# Does Hawes fit with this team?



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Just apart from your wanting to draft him or not... would he be a good fit with our offense? 

I personally see him in those highlights and dont see it working into what we do. not saying we're the Suns, but there's just something.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the best possible fit and 1 being the worst possible fit, I'd say he's about an 8. We need post scoring and that's his calling card. He might not be able to run quite as well as the guys on the roster now (though I'm sure he can run better than P.J.).


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't mean to be over-simplistic, but any skilled player who is 6-10 or taller fits with the Bulls.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

transplant said:


> I don't mean to be over-simplistic, but any skilled player who is 6-10 or taller fits with the Bulls.


also a prerequisite for co-starring with Billy Crystal in My Giant. that dude would totally suck here!


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> Just apart from your wanting to draft him or not... would he be a good fit with our offense?
> 
> I personally see him in those highlights and dont see it working into what we do. not saying we're the Suns, but there's just something.


I don't understand how so many people think we're a run and gun type of team when we're obviously not. We play a fast transition type of offense when the situation and the opportunities are there. But we are more of a half court offense orientated team the way we are structured. The thing that we do well that gives the illusion that we're a running team is because we have alot of movement on offense with cutters, slashing and constant screenings to get our shooters the ball. Which is where a big body such as Hawes would actually be perfect, because he will be great in a pick and pop situation with our guards.

As for defense, he may not be able to run back with the best of them if the other team is in a fast break situation, but you'd be stupid to send all 5 players back on defense in a fast break situation anyhow. But i don't see how much slower he can possibly be compared to other centers in this league anyhow. He may be a tad slower than a few of the more agile players, but not the majority.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I like the fact that he's 7 foot tall. But I confess everything else I know about him comes from U-Tube. 

Looks like he can shoot the ball pretty well. 

But I really don't want a big man who can't/won't play defense and rebound. Neither does Paxson, so if he's available and doesn't get drafted, we'll know why.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I like the fact that he's 7 foot tall. But I confess everything else I know about him comes from U-Tube.
> 
> Looks like he can shoot the ball pretty well.
> 
> But I really don't want a big man who can't/won't play defense and rebound. Neither does Paxson, so if he's available and doesn't get drafted, we'll know why.


Because they're dumb?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kulaz3000 said:


> I don't understand how so many people think we're a run and gun type of team when we're obviously not. We play a fast transition type of offense when the situation and the opportunities are there. But we are more of a half court offense orientated team the way we are structured. The thing that we do well that gives the illusion that we're a running team is because we have alot of movement on offense with cutters, slashing and constant screenings to get our shooters the ball.


Because we were 5th or 6th in the league in pace last season. I think it's pretty clear cut.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kulaz3000 said:


> I don't understand how so many people think we're a run and gun type of team when we're obviously not.



i think it more comes from the belief that we are headed in that direction...as much of the league is...

and if the big we add is athletic with post moves... instead of plodding with post moves... that we get there. 


with no backing for this, imagine Hawes developing into Big Z (before injury). good scoring big. but do you want him on this team? not if there's an athletic guy that can hold the fort down there with Tyrus for a decade.


i think a lot of ppl go Hawes because the guy i'm talking about isnt in this draft.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> i think it more comes from the belief that we are headed in that direction...as much of the league is...
> 
> and if the big we add is athletic with post moves... instead of plodding with post moves... that we get there.
> 
> ...


I didn't see any run and gun teams in either of the conference finals. Though i have seen plenty of run and gun teams that have been eliminated by half court teams that will continue to be playing into the finals.

Run and gun is be immulated because it sells tickets, and not nesscarily because it wins games. The suns was built to run and gun and if they weren't playing that style that wouldn't win many games, and because of their success some teams are forcing the run and gun style without success. I think its overrated that the league is turning into a run and gun league, espically when the last four teams that were still playing were half court teams. 

In the playoffs, you need atleast one post player that you can pound the ball to, to slow the pace down, and to command a double team to open it back up for the shooters. Duncan for the Spurs, Boozer for Utah, Z for the Cavs and Wallace for Detriot. We had none, so everyone put there defensive attention on our guard which made it hell for us.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Hawes:
Is 7' tall. Can bulk up to 250lbs. Has the body to play center. Check.
NBA Pedigree. Might not be the Mannings, but it can only help. Check.
Can score in the low post, the one thing we desperately need. Check.
Can fit our pick n'roll style due to his ability to hit the J from distance. Check.
Good passser. Check.
Passionate (based off interviews). Check.

Perfect fit in my book. His D, while questionable, can only get better under the guidance of Scotty Skiles.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

theanimal23 said:


> Hawes:
> Is 7' tall. Can bulk up to 250lbs. Has the body to play center. Check.
> NBA Pedigree. Might not be the Mannings, but it can only help. Check.
> Can score in the low post, the one thing we desperately need. Check.
> ...


Im not too worried about his man to man defense, just aslong as he crashes the defensive boards hard, ill be more than happy. When you have Tyrus and Wallace watching you back from the weakside, he should be fine. I don't see him being the type of player that will constantly get back down anyhow, he will be a player that may get beat off the dribble which is wear our team defense will help him regardless. 

I also think that Wallace will also benefit alot by just having another big body beside him, as he'll now allowed to defend against the small bigs on occasions to give him rest from wear and tear.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

eww. Hes not big enough, he just wont be able to compete in the paint on offense or defense, including rebounding


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> Perfect fit in my book. His D, while questionable, can only get better under the guidance of Scotty Skiles.


i feel the defensively liabilities of Spencer Hawes are not something coachable. lets face it, he's slow.

if he's a swinging door down low, he wont play on a team like this. athleticism is something that this team needs more of, and when you give big minutes to someone like Hawes, youre lessening the athleticism of the team.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DengNabbit said:


> i feel the defensively liabilities of Spencer Hawes are not something coachable. lets face it, he's slow.
> 
> if he's a swinging door down low, he wont play on a team like this. athleticism is something that this team needs more of, and when you give big minutes to someone like Hawes, youre lessening the athleticism of the team.


I feel Hawes will be our Ben Gordon on D, but at Center. Adequate after a few seasons, but will get Owned by the better players/more athletic players at his position. 

We need him to hold his ground, rebound, and just play smart D. Kind of like a Brad Miller at this age or a Z. He isn't overly athetlic, but not many true centers are. Thats the thing. If he has the quickness of most centers, then I'm fine. We got four guys who can run the floor with ease. 

I do not expect too many blocks from Hawes or anywhere near an All-NBA type of defense. But if he has the hustle and effort on D, it has to be better than what we had with Eddy, as good as Malik's, and maybe as good as an old PJ (in terms of quickness). 

Either you go Hawes (offense), Noah (continue to play 3 vs 5) or you take the BPA in a swingman.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> I do not expect too many blocks from Hawes or anywhere near an All-NBA type of defense. But if he has the hustle and effort on D, it has to be better than what we had with Eddy, as good as Malik's, and maybe as good as an old PJ (in terms of quickness).


It's a good point, that at #9, maybe we get a better-than-Malik player. and that could be a let down, but there's also the argument that at Nine we should be happy with a decent role player.

We'd like to believe otherwise, but there's nothing in stone that there will be any starter quality guy drafted after #9. If he is, he'll probably be drafted #43rd or whatever.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

OK, if you don't think Hawes is a fit, then who (outside of Oden) is a better fit?

In other words, who can truly play Center. 

Score inside with a variety of moves and occassionally demand a double, but always demand honesty from his man Defending him.

Who can pass the ball to our outside gunners, yet still find the cutter.

Who can defend the other non all-star center in the league.

Most importantly, who can play to a high level without wearing a headband or cornrows. LOL


Hawes is a perfect fit for us. Ther eis not one big man who leads the break (as it seems some of you are demanding).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

He is perfect for us. P-E-R-F-E-C-T


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> Ther eis not one big man who leads the break (as it seems some of you are demanding).


How soon we forget.

Sweetney


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> I don't mean to be over-simplistic, but any skilled player who is 6-10 or taller fits with the Bulls.


This is my thinking. Additionally, if he's good enough, you design the offense to work with the guy on the court.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> OK, if you don't think Hawes is a fit, then who (outside of Oden) is a better fit?
> 
> Hawes is a perfect fit for us. Ther eis not one big man who leads the break (as it seems some of you are demanding).


No way. Oden is a perfect fit. Hawes is a good fit but by no means a perfect one.

Are you trying to argue that how well a big man runs the floor is irrelevant for teams that run a lot? I think that's an extremely difficult argument to make. Big men who run the floor have been a huge phenomenon in the NBA over the past several years. That's what the whole "new center" thing is about with smaller, quicker players like Amare playing the five. 

FWIW, Tyrus and Ben both led the break a number of times this season (usually with undesirable results).


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> Hawes is a perfect fit for us. Ther eis not one big man who leads the break (as it seems some of you are demanding).



Like i said, i'm not seeing the exact cure for the Bulls in this draft... not in the #9 slot. My ideal situation has us trading the pick, but obviously i dont know what that can bring.


Guys with Hawes level of athleticism...in the NBA they usually do a whole lot of sitting. Sweetney has low post moves....but as soon as you put an athlete on him, he's stymied on offense, and he's fouling on defense.

I understand Hawes is bigger than Sweets, but I think he can be neutralized in much the same way. From the #9, whether it's traded or not, I want to get a guy who can play 30 min a game in a few yrs. Not WILL but CAN. I dont think Hawes CAN, not the way the NBA is today. again, just looking at parallels.


Big Z is the exception, but guys with his game have a tough time breaking thru these days.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I'm referring to starting centers. Don't give me the one or two times a guy gets jacked up and dribbles it foolishly up court. Plus, remember, Tyrus is a SF in a PF body (or so he claimed at this time last year).


My point is your point - No one available is gonna bring everything we want. We have Ben to play the tough D when it's need and then you need to counter that with an offensively capable guy. Especially if you plan on giving Tyrus more burn. Reality is that Tyrus gives us everything that Ben does except veteran leadership. 

Hawes is athletic, but he's not Roy Hibbert/Eddy Curry slow either.

As for Sweetney, I apologize, I should've been clear about what kind of fast break - not the fast break to the food lines.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Remember, other than one game, Hack a Ben was a good strategy. 

Point is, we need SOMEONE, ANYONE who can score in the post off something ebsides a dunk.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

we could also use a multiple offensive threat that can operate at teh top of the key (aka the weak spot in the dreaded zone defense).

a nice 12-15 jumpshot is a must, so is passing ability, as well as a good enough handle to take a couple dribbles and slash.

now when I look at hawes he's going to do well from the shooting and passing perspective. 
i think his passing game is just as good as his post game. 

i caught the UW/UCLA game and saw hawes pick apart the defense from the top of the key. 
showed nice patience to let things develop, and good court vision to find guys with well timed passes. 

his slashing is probably not all that great, though he does have a decent handle for a big. 
if he's a threat to shoot or pass he can catch big off guard with a power dribble.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

as far as fitting into a fast pace offense, i think he'll do just fine.
for one i don't think it's fair to label him a weak rebounder...yet. 
he's back at 250 lbs, so he should be a decent rebounder.

but more importantly his passing will be a good way to trigger a fast break.
he may not be the guy that fills the lanes with our guards and forwards, but he could jumpstart opportunities with some nice outlets.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

RoRo said:


> as far as fitting into a fast pace offense, i think he'll do just fine.



i might point out that people here are equating "athletic" with "can produce on the fast break." obviously those are correlated, but they are not synonymous.

Hawes' athleticism will hurt him on the fast break, but ALSO in establishing his post game. more athletic guys will get their hands on his shot, frustrate him down low.... i mean, Darius Songaila had nice post moves. I'm sure Brad Miller has some. The point isnt the moves you have (even tho Youtube molds our thinking in this way around draft time)... the question is, will you be able to get these moves off at the next level. 



i'm scared that the lack of athleticism seems to have hurt his transition from HS to college as well. someone here pointed out his HS rebounding numbers were strong, his rebounds at Washington were weak. in HS, he was the big kid on the court. in the NBA, he wont be the big kid. I know he's young. But i'd say Chris Mihm was regarded similarly amongst the array of prospects when he came out. While this is a deeper draft, I just think he'll go the route of so many non-athlete big men these days. hell, even a guy like DeSagana Diop has a better chance of fitting in somewhere, with his makeup. and i dont think we'd even want Diop-value at #9.

The posts I'm seeing here envision Hawes taking over NBA games. Looking at guys who are like him around the NBA, i'm not seeing that as likely.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i will amend my statements though... in saying that Andris Biedrins could be a likely outcome for him... and someone like that might be a nice addition for our team.

but i seem to remember Biedrins has a little more hop in his step than Hawes, who's a little more the plodder. someone verify that for me


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i might point out that people here are equating "athletic" with "can produce on the fast break." obviously those are correlated, but they are not synonymous.


I'll go one step further, though I am getting tired of saying this:

In the post season, we are NOT, I repeat *NOT A RUNNING TEAM!*










The reason I keep saying this, is because in the playoffs, you have to be able to win many games in the half-court, bogged down style that prevails in the playoffs. Who gives a damn how much we run in the regular season, if we don't run in the playoffs all that much. We need to be building a team that can win in June, not one that wins in January. As such, we shouldn't be so concerned with a big man that can run, as much as one that can command respect down low in a HALF COURT GAME.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I think Hawes would be as ideal a fit as you're going to find at the #9 spot. Skiles likes to run a lot of plays with screens. Pick and Roll. Pick and Pop. Most teams knew that if you just stayed with the guard and ignored Wallace/Brown/Allen/Thomas (the screener) you could live with one of those four guys scoring from the outside. Just show hard on the ballhandler and force him out. The other thing you do is go zone.

With Hawes, you'd have to respect his offense and if you went hard after the ballhandler, he's got the hands and the offensive skill to either hit the layup (roll) or nail that 12-15 footer (pop) at a pretty good clip. Far better than our four horsemen above. Against a zone, he'd be a nice player to have to get the ball into the middle of the zone - with his height. He's an above average passer and you'd almost have to adjust the zone to account for his ability to make a free-throw line jumper if you don't sag on him. Just that little adjustment would be enough to get the ball out to Gordon/Noce/Hinrich for a pretty easy jumper. Drop off to a cutter whose hitting the seam in the zone because the defense has to move closer to Hawes...

Defensevely, I think he'd do alright. He'll improve as he ages, gains weight and strength and knowledge of how to play in the NBA. You can't teach height though. If he can get to 30+ mins a game (probably in a year or two) I don't see how he can't average at least 8 or so boards a game and possilby even average 10 or more.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> I'll go one step further, though I am getting tired of saying this:
> 
> In the post season, we are NOT, I repeat *NOT A RUNNING TEAM!*


Wow. But the entire point of my post was that Hawes' lacking athleticism will hurt his half-court game as well.

That's what I'd like to hear your thoughts on.




I just have this feeling... we're going to swoon over Hawes for the rest of the offseason. We draft him. 

Then day one of summer league, it dawns on us that he is 'plodding.' and i cant think of a single example of 'plodding' that is succeeding in today's game. we mention Big Z, and i'm kinda "hm." And that's high end.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i might point out that people here are equating "athletic" with "can produce on the fast break." obviously those are correlated, but they are not synonymous.
> 
> Hawes' athleticism will hurt him on the fast break, but ALSO in establishing his post game. more athletic guys will get their hands on his shot, frustrate him down low.... i mean, Darius Songaila had nice post moves. I'm sure Brad Miller has some. The point isnt the moves you have (even tho Youtube molds our thinking in this way around draft time)... the question is, will you be able to get these moves off at the next level.
> 
> ...


if we were looking for a guy that can beat a double team, i'd be concerned. 
if we were looking for someone be our main scoring option, we're going to have some trouble.
i'm not saying he's the next tim duncan, but he doesn't need to be.

with the make up of this team, hawes (or noah or yi for that matter) are not going to see alot single coverage. heck, they might wide open most of time.

the guy just has to be good enough to take advantage of all the attention gordon and deng receive. 
teams will worry about kirk before they do a rookie. they'll probably be more concerned with keeping tyrus or wallace off the boards. and if our rook is decent enough to point where teams can't leave him wide open, then our perimeter play will have it easier.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Wow. But the entire point of my post was that Hawes' lacking athleticism will hurt his half-court game as well.
> 
> That's what I'd like to hear your thoughts on.
> 
> ...


to be fair, i don't think anyone has an accurate guage on how much of a plodder he is.
he leads a couple fast breaks in his highlight reels, how bad of a plodder can he be?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

He'd be a good fit, not a great one. I think both Yi (assuming he's not a bust) and Noah would be better for the Bulls. For big men these days, and for the Bulls specifically, I just think it's better to err on the side of speed and athleticism.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Wow. But the entire point of my post was that Hawes' lacking athleticism will hurt his half-court game as well.
> 
> That's what I'd like to hear your thoughts on.


That little rant wasn't directed at you. I was piggybacking off your post.



> I just have this feeling... we're going to swoon over Hawes for the rest of the offseason. We draft him.
> 
> Then day one of summer league, it dawns on us that he is 'plodding.' and i cant think of a single example of 'plodding' that is succeeding in today's game. we mention Big Z, and i'm kinda "hm." And that's high end.


I agree with that. But I'll wait for his numbers to come out before I guage whether he is a plodder or not. I just didn't see enough of him at Washington, and even if I had, I'm not sure it would have been enough to accurate guage anything, considering his illness/injuries.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

In terms of pure 'fit,' I think Spencer Hawes fits what the Bulls need and are looking for better than any other big-man in the entire draft. His footwork, touch, and overall post skills are unheard of for a player that young. He has better low-post skills than about 95% of the big-men in the NBA already. His lack of athleticism is a concern, but not a major one since he's a 7-footer, has pretty good strength and will likely get stronger, and plays a fairly unathletic position, which is center. 

The question is, if the Bulls drafted him, would he be enough to put them over the top and get them to the next level? I think the answer to that question is probably yes, but it will likely take 2 years since he's likely not ready to make a huge impact right away. I think for him, he'd probably be best served to return to Washington to continue to work on his game, but if he stays in the draft, his leaving after only playing one year of college ball likely won't affect his long-term potential. I still prefer Yi over him though because he has slightly better upside in my opinion, due to his superior athleticism.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> That little rant wasn't directed at you. I was piggybacking off your post.
> .


ah,ok.



The Krakken said:


> I agree with that. But I'll wait for his numbers to come out before I guage whether he is a plodder or not. I just didn't see enough of him at Washington, and even if I had, I'm not sure it would have been enough to accurate guage anything, considering his illness/injuries.


hm, you are kind of redefining my impression of what the predraft rumor post is all about. research? observational data? i'm gonna have to hear more about this whole 'watching games' thing . . .

(translation : I saw Hawes play once and i feel mega-authoritative about him for some reason. but i hope the point about Hawes-types in the NBA stands all the same)


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DengNabbit, out of the guys at 9 who do you think would be the best fit and who do you think we should consider taking?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I think Hawes fits very well. Again outside of Oden, Durant, and Horford, I don't think you can any anyone is a key-keyhole type of fit. Every player has issues, but Hawes provides what we desperately need: Size and Low-Post Scoring.

The advantage with our situation is we do not need him to be the savior. He has to just steadily improve in our jib environment. His offense will be there and will get better. But defensively, he will pick it up somewhat. Yeah he won't be Duncan, but he won't be Curry either. He will get his strength back. I think we all know what he can do offensively.

Now regarding a team that can run -- He has shown in some clips that he can run the floor. I do not expect any center to do this consistantly. Few do. But IF he can become a decent rebounder, he can start the break with his outlook passes.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> DengNabbit, out of the guys at 9 who do you think would be the best fit and who do you think we should consider taking?



to be perfectly honest, Hawes is not out of my list of preferred guys, but he's getting lower on it the more i think about this.

I've gone from puking at the idea of Noah at #9 to getting a little more interested. and that's not to say he's a perfect fit either, but it's me thinking... who of the availables will be a contributor in the NBA, no question. 

i'm also working from the massive generalization that all the available guys would be role guys on this team, not future starters. of all the role guys, lets get the best one... because anyone who produces here on out could be a contributing bench guy for us in year 2, or even 1. 

so thats why i shifted to not looking at need specifically. if that were the case, then maybe it's Hawes hands down. but if this guy isnt going to necessarily be a starter anyway, then we have to get the best pro. it's the same reason people here will eventually argue for Jeff Green, even.



but all that said, my line of thinking regarding athletic forwards would lead me to want Julian Wright, and i'm scared of that moment. he's the athletic (mayyyybe PF) guy i seem to be calling for. and god help me i hope i'm not doing that.



my preferred choice is trading the pick for an athletic PF or C, with some scoring ability. as far as the options for keeping the pick, i'm still formulating what my hopes will be..and this thread is a way of me thinking thru that logic.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

OK DengNabbit,

Thank you for clarifying. I just don't see anyone trading away a center that would fit your criteria either and I believe Tyrus is our PF of the future.

Well, I still think Hawes is my top choice at 9, then Yi, then Noah. I don't hate Noah (your choice), I just don't think he's gonna be more than what we have with Tyrus and what we had with Chandler. However, he is a bit more vocal, but still nothing much offensively (even admitting in the draftexpress interview he won't be changing his horrible mechanics, but will hope to make it work like Shawn Marion has). 

I'm not considering anything other than a Center abled player. Meaning, If he can't play Center, I don't want him if his name isn't Brewer or Durant.

That being said, I am willing to give small ball a chance and play with two stud PF's in Wright/Tyrus or Yi/Tyrus. 

We already play that essentially with Wallace on the floor. Our problem has never been defense. It's the ability to score from the post and open the floor for our shooters. On Defense, we do need to clean the glass better, but I am of the opinion that Tyrus reved up and getting more playing time will produce that.

Finally, if we can't get one of Hawes, Yi, Noah, Wright then I would make a trade with Portland for Randolp as he would atleast provide scoring inside. We'd be short as heck, but maybe we luck out and Tyrus grows another inch or so.

Thank goodness for the Zone rules if we go small ball.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> I'm not considering anything other than a Center abled player. Meaning, If he can't play Center, I don't want him.



keeping "center" as a rigid category will not be Pax's thought process in drafting.

the "center" we had guarding O'Neal so well in the first series was less of a fit against his old mates in the second series.



I can envision Noah as a successful center against some teams and not others. Similarly, Ben Wallace is able to play center against some teams, and has less value against other teams.

these different shades of what it is to play a position are why you stock your bench with as many different types of guys as you can.



Noah's basketball card may say PF one day, but how much does that matter, in a practical sense?

What matters is: can you play him alongside Tyrus? Yes. Can you play him alongside Ben? If he has better hands then Chandler, which I believe he does, then I say yes.

That kind of versatility is what I like about him. Now, if Hawes is going to be a "special" player, then I'm going to value that more than said Noah versatility. but the jury is very much out.



and again, I'm not saying Noah is iron-clad 100% my pick... but I have a handle on what things he'll bring to the pro game. In the land of total busts, which we're entering, I value this.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I think Hawes fits great. And while not uniquely athletic, I think his slowness of foot is being greatly overstated here. He can move.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

He has a high body fat %, he does not rebound well and he's good at scoring (in college at least).

It will be interesting to see how Bulls fan react to a player like this.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> He has a high body fat %, he does not rebound well and he's good at scoring (in college at least).
> 
> It will be interesting to see how Bulls fan react to a player like this.


I suppose. The parallel you're drawing here is pretty blatant, but I don't consider Hawes and Curry to be all that similar. Curry is a tremendous athlete while Hawes isn't. There are still questions about Curry's work ethic, those don't seem to exist with Hawes. Hawes would seem to be a little more polished / cerebral an offensive player than Eddy. I'm not sold on Hawes, and i don't dislike Curry. Just saying.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> He has a high body fat %, he does not rebound well and he's good at scoring (in college at least).
> 
> It will be interesting to see how Bulls fan react to a player like this.


Very good. Very good.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> I'll go one step further, though I am getting tired of saying this:
> 
> In the post season, we are NOT, I repeat *NOT A RUNNING TEAM!*
> 
> The reason I keep saying this, is because in the playoffs, you have to be able to win many games in the half-court, bogged down style that prevails in the playoffs. Who gives a damn how much we run in the regular season, if we don't run in the playoffs all that much. We need to be building a team that can win in June, not one that wins in January. As such, we shouldn't be so concerned with a big man that can run, as much as one that can command respect down low in a HALF COURT GAME.


Your argument seems to be more than we _should not_ be a running team (at least not in the playoffs).


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> He has a high body fat %, he does not rebound well and he's good at scoring (in college at least).
> 
> It will be interesting to see how Bulls fan react to a player like this.


Sounds as though Hawes body fat is pretty average.



> And, Oden has a mind-boggling 7.8 body-fat percentage ... most big men are north of the 12 percent range. For instance, other top-rated big men such as Washington's Spencer Hawes (13.0), Duke's Josh McRoberts (13.7) and Pitt's Aaron Gray (10.8) don't compare.


http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-25-11/Greg-Oden-Tests-Well.html


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

Didnt see too much from Hawes that dissapointed, his height was as expected, 6-10 1/2 barefoot(same as at UW). Adequate vertical 26/28. The guy isnt Carl Lewis but he'll get up and down. Kevin Mchale wasnt the first guy down the court either but seems he had an ok career.:biggrin:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Hawes Video @ Yahoo

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/sports?ch=244098&cl=2922714&lang=en','playerWindow','width=793,height=666,scrollbars=yes'


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> Hawes Video @ Yahoo
> 
> http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/sports?ch=244098&cl=2922714&lang=en','playerWindow','width=793,height=666,scrollbars=yes'


I liked some of his other videos better. This video is a little disturbing. The guy doesn't jump very often or very high. The one dunk he makes with barely his fingers above the rim. Most of the time he's laying the ball in. He didn't leave the floor for his blocked shot. NBA defenders are going to stuff his short range fade away back in his face if he doesn't get up more than he does in that video. The baby hook is nice, but it's probably not enough to make a living off of unless he learns to play good defense and rebound.

I hate to say it, but a highlight film of Malik Allen's better moments this year would put this one of Hawes to shame.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> I liked some of his other videos better. This video is a little disturbing. The guy doesn't jump very often or very high. The one dunk he makes with barely his fingers above the rim. Most of the time he's laying the ball in. He didn't leave the floor for his blocked shot. NBA defenders are going to stuff his short range fade away back in his face if he doesn't get up more than he does in that video. The baby hook is nice, but it's probably not enough to make a living off of unless he learns to play good defense and rebound.
> 
> I hate to say it, but a highlight film of Malik Allen's better moments this year would put this one of Hawes to shame.


Make no mistake about it, he's a finesse player. He succeeds not with great athleticism but with phenomenal fundamentals. Good college players with below average athleticism don't usually do well in the NBA but for a seven footer, Hawes athleticism is at least average. He looks reasonably quick when he shoots the ball which combined with his height should keep him from being blocked constantly. He's not Oden, Bosh, or Amare but most guys aren't; anyone who's suggesting he'll have that type of game or impact has been misled. Athletically, Hawes can hold his own against guys like Kristic, Nesterovich, Blount, Brezec, etc.

The more I think of it Divac really is a good comparison. If you watch highlights of him you aren't going to see mad hops and rim rattling jams but he still had some good scoring seasons and did a lot of his damage with his back to the basket. That's what the highlights look like to me, hook shots and turnaround jumpers. Malik Allen can't do that because he doesn't have a hook shot, he doesn't have great footwork, and at his height the player guarding him will be taller, quicker, or both. A highlight reel of Malik would be composed of nothing but uncontested 15 foot jumpers.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

At least from this clip, he reminds me of Rick(?) Smith who played for Pacers a decade ago, and I meant it in a good way.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> At least from this clip, he reminds me of Rick(?) Smith who played for Pacers a decade ago, and I meant it in a good way.


Is that American for Rik Smits?

Hawes has a very efficient way about him which I like. I'm not sure if people are taking into account his age. At 19 years old, his body has plenty of time to develop and mature. If Noah was gone and we took Hawes at #9, I'd be a happy Bulls fan.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> At least from this clip, he reminds me of Rick(?) Smith who played for Pacers a decade ago, and I meant it in a good way.


Yeah that's another solid comparison. In a lot of ways, Hawes is more of an old school center so it depends some on how useful you believe that a player like that can be in today's NBA.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm not too worried about Hawes's athleticism. From what I've seen, I don't think he'll be a stiff or anything. He's not gonna make your jaw drop, but he's fluid and mobile enough. I don't think he's a "plodder", and I see him being a very good 2nd or 3rd option who can score on pick and roll/pop and when he's 1 on 1 in the post against guys who aren't All-NBA defenders.

It'll take him some time to get stronger and adjust to the NBA, but I think he'd give us solid minutes his rookie year and become a starter in year 2 or 3.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Sounds as though Hawes body fat is pretty average.


Actually, it sounds like he's fatter than average.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If this Chad Ford stuff about the Blazers wanting the pick and we can get Randolph has any legs, we should not even be looking at this potential stiff.

This guy is going to be soft as hell for at least a couple years. 

A decent player for the #9 pick I guess. Bulls should go best player available.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, it sounds like he's fatter than average.


How do you figure? The article said most big men are above 12%. Hawes is a little above 12%. Seems about average to me. Oden, on the other hand, is apparently some kind of athlete.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> How do you figure? The article said most big men are above 12%. Hawes is a little above 12%. Seems about average to me. Oden, on the other hand, is apparently some kind of athlete.


The article I read says he's 13%.

Not sweetney, but fatter than average.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

John Hollinger chimed in during a chat wrap about using the #9 pick to trade for Randolph.



> (Zach) Randolph makes sense for several teams in the East. He's a perfect complement to (Ben) Wallace because he has range out to 20 feet and can destroy people on the low blocks, but doesn't play any defense. I'd rather have Pau, but Zach is a pretty darn good Plan B.


Can't say I disagree with Mr. PER.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not sweetney, but fatter than average.


#'s rock. I totally love numbers.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The article I read says he's 13%.
> 
> Not sweetney, but fatter than average.


That same article lists other big guys other than Oden who are in the same range, and says that big men usually check in a little above 12%. So I think he's about normal. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That same article lists other big guys other than Oden who are in the same range, and says that big men usually check in a little above 12%. So I think he's about normal. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.


I think it will be hypcritical if Pax drafts a fat player like Hawes (we now have proof that he's fat) after trading away Curry for nothing. :cheers:


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> John Hollinger chimed in during a chat wrap about using the #9 pick to trade for Randolph.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say I disagree with Mr. PER.


Somewhat like Yi hoping to go to a certain team, I'm starting to believe Conley clunked his shots so that he can fall to a team the Blazers can trade with :biggrin: 

As far as Hawes, sure he might be a "fit" but I don't think he's worthy of a #9, he's more a mid round-late teens selection. For one, he isn't even a legit 7 footer. 2, he's a terrible athlete, slow as molasses, #3 he's embarrassing on D and 4) a poor rebounder. So, why not just go for the player who's already established his offensive game, and also could rebound better? The only downside with Randolph is the amount of money he makes. I also like Randolph as an alternative plan.

I think if the Bulls want to get to the next level, they make a trade for someone who's talent level can't be found at the #9. So that would mean trading TT+Deng+S&T Brown for ______ legit 4-5 like Amare. Then at #9 you take the best from the abundance of SF players.

Gordon
Hinrich
Noc/Green(Brewer/Wright/Young/etc)
Amare
Wallace

Yes sir


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Hawes has a jump hook with either hand, a variety of post moves both right and left, and a jump shot. He's a true post player who can also play in the high post as opposed to a high post player who can occasionally take a guy down low. He's somewhere between 6'11 and 7' tall with a normal pair of shoes on, and he's 244 pounds. He reminds me a lot of Gasol. I think he has tremendous potential in the NBA.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Hawes is going to be more of a cerebral player than a guy who will woo you with dunks and stuff. In that Yahoo Vid, I don't even think he dunked the ball when wide open. He just layed it up. Was it due to the lack of vertical? He just doesn't get up there that easily?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Hawes is going to be more of a cerebral player than a guy who will woo you with dunks and stuff. In that Yahoo Vid, I don't even think he dunked the ball when wide open. He just layed it up. Was it due to the lack of vertical? He just doesn't get up there that easily?


Don't worry. He dunks.










Here's an article Draft Express wrote about him in a game against Aaron Gray and Pitt earlier this year. I bolded some particularly strong and relevant praise. Doesn't this sound like THE GUY to help us? And I'm not just reading scouting reports. I watched him play 5-6 times last year and saw the McDonalds game in 2006. He's got real NBA skills in the post.

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=483




> Marquee Matchup: Spencer Hawes vs. Aaron Gray
> February 25, 2007
> 
> While neither player “wowed” anyone with their performance, clearly Hawes got the better end of the duel of seven footers. The freshman displayed more upside and a higher skill level, although was clearly outmatched physically by the girth of Pitt center Aaron Gray. His combination of excellent footwork, outside shooting stroke, and post moves that even many NBA veterans lack are what separate him from any other center prospect in the 2007 NBA Draft not named Greg Oden.
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

As much as I disagreed with Darius Miles Davis about the logic of drafting Roy last year, I agree with him to that same degree regarding Hawes.

He's a post scorer. He's fundamentally sound in many aspects of the game. And he's likely to be the best post-scorer available if he's there at #9 (pretty much a lock, actually, considering the only more effective post scorer in the draft is Oden). 

With the rise of Yi and the chance that Noah falls to #9, I can't say that Hawes - at this stage - is 100% my guy. But if I had to pick right now, at this moment, among those 3, Hawes would probably be a Bull.

I can understand folks who *prefer* guys like Yi or Noah. But I can't understand anyone who just flat out doesn't want Hawes. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Don't worry. He dunks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes, his passing alone makes him an interesting prospect.
i think it's refresing to have a potential player that you don't have to worry about developing a jumpshot, court vision, post moves, off hand moves, passing, etc.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> Somewhat like Yi hoping to go to a certain team, I'm starting to believe Conley clunked his shots so that he can fall to a team the Blazers can trade with :biggrin:
> 
> As far as Hawes, sure he might be a "fit" but I don't think he's worthy of a #9, he's more a mid round-late teens selection. For one, he isn't even a legit 7 footer. 2, he's a terrible athlete, slow as molasses, #3 he's embarrassing on D and 4) a poor rebounder. So, why not just go for the player who's already established his offensive game, and also could rebound better? The only downside with Randolph is the amount of money he makes. I also like Randolph as an alternative plan.
> 
> ...


If Hawes isn't a "legit" 7 footer, then the only 7 footers in this draft are Greg Oden and Aaron Gray.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> As much as I disagreed with Darius Miles Davis about the logic of drafting Roy last year, I agree with him to that same degree regarding Hawes.
> 
> He's a post scorer. He's fundamentally sound in many aspects of the game. And he's likely to be the best post-scorer available if he's there at #9 (pretty much a lock, actually, considering the only more effective post scorer in the draft is Oden).
> 
> ...


imo:

1. Horford
2a/b/c. Yi, Hawes, Noah (in no particular order lol).

after the measurements came out Horford looks the most nba ready and still has plenty of potential.

the other three have their gifts but will need some patience. Yi and Hawes seem to have a well rounded skill set. They just need to work on the bodies more. Noah has good size and athleticism, he needs to work on his skill set.

carl landry looks like he's worth a shot in the second round.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

FWIW I prefer Hawes to Randolf.
We've got plenty of guys who can rebound if that is not his strength.
Hawes doesn't eat up every inch of salary flexibility left on the roster, and doesn't cost any of our players.

And, maybe the fact that Hawes is a little weak and slow on defense at the moment is attributable to the fact that he was sick.

But mostly my stomach turns at the thought of having to cheer for Randolf. Not sure I can do it.

If Randolf was really a difference maker Portland wouldn't be putting on such an obvious fire sale for his services. Truth is, they don't want him around influencing their young stars. The Bulls should feel the same way.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

RoRo said:


> imo:
> 
> 1. Horford
> 2a/b/c. Yi, Hawes, Noah (in no particular order lol).
> ...


Admittedly, and for a variety of reasons, I haven't been reading and/or posting much lately. So I'm not up on all the news. 

Is there something happening that leads you to believe that Horford will be available at #9? Because that would be great.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Hawes is 19, there is still a likelihood that he could go an inch or two in the next 2 or so years. He did measure in as 7 foot in shoes for the guy who said he isnt a legit 7 footer


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> FWIW I prefer Hawes to Randolf.
> We've got plenty of guys who can rebound if that is not his strength.
> Hawes doesn't eat up every inch of salary flexibility left on the roster, and doesn't cost any of our players.
> 
> ...


I think the Bulls have reached the point of stability and veteran confidence - despite their still alarmingly young collective age - that they might be able to handle Randolph's attitude issues. Hell, they might even be able to convince him to get in line. Perhaps not. 

But six things concern me:

(a) Randolph is a jump shooter these days. He doesn't go inside. He shoots 60% jumpers, 38% inside, and only 1% dunks. And he only shoots it at a collective 46%. Those are simply shocking numbers for a supposed "inside" threat. Hell, thats actually *more outside shots, less inside shots and less dunks than Lamar Odom* - a player who despite how he's listed, essentially plays the wing.

(b) Randolph doesn't move the ball for ****. He really is a black hole. And the Bulls offense is predicated on player and ball movement. Hawes is a far better fit in this sense. 

(c) Randolph is short. His presence will, in the long term, amplify the fact that the Bulls have only 2 starters (maybe 3 - a big maybe) who match up favorably height-wise with the position they play.

(d) Randolph's cronies, the guys he gets in trouble with, are from northern Indiana. Chicago's proximity to Randolph's home concern me in the sense that it might not be the best location for him to effect a change in his attitude.

(e) We lose assets by acquiring him.

(f) We most likely lose more assets in unsigned players (current and future) by retaining him. 

Pass. The cost, in all ways, is too high. If its a choice between Zach and the pick, just draft a player.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hawes will likely not help much this year.

I'm fine with that, I've considered this group a "win later" team since before last season, but he's not going to help us much in terms of winning next season.

If he really is this highly skilled 7 foot tall center, he would not be going at #9.

Its probably b/c he's not a great athlete and does not rebound. I hope he's not too soft for the NBA. But, with the #9 pick, you are not going to get a lock. We sure as hell need a 7 footer that can score, even if he's not the best rebounder in the world. 

I wonder if posters here will incessantly pick on him for his lack of rebounding, or appreciate his scoring punch, if he can even do that in the NBA. Time will tell.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

HB said:


> Hawes is 19, there is still a likelihood that he could go an inch or two in the next 2 or so years. He did measure in as 7 foot in shoes for the guy who said he *isnt a legit 7 footer*


Though I named that as problem #1, that doesn't mean its his worst, as I didn't state it was in any order. The fact is, his "not being a legit 7" *only becomes a problem when its coupled with the lack of explosiveness and athleticism*, (the case with Hawes), which was my main point regardless...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Hawes' game right now is more of a Nenad Kristic-Brad Miller-Zach Randolph combo. He is somewhere in the middle. Considering you guys really dont have a guy that you can dump the ball down low to go to work, I think Hawes would be a nice fit. He is also a surprisingly good passer. His biggest problem is that he doesn't rebound or block shots


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder if posters here will incessantly pick on him for his lack of rebounding, or appreciate his scoring punch, if he can even do that in the NBA. Time will tell.


In a variety of currently active threads, you have been taking shots at a collective group of unnamed posters. Perhaps we should just keep it about basketball as you so often advocate. 

You seem to be lowering yourself to the level of those you incessently complain about.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

In the end, I can't stand the thought of wasting lottery picks and gambling, since we've flopped with so many post Jordan era. This is why I believe in BPA in the draft, and to strengthen your weakness you have to go via FA or trade. In this case, I believe you have to give to get, so if it means Deng + TT for Amare you do it, since its much easier to replace that (Deng) kind of player, especially at the draft position we are in (though, its no guarantee). We also can keep Noc as well.

The only bigs I think are worth the #9 or moving up for, are the obvious top 2, Yi, and Horford, and _maybe_ Brandan Wright. After that, no go for me. Hawes, Thornton, Splitter, Gasol are all later picks AFAIC.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> Though I named that as problem #1, that doesn't mean its his worst, as I didn't state it was in any order. The fact is, his "not being a legit 7" *only becomes a problem when its coupled with the lack of explosiveness and athleticism*, (the case with Hawes), which was my main point regardless...


6'11" 244 is plenty big for an NBA center. I don't care if he wore high heels to get measured in. He's not undersized.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> In this case, I believe you have to give to get, so if it means Deng + TT for Amare you do it, since its much easier to replace that (Deng) kind of player, especially at the draft position we are in (though, its no guarantee). We also can keep Noc as well.


Come on man, be realistic. 

1) The salaries don't work. And no, they have no reason to effectively agree to a sign and trade with PJ, so they can effectively DUMP Amare.

2) That trade only works, if they get rid of Shawn Marion first. He's not a natural 4 and can't play there long term. To do that they'd have to dump him too (meaning a place like portland for Zach....but even THAT is a long shot).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> 6'11" 244 is plenty big for an NBA center. I don't care if he wore high heels to get measured in. He's not undersized.


I agree. While Hawes is no Tim Duncan, I don't remember him setting the world on fire athletically either.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> I agree. While Hawes is no Tim Duncan, I don't remember him setting the world on fire athletically either.


Agreed. Athleticism for a center to be effective need only be decent. Hawes' athleticism is decent. He's no George Muresan.

The big thing I'd mention about the Duncan comparison though, is that Duncan was always very, very strong - even though he doesn't exactly look like Karl Malone. 

I don't think Hawes has Duncan's rookie strength now, nor will he ever be a particularly strong basketball player. That, far more than his supposed slowness, concerns me some.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Agreed. Athleticism for a center to be effective need only be decent. Hawes' athleticism is decent. He's no George Muresan.
> 
> The big thing I'd mention about the Duncan comparison though, is that Duncan was always very, very strong - even though he doesn't exactly look like Karl Malone.
> 
> I don't think Hawes has Duncan's rookie strength now, nor will he ever be a particularly strong basketball player. That, far more than his supposed slowness, concerns me some.



A fair point. I'll point out though that duncan was a 22 year old college senior when he entered the league. So his strength advantage is not unexpected. Hawes is 3 years behind. If Hawes improved further by the same degree that duncan did between his freshman and senior years, he'd be a number 1 pick maybe as a junior, and SURELY as a senior.

Again, I'm NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM saying Hawes=Duncan.

I'm saying players with similar athletic and skill abilities have been successful as pros.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> A fair point. I'll point out though that duncan was a 22 year old college senior when he entered the league. So his strength advantage is not unexpected. Hawes is 3 years behind. If Hawes improved further by the same degree that duncan did between his freshman and senior years, he'd be a number 1 pick maybe as a junior, and SURELY as a senior.
> 
> *Again, I'm NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM saying Hawes=Duncan.*
> 
> I'm saying players with similar athletic and skill abilities have been successful as pros.


Good points. 

As for the bolded part, I know you weren't attempting to do that. But as soon as I typed my post, I feared you'd think I thought you were since I was attempting to distinguish the two players. If that makes sense. :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You seem to be lowering yourself to the level of those you incessently complain about.


Thanks for the input. I'll file it in a place I feel appropriate.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Good points.
> 
> As for the bolded part, I know you weren't attempting to do that. But as soon as I typed my post, I feared you'd think I thought you were since I was attempting to distinguish the two players. If that makes sense. :biggrin:


It isn't you I'm worried about. We tend to agree on most things. Though I'll admit, I whiffed on ROY last year. Its the neighborhood knuckleheads that are sure to come in here and try to strawman me by pointing out that I said: Ducan=Hawes. 

We both know I didn't say that, but you know how it can be around here. I was just heading the argument off at the pass.

While I am discussing his potential though, I DO think he can fall somewhere BETWEEN Dunacan and Brad miller. I think even at his best, he'll be significantly better than brad miller, and a notch below duncan. That isn't bad in ANY draft. Even this one.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

The Krakken said:


> Come on man, be realistic.
> 
> 1) The salaries don't work. And no, they have no reason to effectively agree to a sign and trade with PJ, so they can effectively DUMP Amare.
> 
> 2) That trade only works, if they get rid of Shawn Marion first. He's not a natural 4 and can't play there long term. To do that they'd have to dump him too (meaning a place like portland for Zach....but even THAT is a long shot).



Wow very nice job! That's a plan right there, I could not have said it any better. Marion for Randolph sounds about right (Portland needs to evens it out) and Phoenix eliminates its "problems" and gets younger, while still puts out a very competitive team.

Blazers:
Jack 
Roy
Marion
Aldridge
Oden

Suns:
Nash
Bell
Deng
TT
Randolph


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Tim Duncan isn't the most athletic guy in the league, but he is still on of the best players in it. Hawes fits this team perfectly and being around Ben Wallace(whose passing was very under rated on this board) his defense and rebounding will get better. Athleticism is nice, but as the years go on, those springs will end up in the shop for good, so Hawes' fundamentals might not win him any dunk contests, it should make a very solid player in the N.B.A


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder if posters here will incessantly pick on him for his lack of rebounding, or appreciate his scoring punch, if he can even do that in the NBA. Time will tell.


Nah, I'm sure we'll all give him a free pass because he is white.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> Nah, I'm sure we'll all give him a free pass because he is white.


What self-respecting Bulls fan wouldn't?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> Wow very nice job! That's a plan right there, I could not have said it any better. Marion for Randolph sounds about right (Portland needs to evens it out) and Phoenix eliminates its "problems" and gets younger, while still puts out a very competitive team.
> 
> Blazers:
> Jack
> ...


Come on Bulldozer, do you actually think Phoenix would trade for a bulky, half court player like Randoph? Phoenix's offense is predicated on speed.

Next.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What self-respecting Bulls fan wouldn't?


Red, black, and white. Coincidence?


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Come on Bulldozer, do you actually think Phoenix would trade for a bulky, half court player like Randoph? Phoenix's offense is predicated on speed.
> 
> Next.


Are you suggesting that the talented 25 y/o is incapable of adapting to his new environment? Obviously, I'm giving Randolph the benefit of the doubt in that scenario. I'm sure he can lose a few pounds if needed as well.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Randolph in Phoenix makes no sense for the Suns


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> Are you suggesting that the talented 25 y/o is incapable of adapting to his new environment? Obviously, I'm giving Randolph the benefit of the doubt in that scenario. I'm sure he can lose a few pounds if needed as well.


I'm saying that Zach Randolph is a poor fit for Mike D'Antoni's running system, and no, I don't think Randolph would be able to adapt to play any near well as Marion, the outgoing player in your suggested dea. So tell me again why Phoenix makes that deal?

Marion is a perfect fit for D'Antoni's system. I'm not really sure if he's any less valuable than Amare for that team. However, the Suns have spent too much money, and they're always looking to cut costs. Diaw will be hard to move now that he's disappointed after signing a large deal. Marion is always in trade rumors because he has a max deal for medium market team that's spending more than their owner would like. If Phoenix traded Marion, their best case scenario would be to acquire a highly atheletic player with at least two years left on his rookie deal and a large expiring contract, and maybe a draft pick if they can pull that off.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm okay with Hawes 'Combine' results other than his vertical. How does his vertical match up to other centers in the NBA?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Thanks for the input. I'll file it in a place I feel appropriate.


I have some ideas about where you can file it.

:biggrin:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If Phoenix traded Marion, their best case scenario would be to acquire a highly atheletic player with at least two years left on his rookie deal and a large expiring contract, and maybe a draft pick if they can pull that off.


Kobe Bryant


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Kobe Bryant


That would probably work too, but in that case management is going to have to commit to paying even more money.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder if posters here will incessantly pick on him for his lack of rebounding, or appreciate his scoring punch, if he can even do that in the NBA. Time will tell.


Dude, let it go.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Dude, let it go.


Can he really? That's a good question.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Can he really? That's a good question.


Should he let it go?

Unfortunately (and somewhat remarkably) that remains a subject of debate.

Its sort of that balance between unfettered "free" speech and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

I think the debates presented have long outlived shelf lives, but I get outvoted on that.

It leads me to make the occasional potshot, for which I get slapped on the nose like a naughty puppy by fellow poster. edited by truebluefan


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

So then, if Hawes turns out to be better than Eddy Curry (I think he CAN be, since he actually KNOWS how to pass out of a double team, and has a pretty good jumper to go with his post moves), we will have traded Eddy for a better version of himself and Tyrus Thomas, right? Will we then have won that trade?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> So then, if Hawes turns out to be better than Eddy Curry (I think he CAN be, since he actually KNOWS how to pass out of a double team, and has a pretty good jumper to go with his post moves), we will have traded Eddy for a better version of himself and Tyrus Thomas, right? Will we then have won that trade?


Since you asked the question...

Luke Schencher was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry as well.

I've yet to see Hawes play NBA basketball, so I'll reserve judgment. Curry was the 2nd best scoring center in the NBA last season. I doubt Hawes will reach that pinnacle in some time, if ever. 

If Hawes really is this good, why on Earth would he last until #9? Damn near every team in the league is looking for a productive 30 minute a night starting center. He might be worth a flyer, but he could be out of the league as well in 4 years. We sure need a scoring big man though, so I guess we’ll have to roll the dice, even if he's slow and soft.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since you asked the question...
> 
> Luke Schencher was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry as well.
> 
> ...


He isnt lasting until the 9th pick.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, it sounds like he's fatter than average.


Well the link I posted states that _most_ big men are over 12%, 13% isn't much greater than 12%, and I think being in the majority is a good definition of average so I'll stick with my previous post. If you want to post something with substance next time we can discuss it more.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> For one, he isn't even a legit 7 footer. 2, he's a terrible athlete, slow as molasses, #3 he's embarrassing on D and 4) a poor rebounder.


Do you have a basis for the claim about Hawes being slow? His combine results in the sprint and lateral tests aren't bad and he looks reasonably quick for a _6'11.5_ (pretty much literally all NBA players are listed at at least their actual height with legit shoes on) center.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since you asked the question...
> 
> Luke Schencher was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry as well.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone's claiming he'll average as many points as Curry. Brezec averaged 13 PPG a few season ago and Pachulia averaged 12.2 last year. I don't see why he can't be a hair better than those guys and average 14 or 15 and 7 in two or three years. I don't think a player that good would necessarily be taken way higher than 9 in a very strong draft heavy on big men but it doesn't mean a player like that couldn't help this team a ton.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

here is the reason i think pax will take hawes instead of any of the other guys - yi, or noah

Paxson said last year he wanted "length and athleticism" through the draft
- thus, what he went out and did, was draft tyrus and thabo - mission accomplished, both of them fit very well the length and athleticism bill that pax talked about, and he wasn't afraid to trade up to get the player he wanted

this year, Pax made it clear that our glaring need is low post scoring
- thus, he would probably go for a more established low post scorer (hawes) rather than someone athletic (noah and yi)



however, if the pick is going to be part of a TRADE for an established low post scorer, then ignore what i said above.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rainman said:


> He isnt lasting until the 9th pick.


I don't see Hawes lasting past the 6th pick. And I could make a case for him going 3rd or 4th (where, by the way, your main man Eddy went back in the day, in what was one of the WORST drafts in NBA history), in a very deep and talented draft.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since you asked the question...
> 
> Luke Schencher was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry as well.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure Hawes will last until 9. I don't think he should. 

But Amare lasted until #9, and he's a big man with tremendous athleticism. Strange things happen on draft night.

Hawes was a McDonalds All American in a very strong class. And K4E, did you see this Draft Express article that I excerpted a few pages back? The one with this quote:



> Offensively, we have not seen a more polished center at the collegiate level in recent memory."


That's a statement you would never hear any draft analyst say about Luke Schensher.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> That's a statement you would never hear any draft analyst say about Luke Schensher.



dont know if yr getting K4E's point there


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Athleticiscm is just as important for a center as anyone else. A guy needs good agility to defend the lane, to get his shot, everything. And a guy who can get up and down the court as well or better than his opponent is obviously a requirement. Everyone needs to be able to jump for a rebound, so if you can't, even if you're seven feet, you're at a big disadvantage.

What's important is to compare him to guys he'll be matching up against. And Hawes didn't come out very well. Take a look, if you want, at the draft measurements sheet I'm putting up in a few minutes. I'll update it when I get time (I'm on vacation this week!) but for the moment, try comparing guys who are PF/Cs and Cs. 

I guess to summarize:
Wingspan - below average compared to most centers. Most guys have a couple inches on him.
Vertical - Very below average. Almost everyone has a few inches on him.
Strength - Fine. Below average, but not really by much and I don't think the bench press is a hugely good measure.
Agility - Fine. Not on par with the really good guys, but it's fine and slightly better than guys like Aldridge or Bogut rated out. 
Sprint - He doesn't seem to be a great running mate for an up-tempo team like the Bulls, but he'd probably be passable. 

So looking at everything measurable, I think he'll have a relatively hard time keeping up and rebounding. On the other hand, he's not so unathletic that I think he's a certain washout or anything. But I do think he'll be at the lower end of the spectrum compared with the guys he'll be competing against, and I think he'll be sort of slow to ideally fit with the Bulls. Those make him not ideal.

I wouldn't hate it if we got him, but I think I'd be looking up at Yi or Horford or down at Jason Smith (who's athleticism is really approaching elite levels).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Sprint - He doesn't seem to be a great running mate for an up-tempo team like the Bulls, but he'd probably be passable.


I was concerned about his athleticism as well, and the measurements didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. I did look at those Sacramento Kings teams with Divac and Miller and they were at the top or close to the top in pace which eased my concerns about Hawes being unable to keep up with the rest of our Bulls.

I'd still take Noah and Yi over him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I was concerned about his athleticism as well, and the measurements didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. I did look at those Sacramento Kings teams with Divac and Miller and they were at the top or close to the top in pace which eased my concerns about Hawes being unable to keep up with the rest of our Bulls.
> 
> I'd still take Noah and Yi over him.


It's funny, I always thought Divac looked fast for a guy his size even though he probably smoked a pack of cigarettes before every game. Miller always looked like he'd smoked a pack of cigarettes before every game.

Yeah, his speed didn't seem a deal-breaker though. The thing that I didn't like the most out of everything was his combination of relatively short arms and a poor vertical. On the surface it might sound silly to be talking about a seven footer's vertical, but we gotta remember they're all going up against other seven footers at this level, and if you've got a guy who's giving up 2-3 inches of reach and 4-5 inches of jump against another guy of the same size, that strikes me as a real issue, especially since he's come off as a bit lackluster in that department anyway.

I'm getting kind of excited about Yi. I think, though for no real evidence, we might have an inside line on him, and I hope we've got the info that suggests he'll be quality too.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Hawes looking for lottery guarantee
> 
> LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- Here are some quick hitters from Thursday:
> • Washington freshman center Spencer Hawes continues to say he hasn't made up his mind about whether he's staying in the draft.
> ...


got this off of another board


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since you asked the question...
> 
> Luke Schencher was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry as well.
> 
> ...


So you're arguing that :

a) Spencer Hawes is similar to Eddy Curry. Chicagoans were tough on Eddy, how will they react to Spencer?

and

b) Spencer Hawes will probably be terrible because he'll last until 9th overall.

I guess either sort of make sense, but if you think he's going to blow go with "b", if you think he'll be good go with "a". You can't have your cake and eat it on this.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> a) Spencer Hawes is similar to Eddy Curry. Chicagoans were tough on Eddy, how will they react to Spencer?


He seems to have some the negatives that Curry had. Not a great rebounder. That seemed to infuriate people. 

I doubt he'll be the #2 scoring center in the NBA like Curry is.




> b) Spencer Hawes will probably be terrible because he'll last until 9th overall.


I'm not saying he's going to be terrible. If we're talking about a lean, mean, good athlete for a NBA center, most polished big man around, then hells bells, that sounds great! He won't last until #9 if that's the case. If people feel he's too soft to make in impact in the NBA paint and is a lazy reboudner, then perhaps he'll last until #9. 

I have yet to form an opinion about Spencer Hawes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He seems to have some the negatives that Curry had. Not a great rebounder. That seemed to infuriate people.
> 
> I doubt he'll be the #2 scoring center in the NBA like Curry is.
> 
> ...


So your opinion is that you aren't sure but the opinions you see others taking don't seem to make much sense?

Well, perhaps not, but it's only natural to hope a guy we pick turns out well. Not that we're going to pick him, but I suspect people will play up the positives and down the negatives of anybody they think we'll pick. It's not the end of the world.

I think all the talk about Hawes is probably misleading. He looks milquetoast to me, and I think the Bulls are looking for someone they think might be a weapon on offense, not another cog in the machinery.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm not sure Hawes will last until 9. I don't think he should.
> 
> But Amare lasted until #9, and he's a big man with tremendous athleticism. Strange things happen on draft night.


Yeah, but that wasn't due to randomness or his not being a good fit for Team X or any questions about his talent or athleticism. Front offices were scared off by the fact that he went to 47 different high schools, his frightening family situation, and some communication issues during interviews. 

I'm not sure how I feel about Hawes. On the one hand, we all know that the pace of playoff basketball is quite a bit slower than the regular season, and we do need a frontline player who can get his own shot off and demand a double team. But Skiles has "his guys", and if Spence can't crack the rotation in the regular season, I doubt he'll be featured more in the postseason just because the tempo better suits him.

In the long term, I'm not sure if the idea of a Hawes-Thomas combo makes much sense, either. They really couldn't be more different, and they're not different in a good, complementary sense.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since you asked the question...
> 
> Luke Schencher was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry as well.



My grandma was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He seems to have some the negatives that Curry had. Not a great rebounder. That seemed to infuriate people.
> 
> I doubt he'll be the #2 scoring center in the NBA like Curry is.



Lack of rebounding was certainly ONE of the things on the list of faults that had the cumulative effect of infuriating people.

If Hawes is similar to Eddy in that 5 years into his career he still has a tendency to get so gassed in the second half that he can't even get his arms up on defense, I'd just as soon pass on him.

However, I don't think that is the case.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> In the long term, I'm not sure if the idea of a Hawes-Thomas combo makes much sense, either. They really couldn't be more different, and they're not different in a good, complementary sense, either.


I'm not sure why you think that Hawes and Thomas might not be complementary. On offense one has the tools for a high post game while the other is better playing close to the basket. On defense one is a good interior help defender while the other might be big enough to play man defense against opposing centers (if he gains a little weight). One should become a good rebounder while the other... Well, OK I'm not really that high on Hawes but I'm not sure why you think he couldn't play with Tyrus.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If Hawes is similar to Eddy in that 5 years into his career he still has a tendency to get so gassed in the second half that he can't even get his arms up on defense, I'd just as soon pass on him.


Even if he turned out to be the #2 scoring center in the NBA and posting a PER of 17+? Really? OK, whatever. Just another “hunk of meat” I guess. I remember having this kind of discussion w/ you about Luke. He's gone, Curry is #2 in the league in scoring with a 17+ PER. And the Bulls desperately need a guy that can very effectively score on the inside.

If Spencer can do that, we should snap him up ASAP.

I have not seen the guy play much, so I'm reserving judgment about who we should pick until a couple days before the draft. From what I read, he seems skilled, somewhat slow and soft.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> It's not the end of the world.


I agree.



> I think all the talk about Hawes is probably misleading. He looks milquetoast to me, and I think the Bulls are looking for someone they think might be a weapon on offense, not another cog in the machinery.


I agree, I agree and I hope so.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> My grandma was better at passing out of a double team and had a better jumper than Eddy Curry.


EDIT


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Not that we're going to pick him, but I suspect people will play up the positives and down the negatives of anybody they think we'll pick.


Let's not take shots at large groups of posters, please.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Paxson did a great job picking Tyrus Thomas last season. That's who I wanted and Paxson agreed. Nice job Paxson. Keep it up this year.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> In the long term, I'm not sure if the idea of a Hawes-Thomas combo makes much sense, either. They really couldn't be more different, and they're not different in a good, complementary sense.


Why not? I ask because I've been pondering this myself and I can't seem to come to a conclusion.

Bigger problem is that I'm not really sure who TT would pair up well with that is actually an inside scoring threat. Yi? 

Part of me is very intrigued by the defensive potential of Wallace/TT/Noah and the more I think about that, the more attractive I find it. But that still leaves us with very little internal scoring save for what TT and Deng can develop internally.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson did a great job picking Tyrus Thomas last season. That's who I wanted and Paxson agreed. Nice job Paxson. Keep it up this year.


Believe it or not, I wasn't actually referring to you with that post. TT is one of the few things you and I see eye to eye on.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Lack of rebounding was certainly ONE of the things on the list of faults that had the cumulative effect of infuriating people.
> 
> If Hawes is similar to Eddy in that 5 years into his career he still has a tendency to get so gassed in the second half that he can't even get his arms up on defense, I'd just as soon pass on him.
> 
> However, I don't think that is the case.


I read your thoughts on this in a thread a while back when I didn't have time to respond. First and foremost, I have to admit that I would have never, ever guessed that you watched so many Knicks games last year.

I don't watch all that many Knicks games on TV, so I can't affirm/deny whether or not Clyde Frazier complained about Curry's conditioning, or how often. The trouble I'm having with this, and your disingenuous hopes that it's not Curry's heart acting up again, is that they don't really square up with reality -- you know, the 35 mpg for the season, a 50 minute game in April, and so on.

That 50 minute game was one of the few Knicks games that I did watch this year (via "Knicks Rewind"), and I sure didn't see many signs of being "gassed." So did the fatigue/ticking time bomb heart problem come and go? What's the explanation?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

These comments about Hawes lack of rebounding are completely overblown. Hawes had a teammate that averaged 9.6 RPG who was healthy the entire season.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Why not? I ask because I've been pondering this myself and I can't seem to come to a conclusion.
> 
> Bigger problem is that I'm not really sure who TT would pair up well with that is actually an inside scoring threat. Yi?
> 
> Part of me is very intrigued by the defensive potential of Wallace/TT/Noah and the more I think about that, the more attractive I find it. But that still leaves us with very little internal scoring save for what TT and Deng can develop internally.


I think Hawes is going to have a hell of a time guarding the post in the NBA. I'd rather pair Tyrus with a stronger, faster big who can not only run the floor, but also be able to consistently guard his own cover with a minimum of help. The best place to neutralize Tyrus's individual or help defense is with a bigger player right at the basket. I want him roaming and creating chaos, not holding Hawes's hand.

I would like to see the Bulls take BPA at 9, regardless of position.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I read your thoughts on this in a thread a while back when I didn't have time to respond. First and foremost, I have to admit that I would have never, ever guessed that you watched so many Knicks games last year.
> 
> I don't watch all that many Knicks games on TV, so I can't affirm/deny whether or not Clyde Frazier complained about Curry's conditioning, or how often. The trouble I'm having with this, and your disingenuous hopes that it's not Curry's heart acting up again, is that they don't really square up with reality -- you know, the 35 mpg for the season, a 50 minute game in April, and so on.
> 
> That 50 minute game was one of the few Knicks games that I did watch this year (via "Knicks Rewind"), and I sure didn't see many signs of being "gassed." So did the fatigue/ticking time bomb heart problem come and go? What's the explanation?


I didn't see where Tom said anything about Curry's heart. So I can only assume this is based on something from the past.

Tom didn't say that Curry didn't stay on the court. Tom said that Curry was gassed *while on the court *at the end of games and had a "tendency" to defend incredibly poorly as a result. And its absolutely accurate.

For the last 2 years, I have watched between 45-55 Knicks' games each season because of the pick swap and to monitor whether or not I was wrong about Curry. We all know Curry's first year in New York was very bad. But I believe that can somewhat be fairly blamed on his summer of inactivity and the Larry Brown/Zeke Thomas debacle.

Last season, Zeke simply left Curry on the floor to justify his existence and inflate his stats (though Curry's per minute stats are the same as they were in his last year with the Bulls - with worse turnovers I believe). This was something Skiles would not do, in large part, because Curry would become horribly ineffective defensively at the end of games due to conditioning issues. Zeke didn't care. He left Curry out there despite the "tendency" to defend poorly in the second half of games. Hence the increased minutes.

So don't look at the minutes without watching the games and take a shot at Tom who has actually described things far more accurately than your raw minutes-based implications. 

And if you think this stems from my long-established doubts with Eddy Curry and a compulsion to defend the Curry trade and Paxson, I'd invite you to read the countless threads and posts at the realgm Knicks board where Curry's presence on the court was divisive among Knicks fans over these very issues - the very issues that divided Bulls fans over Curry (balancing his great low post scoring with the fact that he can't pass, turns the ball over worse than anyone in the league, can't team defend, conditioning issues, low bball IQ, etc.) 

He's the same guy with the same strengths and weaknesses he always had. And since I've watched over 100 Knicks games the last 2 seasons and you admittedly haven't watched but a few, you'll just have to take my word for it.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I think Hawes is going to have a hell of a time guarding the post in the NBA. I'd rather pair Tyrus with a stronger, faster big who can not only run the floor, but also be able to consistently guard his own cover with a minimum of help.


You've just described either a role player at center or one of a handful of guys like Oden and Howard. Hawes will fill out to be a 7 foot 260+ center with a good work ethic and fabulous post scoring ability.

The Bulls, by having Ben Wallace, have the ability to bring Hawes along properly and utilize his best asset, his scoring right away.

Your belief that Hawes is going to have difficulty defending in the NBA essentially sounds like you are buying into the Big White Stiff theory.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Last season, Zeke simply left Curry on the floor to justify his existence and inflate his stats (though Curry's per minute stats are the same as they were in his last year with the Bulls - with worse turnovers I believe). This was something Skiles would not do, in large part, because Curry would become horribly ineffective defensively at the end of games due to conditioning issues. Zeke didn't care. He left Curry out there despite the "tendency" to defend poorly in the second half of games. Hence the increased minutes.


So Skiles could live with the horrible defense, the turnovers, etc. for 29 minutes a game, but not 35. 6 minutes a game. Which may have had something to do with the fact that Skiles had to juggle PT for an elite defensive big who most effectively played the same position.

Man. The difference between a hard-nosed, accept-no-small-failures coach and one allegedly desperate to showcase his prized acquisition is a mere 6 minutes per game? I mean, 35 mpg from Isiah makes sense. But 29 mpg from Skiles? 



> He's the same guy with the same strengths and weaknesses he always had. And since I've watched over 100 Knicks games the last 2 seasons and you admittedly haven't watched but a few, you'll just have to take my word for it.


I am definitely not the go-to source for Knicks information like you and TB are, apparently (I do see 10-12 games a year in person, FWIW). But you're debating an argument that I'm not making. I don't think Curry's turned over a new leaf, although Aguirre has helped him learn to do a better job establishing position. He's one of the league's two or three best low-post scorers, and the Bulls were a dominant defensive unit even with him taking the court for 29 mpg.

EDIT


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> You've just described either a role player at center or one of a handful of guys like Oden and Howard. Hawes will fill out to be a 7 foot 260+ center with a good work ethic and fabulous post scoring ability.
> 
> The Bulls, by having Ben Wallace, have the ability to bring Hawes along properly and utilize his best asset, his scoring right away.
> 
> Your belief that Hawes is going to have difficulty defending in the NBA essentially sounds like you are buying into the Big White Stiff theory.


Oh, he has a good work ethic. Sign me up, then!


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Oh, he has a good work ethic. Sign me up, then!


Quality response there to a post that refutes your weakly support points


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> *So Skiles could live with the horrible defense, the turnovers, etc. for 29 minutes a game, but not 35. 6 minutes a game.* Which may have had something to do with the fact that Skiles had to juggle PT for an elite defensive big who most effectively played the same position.


Yes. And you seem to be missing the point regarding conditioning. Poor conditioning doesn't mean you hit the wall when jumping for the tip. It means you get progressively worse as the game goes on and your conditioning fails. Those last 7 minutes - which would constitute a 25% increase in minutes while his defensive play is declining at the end of games - are a lot. 



> Man. The difference between a hard-nosed, accept-no-small-failures coach and one allegedly desperate to showcase his prized acquisition is a mere 6 minutes per game? I mean, 35 mpg from Isiah makes sense. But 29 mpg from Skiles?


Same answer. Its a huge difference in minutes given the circumstances that we are discussing - a drop in effectiveness at the end of games. Huge.

I don't know how many times I saw, and how many times I've read literally dozens and dozens and dozens of Knicks fans compain about, the opposition perimeter player layup drill that typified the 4th quarter of Knicks games.



> I am definitely not the go-to source for Knicks information like you and TB are, apparently (I do see 10-12 games a year in person, FWIW). *But you're debating an argument that I'm not making.* I don't think Curry's turned over a new leaf, although Aguirre has helped him learn to do a better job establishing position. He's one of the league's two or three best low-post scorers, and the Bulls were a dominant defensive unit even with him taking the court for 29 mpg.


I didn't think you were making any argument at all. I think you simply questioned the accuracy of someone saying Eddy's defense has a "tendency" to fade at the end of games. And it does. 



> Oh, and if I took a shot at Tom, it was for his "golly gee, I hope nothing is wrong with Eddy's heart Hank Gathers Reggie Lewis" remarks. He should know better.


Did he edit that post or something? Because I didn't see that. I'd agree that Eddy's defensive lapses have absolutely nothing to do with the physical condition of his heart.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Quality response there to a post that refutes your weakly support points


Sorry. I'm a little preoccupied attempting to figure out how Hawes finished behind Aaron Gray in DE's combined rankings.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't know how many times I saw, and how many times I've read literally dozens and dozens and dozens of Knicks fans compain about, the opposition perimeter player layup drill that typified the 4th quarter of Knicks games.


Oh, no question. Once Crawford went down, the Knicks had absolutely no one on the perimeter willing to guard his man. Marbury? Francis? Robinson? Yikes.



> I didn't think you were making any argument at all. I think you simply questioned the accuracy of someone saying Eddy's *defense* has a "tendency" to fade at the end of games. And it does.


Ah. This clears things up. You and TB are saying that Eddy was "gassed" ONLY on the defensive end. This is why things weren't jibing for me -- in that Milwaukee game, Curry scored something like 24 points from the midway point of the third, including a game-tying three (!) to send it into OT. He sure didn't look tired, but I guess I didn't notice the defensive shortcomings, partly because it was a track-meet type of game, and partly because he was guarding guys like Dan Gadzuric.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

EDIThttp://myspace.com/dge3


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

If someone wants to start a pointless OT thread about Eddy Curry's conditioning, have at it. This thread, however, is about Spencer Hawes. Let's keep it about that before I have to lock it up. Thanks.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry. I'm a little preoccupied attempting to figure out how Hawes finished behind Aaron Gray in DE's combined rankings.


You do realize that those are actually the NBA's rankings and not draftexpres's don't you?

You do also realize that Hawes is actually still attending school, hasn't hired an agent and isn't attending one of the basketball factory camps that train you for the combine?

You do also realize that Gray has been attending such a factory to prepare for the combine and has gained significant improvement in those areas?

Now that we are operating from a level platform of facts, perhaps you'll be able to break out of your Big White Stiff box


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Oh, no question. Once Crawford went down, the Knicks had absolutely no one on the perimeter willing to guard his man. Marbury? Francis? Robinson? Yikes.


You know as well as I do that there is a second line of rotational team defense from the interior that is supposed to help with that.



> Ah. This clears things up. You and TB are saying that Eddy was "gassed" ONLY on the defensive end. This is why things weren't jibing for me -- in that Milwaukee game, Curry scored something like 24 points from the midway point of the third, including a game-tying three (!) to send it into OT. He sure didn't look tired, but I guess I didn't notice the defensive shortcomings, partly because it was a track-meet type of game, and partly because he was guarding guys like Dan Gadzuric.


Methinks you need to look up the word "tendency" in the dictionary. I think you'll find that the term is not synonymous with "always". I certainly saw a number of games last season where Curry played to his standard levels of offense and defense from tip to buzzer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> If someone wants to start a pointless OT thread about Eddy Curry's conditioning, have at it. *This thread, however, is about Spencer Hawes. Let's keep it about that* before I have to lock it up. Thanks.


Done.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Spencer Hawes' workout numbers have not changed my impressions of him very much. Everyone could tell from watching him that he wasn't an explosive athlete, and while his Orlando numbers weren't great, they weren't off the map either, which I think is the only thing that could have hurt his draft stock since no one was expecting him to set the world on fire anyways.

I also think Cpaw made a good point. Spencer Hawes hasn't locked himself into a gym at one of those pro basketball boot camps that train you specifically for those types of things. You can decide whether or not that's a good thing, but not doing that and being a college freshman with an underdeveloped body is going to hurt your performance a lot in these types of scenarios.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry. I'm a little preoccupied attempting to figure out how Hawes finished behind Aaron Gray in DE's combined rankings.


or how Durant finished below both of these guys...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> You've just described either a role player at center or one of a handful of guys like Oden and Howard. Hawes will fill out to be a 7 foot 260+ center with a good work ethic and fabulous post scoring ability.
> 
> The Bulls, by having Ben Wallace, have the ability to bring Hawes along properly and utilize his best asset, his scoring right away.
> 
> Your belief that Hawes is going to have difficulty defending in the NBA essentially sounds like you are buying into the Big White Stiff theory.


I dont' think that's the case. It just seems to me that you're taking a guy who's already known as not being all that tough a defender or rebounder when he was bigger and quicker than his opponents and now you're pitting him against a set of guys who turn those advantages into relative weaknesses.

That being said, I don't think the man to man stuff is the issue. Man defense for centers at the NBA level doesn't strike me as one of the league's most scarce skills. If you've got a big body, you're more or less adequate.

The warning flags to me, and I'm surprised nobody else has challenged the notion, is on his rebounding and being able to play a relatively up tempo game. The problem is probably passable, but the former looks like a real issue.

And Rosenthall... yeah, it is an issue for me that Spence treated the run up to the most important event in his career to date with a casual approach. People talk about whether Noah really "wants it" because he comes from a comfortable background and it seems to me the same thing should be considered in Hawes' case.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The warning flags to me, and I'm surprised nobody else has challenged the notion, is on his rebounding and being able to play a relatively up tempo game. The problem is probably passable, but the former looks like a real issue.


the rebounding is an issue, but i don't think he's a total lost cause.
he played at UW 25 pounds underwieght and as we all see, he doesn't have the ridiculous athleticism to make up for it. i'd be willing to see what he can do in the individual work outs at his ideal playing wieght against good competition.

ball movement will always be faster than player movement.
and the kid's passing is one of his strongest talents.
if anything playing underwieght made him less of a pure back to the basket player and into a more balanced one with a face up game.
being a decent offensive threat would make teams think twice about double teaming our perimeter guards. and good spacing is just as important to ball movement.

that said i think all three guys (hawes, noah, yi) we're considering can help out in those areas, each in their own way.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> And Rosenthall... yeah, it is an issue for me that Spence treated the run up to the most important event in his career to date with a casual approach. People talk about whether Noah really "wants it" because he comes from a comfortable background and it seems to me the same thing should be considered in Hawes' case.


Question: 

Hawes hasn't hired an agent because he's thinking about going back to school. However, is there anything that would prevent him from enrolling in one of these pre-draft boot camps due to the fact he's considering going back? There's nothing I know of, but I'm no expert.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I dont' think that's the case. It just seems to me that you're taking a guy who's already known as not being all that tough a defender or rebounder when he was bigger and quicker than his opponents and now you're pitting him against a set of guys who turn those advantages into relative weaknesses.
> 
> That being said, I don't think the man to man stuff is the issue. Man defense for centers at the NBA level doesn't strike me as one of the league's most scarce skills. If you've got a big body, you're more or less adequate.
> 
> ...


I've already covered the rebounding. Between playing with 6 foot 7 inch, 260 board eater and the 20 pounds he lost during the season, his rebounding numbers don't tell the entire story and people are making too much out of it.

And MikeDC, how was he suppose to prepare for the predraft camp while remaining in school? He wasn't located near any of the boot camps and he is trying to maintain his academic standing so that Washington doesn't take an APR hit from him.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Question:
> 
> Hawes hasn't hired an agent because he's thinking about going back to school. However, is there anything that would prevent him from enrolling in one of these pre-draft boot camps due to the fact he's considering going back? There's nothing I know of, but I'm no expert.


The only thing "preventing" him is the fact that he was still in school because Washington is on the quarters system. Hawes would have had to left school in order to attend one.

Thaddeus Young (or his uncle) paid his own way at Tim Grovers camp.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Question:
> 
> Hawes hasn't hired an agent because he's thinking about going back to school. However, is there anything that would prevent him from enrolling in one of these pre-draft boot camps due to the fact he's considering going back? There's nothing I know of, but I'm no expert.


class is still in session @ UW.
he's visited some of these camps (i think he was down in LA when noah and yi were down there), but he doesn't make the full time commitment because he's still going to classes and taking finals. he's got a nice gpa he doesn't want to mess up. he'll probably try to finish his degree while he's in the NBA like some guys have.

there's a Huskie blog in one of the papers and read that he has been working out about 5hrs a day in preparation, so i don't think his combine numbers are totally off base. he's basically a good to average athlete for a 7-footer. but he should be able to get stronger.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> The only thing "preventing" him is the fact that he was still in school because Washington is on the quarters system. Hawes would have had to left school in order to attend one.
> 
> Thaddeus Young (or his uncle) paid his own way at Tim Grovers camp.


To answer your question, the fact he's on quarters makes it seem easier for me to think he could have just taken a quarter off wthot exactly torpedoing his academic career.

Couldn't he at least have taken a lighter schedule?

I mean, plenty of kids take a semester off here and there. Would it not be possible to drop a quarter to work his butt off on a lifetime opportunity? It striks me a bit askew.

Regarding the rebounding I'm not going so much off his stats but off the fact that he seems like he's got relatively short arms and relatively poor jumping ability (which I doubt will get better with aother 20lbs).

I was asking in the draft board thread... if he's already below average athletically, I'd sort o like him to not add that sort of weight back.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> To answer your question, the fact he's on quarters makes it seem easier for me to think he could have just taken a quarter off wthot exactly torpedoing his academic career.
> 
> Couldn't he at least have taken a lighter schedule?
> 
> ...


Perhaps the idea of entering the NBA at the end of the season seemed like a long shot when he signed up for classes?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> To answer your question, the fact he's on quarters makes it seem easier for me to think he could have just taken a quarter off wthot exactly torpedoing his academic career.
> 
> Couldn't he at least have taken a lighter schedule?
> 
> ...


Do you know what the APR is? If Hawes had taken the quarter off, it would have dropped UW's APR score and potentially led to a loss of a scholarship down the road.

Hawes has a 9 foot 2 inch standing reach which is more important than his wing span so you are greatly overstating the short arms.

Also realize that his 20 pound weight loss during the season was a rapid one from a virus. That type of weight loss always has a loss of strength with it.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Do you know what the APR is? If Hawes had taken the quarter off, it would have dropped UW's APR score and potentially led to a loss of a scholarship down the road.
> 
> *Hawes has a 9 foot 2 inch standing reach which is more important than his wing span so you are greatly overstating the short arms.
> *


I didn't take anatomy in college and I'm not big on all this measurement stuff, but that makes sense to me. The shoes thing bothers me some, though. Hawes has some tall-a** shoes. So I took the "shoe differential" out of the standing reach thing (assuming that the standing reach is in shoes) and Hawes only drops one spot (from #2 to #3) among the big names.

This leads me to believe that Hawes must have a short head/neck, that is, his floor-to-top-of-head height, in functional terms, is somewhat understated.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I do not know how workouts run, but the Bulls have Noah, Hawes, Big Baby, and Chris Richard (Gator) in today. I do not know if its only Hawes vs Noah, or Hawes vs all 4. But I like to see how Hawes does vs the two Florida Gators. Can he score with them on ease since he seems like a finesse player. Can he D them up b/c these other guys are not known for their offense. Can he control the boards vs Noah and Richards - A great Rebounder and a Rock. 

If Hawes does well today, and does well on Friday alone with Paxson, I think he will get a promise. The Flordia Gators 3 Big Men in Noah, Richard, and Horford are monsters. If Hawes can score on them and show his ability to rebound and play solid D, then he will be our pick. If he blows it on D, then he can be pretty bad since these other guys are not known for their O.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> I've already covered the rebounding. Between playing with 6 foot 7 inch, 260 board eater and the 20 pounds he lost during the season, his rebounding numbers don't tell the entire story and people are making too much out of it.


In support of Hawes, I don't think he's a deficient rebounder, either. But I should warn you that the "he plays alongside elite rebounders" argument will be summarily rejected by a lot of the posters here.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> In support of Hawes, I don't think he's a deficient rebounder, either. But I should warn you that the "he plays alongside elite rebounders" argument will be summarily rejected by a lot of the posters here.


And I'll be the first one to chime in on that. I reject that argument in general. 

Now, if I was watching game after game after game of one teammate literally stealing rebounds that another "weak rebounding" teammate had earned position for - or had the coach come out and say "hey, we don't expect that guy to rebound in our scheme, we've got another guy to do that", then maybe I'd be inclined to give that theory another look. Until then, I reject it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I read your thoughts on this in a thread a while back when I didn't have time to respond. First and foremost, I have to admit that I would have never, ever guessed that you watched so many Knicks games last year.
> 
> I don't watch all that many Knicks games on TV, so I can't affirm/deny whether or not Clyde Frazier complained about Curry's conditioning, or how often. The trouble I'm having with this, and your disingenuous hopes that it's not Curry's heart acting up again, is that they don't really square up with reality -- you know, the 35 mpg for the season, a 50 minute game in April, and so on.
> 
> That 50 minute game was one of the few Knicks games that I did watch this year (via "Knicks Rewind"), and I sure didn't see many signs of being "gassed." So did the fatigue/ticking time bomb heart problem come and go? What's the explanation?


I did watch a lot of Knicks games last year and commented on the fact that I was watching a lot of Knicks games as I posted here throughout the season.

1. The "lotto ball" thing kept me curious.

2. I enjoy watching the Knicks lose.

And yes, after the All-Star break especially, Eddy was completely gassed through much of the second half and Clyde was constantly railing on E-City about layup drills going past him. Some nights he seemed to fair better than others, but it was a pretty frequent occurrence and got more and more frequent as the season was grinding to an end. See Ron Cey's post on this as well.

I did mention a couple of times, in passing, that I wondered if it was possible that the fatigue he was experiencing was somehow heart related, since he didn't look particularly heavy (for him), had had plenty of time to play himself into decent shape and seemed to be disproportionately affected by the wear and tear of the season, compared to other big men.

EDIT  I just threw it out there as a thought that occurred to me as a possibility. 

Given the casual, non-assertive and casual nature of the comment, I hardly think it qualifies as "disingenuous." 

And I DO hope that it is not, indeed his heart. I am happy that we haven't heard any reports that the docs think his huffing and puffing up and down the court is heart related, and I'm sure the Knicks doctors keep close tabs on him, just as a precaution.

I don't generally like to be wrong, even when engaging in speculation as I was. But in this case, I really am happy that my musings don't seem to be the case. I don't want the man to have a bad tick tock. I don't wish him ill in any way.

Really.

And I wasn't using the heart suggestion in a boogey-man "ticking time bomb" scare tactic. It just occurred to me that there could be a possibility that his fatigue problems were some sort of lingering effect.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hawes vs. Noah is a great matchup in a workout. I'd like to see if Noah has offensive production against a legit big, and I'd like to see the same with Hawes playing against a long, smart defender.

Noah is still my guy, but I think he'll be gone. I don't think we need balance, and just because we need points in the paint I don't think it means we need someone who might not fit the bill in many other areas of the game.

Hawes would be an excellent asset in a non-zone defense NBA, but that's not what we've got.

He wouldn't be a terrible pick if we get him, but Noah is the guy I'd like to see in a Bulls uni, continue to capitalize on our strengths and double-down on what we do best: high-energy defense that leads to some points in transition, and high basketball IQ that can execute plays.

Plus, Noah does have soft hands around the hoop and has the leaping and length to be a finisher. Our only finishers right now are Deng and Tyrus, and it's important to have several.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> In support of Hawes, I don't think he's a deficient rebounder, either. But I should warn you that the "he plays alongside elite rebounders" argument will be summarily rejected by a lot of the posters here.


I will reject that argument. You either rebound or you don't. Period. We've been through this argument before for a few years, and well we can tell now in this new Bulls era who could rebound and who couldn't. It wasn't due to another guy rebounding.

Hawes workout today will show if he has the toughness to rebound along the likes of Noah who was a great college rebounder and Richard who is a physical beast.

I should also add, while I'd like a strong rebounder from center, if the team still rebounds at a rate that does not give up easy rebounds for the opponent, I can live with it. But if you are 7 feet tall, it does not matter who you are, you should be able to rebound.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I did watch a lot of Knicks games last year and commented on the fact that I was watching a lot of Knicks games as I posted here throughout the season.
> 
> 1. The "lotto ball" thing kept me curious.
> 
> ...


OK, let's assume that it wasn't a heart problem, he wasn't overweight (for him) and yet he was often gassed late in games. What are the other possibilities?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

transplant said:


> OK, let's assume that it wasn't a heart problem, he wasn't overweight (for him) and yet he was often gassed late in games. What are the other possibilities?



Can we pretty, pretty please keep this thread about Hawes and not Eddy Curry's fatigue problem, or lack thereof? Please. My locking finger is tired and I don't want to have to use it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Hawes vs. Noah is a great matchup in a workout. I'd like to see if Noah has offensive production against a legit big, and I'd like to see the same with Hawes playing against a long, smart defender.
> 
> Noah is still my guy, but I think he'll be gone. I don't think we need balance, and just because we need points in the paint I don't think it means we need someone who might not fit the bill in many other areas of the game.
> 
> ...


If we pick Noah after today's workout, then I can't blame Pax. He has Hawes in today vs Noah, Richard, and Big Baby. I don't see Big Baby as much competition, but I want to see Hawes fair against the Florida Boys. I consider them good defenders and good rebounders. I want to see how physical Hawes can be in the post, rebounding, and defending. Noah might have a better game than we see. I don't think that, but it is possible. 

This workout will go a long way toward Pax's decision of Hawes or Noah.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Can we pretty, pretty please keep this thread about Hawes and not Eddy Curry's fatigue problem, or lack thereof? Please. My locking finger is tired and I don't want to have to use it.


I humbly apologize.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> In support of Hawes, I don't think he's a deficient rebounder, either. But I should warn you that the "he plays alongside elite rebounders" argument will be summarily rejected by a lot of the posters here.


You'd have a point if that was the only "reason" I was giving but it isn't


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry. I'm a little preoccupied attempting to figure out how Hawes finished behind Aaron Gray in DE's combined rankings.


To all of you who are freaked out at Hawes's unimpressive combine numbers, I ask you this. How many games of his did you get to watch last year? Did you watch him in the McDonalds All American Game the year before? Or are you just reading box scores, watching youtube clips, and freaking out because he just tested as a below average athlete?

Being toward the western side of the country allows me to catch more Pac 10 games than a lot of you folks, though I get my share of ACC and Big East Games too out here. I got to see a lot of Hawes. On the court, he does not look overly slow or plodding. He looks considerably faster and quicker than guys like Gray. He plays hard and he's got tremendous coordination and physical skill, and he's got lots of post moves.

To those of you who seem to be doubting Hawes (MikeDC, ScottMay, K4E somewhat), are any of you actually going to try to convince me that his post moves aren't going to be toward the high end for NBA centers? We're talking about a baby hook with each hand, great footwork, and confident moves over either shoulder on both sides of the court. We're talking about a guy who really plays in the low post but also plays in the high post well and can hit a jumper. I admit freely that his defense coming in should be below average, and with a general lack of speed and athleticism, he could be a liability on that side of the ball. I like that he plays hard, generally holds his ground well as a man defender, and has height and weight to throw around that we just don't have on this team.

I have not seen it mentioned about Hawes that he has already had his knee scoped. I've not heard anything about any kind of residual effect on his game, but that might be a reason that some teams might not draft him. I believe Paxson may have eliminated Roy for serious consideration because of health concerns, so GM's do think about this stuff.

K4E, in terms of why Hawes might be available at 9, you have to consider the strength of this draft. Here are the only players I would almost certainly draft over Hawes, regardless of position:

Oden
Durant
Horford

Here are the players who I think are right there with Hawes:

Brandan Wright
Conley
Yi???
Thad Young - I think he has more potential than J. Wright, Green, or Brewer.
Joakim Noah

Here are the players who sometimes get listed above Hawes on a big board but are IMO less valuable:

Julian Wright
Jeff Green
Corey Brewer

So on my personal big board (regardless of position), Hawes would be somewhere in the 4-9 range, but on my draft board, he's probably #4.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Everyone ought to read Jonathan Givony's piece on the combine results, it's quite remarkable to read.


> Who was (supposedly) the 2nd best athlete in that draft? Brandon Hunter, an eventual late 2nd round pick who was relegated to the 2nd division in Italy this year playing for Livorno. Dwyane Wade, possibly the best overall athlete in the NBA today, ranked 14th. Chris Bosh finished 51st. Chris Kaman 45th. In that same year, TJ Ford measured in as being slower in the various footspeed tests than Chris Kaman, Kirk Penney and Carmelo Anthony.





> That same Andre Iguodala who was robbed of the slam dunk championship a year ago, only recorded a 34 inch vertical leap, one inch more than J.J. Redick last year.





> The 2005 draft combine was equally as pointless. Monta Ellis ranked as the worst athlete of all the players measured, coming out slow, weak and with very little leaping ability.


Won't spoil too much of it, it really has some interesting points.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Well right about now Skiles and Paxson know the answer to the question posed by this thread.

I'd love to have seen how Noah and Hawes did against Big Baby in the workouts. 
Two skinny guys and a slimmed down freight train. Interesting.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Well right about now Skiles and Paxson know the answer to the question posed by this thread.
> 
> I'd love to have seen how Noah and Hawes did against Big Baby in the workouts.
> Two skinny guys and a slimmed down freight train. Interesting.


Hawes domintated the Big Baby up in Seattle for what that's worth, those workouts are usually pretty scripted to the point you dont get guys going at each other, usually one big lovefest. In a setting of footwork, shooting and ballhandling Hawes is going to excel.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

rainman said:


> Hawes domintated the Big Baby up in Seattle for what that's worth, those workouts are usually pretty scripted to the point you dont get guys going at each other, usually one big lovefest. In a setting of footwork, shooting and ballhandling Hawes is going to excel.


I thought one reason the Bulls drafted Sefolosha was because he guarded Roy so well in their workouts. So maybe it's not all theater in Bulls tryouts.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I thought one reason the Bulls drafted Sefolosha was because he guarded Roy so well in their workouts. So maybe it's not all theater in Bulls tryouts.


I think you may be right, i'm thinking of workouts held by agents.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I am really starting to believe Hawes fits this current Bulls team. 

Hawes has the basketball pedigree. He knows the game. From all accounts Hawes is a smart basketball player. If you are blowing assignments, you're sitting. I think Hawes is wiser than his years or at least more basketball savvy than most kids. I would assume if your dad and uncle were both 6'6" and taller, you would have to learn to both shoot outside and defend down low while growing to be 7'. 

I think Hawes could survive defensively with Wallace's mobility and help defense. Hawes'shear size would help Wallace no matter his speed. Spencer's ability to pass as well as knock down the 18 foot shot will also help Wallace get more easy scores. 

The player that comes to mind when watching Hawes is Jack Sikma. Sikma wasn't fast or strong but he was a hell of a basketball player . Jack could score and pass and got his team mates easy shots. If you could add a player like Sikma to a defensive stud like Wallace you got happy days ahead of you.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Do you know what the APR is? If Hawes had taken the quarter off, it would have dropped UW's APR score and potentially led to a loss of a scholarship down the road.


Sure I know what it is, but I think that's a little far fetched unless they're really on the bubble. Are they really on the bubble? And in any case, as far as I understand it, you just have to be signed up for academic min requirement (6 or 9 or credits? - I do't know what it'd be for a quarter) and Hawes signed up for something pretty heavy duty. In other words, he could probably have gotten full credit by doing quite a bit less.

Not the end of the world, it's just not the approach I think I'd take, so I find it sort of odd.

As to Rhyder's question, I dunno... I was always able to add and drop classes into the first week of classes.



> Hawes has a 9 foot 2 inch standing reach which is more important than his wing span so you are greatly overstating the short arms.
> 
> Also realize that his 20 pound weight loss during the season was a rapid one from a virus. That type of weight loss always has a loss of strength with it.


Sure... I'm not so concerned about strength... I'm just looking a couple months later and he has pretty below average hops even while under weight. That seems a little strange.

As far as the reach vs. span, I dunno, it might be more important, but I can't really see why. It seems to me that most of the time (not all the time, of course!) people are jumping and stretching, tipping and bumping or boards. Straight up is nice, but when you put everything together he still looks like he's got below average tools to me.

Look, I'm not saying he's going to be a bust, I'm just saying I don't think he compares very favorably (in terms of his physical traits) to most of the quality big guys that have come out in the past few years.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Mike, Hawes weighed 244 at the combine so he wasn't 20 pounds underweight. 

Hawes has stated he believes with an NBA strength and conditioning program and natural physical development, he still has another 20 pounds of weight to add to his frame.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

He's a big man and we need a big man, but it's hard to get excited about a guy whose best-case scenario is Bogut or Kaman. On the other hand, he has very little chance of being a bust. 



Showtyme said:


> Noah is still my guy, but I think he'll be gone. I don't think we need balance, and just because we need points in the paint I don't think it means we need someone who might not fit the bill in many other areas of the game.
> 
> He wouldn't be a terrible pick if we get him, but Noah is the guy I'd like to see in a Bulls uni, continue to capitalize on our strengths and double-down on what we do best: high-energy defense that leads to some points in transition, and high basketball IQ that can execute plays.
> 
> Plus, Noah does have soft hands around the hoop and has the leaping and length to be a finisher. Our only finishers right now are Deng and Tyrus, and it's important to have several.


I completely agree.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

I see Hawes like a weaker Bill Wennington. How can anyone get excited over that? He may have more moves compared to Bill, but he is not worth #9. 

This is the last time in the foreseeable future where our Bulls will have a lottery pick. We should make this count, and either move up to get our guy or get BPA. This Hawes fella is nothing special, like a far inferior Eddy Curry or something. Hes got no D, no rebounding, no ups, severely limited athleticism and Im not convinced his offense will translate into the NBA. _If some think this is harsh, well some have the nerve to say Zach Randolph, an accomplished NBA scorer and rebounder, isn't worthy of the #9, so I'm just keeping it in perspective._


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Bill Wennington??? The only things Bill could do was hit a wide open jumper, and foul. Hawes is going to be a poor man's Hakeem. He'll have a vast reportoire of post moves, but won't have the athleticism and dominance that Hakeem had, nor will he be the defensive dominator like Hakeem was. He will be vastly superior to Wennington though. On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate Bill a 4, Hakeem a 10, and Hawes an 8 or so...6 at the very least if he doesn't improve at all, 8.5 if he fills out and becomes better on D and rebounding. That'd still be better than any center I've ever seen play for the Bulls. Best comparison I can think of is a less athletic, less defensive Hakeem.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Bill Wennington??? The only things Bill could do was hit a wide open jumper, and foul. Hawes is going to be a poor man's Hakeem. He'll have a vast reportoire of post moves, but won't have the athleticism and dominance that Hakeem had, nor will he be the defensive dominator like Hakeem was. He will be vastly superior to Wennington though. On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate Bill a 4, Hakeem a 10, and Hawes an 8 or so...6 at the very least if he doesn't improve at all, 8.5 if he fills out and becomes better on D and rebounding. That'd still be better than any center I've ever seen play for the Bulls. Best comparison I can think of is a less athletic, less defensive Hakeem.


You've just compared night and day as being similar, and im not just talking about their skin complexion.

Hakeem was a physical marvel for his height. He was probably closer to 6-10, but he literally moved like a gaurd, had the agility and mobility of a guard and was one of the or arguably the most quickiest center to ever play the game. There has been no center quite like him, and i don't think there ever will be. He was also a finesse post player, that just out quicked and out smarted his opposition. He could also make adjustments mid-move because he was so co-ordinated for a big man. 

Quite the opposite in every way with Hawes, his post moves are more purposeful moves which once he commits he doesn't have another move to go to like most players. He is noway near as quick, fast, agile, athletic, and as you said defensive minded as Hakeem. As i said Hakeem was a physical marvel for his time and still withstanding at this day and age, whereas Hawes is average to good athletically for his height and thats being nice.

I think his more of a Brad Dourghety type of player. Brad was a great offensive player, and played a great team game. He was tall, fairly mobile yet not a great athelete, but he was a very smart player. He was a great defensive center but he also wasn't the worst. But you've got to remember also Brad was a borderline all-star throughout his career, it was just unfortunate that he was constantly injuried. If Hawes can become even close to being a Brad Dourghety type of player, which should be grateful..


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Mike, Hawes weighed 244 at the combine so he wasn't 20 pounds underweight.
> 
> Hawes has stated he believes with an NBA strength and conditioning program and natural physical development, he still has another 20 pounds of weight to add to his frame.


OK, but my point wasnt that hewas too weak, its that at 244 he can't jump. How's he gonna jump at 264?

Like I said earier, I'd probably rather him stay around the weight he's at.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> OK, but my point wasnt that hewas too weak, its that at 244 he can't jump. How's he gonna jump at 264?
> 
> Like I said earier, I'd probably rather him stay around the weight he's at.


Actually, your point is that at 244 pounds, 19 years old and without the benefits of a professional strength and conditioning program he can't jump as well as some of the other similarly sized and older players that have had the benefit of professional strength and conditioning programs.

That is such a shocking point that once other teams figure it out, Hawes is sure to drop into the second round


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Hawes' measurements didn't scare me. Being over 7' tall with shoes on, with a 9'2 standing reaching, and weighing 244 pounds, and being a 19 year old seems fine to me. None of that strikes me as a weakness. In fact, I think those are about the exact same dimensions that Tyson Chandler had. Again, I'm surprised that people are making such a big deal over Hawes' combine results. They did nothing to change my opinion of him. For a 7 footer, I thought his results were average, and I always thought he was an average athlete, so for me it's not even a blip on the radar, especially considering the low correlation that these results have to on court play. And it's pretty obvious from watching him that, despite his average athleticism, he's extremely coordinated and moves fluidly, even though he's not very explosive. 

I don't think he's a clear cut great fit for us, (although he's a good one), but nothing in his results made me raise an eyebrow. 

As for a player comparison, I'm thinking Rik Smits might be decent.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Actually, your point is that at 244 pounds, 19 years old and without the benefits of a professional strength and conditioning program he can't jump as well as some of the other similarly sized and older players that have had the benefit of professional strength and conditioning programs.
> 
> That is such a shocking point that once other teams figure it out, Hawes is sure to drop into the second round


Nice play :lol: 

But actually, my point is that I don't know who and who hasn't had strength and conditioning help, but I do know that I've got that big list of draft measurements going back to 2002. It's full of guys both younger and older than him, and the common denominator is they all seem to jump better than him.

Try downloading the spreadsheet and filter it so you get just the Cs and PF/C types. Then sort it by their vertical. What you'll find is that he is very much at the bottom of the barrel. Guys he's often compared to did significantly better.

The only guy who measured out similarly and has made anything o himself is Al Jefferson, who, himself, was carrying an extra 20lbs in the trunk over Hawes and still managed to get an inch on him in his vertical.

So, ok, as you say, he's very young and under developed and, unlike every other major prospect to be tested in the last 5 years, just hasn't done much to work on it.

OK, if that's the case, then I'd say, like Jefferson, the upside is that he probably needs a few years and the right set of circumstances to become a quality NBA player. 

Remembering that this question is about how Hawes would fit on the Bulls, a team that thinks it's a player away from being a contender, I think that's a concern.

I think if he comes here, he'll be expected to contribute sooner than he's ready, and he'll be somewhat of a disappointment. I also think his upside really warrants waiting on him. 

If we want a guy like that, why not pick Aaron Gray, who, despite his own serious lack of footspeed, is probably capable of contributing now and possibly capable of faster down the court if he loses some wait and works with a professional staff?

Or if you're willing to wait for a guy to develop, why not go for a guy like Smith who's got elite level physical skills?

Again, I'm not saying Hawes will be a bust, but he seems a little overvalued where he's at. I think I'd prefer to either move up and get someone who's likely to be able to contribute immediately or move down and get a couple guys (like if we could get two out of three of McRoberts, Gray and Smith, I'd be freaking ecstatic). 

Or trade the pick altogether.

The same, by the way, goes for Noah, who looks like he could contribute sooner rather than later, but doesn't look to contribute what we need unless we're planning to trade Ben Wallace and I don't know about it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

What is your advice for the pick, Mike?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Mike, I guess you missed the game in February were Hawes played Gray and was significantly better than Gray.

The Bulls need someone that can receive the ball on the block and score. Hawes is better at that than Gray, McRoberts and Smith. Sure there are other areas of his game that Hawes needs to develop, but the thing he does best now is the skill set the Bulls need the most.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Mike, I think you're putting too much emphasis on Spencer Hawes' vertical leap. For one, I think the standing vertical leap is much more important for a big man than the max vertical. I imagine 95% of the jumping a big man does is going to be when you go up for rebounds, put backs, and in a post move, and those almost exclusively require jumping from a standstill, or close to it. A max vertical would be akin to someone running in a straight line as fast as they can from behind the 3 point line to see how high they can get up, which is a situation that a PF/C almost never finds himself in.

Kevin Durant and LaMarcus Aldridge both had the same standing verticals as Spencer Hawes, and judging from the max verticals of the guys that have blank spaces for the standing verticals, Chris Kaman, David West, Carlos Boozer, Charlie Villanueva, Al Jefferson, and Channing Frye probably had standing verticals that were within spitting distance of him as well.

And those are just big guys. It would look like Caron Butler and our very own Luol Deng have similar verticals as well. Regarding the rest of his numbers, I didn't see anything that raised a red flag. They were mediocre, but I can find a slew of guys with worse numbers in any of his categories that ended up doing just fine.

EDIT: Also, before I forget, your draft spreadsheet is mucho appreciated, much like it is every year (at least in my book).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Nice play :lol:
> 
> But actually, my point is that I don't know who and who hasn't had strength and conditioning help, but I do know that I've got that big list of draft measurements going back to 2002. It's full of guys both younger and older than him, and the common denominator is they all seem to jump better than him.
> 
> ...


We won't be drafting what we need to get us over the top in the next 2 years. It will come from free agency or the emergence of Tyrus Thomas along with the further development of Deng and Gordon.

Think of the draft pick this year, as a player who will be ready to contribute in a big way 2-3 years from now. We aren't getting oden, and only a couple other players in this draft have real STAR potential, AFAIAC. Of the big men left after Oden, I'd only classify Yi (Durant's a SF), and mr. great white hope, as a long shot. I dont' see horford being much better than he is now. Oden destroyed him in that championship game.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Nice play :lol:
> 
> But actually, my point is that I don't know who and who hasn't had strength and conditioning help, but I do know that I've got that big list of draft measurements going back to 2002. It's full of guys both younger and older than him, and the common denominator is they all seem to jump better than him.
> 
> ...


Interesting that you bring up Jefferson. He's the only real big that's come into the league in a few years that has post skills on the level of Hawes. Would you like to have a 7 foot Al Jefferson on your team? I know I would.

I want Hawes on my team because I haven't seen too many raw bigs come into the league and develop a slew of post moves. He has a natural aptitude and coordination that is quite rare. Not only do I think he's a rare talent, but he himself embodies the two things we need most on the team: height and post moves.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Interesting that you bring up Jefferson. He's the only real big that's come into the league in a few years that has post skills on the level of Hawes. Would you like to have a 7 foot Al Jefferson on your team? I know I would.
> 
> I want Hawes on my team because I haven't seen too many raw bigs come into the league and develop a slew of post moves. He has a natural aptitude and coordination that is quite rare. Not only do I think he's a rare talent, but he himself embodies the two things we need most on the team: height and post moves.


I also think that given the way skiles makes rookies and young guys bust their *** for playing time, if they pick him, its because they KNOW they can get more out of him than we saw in college.

He's not gonna come in here and get playing time just because he's a famous kid or because we have a drought at the 4 and 5. He'll have to earn it. And when he does, we'll all be glad we drafted him.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Interesting that you bring up Jefferson. He's the only real big that's come into the league in a few years that has post skills on the level of Hawes. Would you like to have a 7 foot Al Jefferson on your team? I know I would.
> 
> *I want Hawes on my team because I haven't seen too many raw bigs come into the league and develop a slew of post moves. *He has a natural aptitude and coordination that is quite rare. Not only do I think he's a rare talent, but he himself embodies the two things we need most on the team: height and post moves.


I agree. D12 has been in the league for 3 years and has yet to add a move. Granted he came from HS, but if he does not add at least 1 Go-To move this year, then I will questions is ability to add something.

The young guys who came into this league offensively ready that stick out in my head are Curry and Jefferson. If I'm missing any, say so. But I wonder how many guys have ADDED offensive abilities? After the Curry and Chandler experiment, I've come to my own little conclusion -- If a guy does not improve by significant amounts in facets of the game by the end of his 3rd year, then I question his ability to do so later in his career. There are exceptions as there is to every rule/theory. But I think it fits the bill for most players. Thus, why it is an important off-season for Tyrus. But, with Hawes being this 'advanced', I do not worry about his defensive willingness under Coach Skiles. I only seee a few centers being more athletic than Hawes. But the ones that are, will be for every center in the league. Even the best vs the best.

Dwight Howard is just too big. Same for Oden. Both will be faster. Yao will be bigger and is a Vet, but won't be faster. Curry might be quicker and bigger, but I think Hawes could match up decently. I figure Hawes to be similar to Bogut in athletic ability. 

Thus my list is Yi, Hawes, and Noah. In that order. Yi if he is special, will be a huge X factor in any matchup. Hawes for his offense. We can bring him along slowly with his weight, strength, and picking up on defensive strategies since we have Tyrus and Big Ben to start, and will bring in at least 1 Vet along with Malik.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> I also think that given the way skiles makes rookies and young guys bust their *** for playing time, if they pick him, its because they KNOW they can get more out of him than we saw in college.
> 
> He's not gonna come in here and get playing time just because he's a famous kid or because we have a drought at the 4 and 5. He'll have to earn it. And when he does, we'll all be glad we drafted him.


I agree. +1


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> We won't be drafting what we need to get us over the top in the next 2 years. It will come from free agency or the emergence of Tyrus Thomas along with the further development of Deng and Gordon.
> 
> Think of the draft pick this year, as a player who will be ready to contribute in a big way 2-3 years from now. We aren't getting oden, and only a couple other players in this draft have real STAR potential, AFAIAC. Of the big men left after Oden, I'd only classify Yi (Durant's a SF), and mr. great white hope, as a long shot. I dont' see horford being much better than he is now. Oden destroyed him in that championship game.


Destroyed? He had 18 pts, 12rebs & 4blks himself...

Oden didn't do much of anything until the 2nd half anyway when the game was already almost out-of-reach. If Oden dominated from tip-off, they WOULD of won that game.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Destroyed? He had 18 pts, 12rebs & 4blks himself...


1) You of all people should know better than to just look at stats. Oden moved him around wherever he wanted. He got whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, and Horford was moved out of the way like a 5 year old guarding a high schooler. I was literally SCREAMING at the OSU players to feed him more.

2) The overwhelming majority of those points came off drives and jumpers late in the game in pick and roll situations, along with a couple situations where the ball found him somehow right around the hoop in a scramble. Very few of them were gotten in situations where they were matched up with Oden. In fact, most of them were accumulated during a stretch where Oden was on the bench. Despite that, VERY VERY few of those points, if any were the result of Horford creating a lot of offense for himself. He just didn't do that. I don't think he has much ability to do it either at the NBA level. I see him alot like boozer, only WITHOUT the post up game, despite his obvious tools and strenghth. He'll be a stronger version of drew gooden.



> Oden didn't do much of anything until the 2nd half anyway when the game was already almost out-of-reach. If Oden dominated from tip-off, they WOULD of won that game.


That wasn't his fault. In fact, if you looked at the statsheet, you'll see he didn't get enough touches and shots. Why? Look at the stat-sheet for his guards.

You'll be in the VAST VAST minority if you think for one second that Oden didn't outplay BOTH Florida big men by a significant margin in that championship game. When they were matched up on each other, both florida big men looked like they were about 6' tall against oden. They played like that too. He altered or blocked virtually every_single_shot they took, and as a result they missed nearly all of them (again, this is specifically WHILE THEY WERE MATCHED UP ON ODEN).

I don't really look at what they did when they weren't matched up on Oden in that game. It doesn't really tell me much, since they were bigger than most everyone else that attempted to guard them. That won't be the case in the pros.


----------

