good. I just don't know how you can pass up on a talent like that. I really can't. Pax, you make me cry.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Guys, it's one freaking summer league game. 

Rose is 19. He could be anything.

Beasely is 19 too, but his strength is something he can do right now. Score. Rose's strength is the toughest thing to do in basketball - run a team.


So today's result will mislead. Also, you guys need to stop pretending Beasely shot 90% from the field today.

He took a lot of shots. Rose barely took any jumpers at all. He was obviously working on distributing foremost, albeit with strangers for teammates.



Again, judge with a larger sample size. Certain guys have an amazing knack for scoring from day one. Some of those guys also become the most frustrating and their fanbases currently want them out (Randolph, Redd, Curry). OK not from Day One for EC. Not Day 900 either.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Yet at the same time, Pax made me so happy...good times .

It really was amazing how much the media turned on Mike. He was ESPN's darling all college season until he got bumped. Thats when the Rose hype train went full speed ahead. Rose was very very impressive in the tourney...but thats only one month. He was impressive in the season, but not close to Beasley's level.

The media turned on him once the measurements were out. Can he play in the NBA? Whats with the attitude? etc. 

All of a sudden, there he is again - ESPN is back on the Beasley train acting like theyd been there the whole time and it was 'everyone else' who talked **** about him. Its amazing.

I still contend that Rose will be a very very good NBA point guard and that the Bulls didnt 'lose' this draft...but I do question them not taking Beasley when he was their obvious need. I guess it came down to who they felt was BPA...and they think Rose.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Bulls' need is not a 6'7" face-the-basket player.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Its a go to scorer. One that CAN score in the low post - but also capable of facing up and shooting over defenders who arent sure what he's gonna do.

Do you play basketball with no shoes on?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> The Bulls' need is not a 6'7" face-the-basket player.


The Bulls need another scorer to take the pressure off Gordon. Rose might be that guy, and open things back up for Gordon (although he has done pretty well against the doubles). But Beasley fit that need...and also helped bringing balance to the roster.

I know Vinny seems infatuated with his run and gun, Tyrus and Noah...but quite frankly, if the Okafor negotiations go South, Paxson needs to snatch Oak Tree up, and offer one, or both of them as Sign and Trade compensation. Paxson can just say, "Sorry Vinny, but come on...you coached the summer league team...you know these two guys aren't anything special...Gooden/Okafor is legit, Tyrus/Gooden not so much Vinny. But it's alright, you still got Thabo (who will be coming off the bench, otherwise you're going to be heading back to Phoenix in no time".

Seriously, I think Vinny will probably be a mistake too. Take Avery Johnson, run a half court, defensive oriented system, with Gordon/Deng/Beasley carrying the offensive bulk of the offensive load, playing Popovich style championship basketball under his disciple Avery. Not a fan of this Phoenix Suns crap. (the Suns had some loaded teams and came up with nothing, while Avery had Terry, Harris, JHo, Dirk and a bunch of crap and got to the finals.).

Hopefully this works out, and Rose becomes a super duper star. But I'll say this, I think Ben Gordon will probably be the best player on the Bulls for the next 10 years. I don't think Gordon would be the best player on the Bulls this year if we had taken Beasley.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> The Bulls need another scorer to take the pressure off Gordon. Rose might be that guy, and open things back up for Gordon (although he has done pretty well against the doubles). But Beasley fit that need...and also helped bringing balance to the roster.
> 
> I know Vinny seems infatuated with his run and gun, Tyrus and Noah...but quite frankly, if the Okafor negotiations go South, Paxson needs to snatch Oak Tree up, and offer one, or both of them as Sign and Trade compensation. Paxson can just say, "Sorry Vinny, but come on...you coached the summer league team...you know these two guys aren't anything special...Gooden/Okafor is legit, Tyrus/Gooden not so much Vinny. But it's alright, you still got Thabo (who will be coming off the bench, otherwise you're going to be heading back to Phoenix in no time".
> 
> ...


Dude, if all goes well with Rose we can get the ball out of Gordon's constantly unstable hands. BG has zero court vision and still makes the 04-05 horrid passes.

But yea, we can keep livin' the dream if ya want to.


I dont actually see Gordon being a fit here with Rose, b/c of the problem w/ guarding 2s.... I just dont see any way we can be competitive with one of those two guys not guarding the point.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Guys, get over it already. It's one freaking game, and you should just be happy we didn't get stuck with the likes of DJ Augustine, who went #9, where we should've been picking. Jerrod Bayless would've been a nice pickup there, but otherwise, the 3 players in the draft that I really liked (Rose, Alexander and Beasley) and the other 3 that I liked (Mayo, Westbrook and Love) were all GONE by #9. In other words, IMO there were 7 players in this draft I liked, and only 1 of them would've been available. 

Considering we got one of the top 2, on most anyone's board, at a very hard position to find a stud at, you should just be happy. It's kinda like that old saying, "don't look a gift-horse in the mouth". For those of you who have no idea what that means, you look at a horse's mouth to inspect the teeth to tell it's age by their length/wear. Just be happy we got 1 of the elite prospects, even if it's not the one you wanted. I am a Rose guy for the record, BUT, as I've said many times before, if we'd chosen Beasley instead, I'd still have been psyched because he is light years ahead of anyone at #9, just as Rose is. Just shut up and be happy we lucked into a superior player than we'd have gotten at #9.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Sports is all about forgetting yesterday, however. The draft lottery was very yesterday in most of our minds.

Heck, even championships get forgotten so quick. Look where the Heat are. 

I think we'll always debate Rose/Beasely instead of remembering who lucked out in the lottery. Especially nationally that will be the memory.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> Dude, if all goes well with Rose we can get the ball out of Gordon's constantly unstable hands. BG has zero court vision and still makes the 04-05 horrid passes.
> 
> But yea, we can keep livin' the dream if ya want to.
> 
> ...


Sloth thinks only offense, and is obsessed with Gordon and hates Kirk. So reasoning with him on such matters is futile. I agree with you though. Gordon has to go, as there is no way that a duo of him and Rose at the guards would work defensively, and Gordon can NOT play point at all as he has no handle. He's a shooter, period. Hinrich at SG with Rose isn't my ideal either, though I think he's a good enough shooter that it would work, given that he can play good D and also spot Rose at the point if need be. He's just more versatile on offense, and just plain old better on defense. IMO, Gordon has been the biggest problem on this team. I love his scoring when he's on, but he's a liability every where else, and too streaky to boot.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

How can Rose/Gordon not work out on defense? Gordon was part of the 2nd best defense in the league in 2004-2005 part of the 7th best defense in the league in 2005-2006, and part of the #1 defense in the league in 2006-2007. He was also part of the 14th (ouch!) best defense in 2007-2008.

Avery Johnson had the Jason Terry/Devin Harris starting combo, again comparable in size to Rose/Gordon, up at #5 best defense, and took the team to the finals with those two.

I don't think you understand basketball all that well. Defense is something that you don't necessarily need great defenders to be a great defensive team. You just need a great defensive system. Look at the team with Skiles as coach...they were constantly along the top, even with Ben Gordon, who due to you guys is the worst defender in the NBA. Then with Boylan, where he had no defensive schemes, we fall to #14. (Probably around #20 under Boylan, but 14 for the season, since we were either 2 or 3 when Skiles got fired in defense). 

Gordon is a fine defender. He doesn't leave his guy wide open, he closes out on shooters. He does his part in the team's defense. He isn't like Nocioni who leaves his guy wide open. 

In addition to defensive schemes being important, a big man is almost infinitely more valuable in a defense than a perimeter player. I'm honestly not really concerned what our perimeter guys do. Gordon is fine on defense, and Rose has to prove he is good too on defense. But if Rose is good, and Gordon maintains his level, we should be fine on the perimeter defensive wise. I am worried about our frontcourt, since Tyrus, Noah, and Gooden all don't understand defensive rotations, and are constantly in the wrong spot on defense because they have no idea what they're supposed to be doing. Aaron Gray understands these rotations but is too damned slow to rotate in time. 

To have a great offense, you need great offensive players.


----------



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

Was a similar post posted in the Blazers forum when Oden kept getting into foul trouble and Bellinelli tore it up in Summer League? It's only a flipping Summer League game.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sloth, Bengo was/is a liability on defense. The rest of the team has to compensate for his lack of defensive ability. That's really all there is to it. That's like saying the Bulls scored 100 points a game, 10th in the NBA, and therefore Tyson Chandler's offense must not have been too bad when he was here. The TEAM scored a lot, so therefore if someone is on that team that scored a lot, he must not be too bad offensively. Now, we all know that's a fallacy from when he was in Chicago, but it's a similar analogy to the garbage you're spewing about Gordon being able to defend a chair. That chair would drop 30 on him any given night. And yes, he is one of the absolute worst defenders in the NBA, that actually sees the court.


----------



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

DaBabyBullz said:


> Sloth, Bengo was/is a liability on defense. The rest of the team has to compensate for his lack of defensive ability. That's really all there is to it. That's like saying the Bulls scored 100 points a game, 10th in the NBA, and therefore Tyson Chandler's offense must not have been too bad when he was here. The TEAM scored a lot, so therefore if someone is on that team that scored a lot, he must not be too bad offensively. Now, we all know that's a fallacy from when he was in Chicago, but it's a similar analogy to the garbage you're spewing about Gordon being able to defend a chair. That chair would drop 30 on him any given night. And yes, he is one of the absolute worst defenders in the NBA, that actually sees the court.


Sloth? lol


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

P to the Wee said:


> Sloth? lol


BG7Lavigne or w/e his name is now, used to go by the SN Sloth. Biggest Ben Gordon Fanboy in the world, bar none.


----------



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

DaBabyBullz said:


> BG7Lavigne or w/e his name is now, used to go by the SN Sloth. Biggest Ben Gordon Fanboy in the world, bar none.


Oh, I didn't know that hahah


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Is it that time of the year again ... oh yeah it is. When there are no games, everything is being overanalyzed to waste time until the real games start again. Summer League conclusions = meh

Marco Bellinelli dominated last year, Nate Robinson looked like Dwyane Wade, Greg Ostertag once schooled Tim Duncan and so on.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

To those saying Beasley torched everyone this year, Iowa State did a pretty good job of shutting down Beasley in a game this year. They had to collapse basically everyone on him to do it, but Beasley struggled and appeared frustrated at times during the game. ISU still lost the game, not a good team this past season, but their defense against Beasley & Walker gave them a chance...
http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com....Holds.Beasley.Back.To.No.Avail-3260096.shtml

That said, I think we can say that from a proven talent standpoint, Beasley was the safe pick (did it all year) and Rose was potential (blew up in the NCAAs). Much like LaMarcus was the safe pick (did it all year) & Tyrus was potential (blew up in the NCAAs). Or Okafor safe pick (proven college success) versus Howard potential (HS unknown). I'm not sure how I feel about waiting for potential from guys like Rose & Tyrus given the alternative in each case. This is especially true considering our challenges in front-court scoring. Hopefully, we'll find a way to maximize that potential over time.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Pax didnt screw up by passing on Beasly.He screwed up by not squeezing Riley and extracting what he could as Riley was dumb enough to actually consider opting to pair Rose with Wade.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> That's exactly my point. Defenses tried everything, including the dimaond-and-one, throwing hackers at him, and the triple-team (saw that more on him than on Durant), and they still couldn't contain Beasley. He tore every team and every defender he faced to shreds -- and he wasn't playing in the MAC, the Big East or the overrated PAC-10. He did it against the best of the best -- the Big XII this season -- repeatedly. The dude simply knows how to score and rebound regardless of the situation...this sounds cliche, but he's like a shark who doesn't care about its prey -- he just feeds. He's that good. I just don't know how you can pass up on a talent like that. I really can't. Pax, you make me cry.


when defenses tried to out think themselves by playing all kinds of bull**** defenses, that just made beasley's job a lot easier. against texas, beasley wasn't getting much in the brief times they had a guy(damian james) guarding him that could match him in strength, size, and quickness. but when they went to a box and one with 6'2 justin mason sticking with beasley, it really opened stuff up for him.

kansas had a lot of talent this year but if you look at that team, you should expect a good post player to be able to dominate against them. they had great defensive perimeter guys but the same can't be said about their post players.

the "plan" to stop beasley is simple. just put a good defender on him and let the guy play. beasley is a good scorer and eventually(though not his rookie year) he'll be able to score 20 a game regardless of the defender. but team's out thinking themselves was part of the problem they had defending beasley. in the nba there are a lot more guys as big and strong as beasley that are also quick. he's going to have to work a lot harder for points in the nba than he did in college.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

rocketeer said:


> when defenses tried to out think themselves by playing all kinds of bull**** defenses, that just made beasley's job a lot easier. against texas, beasley wasn't getting much in the brief times they had a guy(damian james) guarding him that could match him in strength, size, and quickness. but when they went to a box and one with 6'2 justin mason sticking with beasley, it really opened stuff up for him.
> 
> kansas had a lot of talent this year but if you look at that team, you should expect a good post player to be able to dominate against them. they had great defensive perimeter guys but the same can't be said about their post players.
> 
> the "plan" to stop beasley is simple. just put a good defender on him and let the guy play. beasley is a good scorer and eventually(though not his rookie year) he'll be able to score 20 a game regardless of the defender. but team's out thinking themselves was part of the problem they had defending beasley. in the nba there are a lot more guys as big and strong as beasley that are also quick. he's going to have to work a lot harder for points in the nba than he did in college.


well said... and dead on

that's EXACTLY what baylor did and it resulted in a victory for them at a critical time of the big12 season... sure, beasley got 44 and 13, but he wore down at the end and couldn't finish strong... sort of like in the summer game yesterday where he missed his last five shots or so... looked like an asthma flare-up and fatigue to me

that's why i've always said that his game is more tailor-made for the nba than for college... regardless of the 'size issue', he'll be very hard to contain in a defense where you can't "leave" other players (other than a ball-seeking double-team)... what will be interesting is seeing the offensive dynamic of the heat when he plays with d-wade and/or haslem/marion... while it may happen now and then, i've gotta think if he gets 20shots in a regular season game, something is wrong with the balance of their plan


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

The scientific method surrenders.

One game where a guy goes 9 for 21 and now he's the clear superior player than the PG who scored 10 points in an NBA summer league game consisting of 80% non-NBA talents.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> To those saying Beasley torched everyone this year, Iowa State did a pretty good job of shutting down Beasley in a game this year. They had to collapse basically everyone on him to do it, but Beasley struggled and appeared frustrated at times during the game. ISU still lost the game, not a good team this past season, but their defense against Beasley & Walker gave them a chance...
> http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com....Holds.Beasley.Back.To.No.Avail-3260096.shtml
> 
> That said, I think we can say that from a proven talent standpoint, Beasley was the safe pick (did it all year) and Rose was potential (blew up in the NCAAs). Much like LaMarcus was the safe pick (did it all year) & Tyrus was potential (blew up in the NCAAs). Or Okafor safe pick (proven college success) versus Howard potential (HS unknown). I'm not sure how I feel about waiting for potential from guys like Rose & Tyrus given the alternative in each case. This is especially true considering our challenges in front-court scoring. Hopefully, we'll find a way to maximize that potential over time.


don't know if i remember that second game the way you do... because i remember that he was in foul trouble and only played 29min taking a league-games-low 12 shots... seems to me that what he DID do was hit two throws at the end (on the road) to seal the win, and according to the people on this board, "leadership" and "getting the win" far, far outrank any reference at all to statistical achievement

by the way, it should be noted that he went 33 and 15 in 22min in the other game between the teams (the one without the 'hilton magic')


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

jnrjr79 said:


> The scientific method surrenders.
> 
> One game where a guy goes 9 for 21 and now he's the clear superior player than the PG who scored 10 points in an NBA summer league game consisting of 80% non-NBA talents.


truly stated... comments and worry at this point are WAY overblown... but you cannot deny the fact that the bulls played with three players that will see major minutes this year... i expect by the end of the week they will show a lot more cohesiveness


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I will say this... next time we play the Heat, I'd like to see Luol Deng on Beasley... I don't think anyone else tall enough has a chance at staying in front of him on our team... 

Anyway, I hope Rose has a better second game and we can put this nonsense to rest... or at least get rid of some of the "I told you so" nonsense, which gets us nowhere. Many of us were split on who to draft... I was 50/50 right down to the wire... but now we have our guy, let's root for him and forget the Miami Heat...


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> How can Rose/Gordon not work out on defense? Gordon was part of the 2nd best defense in the league in 2004-2005 part of the 7th best defense in the league in 2005-2006, and part of the #1 defense in the league in 2006-2007. He was also part of the 14th (ouch!) best defense in 2007-2008.
> 
> Avery Johnson had the Jason Terry/Devin Harris starting combo, again comparable in size to Rose/Gordon, up at #5 best defense, and took the team to the finals with those two.
> 
> ...


Ha, and Luc Longley was on one of the greatest offensive teams ever, so he must be Jabbar.

Pointing out how Gordon "never leaves his man" is the equivalent of saying "Yeah, but she's bright and has a nice personality."


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> That's exactly my point. Defenses tried everything, including the dimaond-and-one, throwing hackers at him, and the triple-team (saw that more on him than on Durant), and they still couldn't contain Beasley. He tore every team and every defender he faced to shreds -- and he wasn't playing in the MAC, the Big East or the overrated PAC-10. He did it against the best of the best -- the Big XII this season -- repeatedly. The dude simply knows how to score and rebound regardless of the situation...this sounds cliche, but he's like a shark who doesn't care about its prey -- he just feeds. He's that good. I just don't know how you can pass up on a talent like that. I really can't. Pax, you make me cry.


I'm not disagreeing. Beasley is a special talent. Which is why the Bulls liked Beasley, according to reports. The real question is who did they like better. We had 2 special talents to choose from -- we could only take 1. We chose the special PG.

I'm sure Paxson would've liked nothing more than to draft both players. Reportedly, Pax made a swing at the #2 pick but Riley wasn't buying.

Honestly, I've been baffled from day 1 why the Heat never wanted Beasley. That's the head scratcher. Paxson wanted Beasley, but could only take one guy. 

So, the thing to realize is that we needn't be judging Rose so harshly this early. He likely won't be the finished product until age 22-23. I would argue that Beasley is much much closer to "finished product" status; the guy is already so good offensively, you have to wonder whether there's much room to improve. With Rose, you have an equally high ceiling but in a different end package.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> kansas had a lot of talent this year but if you look at that team, you should expect a good post player to be able to dominate against them. they had great defensive perimeter guys but the same can't be said about their post players.


I respectfully disagree -- Kansas' perimeter defense was some of the best college basketball has seen over the last decade or so, so it's easy to look past its post defense. But KU's interior was also very talented. KU finished #1 in the Big XII in blocked shots, #1 in rebounding defense, #1 in FG defense, and #2 in rebounding margin (remember, the Big XII fielded *6* teams that made it to the NCAA Tournament, so these stats are extremely significant). Arthur and Kaun were both top 10 in the league in blocked shots, and KU's top three big men were selected in this year's NBA Draft. 6'11" KU freshman Cole Aldrich absolutely dominated faux-POY Tyler Hansbrough in the Final Four. Just humiliated him.

Beasley is going to score points and grab rebounds -- a lot of them -- from day one. He needs no time to adapt.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> The scientific method surrenders.
> 
> One game where a guy goes 9 for 21 and now he's the clear superior player than the PG who scored 10 points in an NBA summer league game consisting of 80% non-NBA talents.


The scientific method consists of having watched each player since high school, not just after they each entered the NBA.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

And I don't want to pile on Rose (not the intent of this thread), but by many accounts Chalmers pretty much shut down Rose last night. Can anyone verify this?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> The scientific method consists of having watched each player since high school, not just after they each entered the NBA.



Actually, it wouldn't, but that's another story.

The point us, until these guys suit up and start playing actual NBA basketball games, this stuff is all apples and oranges. It's fun to watch and see how they perform, but starting a sky is falling thread after 1 fake basketball game is the height of silliness. Now perhaps your thread was just coincidental timing, but it sure seemed like a reaction to a summer league game.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

And already the "I told you threads" are popping up :sigh: 

I think the bigger issue is some of you who think we could just 


come out and clobber the heat. 

A bad loss shouldn't surprise anyone , we sucked last year so most likely we suck this year.

Getting a whole new staff and t the #1 pick won't solve everything right away.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> And I don't want to pile on Rose (not the intent of this thread), but by many accounts Chalmers pretty much shut down Rose last night. Can anyone verify this?


"Shutting down" could mean something different to different people.

Chalmers was definitely forcing turnovers on Rose (I think he had 4 steals and Rose had 5 turnovers). Not unexpected since Chalmers is a tremendous defensive player and also older/more experienced than Rose.

But from what I saw, Rose was getting to the hole when he tried. This is precisely how he scored his 10 points, and also how he drew fouls. I was a bit perplexed why he wasn't driving to the hole more, especially in the first half. Seemed like he was going through the motions, not being aggressive. Could've been part of the game plan b/c of his knee tendenitis. Or maybe he's just feeling his way out there.

The 4 assists would've been more if, a) we actually had some guys finishing buckets, and b) if there weren't so many fouls. You don't get credited with an assist if the player you pass to draws a foul -- Tyrus got fouled alot in 18 minutes, for example and made 6-7 FTs.

Really gotta grade Rose an incomplete on this. One game, let alone his first game, isn't nearly good enough to base anything from. You also wonder how much effort these guys are told to give; are they told to work on a specific thing (i.e. running the offense), or should they try and win the game?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

pax warned people for everyone to have patience because it'll take time for Rose to develop. I think most people had Beasley as more NBA ready than Rose.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Actually, it wouldn't, but that's another story.


I know...my statement was figurative.



> The point us, until these guys suit up and start playing actual NBA basketball games, this stuff is all apples and oranges. It's fun to watch and see how they perform, but starting a sky is falling thread after 1 fake basketball game is the height of silliness. Now perhaps your thread was just coincidental timing, but it sure seemed like a reaction to a summer league game.


Let's just say I'm calling my shot now. Beasley had the best freshman statistical season in NCAA history -- I think that's a pretty good platform on which to base my assumption and not have it be labeled "silly".


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> "Shutting down" could mean something different to different people.
> 
> Chalmers was definitely forcing turnovers on Rose (I think he had 4 steals and Rose had 5 turnovers). Not unexpected since Chalmers is a tremendous defensive player and also older/more experienced than Rose.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback. I imagine Rose was focusing on getting sets down, finding rhythm with his teammates and getting adapted to the overall tempo of the game, whereas Beasley didn't have to focus on these things so much and just went out and played ball.

That said, when I watched Rose at the Final Four I kept seeing Jay Williams all over again, but without the long-range shot. Tremendous athlete, outstanding strength and power, great scorer, capable defender, creates for himself and others as a result of his raw talent, but not a complete or dedicated floor leader. Time will tell...but I cringed on draft night.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> Ha, and Luc Longley was on one of the greatest offensive teams ever, so he must be Jabbar.
> 
> Pointing out how Gordon "never leaves his man" is the equivalent of saying "Yeah, but she's bright and has a nice personality."


Did you read my post? I said defense is a team thing, where you don't necessarily need great defensive players to be a great defensive team. Therefore Gordon being a crappy defender and being part of a great defense fits right in, although Gordon is more above average defensively, even if people don't want to admit it. I said you need great offensive players to be a great defensive team. Not everyone needs to be great, but you need great offensive players (cough...Jordan...cough...Pippen).


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Did you read my post? I said defense is a team thing, where you don't necessarily need great defensive players to be a great defensive team. Therefore Gordon being a crappy defender and being part of a great defense fits right in, although Gordon is more above average defensively, even if people don't want to admit it. I said you need great offensive players to be a great defensive team. Not everyone needs to be great, but you need great offensive players (cough...Jordan...cough...Pippen).


Wow thank you so much for your world class analysis on the 90's Bulls in this thread about John Paxson's GM'ing.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Sloth, Bengo was/is a liability on defense. The rest of the team has to compensate for his lack of defensive ability. That's really all there is to it. That's like saying the Bulls scored 100 points a game, 10th in the NBA, and therefore Tyson Chandler's offense must not have been too bad when he was here. The TEAM scored a lot, so therefore if someone is on that team that scored a lot, he must not be too bad offensively. Now, we all know that's a fallacy from when he was in Chicago, but it's a similar analogy to the garbage you're spewing about Gordon being able to defend a chair. That chair would drop 30 on him any given night. And yes, he is one of the absolute worst defenders in the NBA, that actually sees the court.


That doesn't make any sense, since in 2004-2005 we were 26th in the league offensively, and 23rd in 2005-2006. Perhaps Chandler was hurting us quite a bit on the offensive end?

Also, how many guys scored 30 on Gordon the past 2 years? (I'm just using games with Skiles because Boylan didn't have the team in general playing any defense).

So 2007-2008 under Skiles.

On Gordon:

On Hinrich:
Cuttino Mobley - 33 points

That's right, no one dropped 30 on Gordon under Skiles this year, and only one player dropped 30 on Hinrich. We were #3 in defense at the point when Skiles got fired.

Now lets look at 2006-2007;

On Gordon:
Michael Redd - 30 points (Gordon dropped 37 on him though)
Allen Iverson - 46 points
Michael Redd - 32 points (another one in the epic Gordon vs. Redd battle...Bulls won!)
Michael Redd - 52 points (Gordon had 48, and delivered his team the win!)

On Hinrich:
Kevin Martin - 30 points
JR Smith - 36 points
Jamal Crawford - 30 points
Tracy McGrady - 31 points
Gilbert Arenas - 36 points (still whooped their asses)
Allen Iverson - 31 points

Unless that chair is from the Redd family, it'd probably have a pretty difficult time scoring 30 on Gordon, just like many NBA players before the chair.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I imagine Rose was focusing on getting sets down, finding rhythm with his teammates and getting adapted to the overall tempo of the game, whereas Beasley didn't have to focus on these things so much and just went out and played ball.
> 
> That said, when I watched Rose at the Final Four I kept seeing Jay Williams all over again, but without the long-range shot. Tremendous athlete, outstanding strength and power, great scorer, capable defender, creates for himself and others as a result of his raw talent, but not a complete or dedicated floor leader. Time will tell...but I cringed on draft night.



No prob. I'll try and catch tonight's game, and will hope for better results.

In general, the entire game (for both teams) just reeked of unorganized basketball. Maybe it was the high school gym setting, but I felt like I was watching a bunch of random guys at the Y who decided to start up a game. Very little organization at all.

As for what to take from that? Who knows. I thought Beasley was a clear benefactor from this style of play, as he was the only guy on the floor with the size & ball skills to exploit openings in the defense. Rose started to exploit these openings as well, but it took him until the 2nd half to realize it (btw, his 2nd half was much better than his first half -- the Tribune report attests to this as well). 

I always seem to get disappointed by summer league because it's frankly just ugly basketball. We always seem to get a few big men who flat out dominate (e.g., Boozer, Randolph, now Beasley) because you have a bunch of scrubs who don't know how to run defensive sets together. Even our double teams on Beasley didn't look right. Sometimes this indicates a guy's true NBA ability (I think it does in Beasley's case), other times it's just fools gold. A real structured NBA setting will often prevent the things that let the Foyes and Bellineli's thrive.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> That doesn't make any sense, since in 2004-2005 we were 26th in the league offensively, and 23rd in 2005-2006. Perhaps Chandler was hurting us quite a bit on the offensive end?
> 
> Also, how many guys scored 30 on Gordon the past 2 years? (I'm just using games with Skiles because Boylan didn't have the team in general playing any defense).
> 
> ...


Okay, you just wasted everybody's time.

Ben Gordon is never asked to guard the opposing teams best player because he cannot... therefore, you don't see a lot of guys going off on him for major points... Skiles would simply yank him off of whomever he couldn't cover. And why would you just leave out half of this season? If it wasn't under Scott Skiles it doesn't count? Its not like he'll be playing under Skiles again... 


And to give credit to Gordon for our teams defensive ability over the last 4 years when he was moved to the bench in-part because he was a weak-link defensively is absurd. As it stands right now, Gordon is an absolute liability defensively. I can't believe you actually typed "Closes out on three point shots" as something Gordon does well... are you watching the same games I am? The next time he or Larry Hughes closes out well will be the first...

Gordon is a talented offensive player, but there's a reason he's the only guy with his kind of scoring ability that can't secure a starting job in the NBA, and a reason the phone lines aren't burning up right now with other teams pursuing him.

He can't defend.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> That doesn't make any sense, since in 2004-2005 we were 26th in the league offensively, and 23rd in 2005-2006. Perhaps Chandler was hurting us quite a bit on the offensive end?
> 
> Also, how many guys scored 30 on Gordon the past 2 years? (I'm just using games with Skiles because Boylan didn't have the team in general playing any defense).
> 
> ...


Where are you getting all that information from?

Those "stats" sound impossible to obtain.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

haha wow one game into the summer league and already questioning the pick

Beasley did what Beasley does and thats score points. There was very little question about that part of his game leading up to the draft and outside of that and some rebounding that about where his game ends. Rose on the other hand is prob being told to use these games to learn the offense. He needs to know where he has to be and the other 4 players on the court need to be. Stats mean nothing in these games.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I can't believe you guys actually read that crap that Sloth posted lol. I read the first little paragraph and that was enough for me. Too much actually.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I can't believe you guys actually read that crap that Sloth posted lol. I read the first little paragraph and that was enough for me. Too much actually.


It's essentially like arguing that Ben Wallace is a good offensive player... hard to keep a straight face.


The next summer league game can't start soon enough.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I can't believe you guys actually read that crap that Sloth posted lol. I read the first little paragraph and that was enough for me. Too much actually.


I occasionally read it to get a good laugh- cause he makes up almost everything he posts. 


Like just then, there is absolutely no way to find out, who has scored on Ben Gordon and how many points was it, and when...


Trust me, he won't respond to my question.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Box Scores? Ever heard of those things before?

And for Offensive and Defensive ratings, you just need to look at the team's pace adjusted PPG / opponents PPG.

Just because we can score the 10th most PPG in the league as a result of playing at a fast pace doesn't mean we're a good offensive team (26th when pace adjusted in 04-05).


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Box Scores? Ever heard of those things before?
> 
> And for Offensive and Defensive ratings, you just need to look at the team's pace adjusted PPG / opponents PPG.
> 
> ...


You mean to tell me you've looked at every box score since 2003? 


:rofl2:

Besides, a box score is NOT a good method for what you are doing. Just because you look at the the sg's and compare, it doesn't mean the sg's were actually guarding each other.

Especially on the Bulls, we have done alot of switching at the guard spots.... it's almost as if we don't have a pg or sg sometimes.

And of course, there is also this little thing called covering someone else. You know what that is? 

For instance, let's take Gilbert, he's driving down the lane guarded by Gordon, He can be on him for a bit, but perhaps Deng would move over and Gordon would take his man.

Like I said, it's impossible to obtain those "stats" and you're a joke.


----------



## BeasTley (Jul 8, 2008)

Wow. Pushing the panic button a little early don't you think so Baby Bulls?...Honestly, Beasley is the most NBA ready baller in this years class. Quite simply, for the next year or two, he's going to outshine any lottery pick that was available to Chicago anyways. My beef with you fans is that you expect Derrick Rose, a 19 year old PG to run the team the same way a Kirk Hinrich or even a Chris Duhon can.

Chances are that things are going to get UGLY before they get PRETTY. I'm sure you lot are tired of hearing that, but it cannot be avoided for many teams. Just look at Utah and Deron Williams. Just hope Del ***** knows what he's doing because Rose is one hell of a talent. The BPA? Maybe not...but BOTH Chicago and Miami are draft WINNERS, don't get it twisted.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Also, prior to this year, Gordon was a statistically good defensive player (this year, him, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, and Hughes were all below the league average...defense is a team thing ya know...) (Gordon was 111, and league average was 107.5). [Hinrich, Deng, and Nocioni were 109's, Hughes 108, and Duhon 110]

In 2006-2007, the league average D-Rtg was 106.5, Gordon was 103. In 2005-2006, the league average was 106.2, Gordon was 106. The league average in 2004-2005 was 106.1, Gordon was a 103.

As long as we were running great defensive sets (under Skiles), Gordon has always managed to be an above average defensive player. Other guys (Hinrich, Thomas) were great defenseive players under Skiles, and comparatively ****ty under Boylan.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BeasTley said:


> Wow. Pushing the panic button a little early don't you think so Baby Bulls?...Honestly, Beasley is the most NBA ready baller in this years class. Quite simply, for the next year or two, he's going to outshine any lottery pick that was available to Chicago anyways. My beef with you fans is that you expect Derrick Rose, a 19 year old PG to run the team the same way a Kirk Hinrich or even a Chris Duhon can.
> 
> Chances are that things are going to get UGLY before they get PRETTY. I'm sure you lot are tired of hearing that, but it cannot be avoided for many teams. Just look at Utah and Deron Williams. Just hope Del ***** knows what he's doing because Rose is one hell of a talent. The BPA? Maybe not...but BOTH Chicago and Miami are draft WINNERS, don't get it twisted.


Very great post. As I said before... i don't see how anyone can expect the coaching and Rose come in to fix everything, even half a season in.

There are very few players that can just come in and dominate. 

I may be mistaken, but I don't even think Wade came in to just clobber everyone in his path.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Also, prior to this year, Gordon was a statistically good defensive player (this year, him, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, and Hughes were all below the league average...defense is a team thing ya know...) (Gordon was 111, and league average was 107.5). [Hinrich, Deng, and Nocioni were 109's, Hughes 108, and Duhon 110]
> 
> In 2006-2007, the league average D-Rtg was 106.5, Gordon was 103. In 2005-2006, the league average was 106.2, Gordon was 106. The league average in 2004-2005 was 106.1, Gordon was a 103.
> 
> As long as we were running great defensive sets (under Skiles), Gordon has always managed to be an above average defensive player. Other guys (Hinrich, Thomas) were great defenseive players under Skiles, and comparatively ****ty under Boylan.


HAHAHAHAHA I'm just dying laughing at work here, you need to stop.

I just love the sidestep away from the discussion by the way.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

From Hollinger



> *Gordon is only 6-3 and doesn't have very long arms, so defense is always going to be a problem*. *Usually the Bulls find a weak scorer for him to guard*, but that doesn't always work -- for instance, in the playoffs he was savaged by Detroit's Richard Hamilton and Chauncey Billups. He's improved quite a bit at that end and his strength is useful in fending off opposing post-up attempts, but he still needs work. He also needs to foul less so the Bulls can keep his offense on the court.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Merk said:


> From Hollinger


Exactly. And I still saw Travis Diener score 22 on him this year... if anything the numbers Sloth posted seem like a ringing endorsement of Kirk Hinrich's defense, since he traditionally guards opposing shooting guards.


Ya basta!


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I respectfully disagree -- Kansas' perimeter defense was some of the best college basketball has seen over the last decade or so, so it's easy to look past its post defense. But KU's interior was also very talented. KU finished #1 in the Big XII in blocked shots, #1 in rebounding defense, #1 in FG defense, and #2 in rebounding margin (remember, the Big XII fielded *6* teams that made it to the NCAA Tournament, so these stats are extremely significant). Arthur and Kaun were both top 10 in the league in blocked shots, and KU's top three big men were selected in this year's NBA Draft. 6'11" KU freshman Cole Aldrich absolutely dominated faux-POY Tyler Hansbrough in the Final Four. Just humiliated him.


there is a lot more to defense than blocking shots. and the college game is dominated by guards since all the nba caliber bigs leave early, thus it's not surprising at all to see a team led by great defensive veteran(for college) guards to be tops in field goal percentage defense. and why exactly am i supposed to be surprised that the best and most talented team in the big 12 led all those statistical categories? that is what i would expect. that doesn't mean they have great defensive bigs.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

hinrich will have a breakout year once he will actually have the opportunity to play pg with 6'6 guard who can score.

all the time he had to guard opponents sg because ben was>/is to undersized and is horrible on d. i guess he'll be shipped out before thabo unleashes his offensive ability.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> there is a lot more to defense than blocking shots.


Exactly. Kansas' team defense decimated North Carolina and shut down white hot Memphis. When matched against Chalmers/Rush/Robinson, opposing guards had a difficult time effectively feeding their bigs and running sets. Inside the paint, Kaun/Arthur/Jackson shut down opposing posts, often holding them to season-lows. For Beasley to go off for 39/11 on this year's KU team is simply remarkable.

http://kenpom.com/stats.php



> and the college game is dominated by guards since all the nba caliber bigs leave early,


NBA-caliber guards do, too. See: Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Westbrook, Bayless, Augustin, Chalmers, Hill, Rush, Douglas-Roberts....


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BeasTley said:


> Wow. Pushing the panic button a little early don't you think so Baby Bulls?...Honestly, Beasley is the most NBA ready baller in this years class. Quite simply, for the next year or two, he's going to outshine any lottery pick that was available to Chicago anyways. My beef with you fans is that you expect Derrick Rose, a 19 year old PG to run the team the same way a Kirk Hinrich or even a Chris Duhon can.
> 
> Chances are that things are going to get UGLY before they get PRETTY. I'm sure you lot are tired of hearing that, but it cannot be avoided for many teams. Just look at Utah and Deron Williams. Just hope Del ***** knows what he's doing because Rose is one hell of a talent. The BPA? Maybe not...but BOTH Chicago and Miami are draft WINNERS, don't get it twisted.


Good post.

You bring up a good point with Del ***** too, which has been pretty much neglected so far.

It's impossible to judge a coach in this setting, let alone a coach who is doing his first game. In fact I'd venture to say Del ***** will need some adjustment time just to "feel" like a coach. It's like starting a new job, where you need to reach a comfort level with a certain role before doing a good job.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Travis Diener actually has some very good skill. I wanted us to draft him in the 2nd round, he was a great floor general at Marquette. (although I'm a bit biased towards Marquette guys).

When he played 24+ MPG, he averaged 10.6 PPG 5.9 APG with a 5.9 Ast/TO ratio. 

Diener has game. This was a 31 game sample size, so this isn't like an April wonder like say Jamal Crawford.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> *Super Mario*
> 
> Rose was the featured backcourt attraction in the Miami-Chicago game, but it was Miami's Mario Chalmers who won the point guard matchup.
> 
> Chalmers, who hit the game-tying 3-pointer to force overtime in Kansas' national championship victory against Memphis, surprisingly dropped to the 34th pick in the draft after being projected by some as a mid-first-round selection. After scoring 11 points, tallying six assists, grabbing four steals and giving Rose fits with his ball-hawking defense, he admitted that he's playing with something to prove this week.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=080707orlsummerleaguemiachi


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'll say it again, I have no idea why Riley looked so glum on draft day.

Coming away with Chalmers and Beasley is a great draft for them. Chalmers is NBA ready and will always have a place in the league on the defensive end. You might even be able to slot him in the starting backcourt with Wade.

Chalmers/Wade in the backcourt, w/ Marion/Beasley/Haslem/whoever else in the frontcourt is a big step in the right direction for them.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Speaking of which, we might one day be comparing the Chalmers/Rose rivalry to that of Hinrich/Wade.

If I'm not mistaken, Hinrich gave Wade some big problems in their college days and this obviously has carried over into the pros.

Assuming Rose turns into the guy we think/hope, I have to wonder if Chalmers will always be "that guy" who Rose just hates playing against.

Everyone has their hated matchups.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Travis Diener actually has some very good skill. I wanted us to draft him in the 2nd round, he was a great floor general at Marquette. (although I'm a bit biased towards Marquette guys).
> 
> When he played 24+ MPG, he averaged 10.6 PPG 5.9 APG with a 5.9 Ast/TO ratio.
> 
> Diener has game. This was a 31 game sample size, so this isn't like an April wonder like say Jamal Crawford.


Do you ever stay on topic? What does Travis Diener have to do with anything?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Do you ever stay on topic? What does Travis Diener have to do with anything?


Can you not read?

Go to edit, then find. Type in Travis Diener. I wasn't the one to bring up Diener.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Can you not read?
> 
> Go to edit, then find. Type in Travis Diener. I wasn't the one to bring up Diener.


There is no need to insult me. Yes I did read, Dornado talked about him in passing. He isn't even in the discussion anymore.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

Beasley is shooting 1-11 today....had 6 fouls....worse than any college game he's ever played in.


Guess the Heat should just cut him now huh.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

It's ugly, but he's simply missing shots as opposed to being limited by defenders.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

Well....Rose might have been bothered by defenders yesterday.

But when it comes down to it...when he wanted to assert and himself and blow by them...he did it in an instant. In a flash.

Now if Rose had a bad game yesterday, which I thought was pretty decent. I can't wait to see what a good game by him would be like.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Half-Life said:


> Beasley is shooting 1-11 today....had 6 fouls....worse than any college game he's ever played in.
> 
> 
> Guess the Heat should just cut him now huh.



Heh, kinda makes us all look a little foolish. I'm not knocking anybody in any way, heck I have knee jerk reactions like everyone else, but this serves as a nice timely reminder the true nature of judging rookies...in summer league, no less.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Beasley pretty much got dominated today. He had all kinds of problems with Sean Williams' length.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

I believe he was 1-13 with 8 fouls and 5 or 6 turnovers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> 4. The odds that Beasley becomes a superstar are better than the odds that Rose becomes a superstar. Moreover, the odds that Beasley becomes a superstar early in his career are better than the odds that Rose becomes a superstar midway through his career. Knowing this, how do you select Rose over Beasley?


Pax told me it was completely irrational but he was just so pissed of paying his starting PG $10M a year but the guy can't execute a simple fast break consistantly. :biggrin:

p.s. Sounds like you didn't watch yesterday,huh. Rose contained Rose more than Chalmers did.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Heh, kinda makes us all look a little foolish. I'm not knocking anybody in any way, heck I have knee jerk reactions like everyone else, but this serves as a nice timely reminder the true nature of judging rookies...in summer league, no less.


Summer League play makes no difference to me...I've been of this opinion since December.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Summer League play makes no difference to me...I've been of this opinion since December.


Major coincidence of the timing and topic on the OP, eh?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Man, Beasley's numbers are almost comically bad today, lol. (again, not rubbing in...just commenting). We talked earlier in this thread about what it means to get "shut down". I think we have our answer:

1-13 shooting, 0 assists, 5 turnovers, 7 fouls

On the positive note, he hit 6-6 FT's and pulled down 7 rebounds. And his team won the game. Miami clearly looks like the top team in this summer league so far (wholloping us, and beating NJ who won yesterday). 

Chalmers continues to shine, he had 19 pts, 9 assists, 3 steals.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Pax told me it was completely irrational but he was just so pissed of paying his starting PG $10M a year but the guy can't execute a simple fast break consistantly. :biggrin:


What?



> p.s. Sounds like you didn't watch yesterday,huh. Rose contained Rose more than Chalmers did.


_Adam Hoff of Section F Sports has long been in love with Mario Chalmers, who had a strong summer league debut: "He showed better playmaking skills than even I expected, his jumper still looked quiet and consistent (as always), and his D was just tremendous. He was physical and quick and doing all the Rondo kinds of things that Seattle spent the #4 pick hoping to get from Russell Westbrook. *In fact, his defense was so stifling that it left everyone unsure of how to comment on Derrick Rose's performance. The Bulls' new franchise point guard had a rough outing, going just 3-for-8 with five turnovers. So ... bad showing, right? Not so fast. I think he was just having a tough time with the "straight jacket!" (Kevin Harlen voice) that Chalmers had him in.* I think we have to wait and see on Rose. (And that's assuming we care at all about summer league results. See: Banks, Marcus. See: Belinelli, Marco.)"_

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-33-24/Tuesday-Bullets.html


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Major coincidence of the timing and topic on the OP, eh?


I'm an opportunist.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

okay.. last year in the same summer league, Jameson Curry tore it up..


summer league


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> _*Adam Hoff of Section F Sports has long been in love with Mario Chalmers*, who had a strong summer league debut: "He showed better playmaking skills than even I expected, his jumper still looked quiet and consistent (as always), and his D was just tremendous. He was physical and quick and doing all the Rondo kinds of things that Seattle spent the #4 pick hoping to get from Russell Westbrook. In fact, his defense was so stifling that it left everyone unsure of how to comment on Derrick Rose's performance. The Bulls' new franchise point guard had a rough outing, going just 3-for-8 with five turnovers. So ... bad showing, right? Not so fast. I think he was just having a tough time with the "straight jacket!" (Kevin Harlen voice) that Chalmers had him in. *I think we have to wait and see on Rose.* (And that's assuming we care at all about summer league results. See: Banks, Marcus. See: Belinelli, Marco.)"
> _
> 
> http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-33-24/Tuesday-Bullets.html


Sounds really unbiased. :clap:

Speaking of love, how about that next sentence from Adam.

http://wisinsider.blogspot.com/2008/07/mario-chalmers-press-man-at-your.html


> But I don't think we have to wait and see on Chalmers.


So we have to wait and see on the #2 pick but no wait needed on the #34. :lol:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

It's an election year, so attacking the source instead of the argument seems appropriate. Look around for additinoal writeups of the game if you need more proof.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

There was a lot of loose lipped gum flappin' on these boards yesterday, and it's looking pretty foolish right about now.

Beasley today: "I have to work on all aspects of my game."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> It's an election year, so attacking the source instead of the argument seems appropriate. Look around for additinoal writeups of the game if you need more proof.


I watched the game.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Here is a good "source" from yesterday.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/


> Rose then dazzled with a transition layup that had an Eastern Conference scout in awe. "Speed. Quickness. Strength. Ambidexterity. All in one three-second burst." The game belonged the Beasley, the moments to Rose.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Beasley needs to take the Beast drill more seriously. His moves are all good, but he has a finishing problem right now. Like on that Tyrus block yesterday, Beasley said he was thinking about not jumping on the shot, and decided to jump at the last minute. That crap isn't going to cut it in the NBA. The guy needs to learn how to dunk over people.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

The way I see of Michael Beasley is this. A combination of Derrick Coleman/Anthony Mason/Zach Randolph. I'd still take Rose. The Bulls need a leader, a guard who actually attacks the basket frequently(the other will be Larry Hughes when he gets acclimated with this team during training camp), and a player that Chicago Bulls fans can be proud to watch each night he laces up his sneakers.

Not only that but now Duhon is gone, hopefully Paxson trades Hinrich for Camby, and sign-and-trade Gordon. The Bulls definetly need a PG and we got our PG for the next 10-15 years. Rose is basically our LeBron James in terms of team value.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Heh, kinda makes us all look a little foolish. I'm not knocking anybody in any way, heck I have knee jerk reactions like everyone else, but this serves as a nice timely reminder the true nature of judging rookies...in summer league, no less.


Like I said yesterday to Vegas post...YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.

Come on guys...it's summer league...niether day makes a damn bit of difference. Let's talk about it at the all-star break.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Is this thread for real? It seems like a clever attempt to parody a typical reactionary fan after one summer league game.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

TripleDouble said:


> Is this thread for real?


Sadly I think so. Anyone that knows anything about basketball realizes that you need to give a min of 2 years before completely labeling someone a bust. 

This thread could possibly exist in like three years, but not today...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Is this thread for real? It seems like a clever attempt to parody a typical reactionary fan after one summer league game.


Yip, it's for real. But Summer League play isn't my impetus.

You simply don't pass up on the best player in the draft to grab a PG who doesn't do as many things, or as many things as well, as any top 5 PG in the league (none of whom were drafted #1). Rose is very good, but he's not Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, Gilbert Arenas or Jason Kidd. He's Steve Francis. You don't pass up on Beasley to use your #1 pick to draft Steve Francis -- _especially_ when you've fielded one of the worst frontcourts in the league over the last half decade.

FYI, Rose went 2-9 with 9 points and didn't score in the first half yesterday. He's only attempted one three in two games. Summer League doesn't really matter, but I am paying attention to where he's taking his shots. Again, I'm not sure if it's wise to spend a #1 pick on a PG who can't hit threes or, worse, one who simply doesn't take them.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

VincentVega said:


> Yip, it's for real. But Summer League play isn't my impetus.


Yet you keep talking about his Summer League play....


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> He's only attempted one three in two games. Summer League doesn't really matter, but I am paying attention to where he's taking his shots. Again, I'm not sure if it's wise to spend a #1 pick on a PG who can't hit threes or, worse, one who simply doesn't take them.


True, he's not shooting jumpers all day. It's not the playground.

It's obvious to anyone watching these games that he's carrying out what the Bulls are asking. Working on distribute-first while he's out there. 

Learning to be a PG in the league is a whole lot harder than SG.... they're using summer league to get the jump on that process.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Watch Rose's play in the Final Four. He's Steve Francis. I was at the Final Four and shared this observation with a few NCAA folks.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

VincentVega said:


> Watch Rose's play in the Final Four. He's Steve Francis. I was at the Final Four and shared this observation with a few NCAA folks.


You make that sound like a bad thing. Steve Francis is a very good point guard, or he was for his first 5 plus years. The thing is,that he's a bit of an a**hole, and hard to coach. Rose doesn't seem to have that now does he.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Yeah Steve Francis of old was pretty damn good, I don't see what's wrong with that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> Learning to be a PG in the league is a whole lot harder than SG.... they're using summer league to get the jump on that process.


It's the #1 PICK...I'd be fine if in another draft we'd have somehow managed to get him at #3 or #4. But #1? Unless you're a 7-foot monster with stratospheric potential, a #1 is supposed to come in and dominate from Day 1. The "grooming period" undermines the true value of having the #1 pick.

I'm sure Rose is concentrating on learning the offense, feeling out his teammates, etc. But, again, if you have the #1 pick and you want a superstar PG for the next 10-12 years, you draft Chris Paul or Deron Williams. You don't draft Steve Francis.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Don't get me wrong, Steve Francis was a very good player for a few years, but he only averaged 20 ppg three seasons and only once put up 7 apg. He dominates the ball and is a career 43% FG shooter. More importantly, he never won anything. He wasn't anywhere close to a #1 draft pick talent, regardless of his attitude. And his career to date has illustrated this.

Rose doesn't have the attitude problems, but he has a similar game.

Other comparisons I've heard: Jay Williams, rich man's Antonio Daniels, poor man's Gilbert Arenas.

Not #1 material in my opinion.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Don't get me wrong, Steve Francis was a very good player for a few years, but he only averaged 20 ppg three seasons and only once put up 7 apg. He dominates the ball and is a career 43% FG shooter. More importantly, he never won anything. He wasn't anywhere close to a #1 draft pick talent, regardless of his attitude. And his career to date has illustrated this.
> 
> Rose doesn't have the attitude problems, but he has a similar game.
> 
> ...


This has been an interesting thread to read. Good to see you around, as well.

I'm curious. If Rose ~ Francis, Beasley is similar to who? Carmelo? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> This has been an interesting thread to read. Good to see you around, as well.
> 
> I'm curious. If Rose ~ Francis, Beasley is similar to who? Carmelo? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.


Taking a break from the Cubs I assume? :biggrin:

sounds like he thinks hes's more than Carmelo....



> Michael Beasley is an absolute monster. He's a perennial All-Star and a potential top-10 guy. He's enormously efficient, rebounds like a 7-footer and can knock down any shot out to 23'. He muscles inside, takes SFs off the dribble from the perimeter, runs the floor effortlessly, finishes with power and efficiency, and can grab a board and take it the length of the court ala Pippen. On top of all this is the fact that he has no problems dishing to teammates and takes pride in making the smart pass, and he can bring it defensively with his athleticism and his ability to anticipate. Tonight's Heat-Bulls match is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the value he'll add to his team. NBA front offices are developing anti-Beasley strategies as we speak.


Beasley's games lately have shown he is NOT an efficient scorer.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> It's the #1 PICK...I'd be fine if in another draft we'd have somehow managed to get him at #3 or #4. But #1? Unless you're a 7-foot monster with stratospheric potential, a #1 is supposed to come in and dominate from Day 1. The "grooming period" undermines the true value of having the #1 pick.
> 
> I'm sure Rose is concentrating on learning the offense, feeling out his teammates, etc. But, again, if you have the #1 pick and you want a superstar PG for the next 10-12 years, you draft Chris Paul or Deron Williams. You don't draft Steve Francis.


No, this is wrong. In a draft like this, you get the guy who is the best player in 2011. Why? Because it was heavy with 19 year olds.

With your logic, you wouldve been one of those GMs who passed up Garnett for a few picks. Passed up McGrady for a lot of picks, and so on.



And who dominates at 19 anyway? Durant had a heavily flawed rookie season aside from his scoring, spending most of it trailing Noah in PER. Freaking Noah.

Beasely will average 18 a game this year but struggle greatly. Rose will struggle to run this team and play defense. All the 19 year olds are going to struggle. Expect it. Dont have high hopes for this coming year, either for Bulls or Miami. Those youngsters have a long learning period ahead. 

Deron Williams was so unbelievably bad at age 19. I went to school with him down there and I remember how horrible he was. Could not make a free throw.



Also Beasely has enjoyed a couple days of getting his shot packed by the likes of Sean Williams and Cedric Simmons. Wait til he gets to see the real NBA players. His 6'8"-ness and merely decent athleticism will be pretty darn clear.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> FYI, Rose went 2-9 with 9 points and didn't score in the first half yesterday. He's only attempted one three in two games. Summer League doesn't really matter, but I am paying attention to where he's taking his shots. Again, I'm not sure if it's wise to spend a #1 pick on a PG who can't hit threes or, worse, one who simply doesn't take them.


For the last however many years, all I've heard is "all we do is shoot jump shots"... "Kirk and Ben are one dimensional, neither one takes it to the hoop"... "I wish Nocioni wouldn't shoot jumpers every time he got the ball, and recently..."Why does Larry Hughes keep jacking up shots?"

So now we have a guy that would rather penetrate and dish, and we're complaining that he doesn't shoot enough three point shots? Seems to me he's exactly what we need... a guy that is going to set up jump shots for the guys that can make them, and get to the line by attacking the rim.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> But, again, if you have the #1 pick and you want a superstar PG for the next 10-12 years, you draft Chris Paul or Deron Williams. You don't draft Steve Francis.


Man, it would be easy as **** to draft if everyone had your crystal ball. 

FWIW, Francis got drafted higher than Paul or Williams.

Rose is *clearly* a better PG prospect than Deron Williams was IMHO. And I am an Illini grad.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Rose is *clearly* a better PG prospect than Deron Williams was IMHO. And I am an Illini grad.


Looked up Deron's free throw % his first year of college: 53%



Now he's up to 80%, in the tougher league. Was this magic? No. Skill always there, but a big part of it was gaining poise.

Now comparing Deron at age 19 to Rose, who has already been a team leader in a championship game.... and his FT% is already 71. I like his starting point.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I don't know if I consider it the type of no-brainer that Vega does, and I don't think that drafting Derrick Rose should really be called a "mistake" because I believe he's going to be very, very good - but I do agree that Beasley should have been the pick and I do agree that he's pretty much a lock for eliteness. 

I believe Bulls fans, from the minute of the draft lottery, have underestimated just how rare a combination of talents this guy has and just how important it was for the Bulls to get a player with his particular strengths. He really is special.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I believe Bulls fans, from the minute of the draft lottery, have underestimated just how rare a combination of talents this guy has and just how important it was for the Bulls to get a player with his particular strengths. He really is special.


Great shooter and gets creative shots off.

But... not an athletic freak by any means. not a post-up guy.... and as is well documented...6'8-ish in shoes.


He's not a pure SF, so he'll be forced to play PF, where there are going to be some big dudes pushing him around when he gets to the show. 

One thing is underestimating - another is just going by the reality that soooo many 6'8" PFs fail to make it, no matter how good a college player they were.

And that's not to say Beasely doesnt "make it," but it puts him behind the 8-ball for getting superstar level.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Ron Cey said:


> I do agree that Beasley should have been the pick and I do agree that he's pretty much a lock for eliteness.


Neither of them are a lock for "eliteness" it's WAY to early to say that. Wait until they play one NBA game, damn.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Beasley's problem in Game 2 was Eddy Curry syndrome. As Scott Skiles would say, Beasley has got...."JUMP!". Beasley needs to take that Beast drill more seriously, and begin working on dunking to finish instead of taking flat footed layups where he hardly even jumps. He has some bad habits there. But his jumpshot, his first step (and second step), and post moves are all great. 

But it's always hard to tell from these summer league games, since sometimes these guys just don't care to be playing in these games. Like look at Aaron Gray, he looked out of shape, and like he was on the path to get his arse kicked out of the league for most of the first two summer league games. Then for whatever reason he begins caring in the 4th quarter of yesterdays game, he has more bounce to his steps, he's running the courts, and he was downright dominant.

I think the one good thing coming from this summer league so far, is that Rose has good court vision. He didn't display it at Memphis at all, but it is there. Just watching these games, you can see where when your replacing Langford with Gordon and Nichols with Deng, this team has the potential to be very special. Still a little shaky on the front court though. Thomas/Noah aren't particularly good in transition. Aaron Gray is great in transition until he gets winded. I think Asik is going to fit with Rose like a glove though, so maybe our starting front court will end up like something like Tyrus/Asik or Asik/Gray.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Neither of them are a lock for "eliteness" it's WAY to early to say that. Wait until they play one NBA game, damn.


A "lock for eliteness" as far as draft prospects go. I don't mean to say that he's definitely going to be elite. I mean that as far as draft prospects go, in my opinion, he's one of the rare ones who projects to be elite.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> This has been an interesting thread to read. Good to see you around, as well.
> 
> I'm curious. If Rose ~ Francis, Beasley is similar to who? Carmelo? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.


Beasley is a combination of a young Antoine Walker/Carmelo/Lamar Odom. He's bigger, stronger and faster than those three, and he's a better rebounder, but it's about the best comparison I can make.

As good as Carmelo was in college, Beasley broke all of his records playing fewer games against better competition.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> No, this is wrong. In a draft like this, you get the guy who is the best player in 2011. Why? Because it was heavy with 19 year olds.


What extraordinary skills does Rose have compared with the current top 5 PGs in the league? Is his potential higher than that of Paul, Williams or Arenas?

Beasley was the no-brainer #1 pick until the last three weeks of the college season, when Rose and his Memphis squad became media darlings. All of the people who hadn't watched a lot of college hoops suddenly became bracket experts, and the Rose/CDR machine quickly gained steam because they were flat-out fun to watch. I remember picking up a paper in San Antonio on the morning of the NCAA championship, and all of the big headlines and extra pieces were about Rose/CDR and the high-flying Memphis club. The team that went on to shut down the Memphis guards and win the title was literally an afterthought, with pieces that seemed boring in comparison. Memphis was an extremely, extremely good team, but they also gained a TON of sudden attention in the tournament. Rose was the main benefactor of this attention. This no doubt factored into mock drafts, analysts' opinions, public perception, and, ultimately, draft night selections.



> With your logic, you wouldve been one of those GMs who passed up Garnett for a few picks. Passed up McGrady for a lot of picks, and so on.


No, not really. Garnett is 6'11". McGrady is 6'8". Neither were 6'3" guards, neither were drafted #1. 



> Deron Williams was so unbelievably bad at age 19. I went to school with him down there and I remember how horrible he was. Could not make a free throw.


Deron Williams started 30 games for Illinois at age 19.



> His 6'8"-ness and merely decent athleticism will be pretty darn clear.


"Merely decent" athleticism? Have you seen him play outside of Summer League?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Dornado said:


> For the last however many years, all I've heard is "all we do is shoot jump shots"... "Kirk and Ben are one dimensional, neither one takes it to the hoop"... "I wish Nocioni wouldn't shoot jumpers every time he got the ball, and recently..."Why does Larry Hughes keep jacking up shots?"


This is an effect of having no frontcourt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> But... not an athletic freak by any means.


'

I don't really agree with anything you wrote other than that you accurately reflected his height. But its all been covered. This part though I wanted to specifically comment on.

Beasley is not a freak with his vertical leap. But he is a freak athlete. The combination of north/south speed, lateral quickness, lane agility, and physical strength for a player of his size that he showed at the combine was freakish. Especially when you combine it with how abnormally refined his skills are for a 19 year old. 

I'm very happy that the Bulls were in a position to draft Derrick Rose. There really isn't that much to complain about. I just wish they'd drafted Beasley instead - but that isn't a reflection on the player Rose may become. There is a lot to like about Derrick Rose.

EDIT: Let me put it this way: I don't believe that Paxson made a "huge" mistake as Vega puts it. But I do believe he made a mistake.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> Great shooter and gets creative shots off.
> 
> But... not an athletic freak by any means.


Beasley is an athletic phenom. Period.



> One thing is underestimating - another is just going by the reality that soooo many 6'8" PFs fail to make it, no matter how good a college player they were.


This is illogical. To wit:

How many 6'3" PGs fail to make it?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

How many PFs handle like this?

youtube

How many PFs can do this?

youtube


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

I knew once Beasley had better numbers after the 1st summer league game that a thread like this would have been posted. Makes me laugh though. With the first pick, I felt that bulls could go either way with the player that they would select, that was until Beasley's height became known. Once I heard that the guy was only 6'7/6'8 I felt that Rose would have to be the selection. Beasley is too small to play the PF position the way we need someone to play that position. I would take a creator over Beasley at this point. Paxson made the right call and looking at the percentages of what people wanted Paxson to select, he was with the majority. Beasley is going to be a guy that depends on his jumper, and although I thought the comparisons of Coleman, Randolph were obsurd in the beginning, I think they are right on. There is no way, and I repeat, NO WAY you can compare Beasley to Carmelo Anthony. Its impossible. Lamar Odom, I can kinda see but Odom is taller and longer than Beasley so you can't compare the two. Beasley may be like a younger Charles Barkley, but that will be seen down the road, Barkley never shied away from contact and settled for jumpers, and I think that is where Beasley will be. Rose is the right pick, and Beasley, even though will be a force at some point in the NBA, definitely was not the right pick for this group of Bulls players.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> How many PFs handle like this?
> 
> youtube


Well I think that's part of the "concern" with Beasley (not that it's really a concern; just a reason for prefering Rose); the guy plays more like a small forward at times and physically is somewhere between a PF and a SF. Not that this will hold him back too much or anything. Just that the Bulls really wanted a bonafide post scorer. If he's taking 50% or more of his shot attempts from 10 feet and beyond, does that answer our needs?

Note that I'm speculating a bit on what he WILL do at the NBA level. Maybe he'll play more like a 4. 

And also trying to communicate some of the pro-Rose opinion.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

popeye12 said:


> I knew once Beasley had better numbers after the 1st summer league game that a thread like this would have been posted. Makes me laugh though. With the first pick, I felt that bulls could go either way with the player that they would select, that was until Beasley's height became known. Once I heard that the guy was only 6'7/6'8 I felt that Rose would have to be the selection. Beasley is too small to play the PF position the way we need someone to play that position. I would take a creator over Beasley at this point. Paxson made the right call and looking at the percentages of what people wanted Paxson to select, he was with the majority. Beasley is going to be a guy that depends on his jumper, and although I thought the comparisons of Coleman, Randolph were obsurd in the beginning, I think they are right on. There is no way, and I repeat, NO WAY you can compare Beasley to Carmelo Anthony. Its impossible. Lamar Odom, I can kinda see but Odom is taller and longer than Beasley so you can't compare the two. Beasley may be like a younger Charles Barkley, but that will be seen down the road, Barkley never shied away from contact and settled for jumpers, and I think that is where Beasley will be. Rose is the right pick, and Beasley, even though will be a force at some point in the NBA, definitely was not the right pick for this group of Bulls players.




Great post you are in my sig! :biggrin:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Well I think that's part of the "concern" with Beasley (not that it's really a concern; just a reason for prefering Rose); the guy plays more like a small forward at times and physically is somewhere between a PF and a SF. Not that this will hold him back too much or anything. Just that the Bulls really wanted a bonafide post scorer. If he's taking 50% or more of his shot attempts from 10 feet and beyond, does that answer our needs?


Beasley scores most of his points in the paint. He posts up, spins people and creates layups for himself. His scoring instincts in this regard are off the charts.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Just remember, Beasley is now playing with Dwyane Wade.

all of those college teams throwing everything at Beasley will now stop or else they get torched by wade.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> This is an effect of having no frontcourt.


No, it's the effect of having guards that can't penetrate and make plays. 

Well, to be fair, at least Gordon can make a play for himself once in a while.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

ChrisRichards said:


> Just remember, Beasley is now playing with Dwyane Wade.
> 
> all of those college teams throwing everything at Beasley will now stop or else they get torched by wade.


those college teams would have been better off not throwing everything at beasley.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Honestly i think Pax made a mistake, Beasley is pretty good .

basically he has the bulk of a 4 , rebounds like a 5 , creates his own shot off the dribble and shoots like a 2/3 ...that doesn't seem like carmelo or big dog to me thats more charles barkley/healthy larry johnson territory.

Rose i think will be pretty good but not right away and may never get to beasley's level, also considering the bulls roster which was guard heavy , i simply would not have drafted him, i think his skills are still a little raw, he is more of a potential pick to me...but not quite the stretch that tyrus was...i just see a problem if hinrich isn't dealt and Rose isn't at least a starter level player right away .

should kirk sit for an inferior player , or hughes and gordon for that matter, things like that can kill chemistry as we've seen with bulls seasons in the past , its not healthy for the team and not healthy for the young player either...Beasley should be a better player than gooden from day 1 so that issue would not exist.

so I guess i am agreeing with VV for once.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Beasley scores most of his points in the paint. He posts up, spins people and creates layups for himself. His scoring instincts in this regard are off the charts.


In college, yeah. Who's to say for sure if he will do that in the pro's?

Quentin Richardson was a dominant player in the paint for 2 seasons at DePaul, with perimeter skill to boot. He barely steps into the lane at all anymore.

Maybe a bad example, so here's another one; Carmelo Anthony did most of his damage in the paint in college, whereas now he's a midrange/slasher type. Obviously does some post up work, but he's a perimeter player first.

Again I'm not trying to make assumptions on Beasley; just that players' styles of play in college usually need to adapt coming into the NBA. That is, unless you have the frame to translate that style. Does Beasley? I'm less sure about that than many other guys.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

VincentVega said:


> It's the #1 PICK...I'd be fine if in another draft we'd have somehow managed to get him at #3 or #4. But #1? Unless you're a 7-foot monster with stratospheric potential, a #1 is supposed to come in and dominate from Day 1. The "grooming period" undermines the true value of having the #1 pick.
> 
> I'm sure Rose is concentrating on learning the offense, feeling out his teammates, etc. But, again, if you have the #1 pick and you want a superstar PG for the next 10-12 years, you draft Chris Paul or Deron Williams. You don't draft Steve Francis.


Hey man, it took time for Chris Paul and Deron Williams to become superstar PGs. Williams I believe during the draft was not labeled as a franchise player. Paul had the potential. PGs and Pfs/C's are the most important positions on a team trying to win a championship. Every team that has won a title has a great guard and a great big man.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

We might as well sticky this thread cause it's going to be around for at least 3 seasons


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Ron Cey said:


> '
> 
> I don't really agree with anything you wrote other than that you accurately reflected his height. But its all been covered. This part though I wanted to specifically comment on.
> 
> ...


What's wrong with the comparisons of Michael Beasley to Billy Cunningham??


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Watch Rose's play in the Final Four. He's Steve Francis. I was at the Final Four and shared this observation with a few NCAA folks.


Except Rose is unselfish. An unselfish Steve Francis would be a great basketball player.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Except Rose is unselfish. An unselfish Steve Francis would be a great basketball player.


if rose ends up being steve francis with a better head on his shoulders, that's a pretty damn good basketball player.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> if rose ends up being steve francis with a better head on his shoulders, that's a pretty damn good basketball player.


yep

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_J1zRzPDMmU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_J1zRzPDMmU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Quentin Richardson was a dominant player in the paint for 2 seasons at DePaul, with perimeter skill to boot. He barely steps into the lane at all anymore.


Q-Rich is 6'6" and scored on the post in college because he played for DePaul.



> Maybe a bad example, so here's another one; Carmelo Anthony did most of his damage in the paint in college, whereas now he's a midrange/slasher type. Obviously does some post up work, but he's a perimeter player first.


Beasley is bigger, stronger, more athletic and a better rebounder than Carmelo. Beasley is also ambidextrous and scores with either hand on a regular basis.



> Again I'm not trying to make assumptions on Beasley; just that players' styles of play in college usually need to adapt coming into the NBA. That is, unless you have the frame to translate that style. Does Beasley? I'm less sure about that than many other guys.


Beasley is a physical beast, plain and simple. He likes to be creative inside as opposed to roll over or overpower defenders (that's not to say he doesn't throw down ridiculous dunks whenever possible), but he won't get pushed around. He's extremely strong, both in his upper body as well as in terms of his core strength. It's a primary reason he has such unbelievable coordination and body control.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

That is why I found it hilarious, whenever the people at RealGM said I was bashing Rose by comparing him to Steve Francis. 

Like I said before the draft, Steve Francis is a real nice player to have, but not with the #1 pick when a player like Beasley is available. 

Like Ron Cey, I am having a hard time calling this a disaster, an abomination or anything, like taking Tyrus over Aldrdige in 2006.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Agreed.

I guess "huge mistake" is all relative...it's not a disaster (far from it), but the best scenario will not be played out in my opinion.

Life goes on, but messageboards are here for a reason...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Brook Lopez went for 22 and 8 today... what were we thinking!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Here are how our current PF's summer league stats compare to those of Michael Beasley



Beasley: 18 ppg 8 reb. 1 assist 1.3 blocks 1 steal 3.6 Turnovers on 34% from the field
Thomas: 18 ppg 7.6 reb. .66 assist 2 blocks .66 steals 1.6 turnovers on 43% from the field.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Yet who would you say is the better player now and in the long run?

Here's a hint: Its not Tyrus Thomas


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MB30 said:


> Yet who would you say is the better player now and in the long run?
> 
> Here's a hint: Its not Tyrus Thomas


That was hardly the point, but thanks, token Heat fan.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We'll trade Tyrus' beastliness for Michael Beasley if you guys are willing to send us Jason Richards and Earl Barron along with him!


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Dornado said:


> That was hardly the point, but thanks, token Heat fan.


What was the point then? To not compare them by putting their stats up against each other?

Thanks, token Bulls fan 


DEAL BG7! What a coup!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MB30 said:


> What was the point then? To not compare them by putting their stats up against each other?
> 
> Thanks, token Bulls fan
> 
> ...


It was more relevant to the "huge mistake" concept that is included in the thread topic... and how getting excited over summer league stats is a bit silly...


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

Rose is the truth.

**** Beasley.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

MB30 said:


> What was the point then? To not compare them by putting their stats up against each other?
> 
> Thanks, token Bulls fan
> 
> ...


Alright, lets get this trade to the league office.

Where you guys are going wrong with this trade is not the giving us Beasley part imo, but the giving us Jason Richards and Earl Barron's godliness.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Sorry, couldn't resist...this is one more clip for those who have the mind-bending idea that Beasley is some sort of average athlete.

Video

He's one of those rare guys that seems to elevate after he elevates -- he keeps on going up when you think he's at the apex of his jump. Combined with his body control, strength and (ambi)dexterity, it's insane. Check out some of the crossovers and drives he pulls, and keep in mind he did this as effortlessly during his freshman campaign in the Big XII.

Yes, part of me hates him (I'm a Kansas alum). That said, the guy's skillset is off the charts.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Dornado said:


> It was more relevant to the "huge mistake" concept that is included in the thread topic... and how getting excited over summer league stats is a bit silly...


I've maintained this mindset since December.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

The beast one of the finest 3 1/2 I have ever seen.

Ben Gorden is one of the finest 1 1/2 I have ever seen.

I will still take Derrick Rose at his natural point position everyday and twice on Sundays, the kid is special.

At least he has a natural position on the basketball court on offense and defense and will not necessitate future deals to make up for his shortcomings.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Whats wrong with making future deals? If your team needs work youd better hope your front office is making deals in order to accomadate the talent that is on the team. 

As for the videos that VV has posted - those that are saying hes an average athlete havent seen him play a whole lot. I think his best attribute is that handle for a big man with the ambidextrous ability to finish inside and contort his body to get the shot off. Because of this I believe it wont be that big a deal that hes an inch or two short of the prototype at PF. He has very long arms, a good jump shot and is an offensive savant (to steal a Jay Bilas word :laugh. Play him at the 3, play him at the 4...either way hes gonna be effective.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The only thing that pisses me off about Beasley is that he isn't trying in summer league. I guess this should be proof to Beasley that he won't be great if he doesn't exert a good amount of effort. But even looking at today's team, with him out there messing around and dogging it, he still put up 18 points on 12 shots. Not great, but those aren't horrible numbers, and they are actually outstanding in the production:effort ratio.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

I agree he should probably be playing harder. Perhaps he is playing hard and trying but it doesnt really look like hes working at 100% capacity, but thats always been the knock on him. He still hasnt hit for over 50% from the field in any of the 3 games so far, or double doubled - so hopefully one if not both of those will happen witin the next 2 games. Its not the be all and end all of course - but id be nice to see.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist...this is one more clip for those who have the mind-bending idea that Beasley is some sort of average athlete.
> 
> Video


The only amazing dunks there are the outdoor rim ones - not ten feet from the looks of it.

I mean, everything else on there is non-dunk contest material... again very skilled guy but not an amazing athlete. his athleticism is just decent, his dexterity with the ball is what makes him special.

but that line you gave us about him elevating "after he elevates" is kind of whatever.



Also, is that Stephen Malkmus in your av?


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

What about the ones in the dunk contest? Through the legs?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist...this is one more clip for those who have the mind-bending idea that Beasley is some sort of average athlete.


saying that he's not an athletic phenom is not the same as saying he's an average athlete.

however, at the nba level beasley is not a special athlete.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I rest my case.


----------



## X Dah Creator (Jun 19, 2008)

liekomgj4ck said:


> yep
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_J1zRzPDMmU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_J1zRzPDMmU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Damnnnnnnnnnn at 3:01.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

X Dah Creator said:


> Damnnnnnnnnnn at 3:01.


yeah that was sweett, I love the tea bag at the end


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> That said, when I watched Rose at the Final Four I kept seeing Jay Williams all over again, but without the long-range shot. Tremendous athlete, outstanding strength and power, great scorer, capable defender, creates for himself and others as a result of his raw talent, but not a complete or dedicated floor leader. Time will tell...but I cringed on draft night.


Derrick rose is more talented than Jay williams. Period.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> The only amazing dunks there are the outdoor rim ones - not ten feet from the looks of it.
> 
> I mean, everything else on there is non-dunk contest material... again very skilled guy but not an amazing athlete. his athleticism is just decent, his dexterity with the ball is what makes him special.
> 
> but that line you gave us about him elevating "after he elevates" is kind of whatever.


Marcus Fizer when he left Iowa State as the top scorer in the country could go between his legs and throw down vicious reverse dunks. That did not translate into a steller career at the next level.

I think Beasley is going to very good, but other than his midrange jumper, I am still looking for that killer move that will make him an unstoppable force in the league. He can develop it with solid coaching, but also consider that the best scouts in the world will be diagraming strategy to offset his talents.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Now, I've been trying to decide how to effectively address this thread for about 4 days now. And the reality is.....this thread is pretty ridiculous. 

Sorry, there's no other way to say it.

I've watched a good bit of beaslye and here's what I see. I see a scorer and that's it really. I don't see a guy that effectively knows how to play team ball, he doesn't pass, and he doesn't LOOK to pass. He considers himself the best and oftentimes ONLY scoring option regardless of the position of other players on the court, and IMHO, he passes the ball, only when its in his best interest to do so, so he can get it back in a better position to score himself. He's a pretty good rebounder, but it has little to do with technique or desire. I rarely see him box people out (not that he doesn't), but he does have good ball anticipation skills and he's fairly athletic for a 4 (not so much for a 3). Problem is, his game is more suited to play the three (please don't gimmie the charles barkley comparisons, he doesn't play with his back to the basket, he may start out that way, but then he faces up and drives around them or shoots over them). I rarely see a drop step or such like big man move. I see plenty of reverse pivots and face-ups. This is good, and I have no doubt that he will be exceptional at it. But it isn't what the bulls need.

I wonder why people don't explore more why such an exceptional talent played on such a mediocre team. The reality is that bealsey made no effort to make the players around him better, or to elevate their play. Say what you want about bill walker, but he was lottery bound before his injury and many thought he would be HIGH in the lottery, so he isn't as bad as beasley's proponents like to make him out to be. And Kansas States guards, bad as they may be were not awful. But they did play with a player who dominates the ball and frankly, NEEDS to do so at this point to be effective. As good as beasley is, if he were SO far and away the best talent on the floor, the reality is, Kansas state should have been better.

Let me put it another way: Carmelo anthony (much as I hate him) elevated the level of play of Peter Warrick and Gerry McNamara, which is why in his only season of play, he was able to win a national title. The evidence is clear: Neither of them were nearly as good without Carmelo on the floor as they were while he was there. Dwayne Wade put his team on his back and single handedly willed them to a final four. Why did beasley, if he's in the same stratosphere as those type players not elevate the level of play of his TEAM to those levels? He wasn't even CLOSE, and Kansas State was never in the discussion of being a team anyone was afraid of playing in the tournament. In college basketball, one player CAN indeed make that much of a difference, and clearly, Beasley did not.


The bulls need post scoring. Beasley isn't it, though he'll do plenty of scoring.

The bulls needed leadership and competent guard play. Rose is it.

End of discussion.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I've watched a good bit of beaslye and here's what I see. I see a scorer and that's it really. I don't see a guy that effectively knows how to play team ball, he doesn't pass, and he doesn't LOOK to pass. He considers himself the best and oftentimes ONLY scoring option regardless of the position of other players on the court, and IMHO, he passes the ball, only when its in his best interest to do so, so he can get it back in a better position to score himself. He's a pretty good rebounder, but it has little to do with technique or desire. I rarely see him box people out (not that he doesn't), but he does have good ball anticipation skills and he's fairly athletic for a 4 (not so much for a 3). Problem is, his game is more suited to play the three (please don't gimmie the charles barkley comparisons, he doesn't play with his back to the basket, he may start out that way, but then he faces up and drives around them or shoots over them). I rarely see a drop step or such like big man move. I see plenty of reverse pivots and face-ups. This is good, and I have no doubt that he will be exceptional at it. But it isn't what the bulls need.
> 
> I wonder why people don't explore more why such an exceptional talent played on such a mediocre team. The reality is that bealsey made no effort to make the players around him better, or to elevate their play. Say what you want about bill walker, but he was lottery bound before his injury and many thought he would be HIGH in the lottery, so he isn't as bad as beasley's proponents like to make him out to be. And Kansas States guards, bad as they may be were not awful. But they did play with a player who dominates the ball and frankly, NEEDS to do so at this point to be effective. As good as beasley is, if he were SO far and away the best talent on the floor, the reality is, Kansas state should have been better.
> 
> ...


well put; those points have been my biggest reasoning as to why the bulls wouldn't consider him. many who've tried to cast aspersions about MB's game are pretty far off; he's a wonderful scorer and beastly rebound guy, but the pro game will expose whatever weaknesses a player possesses rather quickly, and an unwillingness (i doubt if it's an inability) to pass and make others play with him doesn't bode well for a successful team MB will become a part of.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

In regard to the Derrick Rose = Steve Francis comparisons -- I really don't mind the comparison in terms of pure talent. Francis was a physical marvel coming into the league and had pretty good natural court vision.

However, Francis also is/was a head case and never had the brain to be truly great. He always had a sort of selfish mentality about him, and the fact that he didn't improve at all from his rookie year (and his subsequent loss of athleticism) tells me he was not a diligent worker in the off-season.

Consider Derrick Rose to be Steve Francis, but with his head screwed on correctly.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

The Krakken said:


> Now, I've been trying to decide how to effectively address this thread for about 4 days now. And the reality is.....this thread is pretty ridiculous.
> 
> Sorry, there's no other way to say it.
> 
> ...


What a great post, you win :biggrin:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Now, I've been trying to decide how to effectively address this thread for about 4 days now. And the reality is.....this thread is pretty ridiculous.
> 
> Sorry, there's no other way to say it.


...yet your argument for the Derrick Rose-Jay Williams comparison is that Rose is "more talented". No reasoning, no argument, just two words. Nevermind the fact that their skillsets are almost identical. Outstanding.



> I've watched a good bit of beaslye and here's what I see. I see a scorer and that's it really.


He also led the nation in rebounds and crushed all of Carmelo's freshman records. How much of Beasley have you actually watched?



> I wonder why people don't explore more why such an exceptional talent played on such a mediocre team.


I'm asking this in all seriousness...do you not follow AAU or college basketball?



> Let me put it another way: Carmelo anthony (much as I hate him) elevated the level of play of Peter Warrick and Gerry McNamara, which is why in his only season of play, he was able to win a national title.


Apples to oranges. Warrick (it's Hakim Warrick, not Peter Warrick) and McNamara were far more talented than anyone on K-State's club outside of Walker, who played most of this past season overweight, uninstructed and injured. Perhaps more importantly, K-State was coached last year by a guy with zero previous college coaching experience whatsoever, while Carmelo and company were coached by Jim Boeheim and played in a weaker league.

This argument is ridiculous. If I were to match this query with one of my own, I could pose the question that if Rose played on such a talented, fast-paced team in a league that was far inferior to the ACC, Big XII, SEC, Big East, etc., how could he not manage to average 5 assists per game or a 2:1 assist-turnover ratio?




> The bulls needed leadership and competent guard play. Rose is it.


What characteristics of Rose do you see that make him a leader? He didn't lead Memphis last year -- CDR and Dorsey did. What if he never develops an outside shot or becomes an ace distributor?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> What characteristics of Rose do you see that make him a leader? He didn't lead Memphis last year -- CDR and Dorsey did.


This was a tale of 2 seasons, really. By all accounts, the latter half of the year (including the tourney) is when Rose not only increased his level of play to elite at the college level, but also asserted himself more amongst his teammates. Moreso on the floor than off, but the point being that he was the clear cut best player and the guy "leading" the team when it mattered most, late in the season. The fact he did this as a freshman is what's really impressive. I never understood why people make this argument frankly because sports is very hierarchical at times; you always have juniors/seniors owning seniority over the freshmen. That shouldn't detract from any player's ability as a leader for the sole reason of them being younger than others.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> *He considers himself* the best and oftentimes ONLY scoring option regardless of the position of other players on the court, and IMHO, he passes the ball, only when its in his best interest to do so, so he can get it back in a better position to score himself. He's a pretty good rebounder, *but it has little to do with* technique or *desire*. I rarely see him box people out (not that he doesn't), but he does have good ball anticipation skills and he's fairly athletic for a 4 (not so much for a 3). Problem is, his game is more suited to play the three (please don't gimmie the charles barkley comparisons, *he doesn't play with his back to the basket, he may start out that way, but then he faces up and drives around them or shoots over them*). I rarely see a drop step or such like big man move. I see plenty of reverse pivots and face-ups. This is good, and I have no doubt that he will be exceptional at it. But it isn't what the bulls need.
> 
> *I wonder why people don't explore more why such an exceptional talent played on such a mediocre team. * The reality is that bealsey made no effort to make the players around him better, or to elevate their play. Say what you want about bill walker, but he was lottery bound before his injury and many thought he would be HIGH in the lottery, so he isn't as bad as beasley's proponents like to make him out to be. And Kansas States guards, bad as they may be were not awful. But they did play with a player who dominates the ball and frankly, NEEDS to do so at this point to be effective. As good as beasley is, if he were SO far and away the best talent on the floor, the reality is, Kansas state should have been better.
> 
> ...


Well, this "he considers himself" stuff is all conjecture, and a bit silly... though I'm glad you've got an insight into the inner-workings of Michael Beasley's brain.

The idea that his rebounding ability has nothing to do with desire is just absurd... the kid attacks the boards and is actively pursuing every rebound... I know you are trying to type-cast Beasley as a lazy me-first player, but give me a break.

As for the "mediocre team" comment... isn't it the first time in 20+ years that K-State has had a team that good? And I'm sorry... Bill Walker did get injured, so his pre-injury status is totally meaningless.... and regardless, he doesn't compare as a college player to Gerry McNamera and Hakim Warrick's combined contribution. Dwyane Wade played with two other NBA players on that Marquette team (Diener, Novak) as well as two quality big men in Robert Jackson and Scott Merritt. Michael Beasley certainly helped his team win... this is just a silly assertion.

And it isn't like every great player (Tim Duncan) leads their team to an NCAA championship game.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> ...yet your argument for the Derrick Rose-Jay Williams comparison is that Rose is "more talented". No reasoning, no argument, just two words. Nevermind the fact that their skillsets are almost identical. Outstanding.


Well the biggest reason for that is because I'm not having an "argument". Its just a fact. Talents are things you can't teach. Skills are things you teach. You can argue pretty effectively that Jay Williams was more skilled coming out of college, and having watched nearly every one of their games in college (both of them) I would not argue against it. One should also consider that Jay played 3 years in college, but that's moot for the purposes of this discussion. But one cannot in good conscious argue that rose is not more TALENTED (read: bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic) than Jay williams. He just is. Period.



> He also led the nation in rebounds and crushed all of Carmelo's freshman records. How much of Beasley have you actually watched?


A good bit, but more important than the minutes I've watched are the minutes I've PLAYED. Players effect games in different ways, and while I do place a good bit of emphasis on the numbers, having played the game against some pretty good competition, and having been around it and studied it for virtually my entire life, I place far more emphasis on what I see and FEEL, than what the numbers tell me. Admittedly, we may not be using the same metric, so your mileage may vary.



> I'm asking this in all seriousness...do you not follow AAU or college basketball?


Closer than you realize.



> Apples to oranges.


Hardly.



> Warrick (it's Hakim Warrick, not Peter Warrick) and McNamara were far more talented than anyone on K-State's club outside of Walker, who played most of this past season overweight, uninstructed and injured.


So it is Hakim. I was typing in a hurry. It doesn't make my point any less valid. And WARRICK may have been more talented than anyone on K-state's club outside of walker, but walker was on the team, so there's no point in excluding him. McNamara was a jumpshooter and little else. Period. They are a dime a dozen in college. In fact, they are a dime a dozen at MOST colleges. I'm not unconvinced that I couldn't beat Gerry McNamarra in a shooting contest, and I've played with many players who shoot like that. Not that he wasn't good. But honestly and truly? He wasn't all that special. Sorry.

The second part of the above statement is just ridiculous. Overweight, maybe, but not ridiculously so. Carmelo was overweight in college, even if only marginally so. Uninstructed? That doesn't fly. Great players play well, and get other great players (which Walker was supposedly) to play well too. Instruction has nothing to do with it. We aren't talking about tyrus thomas level of basketball IQ here. Beasley didn't accomplish the second part. Walker didn't accomplish the second part. Not one person benefitted from playing with either of them at K-state. NOT ONE. And according to what you are telling me, you aren't even defending or denying the premise that they gained little to nothing from playing WITH EACH OTHER!?! That's got to give a person at least a LITTLE Pause? A little?

As for being injured, well players play injured. Luol Deng was injured last year, perhaps even more severely than Bill Walker. But he still managed to be the best player on our team. That's what being the best player means. It means you BE the best player, injuries or not.



> Perhaps more importantly, K-State was coached last year by a guy with zero previous college coaching experience whatsoever, while Carmelo and company were coached by Jim Boeheim and played in a weaker league.


A weaker conference? Really? Outside of Kansas, was the big 12 really that good this year? Hmm........either way, that really has no bearing in how they fared in the *NCAA tournament*, where the bottom line is syracuse beat everone who lined up in front of them, but that's hardly the point. The point is, nobody was scared of Kansas state, and with good reason. 



> This argument is ridiculous. If I were to match this query with one of my own, I could pose the question that if Rose played on such a talented, fast-paced team in a league that was far inferior to the ACC, Big XII, SEC, Big East, etc., how could he not manage to average 5 assists per game or a 2:1 assist-turnover ratio?


The turnover thing is overblown. He was a freshman. Freshman PG's tend to turn the ball over, when playing at the level he was playing at. As a senior if he was doing it, it would be a problem. But we'll never know. As for the first part of your question, unlike you, I'll actually ANSWER it: He didn't average 5 assists (this is a misnomer), because he was not asked to be a distributor. He wasn't asked to be john stockton, or magic johnson, or steve nash. In fact, his primary job was simply to get the ball up court WITHOUT turning it over. His secondary function was to try and SCORE......as a SECOND OPTION (at the end of the season), or THIRD OPTION (at the beginning of the season). VERY LITTLE of the offense actually ran through him, until late in the year, and it wasn't designed to. Most of the stats he managed (ppg and assists included), he got DESPITE the offensive system they were in....not because of it. 




> What characteristics of Rose do you see that make him a leader?


Leadership is an intagible quality. It isn't quantifiable in a statsheet. But by seasons end, clearly Memphis was rose's team, even if he deferred to CDR (as he undoubtedly did, and IMHO it was the BIGGEST reason they lost to Kansas) in the title game. I see that everywhere he goes, he wins. I see that players like playing with him, and they aren't afraid to let him take the reigns. I see a player that prefers to let his actions do the talking (which is how he ended up with tendinitis in his knee), as opposed to being a talking head (like Joakim Noah). I see a player that doesn't allow his status to parlay into a sense of entitlement. He's willing to work for every inch of what he's given and prove he deserves it. That is perhaps his best leadership quality of all.



> He didn't lead Memphis last year -- CDR and Dorsey did.


That's arguable, and its an argument I don't feel like having. So lets move on.



> What if he never develops an outside shot or becomes an ace distributor?


This question is not worth answering because it requires a crystal ball. Maybe in three years, we can have this discussion again. But that's my point. It's way too early to have this discussion now, and so right now, this thread is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Well, this "he considers himself" stuff is all conjecture, and a bit silly... though I'm glad you've got an insight into the inner-workings of Michael Beasley's brain.
> 
> The idea that his rebounding ability has nothing to do with desire is just absurd... the kid attacks the boards and is actively pursuing every rebound... I know you are trying to type-cast Beasley as a lazy me-first player, but give me a break.
> 
> ...


Not to nitpick, but the Dwayne Wade team I don't believe had Novak. If Novak was there, it was very early in his college career because I don't recall him being there at all. That Marquette team was basically the Wade & Diener show.

(Note: Correct -- Novak was a freshman, only a 15 minute, 6.7 ppg player: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/players/29937)

I hear ya on most of your points though. I did think some of Krakken's points were a little extreme, though I thought he highlighted many of the same concerns on Beasley (which I don't like calling "concerns" because it's all a matter of preference). For example, the concept of Beasley being a potential black hole who doesn't make teammates better COULD be grounded in truth. The comparison to Fizer might not be accurate, but it's not the most absurd either. Fizer was extremely dominant in college but his blackhole-ness combined with his non-ideal size made him worthless in the NBA. All that shows is those are 2 areas that may prevent Beasley from reaching the uber-star status that many are proclaiming.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

damn this has become a real slug fest I'm enjoying this


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Well, this "he considers himself" stuff is all conjecture, and a bit silly... though I'm glad you've got an insight into the inner-workings of Michael Beasley's brain.


No not really, but I digress.



> The idea that his rebounding ability has nothing to do with desire is just absurd...


That may have been a bit much. I admit that.



> the kid attacks the boards and is actively pursuing every rebound...


No he isn't.



> I know you are trying to type-cast Beasley as a lazy me-first player, but give me a break.


No I'm not. So you give me a break. Me first? I don't have to typecast him as that. That is WHAT HE IS. Even if you never saw him play, the same stats that you all use to sing his praises bare that out. For such a high useage rate, and for someone who touches the ball as much as he does, and has SO MUCH of the offense run through him, and faces SO MANY double and triple teams (which undoubtedly DOES leave other players open), his assist rate is dreadful.

And I don't think he's lazy at all. But he isn't Hakeem Olajuwon and Dennis Rodman rolled into one, like many of his proponents are trying to make him out to be.



> As for the "mediocre team" comment... isn't it the first time in 20+ years that K-State has had a team that good? And I'm sorry... Bill Walker did get injured, so his pre-injury status is totally meaningless.... and regardless, he doesn't compare as a college player to Gerry McNamera and Hakim Warrick's combined contribution. Dwyane Wade played with two other NBA players on that Marquette team (Diener, Novak) as well as two quality big men in Robert Jackson and Scott Merritt. Michael Beasley certainly helped his team win... this is just a silly assertion.


Please spare me in Robert Jackson and Scott Merritt. If you reserve the right to dismiss my over the top faux pas in Beasley's rebounding, I reserve the right to do the same with your "quality big men". Those guys were barely any more quality than Thadeuss Delaney from College of Charleston 15 years ago. If they were that.

As for saying he didn't help his team win....I never said that. I said he didn't make his team "superstar certifiabley better"....not in the same way that players that he's compared to did. Thats what I said.



> And it isn't like every great player (Tim Duncan) leads their team to an NCAA championship game.


How many dominant NBA centers (and please don't come back with the "TD is a PF argument) do you know that played in the NCAA title game?

College basketball is a perimeter oriented game. But beasley spent lots of time operating from the perimeter, so the comparison is incongruous.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Not to nitpick, but the Dwayne Wade team I don't believe had Novak. If Novak was there, it was very early in his college career because I don't recall him being there at all. That Marquette team was basically the Wade & Diener show.
> 
> (Note: Correct -- Novak was a freshman, only a 15 minute, 6.7 ppg player: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/players/29937)


Novak was young, but was an important role player throughout the spring spacing the floor... was clutch in the tourney (until they played Kansas).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> damn this has become a real slug fest I'm enjoying this


Well, I hate to cut it short, but I just don't have the time to dedicate to these discussions like I used to. I was just diagnosed with Cancer, so this is just something I do once a day to take my mind away. And unfortunately, most of my time for today is up. But I will end with this.


Many of my statements above may have been hyperbole regarding beasley. But for the most part, I stand by the general premise of them. He's shown very little ability to do the things that WE would need him to do ON THIS TEAM, given its current makeup. Therefore this thread is silly AT THIS TIME.

See yall around.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Not to nitpick, but the Dwayne Wade team I don't believe had Novak. If Novak was there, it was very early in his college career because I don't recall him being there at all. That Marquette team was basically the Wade & Diener show.
> 
> (Note: Correct -- Novak was a freshman, only a 15 minute, 6.7 ppg player: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/players/29937)
> 
> I hear ya on most of your points though. I did think some of Krakken's points were a little extreme, though I thought he highlighted many of the same concerns on Beasley (which I don't like calling "concerns" because it's all a matter of preference). For example, the concept of Beasley being a potential black hole who doesn't make teammates better COULD be grounded in truth. The comparison to Fizer might not be accurate, but it's not the most absurd either. Fizer was extremely dominant in college but his blackhole-ness combined with his non-ideal size made him worthless in the NBA. All that shows is those are 2 areas that may prevent Beasley from reaching the uber-star status that many are proclaiming.


Its also a comparison I wouldn't dream of making. Beasley is already better than Fizer was in the NBA, and he hasn't even played a single meaningful minute. I'm not saying beasley's bad. But he isn't without his own set of red flags, which his proponents seem hellbent on denying he has. SO I may have gone over the top and been a bit aggressive in my characterization of him, but I do believe that he is indeed a me first player that has yet to figure out how to maximize the other 4 players around him. I'm not sure he even knows HOW to play with for other talented players around him. Much less maximize their abilities. But we shall see....


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Well, I hate to cut it short, but I just don't have the time to dedicate to these discussions like I used to. I was just diagnosed with Cancer, so this is just something I do once a day to take my mind away. And unfortunately, most of my time for today is up. But I will end with this.
> 
> 
> Many of my statements above may have been hyperbole regarding beasley. But for the most part, I stand by the general premise of them. He's shown very little ability to do the things that WE would need him to do ON THIS TEAM, given its current makeup. Therefore this thread is silly AT THIS TIME.
> ...


I've really been enjoying your posts today. I think a lot of it I find appealing because there is a certain intangible quality to basketball that many people ignore. The fact of the matter is that gaudy point and rebound totals on a bad team don't necessarily indicate a good player (ask the Knicks). I think Beasley could develop into a very good player, but he's got some big holes in his game that need addressing in order to accomplish that. A 6'8'' PF who can't pass out of a double team is going to be in trouble in the NBA until that skill is developed.

Sorry to hear about the big C, Krakken. I hope you're attacking it with tenacity and that you'll be well soon.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> No not really, but I digress.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, but Robert Jackson was a good college basketball player... 15 and 7 and second team all-conference... as a third option, that's not bad. Jackson was effective in the SEC and in Conference USA... Merritt was a defender/rebounder, and a legit 6'10. Those guys were better than anyone outside of Bill Walker on K-State's roster. Sorry, that Marquette team was good without Wade, and great with him. 

I don't get your point on the Centers thing... but if you want me to list them: Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon and Greg Oden to name a few... that seems like a lot... so whether or not college basketball is a "perimeter oriented game" is debatable... but I'm not really sure where you were going with that...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Well the biggest reason for that is because I'm not having an "argument". Its just a fact. Talents are things you can't teach. Skills are things you teach. You can argue pretty effectively that Jay Williams was more skilled coming out of college, and having watched nearly every one of their games in college (both of them) I would not argue against it. One should also consider that Jay played 3 years in college, but that's moot for the purposes of this discussion. But one cannot in good conscious argue that rose is not more TALENTED (read: bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic) than Jay williams. He just is. Period.


Talent isn't just about athleticism.



> So it is Hakim. I was typing in a hurry. It doesn't make my point any less valid.


Not a big deal. I know you knew his name.



> And WARRICK may have been more talented than anyone on K-state's club outside of walker, but walker was on the team, so there's no point in excluding him. McNamara was a jumpshooter and little else. Period. They are a dime a dozen in college. In fact, they are a dime a dozen at MOST colleges. I'm not unconvinced that I couldn't beat Gerry McNamarra in a shooting contest, and I've played with many players who shoot like that. Not that he wasn't good. But honestly and truly? He wasn't all that special. Sorry.


Warrick and McNamara were very good college basketball players, and a hell of a lot better than anything Beasley had around him. Bill Walker literally quit every other game he played in. And when you're talking about how Beasley and Carmelo's teams fared, remember that Frank Martin isn't Jim Boeheim.



> A weaker conference? Really? Outside of Kansas, was the big 12 really that good this year?


The Big XII sent six teams to the NCAA Tournament (more than any other conference), featured two Elite Eight teams (more than any other conference), and its flagship program won the national title in the most esteemed Final Four of all time (four #1 seeds). The Big XII was pretty good last year. 



> Leadership is an intagible quality. It isn't quantifiable in a statsheet. But by seasons end, clearly Memphis was rose's team, even if he deferred to CDR (as he undoubtedly did, and IMHO it was the BIGGEST reason they lost to Kansas) in the title game.


Free throws and not following instructions (foul Collins, protect the ball) had something to do with it, too. Kansas' guards completely overwhelmed Rose and CDR in the last 2 minutes of regulation and all of OT.



> I see that everywhere he goes, he wins. I see that players like playing with him, and they aren't afraid to let him take the reigns. I see a player that prefers to let his actions do the talking (which is how he ended up with tendinitis in his knee), as opposed to being a talking head (like Joakim Noah). I see a player that doesn't allow his status to parlay into a sense of entitlement. He's willing to work for every inch of what he's given and prove he deserves it. That is perhaps his best leadership quality of all.


This is true, and I respect it immensely. That said, I just don't see a true dyed-in-the-wool leader in Rose. I could be wrong, and as long as Rose is in Chicago I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

On a related note, perhaps the two biggest steals of the draft were CDR and Chalmers...how they could both fall to the second round is flat-out ridiculous.

Edit: sorry to hear about your illness. Get better.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The original poster still has not addressed a) why he thinks Rose has a Steve Francis-like attitude or b) how being Steve Francis with a good head on his shoulders is a bad thing.

Again, Steve Francis in his prime with a decent head is a great player.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> The original poster still has not addressed a) why he thinks Rose has a Steve Francis-like attitude


Why would I address this? I never said, nor have I ever thought, that Rose had a Steve Francis-like attitude. Please don't put words into my mouth.



> or b) how being Steve Francis with a good head on his shoulders is a bad thing.


Same song, different verse. I never said it was a bad thing (it's obviously a very, very good thing)...but it's not worth the #1 pick in a draft featuring Beasley, on a team loaded with guards in critical need of frontcourt scoring. I've said this over and over again throughout this thread.

Some of you are trying to make it seem as if I think Rose isn't a spectacular talent that will help the team. If you have to, please read my posts again and consider my points before attempting to call me out.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Why would I address this? I never said, nor have I ever thought, that Rose had a Steve Francis-like attitude. Please don't put words into my mouth.


He wasn't -- he was saying you haven't addressed _either_ of (a) or (b), because one of those two had to be true just by simple logic.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Why would I address this? I never said, nor have I ever thought, that Rose had a Steve Francis-like attitude. Please don't put words into my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This team is in need of someone who can collapse a defense regularly and make players around him better. The position is irrelevant.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I didn't address the fact that Steve Francis with a good head on his shoulders is a good thing because it's self-evident. Rose is a good thing. Fantastic talent, great player, seems like a good guy. But Beasley would have been a better pick. Why some people choose to distort these things and put words into my mouth is beyond me.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I didn't address the fact that Steve Francis with a good head on his shoulders is a good thing because it's self-evident. Rose is a good thing. Fantastic talent, great player, seems like a good guy. But Beasley would have been a better pick. Why some people choose to distort these things and put words into my mouth is beyond me.


You compared Rose to Francis to denigrate his upside in comparison with Paul and Williams. Francis had comparable if not more ability than these two players. Admitting that Rose has Francis ability with a good head is undermining your earlier argument that Rose is not a franchise PG talent.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> You compared Rose to Francis to denigrate his upside in contrast to Paul and Williams.


Correct. Francis was never the benefit to his team that either Paul or Williams are.



> Francis had more ability than these two players.


Not from a floor-general or team leader standpoint, which is presumably what we're getting with Rose. Francis didn't have anywhere close to the complete package -- he was a lousy three-point shooter, a bad leader, was too emotional and racked up assists as a result of his athleticism, not because he was a natural or willing distributor. Marbury has talent, too. Look where that's gotten him. Paul and Williams have a different type of talent and a more complete game. Look at where they are now in comparison to Francis and Marbury.



> Admitting that Rose has Francis ability with a good head is undermining your earlier argument that Rose is not a franchise PG talent.


Nope.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Correct. Francis was never the benefit to his team that either Paul or Williams are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some of this is just getting a little distorted to read, so forgive me here.

Many NBA viewers, myself included, believe that Marbury and Francis achieved the lousy status that they have by having an overly selfish approach to the game. Neither of them had a problem in terms of talent or even court vision or anything. You might even say that Marbury _could've_ been everything that Chris Paul currently is, if he just had his head screwed on right. The talent and tools were there -- the mindset was not.

You're also kinda lumping "natural distributor" and "willing distributor" into one statement which really isn't the same thing by any stretch. I always thought Marbury was a "natural" distributor from the fact that he could see the floor and make the pass when he wanted to. But he wasn't he most "willing" distributor, nor did he play well within a structured system. Again, it was a problem with his brain.

What we're trying to argue here in a nutshell is that Rose is in the same class talent-wise as ALL these guys. But we THINK he falls closer to the Paul/Williams camp because his attitude and unselfishness seem more in line with those guys.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Correct. Francis was never the benefit to his team that either Paul or Williams are.


Right. But since you've acknowledged that Rose has a higher bball IQ than Francis while sharing his talent and that that is a very good thing, I'm not sure why this comparison is relevant.Bball IQ for a PG obviously has a significant impact on team performance. 



VincentVega said:


> Not from a floor-general or team leader standpoint, which is presumably what we're getting with Rose. Francis didn't have anywhere close to the complete package -- he was a lousy three-point shooter, a bad leader, was too emotional and racked up assists as a result of his athleticism, not because he was a natural or willing distributor. Marbury has talent, too. Look where that's gotten him. Paul and Williams have a different type of talent and a more complete game. Look at where they are now in comparison to Francis and Marbury.


Again you've acknowledge that Rose has a much better head than Francis and yet you still use the Francis comparison to downplay Rose's upside on factors that are heavily related to BBall IQ (floor general, leadership, emotional control, etc). 

And again, why make the Marbury reference? You've already acknowledged that Rose has a good head. Again, just like with Francis, Marbury plus a good bball head would be a franchise PG. 

Essentially what you're doing here is criticizing Rose by comparing him to two of the most talented PGs in the league in the past ten years, two PGs whose only real weakness was mental, and then admitting that Rose doesn't share those mental weaknesses and is therefore is only really comparable to them in terms of talent, which you admit they possessed in spades. 

That's not really an effective technique to make a case against Rose.

BTW, Chris Paul was a lousy three point shooter as a rookie.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Right. But since you've acknowledged that Rose has a higher bball IQ than Francis


I never acknowledged this. In fact, I'm not convinced that Rose is a smarter player than Francis was. Better attitude? Sure. Higher basketball IQ? Not so sure. 



> Essentially what you're doing here is criticizing Rose by comparing him to two of the most talented PGs in the league in the past ten years, two PGs whose only real weakness was mental, and then admitting that Rose doesn't share those mental weaknesses and is therefore is only really comparable to them in terms of talent, which you admit they possessed in spades.


I'm not criticizing Rose as much as I'm criticizing the decision to draft him. Francis/Marbury + good heads on their shoulders aren't worth a #1 pick when your team has the cherished leadoff pick, a solid core of experienced guards, and is in dire need of frontcourt scoring.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

So Vincent, 

You basically just think we should of picked Beasley because he is a scoring PF and we need that on the Bulls?

I always thought it was best to pick BPA.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I never acknowledged this. In fact, I'm not convinced that Rose is a smarter player than Francis was. Better attitude? Sure. Higher basketball IQ? Not so sure.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not criticizing Rose as much as I'm criticizing the decision to draft him. Francis/Marbury + good heads on their shoulders aren't worth a #1 pick when your team has the cherished leadoff pick, a solid core of experienced guards, and is in dire need of frontcourt scoring.


Perhaps we should clarify what is meant by "good head" (cue jokes) if not bball IQ. However even if I accept your definition, which seems to be "not selfish," I still reach the conclusion that a not selfish Steve Francis or Marbury would have been a franchise player which still renders your attempt to belittle Rose (which you're backing down from now) by comparing him to them a little empty.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

TripleDouble said:


> Perhaps we should clarify what is meant by "good head"


no such thing as "bad head" :laugh:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't see the Steve Francis comparison as much . 

I see him as union where Tony Parker and Deron Williams combine to become the same point guard ..except with the likliehood of being a better defensive player than what you would get from this Frankenstein style experiment ...maybe we take the rib of Jason Kidd in his prime and put it in there 

And with that you've got Derrick Rose as far as I can tell 

I'd take that over Carmelo Coleman in the long run


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Beasley had been he unanimous BPA for well over a year until the hype surrounding Rose -- which started in the last two or three weeks of the college season -- came to a boil and became too much for reporters and analysts not to endorse. Essentially every mock draft on the planet had Beasley going #1 up until the end of May, and to most analysts there was never even a question of who would go #1. Then, the first week of June, there were reports of supposed character issues with Beasley (and character qualities with Rose), as if any of the draft analysts actually knew or spent a significant amount of time with either player. 

Try to think back a few months. Even deep into the season, in February and March, the "best player in the country" debate centered around Beasley vs. Hansbrough. Just those two guys. The popular opinion was that Hansbrough was POY, whereas Beasley was the best player in the country and the obvious #1 pick. Rose didn't enter the conversation until after the POY trophy had been handed out. For reference, click on articles like this and this (you'll notice that Ford explains Beasley as Chicago's pick because he's "the best fit").

Again, the hype and exposure for Rose came very fast and at just the right time.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> which still renders your attempt to belittle Rose (which you're backing down from now)


Don't get so defensive -- I'm not "belittling" or "criticizing" Rose when I compare him to Francis. My post from page 5, where I first draw the comparison:

_"You simply don't pass up on the best player in the draft to grab a PG who doesn't do as many things, or as many things as well, as any top 5 PG in the league (none of whom were drafted #1). *Rose is very good, but he's not Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, Gilbert Arenas or Jason Kidd. He's Steve Francis. You don't pass up on Beasley to use your #1 pick to draft Steve Francis -- especially when you've fielded one of the worst frontcourts in the league over the last half decade.*

FYI, Rose went 2-9 with 9 points and didn't score in the first half yesterday. He's only attempted one three in two games. *Summer League doesn't really matter, but I am paying attention to where he's taking his shots. Again, I'm not sure if it's wise to spend a #1 pick on a PG who can't hit threes or, worse, one who simply doesn't take them."*_

That's not "belittling" someone. That's expressing a valid observation and sincere opinion. My argument has been consistent throughout the entire thread (it's been my argument for months), and it neither starts nor ends with a comparison to Steve Francis.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Don't get so defensive -- I'm not "belittling" or "criticizing" Rose when I compare him to Francis. My post from page 5, where I first draw the comparison:
> 
> _"You simply don't pass up on the best player in the draft to grab a PG who doesn't do as many things, or as many things as well, as any top 5 PG in the league (none of whom were drafted #1). *Rose is very good, but he's not Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, Gilbert Arenas or Jason Kidd. He's Steve Francis. You don't pass up on Beasley to use your #1 pick to draft Steve Francis -- especially when you've fielded one of the worst frontcourts in the league over the last half decade.*
> 
> ...


You are trying to belittle him by comparing him to a selfish player who hasn't made his teams better instead of unselfish players who have. 

The problem is you then admit that Rose is not selfish and somehow don't see how that invalidates your comparison to a player whose career has been defined by selfishness.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Beasley had been he unanimous BPA for well over a year until the hype surrounding Rose -- which started in the last two or three weeks of the college season -- came to a boil and became too much for reporters and analysts not to endorse. Essentially every mock draft on the planet had Beasley going #1 up until the end of May, and to most analysts there was never even a question of who would go #1. Then, the first week of June, there were reports of supposed character issues with Beasley (and character qualities with Rose), as if any of the draft analysts actually knew or spent a significant amount of time with either player.
> 
> Try to think back a few months. Even deep into the season, in February and March, the "best player in the country" debate centered around Beasley vs. Hansbrough. Just those two guys. The popular opinion was that Hansbrough was POY, whereas Beasley was the best player in the country and the obvious #1 pick. Rose didn't enter the conversation until after the POY trophy had been handed out. For reference, click on articles like this and this (you'll notice that Ford explains Beasley as Chicago's pick because he's "the best fit").
> 
> Again, the hype and exposure for Rose came very fast and at just the right time.


A lot of people on this site had Rose rated as the best prospect well before the NCAA tournament. This was just the exclemation point and a confirmation of what many saw in Rose all year long. 

I think it doesn't make sense to bring up that Beasley was in the discussion for POY, even the biggest Rose homer will have to admit that Beasley has had a better individual season. You are drafting Rose before Beasley if you think that he is going to be the better player in the pros and a lot of posters here have had that feeling all year long, not just during the tourney.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This site was bonkers for Memphis because of their uptempo style and almost-undefeated record. Most of the free world had Beasley as the no-brainer #1 right up until June.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> You are trying to belittle him by comparing him to a selfish player who hasn't made his teams better instead of unselfish players who have.
> 
> The problem is you then admit that Rose is not selfish and somehow don't see how that invalidates your comparison to a player whose career has been defined by selfishness.


Quit thinking so one-dimensionally. Even if he had no mental issues, I never thought Francis was worthy of a #1 pick. There's a reason why Elton Brand, the 6'8" best player in college, was drafted at #1 ahead of Francis. There's a reason why Marbury was selected #4 overall. These guys weren't #1 picks.

If you want to compare the three players based upon these merits, go right ahead.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Beasley had been he unanimous BPA for well over a year until the hype surrounding Rose -- which started in the last two or three weeks of the college season -- came to a boil and became too much for reporters and analysts not to endorse.


that's just not true.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Please prove otherwise.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Quit thinking so one-dimensionally. Even if he had no mental issues, I never thought Francis was worthy of a #1 pick. There's a reason why Elton Brand, the 6'8" best player in college, was drafted at #1 ahead of Francis. There's a reason why Marbury was selected #4 overall. These guys weren't #1 picks.
> 
> If you want to compare the three players based upon these merits, go right ahead.


None of the guys you mentioned as being better than Rose were number 1 picks either. What's your point? 

Let's be honest, did you ever think to yourself around the 1999 draft, "Boy, even if there was an unselfish version of Steve Francis available there would be no way I'd take him over Brand?" Really?

As far as there being reasons for players being drafted where they were. Of course. Those reasons are often wrong though. Unless of course you disagree and think that the order that players are drafted in always accurately predicts their career success.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Please prove otherwise.


well in recruiting rankings rivals had beasley at one, scout had beasley at two(behind mayo), and espn had beasley at eight. i know that isn't nba draft ratings, but that sure doesn't seem like consensus number one to me.

it would be nice if you could somehow prove your statement that beasley was the consensus best player in the draft for well over a year(so before the 2007 draft even happened).


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> How can Rose/Gordon not work out on defense? Gordon was part of the 2nd best defense in the league in 2004-2005 part of the 7th best defense in the league in 2005-2006, and part of the #1 defense in the league in 2006-2007. He was also part of the 14th (ouch!) best defense in 2007-2008.


Hinrich was also a part of those defenses was he not? Gordon is a chucker on offense. He is a slightly better version of Eddie House. Gordon needs to go. Hinrich as well if he isn't willing to accept a 6th man role off the bench. Sloth you can find another player to fulfill your hardon nh.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

VincentVega said:


> Please prove otherwise.


Rose has been the number one pick since the NCAA tournament. He dominated an elite group of guards and almost carried his team to an NCAA title. Names like DJ Augustin, Jamont Gordon, Drew Neitzel, Mario Chalmers, Russell Robinson, Sherron Collins he dominated every single one. Funny how one bad summer league game changes everything. BTW your boy Beasley was 1-13 from the field with 5 turnovers and 7 fouls in his second summer game. Maybe Pax should have chose Mayo. :azdaja:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Just saw that Rose is scheduled for a MRI when he gets back to chicago . :nailbiter:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Talent isn't just about athleticism.


I agree, and I'll use a current NBA player to illustrate that point. Consider one, Mark Blount. Went to school with him. He was garbage then, and he's pretty much gabage now. Now, he's in the NBA, but I can name 10 players that went to school with him that routinely were better than him and wore him out, daily. He wasn't the best player at our school. He wasn't even 5th best. He wasn't even 10th best. But he had one talent that none of us had. And it was indeed a talent....something you cant teach:

He was good at being 6'11". While I could only muster up a helathy 5'11" back then. So what does that mean? I means that though I was far more skilled at virtually every basketball skill they have a name for, he's in the NBA largely because he has a talent I don't posess. Height. There are and were other factors: Injuries which I've enumerated here before more than derailed my career before it could get started a few times.




> Warrick and McNamara were very good college basketball players, and a hell of a lot better than anything Beasley had around him. Bill Walker literally quit every other game he played in. And when you're talking about how Beasley and Carmelo's teams fared, remember that Frank Martin isn't Jim Boeheim.


I'll allow for that, while agreeing to disagree on Warrick and McNamara. They just weren't anything special. I have played against players like them my entire life. They really are a dime a dozen.




> The Big XII sent six teams to the NCAA Tournament (more than any other conference), featured two Elite Eight teams (more than any other conference), and its flagship program won the national title in the most esteemed Final Four of all time (four #1 seeds). The Big XII was pretty good last year.


I stand corrected. I didn't follow the big 12 that closely, though I DID follow texas, Kansas and Kansas state....for obvious reasons.




> Free throws and not following instructions (foul Collins, protect the ball) had something to do with it, too. Kansas' guards completely overwhelmed Rose and CDR in the last 2 minutes of regulation and all of OT.


I agree with most of that. I don't know about the last 2 minutes of regulation. That seemed more mental than physical to me. And that's a good thing because frankly that's the easiest to fix in a young player. In regulation they got owned, but it seems to me the fact that they were even in overtime seemed to deflate their sails a bit. The reality is though, they wouldn't have been had CDR deferred a bit more instead of jacking up the shots the way he did, and if Rose had asserted himself a bit more quickly. He waited too long. I distinctly remember watching that game screaming at rose, saying "what are you waiting for?". It didnt' seem he was in attack mode until about the 14 minute mark in the second half.




> This is true, and I respect it immensely. That said, I just don't see a true dyed-in-the-wool leader in Rose. I could be wrong, and as long as Rose is in Chicago I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.


Here again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Time will tell.



> On a related note, perhaps the two biggest steals of the draft were CDR and Chalmers...how they could both fall to the second round is flat-out ridiculous.


Here we'll agree.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

A few other points. 

1) Actually at this time last year, it was OJ Mayo who was the MOST widely regarded of the freshman phenoms. I remember it vividly. I also remember watching him play and always saying to myself, "there's just something not quite there". He just doesn't play as good as he actually is to me. ANd I think that exposed him a bit, and that's why he slipped. Actually, I still believe that. I think he will be relatively an UNDERACHIEVER in the league, not based on where he was picked, but based on all the projections that he had since the 8th grade. I don't think he'll be the best player from this class. I don't think he'll be the second best either. Its funny, because he reminds me of Rudy Gay as far as all the hype that surrounded him. Except I KNEW GAY was going to be better than advertised. I actually wanted us to pick Aldrige and trade Deng for the rights to draft Gay back then. Turns out, I was right.

While I was quietly watching Rose, Beasley, Mayo and Bayless, MOST of my attention was on Bayless and Russell Westbrook for most of 2007, because that's where I thought we'd be picking. The reality is though I took notice of ROSE in the Tennessee Game. A game they lost. But his mannerisms and demeanor on the court got my attention, and he became compelling to watch just as a basketball fan. I saw something in him. Its something special, that isn't about X's and O's, or statlines, but eventually shows up there. Ever seen the old Blaxxploitation movie "The last Dragon"? Rose to me is like Bruce Leroy before he figures out that he's the master. I took notice of Beasley after noting his ridiculous statlines in December. His numbers in college really are ridiculous, but to me, he's more fluff than filler. He'll be a fantasy leaguers dream. But I don't see him winning championships until he becomes a bit more unselfish.

2) I get what you are saying with the Francis Analogy, VV. But like other posters have stated, you can't really make that analogy without accounting for how the mental makeup of both HE and Marbury contributed to the derailment or at least the decelerration of their careers. They could have been HOF-ers if they had their heads screwed on stratght, as there have not been a more taleted pair of PG's in this league for quite some time. As far as physical tools, both of them were quite a ways ahead of Parker, Nash, and even Paul and Williams. Its the mental aspect where they lag, and honestly, its WAY too early to tell how Rose will turn out in that regard (though signs point to him being more like paul and williams than marbury). I *DON'T* think you were trying to belittle him though.

Typecast him maybe a little bit.... but not belittle.

3) I think the jury is still out on both of these players, they both have things they need to address, but one thing is for certain. I'll take both of them over ANY OF THE OPTIONS we had available to us at where we were supposed to pick (9).

4) Thank you all for your kind words of support. I'm sure I'll be fine and get through it. Its a bit exhausting though, as I'm sure you can imagine, physically, mentally, and emotionally.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Hey Krakken, do you see any similarities between Michael Beasley and Billy Cunningham??

If not, how about a combo of Derrick Coleman, Anthony Mason and Zach Randolph??


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> Hey Krakken, do you see any similarities between Michael Beasley and Billy Cunningham??
> 
> If not, how about a combo of Derrick Coleman, Anthony Mason and Zach Randolph??


I tend not to think of players in such frankenstien terms. But the players he reminds me the most of include: Larry Johnson (with a 3 point shot), Derrick Coleman (and not in a bad way), Glen Robinson (with better interior moves), and yes, Zach Randolph. 

Anthony mason was actually a fairly competent point forward. Something I don't see Beasley ever becoming.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I really don't see a ton of Glen Robinson in him... Robinson was a great mid-range jump shooter, which Beasley may prove to be, but couldn't handle the ball to save his life... Beasley has a great handle.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I really don't see a ton of Glen Robinson in him... Robinson was a great mid-range jump shooter, which Beasley may prove to be, but couldn't handle the ball to save his life... Beasley has a great handle.


Beasley has great handle in the "make a move to the basket" kind of way. He does not have "run the offense" scottie pippen/barkley type point forward handle. I would not set up an offense with him handling the ball at the top of the key and expect him to execute a play successfully, for example.

And that's fine. He is after all, trying to project as a 4. They aren't asked to be pg's. But again, I'd guard against these unrealistic expectations and accolades that people seem all too willing to lavish him with.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Right, I agree he doesn't have a "navigate-your-way around the court with your head up" kind of handle... (Which Pip definitely had...) though as you mention he probably isn't expected to be the 'playmaker' for the Heat... But Big Dog with the ball on a fast break was just terrible to watch... you'd just yell "Pass it! Pass it!" until he dragged a pivot foot or bobbled the ball away... Beasley is way ahead of him in that respect.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Right, I agree he doesn't have a "navigate-your-way around the court with your head up" kind of handle... (Which Pip definitely had...) though as you mention he probably isn't expected to be the 'playmaker' for the Heat... But Big Dog with the ball on a fast break was just terrible to watch... you'd just yell "Pass it! Pass it!" until he dragged a pivot foot or bobbled the ball away... Beasley is way ahead of him in that respect.


Fair enough.


----------



## ChrisRichards (Jul 17, 2007)

Beasley is a Charles Barkley type player.


----------



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

I see Beasley as a better Lamar Odom. Odom is strong as hell, but he doesn't seem to take advantage of it.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

I was watching some videos of Larry Johnson and Derrick Coleman, I think theyre probably the most accurate comparisons.

He doesnt have the authorative finishes that Coleman and LJ had around the bucket, but hes a better shooter. Hopefully he has a better attitude and work ethic than Coleman did, but if Coleman and LJ played the way they did over their first few years over the course of their careers...they wouldve been remembered as much better players than they are today. I dont think Beasley has the passing ability that Coleman possessed but he's got a better handle than both of them in terms of creating a shot. Hes only 19, he has a long way to go in order to refine his game and work on getting his teammates more involved. He'll have to learn that playing next to Wade and (maybe) Marion that he cant take 20 shots a game. He'll learn.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

**bump**


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I fully realize it's a long season, and even longer career, for the 2008 draft class. So anything and everything said right now could all be irrelevant in a month, a year, or 5 years.

However, I will say that my concerns about Beasley are looking legit right now. IMO, he looks like a more athletic version of Marcus Fizer. On the plus side he has insane scoring ability when 10 feet or closer to the basket. On the negative side he has a black hole tendency and isn't a good passer. He turns the ball over alot as well.

Those things could improve, but I also get concerned with these things because they are hard habits to break.


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

Relax its just 1 game but Mario Chalmers is going to be a star in this league. 
17pts 8assist 7 rebounds


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'd say he could possibly be a more finesse, higher skilled version of LJ. Both short but fairly beefy, and decent skills.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MiamiHeat03 said:


> Relax its just 1 game but Mario Chalmers is going to be a star in this league.
> 17pts 8assist 7 rebounds


I know, hence my commment:



> I fully realize it's a long season, and even longer career, for the 2008 draft class. So anything and everything said right now could all be irrelevant in a month, a year, or 5 years.


I don't make extreme judgments off 1 game. My concerns on Beasley came from how he played the game in college. 

I'm sure he'll be a fine scorer and rebounder, I just wonder about his black hole-ness and ability to play a team game.


----------

