# ESPN Report: Bulls trying to move up in the draft



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

> The Bulls seem to be the latest team trying to move up in the draft. They've talked to several teams in front of them in the draft with an offer of the No. 16 and No. 26 picks in the draft. It sounds as if the Nets have been their target and it might make sense for the Nets to jump on the deal.
> They could still get a player like Tyler Hansbrough at 16 and pick up another player late in the first.



If this is true i got to think it means the Bulls are looking for a BG replacement. Because all of the guys expected to be picked around there (6-12) are either point gurads or shooting guards. I think it is safe to assume we wouldn't take a PG early like that. And if we really wanted a Forward I think we would just wait until 16 and take the BFA. 
Looks like one of this group; Derozan, Henderson, Evans, or Curry will be at 11.


----------



## vinsanity77 (May 1, 2006)

Out of those group of players, only Henderson will be available


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'm a little surprised, but then again it makes some sense. Bulls need to consolidate into a smaller, but more talented group. We always seem to have this problem of 10-12 decent players, when ideally you want 6-8 very good to great players. 

Also would make sense for a team like New Jersey who probably needs some depth. They can get a few decent rotation players with both of these 1st rounders.

I wonder if this means we have our eye on someone in particular...


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

So, I guess the BJ Mullens promise thing is out of the window


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Could we be using this for a trade?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I actually think that this might be to ensure we get Mullens. At least that's what I'm really hoping for. I've seen some mocks recently having him going #15 to Detroit, so if there's any validation to that notion, we need to jump in front of them. It damn well better not be for that tard Henderson. If it is, Gar and Pax can both go to hell.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I actually think that this might be to ensure we get Mullens. At least that's what I'm really hoping for. I've seen some mocks recently having him going #15 to Detroit, so if there's any validation to that notion, we need to jump in front of them. It damn well better not be for that tard Henderson. If it is, Gar and Pax can both go to hell.


Henderson is a "tard"? Let me guess... he went to a school you don't like...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

vinsanity77 said:


> Out of those group of players, only Henderson will be available


Maybe, but Nbadraft.net has derozan going 11th and Evans going 12th. This draft is a crap shoot.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

yahoo says 16+26 for nets' 11. and gar is interested in picking james johnson.

i still want mullens.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The whole thing doesnt make sense. For the Nets, YES! Hansbrough should be there at 16 but the Bulls going for Johnson at 11 is weird.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HB said:


> The whole thing doesnt make sense. For the Nets, YES! Hansbrough should be there at 16 but the Bulls going for Johnson at 11 is weird.


I'm looking at James Johnson's scouting report at draft express. The guy sounds alot like a young Nocioni!

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/James-Johnson-5053/

- 6'7/6'8 tweener forward
- Mismatch potential
- Versatility
- Ability to create own shot
- Solid frame / toughness

- Out of control
- Settles for bad shots
- Lateral quickness

I'm wondering if maybe we would just use this guy for trading to the Raptors in a Bosh deal. They may lose Shawn Marion for nothing, and this guy is sort of a Marion type player it seems (in that he plays both the 3 and 4).


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

A 3/4 tweener isn't exactly very high on my list of needs...


----------



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

Maybe Jordan Hill slips :whoknows:


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

If I'm the Nets I'm jumping all over this deal. I don't really see why the Bulls do it.

Take Mullens at 16, and possibly Wayne Ellington at 26 if he's there. Maybe Marcus Thornton.


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

GregOden said:


> If I'm the Nets I'm jumping all over this deal. I don't really see why the Bulls do it.
> 
> Take Mullens at 16, and possibly Wayne Ellington at 26 if he's there. Maybe Marcus Thornton.


I agree. I don't think you move far enough up in that trade to justify trading the 26th pick. Mullens and Thornton would be a GREAT draft IMO.


----------



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

In case anyone is interested at who got picked at these slots the past couple of drafts


Previous #11 picks:

2008:Jerryd Bayless
2007:Acie Law
2006:J.J. Redick
2005:Fran Vazquez
2004:Andris Biedrins
2003:Mickael Pietrus
2002:Jared Jeffries
2001:Kedrick Brown

Previous #16 picks:

2008:Marreese Speights
2007:Nick Young
2006:Rodney Carney
2005:Joey Graham
2004:Kirk Snyder
2003:Troy Bell
2002:Jiri Welsch
2001:Kirk Haston

Previous #26 picks:

2008:George Hill
2007:Aaron Brooks
2006:Jordan Farmar
2005:Jason Maxiell
2004:Kevin Martin
2003:Ndudi Ebi
2002:John Salmons
2001:Samuel Dalembert


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

NBA draft net has the Bulls being very interested in Blair at 11 but I dont buy that, I'm hoping that they see huge upside in James Johnson. His main position is the 3 but hes so damn big that he can play 4. I said it before hes a poor mans Lebron James, he doesn't do all the things great like LJ does but he can do a lot of things well, rebound, passing, dribbling, scoring hes a solid solid prospect. 

I would be very happy if hes taken by the Bulls.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

yeah, I just don't know if Johnson is a need.

Blair at 11 seems like a reach... I'm kind of up in the air about him... I know he gets a lot of flack on the message boards, and certainly resembles some noteworthy busts, but some guys (Udonis Haslem, for example) can slim out, stay in shape and avoid going the Eddy Curry/Oliver Miller/Michael Sweetney route... the question remains if he'd even be effective if he stayed in shape.

on edit: Watching the highlights, he really isn't that chunky, so I don't know where I got that perception. Seems like he plays like a Man, if we stay at 16 and take him I don't think I'd be upset.

on another edit: those combine numbers for Blair aren't pretty... although a 7'2" wingspan is ridiculous... and he can still do 18 bench reps, which is harder when you have longer arms.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wi...e_vince_bulls_look_to_package_picks_for_11th/

James Johnson is supposedly the target. If that's the case, I'd rather sit at 16 and hope Mullens is there, and if he's not draft Budinger.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Reading btw the lines, they are probably preparing to let BG go.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I'll go on the record in saying that 16 and 26 is way too much to give up for 11. if that was for picks 1-10, then I'd do it. But no way I'd do it for 11...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

10, 11......big difference


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> I'll go on the record in saying that 16 and 26 is way too much to give up for 11. if that was for picks 1-10, then I'd do it. But no way I'd do it for 11...


In this draft, there doesn't seem to be much difference between picks 8 to 13. Heck, I might even say picks 6 to 16 there isn't much difference. It depends on how badly we want to guarantee a certain player, rather than risk them falling to us at 16.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wi...e_vince_bulls_look_to_package_picks_for_11th/
> 
> James Johnson is supposedly the target. If that's the case, I'd rather sit at 16 and hope Mullens is there, and if he's not draft Budinger.



James Johnson sounds interesting. I've never seen him play, but he sounds like a good solid prospect. Definitely has an NBA body and skills, and very low bust potential.

This could mean any number of things. My top 2 speculations are: (1) we are trying to offload Deng and his contract, as Johnson is something of a Deng clone; (2) Toronto wants Johnson w/ Marion unlikely to re-sign and we are dangling him as bait. 

Or, it could be a little of both. Option A for GarPax is probably trading for Bosh. If they aren't biting, we may try to unload Deng or Tyrus and just keep JJ. So much uncertainty.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Decent highlight video on James Johnson:

http://multimedia.foxsports.com/m/video/22468775/draft-preview-james-johnson.htm

I think the "poor man's LBJ" is pretty good comparison. He's showing some good all-around skills for a 6'8, 250 lb guy. Definitely can handle the ball OK, strong finisher, decent shooter, good (not great athleticism). He's basically a big tough all-around forward with good skills and athleticism, but obviously a clear notch or two (or three) below LBJ in each category. The athleticism is the big one that sticks out to me. JJ looks like a "fluid" athlete and very natural, just not very explosive.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

yodurk said:


> Decent highlight video on James Johnson:
> 
> http://multimedia.foxsports.com/m/video/22468775/draft-preview-james-johnson.htm
> 
> I think the "poor man's LBJ" is pretty good comparison. He's showing some good all-around skills for a 6'8, 250 lb guy. Definitely can handle the ball OK, strong finisher, decent shooter, good (not great athleticism). He's basically a big tough all-around forward with good skills and athleticism, but obviously a clear notch or two (or three) below LBJ in each category. The athleticism is the big one that sticks out to me. JJ looks like a "fluid" athlete and very natural, just not very explosive.


Isn't almost every player in the league a, "poor man's LBJ"? Yeah great comparison...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Before you all get carried away with this James Johnson stuff...remember a guy named PJ Tucker


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

someone said:


> Isn't almost every player in the league a, "poor man's LBJ"? Yeah great comparison...


Uhh, no. But, thanks for the great insight. 

Wasn't my comparison anyway, I just agree with it. When you consider how many players exist in the NBA with the body of a power forward, but the skills and mobility of a wing player, there really aren't that many. 

Since you don't like it though, could you please generate a decent list of legit "poor man's LBJ's"?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

HB said:


> Before you all get carried away with this James Johnson stuff...remember a guy named PJ Tucker


PJ Tucker was 6'5''. James Johnson is 6'8''. They do have similar games though. Johnson's height will allow him to do those things at the next level. Tucker's height didn't.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

someone said:


> Isn't almost every player in the league a, "poor man's LBJ"? Yeah great comparison...


I brought up the poor man's LJ comparison, and NO not every player in the league is a poor man's Lebron. Is Aaron Gray a poormans LJ? Is Yao Ming a poor man's Lebron?

James Johnson is a 6'8 255 beast who can pass, shoot, rebound, handle and finish well, NOT great like Lebron but he can do those things well.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

At the least a guy with his size who can do this is worth a mid round pick.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> James Johnson is a 6'8 255 beast who can pass, shoot, rebound, handle and finish well, NOT great like Lebron but he can do those things well.


I'm not very familiar with JJ. But, from your description, he sounds like a top 5 pick and at least won't be available at 11, let alone 16.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

^Umm no, he's not a top 5 pick and thats an exaggerated description of a guy who was the 2nd or 3rd best player on his college team depending on who you ask. He's got nice skills, but he is projected correctly, he's a mid to late lottery pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

HB said:


> ^Umm no, he's not a top 5 pick and thats an exaggerated description of a guy who was the 2nd or 3rd best player on his college team depending on who you ask. He's got nice skills, but he is projected correctly, he's a mid to late lottery pick.


How is saying that he can do those things well an over exaggeration?

I did not say he does those things great , I said he does them well. Hes a jack of all trades master of none, if he can master one of those skills hes well worth were the Bulls are picking.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

He is being compared to LJ. If he is 1/2 of LJ, he won't be available at 16.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> How is saying that he can do those things well an over exaggeration?
> 
> I did not say he does those things great , I said he does them well. Hes a jack of all trades master of none, if he can master one of those skills hes well worth were the Bulls are picking.


Even if he's not great at one of them, considering this year's talent crop, him being young (22 yo, supposedly a junior next year)with potential to get better (his skills seem to already much more polished than rookie Tyrus Thomas), he's still at least a top 10 pick (given what you said is true).And yes that means at 11 or 16 he'd be a steal for any team that pick him.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I'm looking at James Johnson's scouting report at draft express. The guy sounds alot like a young Nocioni!
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/James-Johnson-5053/
> 
> ...


He is a 3/4, but he's not a tweener. He can play and defend both positions with his athleticism and strength. He's not a super defender by any means, but he can hold his own at both positions.

I don't know how trading the 16 & 26 up for 11 to get him sounds. There is a lot of depth at the end of the first round. I wouldn't be horribly upset either though.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

RSP83 said:


> Even if he's not great at one of them, considering this year's talent crop, him being young (22 yo, supposedly a junior next year)with potential to get better (his skills seem to already much more polished than rookie Tyrus Thomas), he's still at least a top 10 pick (given what you said is true).And yes that means at 11 or 16 he'd be a steal for any team that pick him.


I agree, I would not be surprised at all if hes a top 10 pick, in this draft I dont see how many teams can pass up a physically ready NBA player who has multiple skill sets.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> At the least a guy with his size who can do this is worth a mid round pick.


I didn't think that was so special. I have seen 100's of college players do that.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> I didn't think that was so special. I have seen 100's of college players do that.


Wow really?

I havent seen many 6'8 260 pound SF's dribble the ball from half court and take off a feet or two from the free throw line and dunk it like that in college. 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the NCAA is full of James Johnson's.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> He is a 3/4, but he's not a tweener. He can play and defend both positions with his athleticism and strength. He's not a super defender by any means, but he can hold his own at both positions.
> 
> I don't know how trading the 16 & 26 up for 11 to get him sounds. There is a lot of depth at the end of the first round. I wouldn't be horribly upset either though.


That may be the case. "Tweener" has a negative connotation, but really it isn't meant to be a knock necessarily. I thought it means that a certain player does not have a pure position. Lamar Odom is a tweener when you really think about it. He isn't a pure 3 nor a pure 4. He has limitations for both positions. But, he is also a matchup problem for the opposition at both positions. 

Hence, the real question with James Johnson is, will he bring a matchup problem for the other team more often than not? Or will he be a liability more often than not? If he turns into a Nocioni type (the 2009 version who looks slow and overmatched at both forward spots) than I'd rather pass on JJ.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Wow really?
> 
> I havent seen many 6'8 260 pound SF's dribble the ball from half court and take off a feet or two from the free throw line and dunk it like that in college.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the NCAA is full of James Johnson's.


Yeah, that's my point exactly -- although I haven't watch much college ball for several years now so I could be mistaken.

Granted, there are many many 6'8, 260 lb guys who have the athleticism to do this. This guy in my class at DePaul back in 2000-2004, Andre Brown (NBA journeyman), is about that size and was probably even more athletic than JJ. Andre could and maybe still can take off from the FT line and dunk. Impressive for a big dude. But Andre had hands of stone and zero ballhandling skills. That's what makes JJ a good prospect. Skill, size, athleticism. All of it seems to be NBA level, just not "great".


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> That may be the case. "Tweener" has a negative connotation, but really it isn't meant to be a knock necessarily. I thought it means that a certain player does not have a pure position. Lamar Odom is a tweener when you really think about it. He isn't a pure 3 nor a pure 4. He has limitations for both positions. But, he is also a matchup problem for the opposition at both positions.
> 
> Hence, the real question with James Johnson is, will he bring a matchup problem for the other team more often than not? Or will he be a liability more often than not? If he turns into a Nocioni type (the 2009 version who looks slow and overmatched at both forward spots) than I'd rather pass on JJ.


Nocioni was too short to play PF well, and too slow to play SF, particularly if the opposing SF had the handles to drive. I do not have that concern with James Johnson.

I do really like the Danny Granger comparison nbadraft.net lists for him. If he ends up "getting it," he could be as good as Granger. However, it's not going to be a fast transition. If Gordon walks and Salmons ends up playing most of his minutes at the SG, we should have a lot of backup minutes at the 3/4 to give Johnson.

Here's a pretty nice highlight mix from one of his better games for those who are more unfamiliar with the kid:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I do really like the Danny Granger comparison nbadraft.net lists for him. If he ends up "getting it," he could be as good as Granger.


Didn't think of that, but that sounds like a good valid comparison. I always did think of Granger as sort of a hybrid 3/4. I saw alot of Granger during his freshman year at Bradley (before transferring to New Mexico); at that time, Granger looked 110% like a PF in the way he rebounded, blocked shots, and banged down low. The perimeter skill seemed to develop later in his college career and he just continued to get better. JJ seems to have that same smoothness and skill, just needs to work his behind off as Granger did.

Btw, that's a great video; he looks very impressive there. This kid looks like a really smooth ballhandler and shot creator. Anybody with his size and can handle like that definitely has loads of potential in the NBA. Jumpshooting can, and usually does improve. It's those types of skills that are harder to teach. 

If this kid is hungry to win in the least, I won't mind drafting him at all.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Rhyder said:


>


OMG on the video, I'd love to have the guy on our team. I think he looks like a better prospect than a rookie Deng. Deng's edge over JJ is probably his length and his age (19 yo at the time?). But JJ seems more fluid and has more polished all-around skill. From that video my comparison for him would be poor man's Michael Beasley. Of course the number he put up is well below what Beasley was putting up in college, but some of his moves like when he drive into the lane and lays the ball reminds me of what Beasley did in college. And I can see where the Lebron comparison coming from, his build, the way he runs the floor, and all-around skill. But, we know he's not going to turn into a Lebron James. But, I think he can be a Luol Deng level SF at least.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

He does look pretty good there, but he'll find quality NBA players much bigger and harder to drive on, and he only hit one outside shot (probably the only one of the game or they'd have shown more). Only one dunk and one 3. The rest was pretty finesse for a big guy. Best part is he has a good handle and appears to have a good bball IQ for a guy his size.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> He does look pretty good there, but he'll find quality NBA players much bigger and harder to drive on, and he only hit one outside shot (probably the only one of the game or they'd have shown more). Only one dunk and one 3. The rest was pretty finesse for a big guy. Best part is he has a good handle and appears to have a good bball IQ for a guy his size.


His shooting form looks good. I think eventually he'll develop a reliable jump shot out to the three point line; good enough to keep the defense honest.

Tyrus Thomas have actually developed sort of a dribble and drive move similar to JJ. But Thomas tend to go in a straight line and jump straight up using his athleticism to score in traffic either by dunking or ugly hook shot. JJ seems to have more moves when trying to score in traffic. From the video I saw he tried a spin move, some head fakes, clutch finger rolls. And his upper body strength allow him to absorb contacts.

Trying to think in terms of how he can help our team next year, I think he'll thrive in Vinny's small ball tactic. I guess he'll have plenty of chance to show what he can do playing behind Deng and Thomas. But if Gordon stays, Salmons might play some 3 and that will eat up JJ minutes at 3; which means he would be utilized mostly as a 4. And I think NBA 4 is still going to be pretty tough for him especially when he has to deal with long NBA PF like KG and Bosh. But I like his potential as a 3rd option who can play inside outside.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> His shooting form looks good. I think eventually he'll develop a reliable jump shot out to the three point line; good enough to keep the defense honest.
> 
> Tyrus Thomas have actually developed sort of a dribble and drive move similar to JJ. But Thomas tend to go in a straight line and jump straight up using his athleticism to score in traffic either by dunking or ugly hook shot. JJ seems to have more moves when trying to score in traffic. From the video I saw he tried a spin move, some head fakes, clutch finger rolls. And his upper body strength allow him to absorb contacts.


Good observations, very true. JJ looks "shifty", whereas someone like Tyrus is much less so with the ball.



> Trying to think in terms of how he can help our team next year, I think he'll thrive in Vinny's small ball tactic. I guess he'll have plenty of chance to show what he can do playing behind Deng and Thomas. But if Gordon stays, Salmons might play some 3 and that will eat up JJ minutes at 3; which means he would be utilized mostly as a 4. And I think NBA 4 is still going to be pretty tough for him especially when he has to deal with long NBA PF like KG and Bosh. But I like his potential as a 3rd option who can play inside outside.


IMO, part of the reason we like JJ is because he is versatile. No matter what happens with Gordon or trades, he will probably have a role, whether it's SF, PF, or even some SG.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Yeah there were a few plays where he showed the bball IQ and handle/agility to get to the hoop around a guy where players like Tyrus would've been out of control and run into the guy and result in a turnover (offensive foul). He has some good points, and if Deng is gone I could live with him as the SF. As I've stated before, I love point forwards, but I don't quite know if he'd be that, but he has a way more versatile and advanced skill-set than Dung does at this point. He's not my #1 choice, but if it means Dung is shipped out and he's the starting 3 in the future (maybe Salmons is this year) I'd be ok with it. Just no Blair or any scrub like that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I can't help but seeing a Jeff Green type of player ...maybe slightly more athletic 

In a weak draft he could be one of the best from this class outside of Blake Griffin 

I like him 

If we could come out of this draft with JJ and Terrence Williams and a shooter like Ellington or Christmas if Ellington is not there ..I'd be satisfied 

This is predicated upon letting Ben Gordon go 

That involves acquiring a further pick which puts Tyrus Thomas out into the open , who I believe , is worth a lottery pick in this draft where you could acquire a James Johnson

Personally I think the lottery is crap outside of Griffin...late lottery to well into the early 2nd round are where you are going to find your players


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Well, I still want Mullens at 16, and 11 if we trade up (mocks have him going 15, so trading up is plausible to get him). Budinger or Ellington at 26 if they're there. Get us a legit C, instead of a skinny PF like Noah trying to play C, and a shooter to give us more depth in case Gordon/Deng leave....Salmons can only replace one. JJ would be ok, but I prefer an athletic 7 foot C to another combo forward.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> but I prefer an athletic 7 foot C



We have one of those.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> We have one of those.


Noah jumped 5 inches higher than Mullens and did one more bench rep at the combine.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Wow really?
> 
> I havent seen many 6'8 260 pound SF's dribble the ball from half court and take off a feet or two from the free throw line and dunk it like that in college.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the NCAA is full of James Johnson's.


when you say a foot or two you must mean 6 or 7 feet.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> We have one of those.


No we don't. Noah isn't 7' for starters, and he's rail-thin at 6'11" 232 lbs. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/joakim_noah/ 

He's also not a true C, he's more of a PF, as we saw by a real C (Perkins) making him his ***** in the playoffs. He may be able to play C, but he's not really a C. As I already stated in my prior post, he's a PF trying to play C. Doesn't get the job done against a big C that knows how to use his body. A legit C is what I specified as well. Noah is NOT a legit C. And I'm just assuming you aren't implying that Gray or Miller are athletic lol.

So compare these numbers:
6'10 1/2" 232 lbs with 8'10 1/2" standing reach
6'11 3/4" 258 lbs with 9'3" standing reach.

Which of those sounds more like a true C and which sounds more like a tall skinny PF? That isn't even mentioning the fact that Mullens, the MUCH bigger man, has better agility # (significantly at 11.10 to 11.79), and a better 3/4 sprint # (barely 3.45 vs 3.47). 

Then compare their freshman #s pace adjusted per 40. Statswise, according to what draftexpress lists anyway.

Mullens:--18.4 pts, 63.8% FG, 55.9% FT, 9.7 REB, .6 Asts, 1 Stls, 2.3 blk
Noah:-----14.9 pts, 60% FG, 57.7% FT, 10.5 REB, 2.2 Asts, .9 Stl, 2.8 blk

I sure know which one I'd take, given the difference in size and athleticism. Give me the extra 3.5 points at 3.8% better shooting and .1 steal any day for .8 less rebounds, 1.6 less assists and .5 less blocks. Keep in mind here that these measurements and times are comparing an 18 year old to a 21 year old too. Mullens, at the same point in their careers, has produced as much as Noah did, and has so much more potential than Noah it's not even funny. Heck, Mullens might not even be done growing. I know I grew an inch between 20 and 22 and put on 30 lbs of muscle and got a lot faster and agile as well.

Should Mullens have stayed in? Yes. Athough now is a great time to come out with a lack of centers in the draft. I mean come on, Thabeet is the only one other than him, and I am not impressed with him at all. Another year or 2 of development in college would've been nice, but as I've said before, if he went back and developed, he'd be considered at the #1 pick so no way we'd have a shot at him if we're a playoff team, so therefore the rare opportunity to get a guy with his size/athleticism is here now (potentially anyway if he slides or we trade up to 11) so it'd be really dumb to pass up on him.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Noah jumped 5 inches higher than Mullens and did one more bench rep at the combine.


Nevermind the fact that you're comparing 22 year old to 20. Or that Mullens is 35 lbs heavier and still ran the sprint faster right, and made him look really bad in the agility test. Or that his standing reach is 5 inches higher than Noah to begin with right? Cherry picking at it's finest there, as usual.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Nevermind the fact that you're comparing 22 year old to 20. Or that Mullens is 36 lbs heavier and still ran the sprint faster right, and made him look really bad in the agility test. Or that his standing reach is 5 inches higher than Noah to begin with right? Cherry picking at it's finest there, as usual.


I wasn't cherry picking, I just heard the "skinny" thing, and figured the best measures of a basketball athlete might be hops and strength, so I picked those.

Anyway, I don't have a horse in this race... I went to OSU back in the day and would love it if we drafted Mullens.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> I wasn't cherry picking, I just heard the "skinny" thing, and figured the best measures of a basketball athlete might be hops and strength, so I picked those.
> 
> Anyway, I don't have a horse in this race... I went to OSU back in the day and would love it if we drafted Mullens.


Ok, my bad then. But when one guy has a 5" higher reach, and the other is 5" higher vert, those two offset, although I'll take the guy with the higher reach since he doesn't have to get the full lift of a max vert to get that high to block/rebound/shoot. The odd part is that Noah has the same wingspan, but much less standing reach. Shows, again, how short Noah really plays IMO. Sorry, that's just always bugged me about him.....how he plays so short. He's quick and he hustles, which are why he gets his rebounds and blocks, but he does NOT play big at all in my book.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Oh and for the skinny thing vs strength, he lacked the lower or core-body strength to body up with a guy like Perkins. Has nothing to do with benching, although another rep (or 2...it was 10 to 12) doesn't hurt. I'll take better agility, speed and size over 2 reps any day though. Agility and speed indicate more core body strength, especially agility.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Oh and for the skinny thing vs strength, he lacked the lower or core-body strength to body up with a guy like Perkins. Has nothing to do with benching, although another rep (or 2...it was 10 to 12) doesn't hurt. I'll take better agility, speed and size over 2 reps any day though. Agility and speed indicate more core body strength, especially agility.


Yeah, Noah tends to hold his spot, but he gets pushed over like one of those punching bags that pops back up....


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> He's also not a true C, he's more of a PF, as we saw by a real C (Perkins) making him his ***** in the playoffs. He may be able to play C, but he's not really a C. As I already stated in my prior post, he's a PF trying to play C. Doesn't get the job done against a big C that knows how to use his body. A legit C is what I specified as well. Noah is NOT a legit C.


I don't know if Noah was made to look like a ***** by perkins...
Noah avg 10 points 13 rebounds 2 blocks
Perkins avg 13 points 11.5 rebounds and 3 blocks...
I mean Noah outrebounded him and also had a significantly better assist-tornover ratio. And it is only Noah's second year in the NBA. I like what Noah does for the bulls and think he will continue to develop as a very solid NBA big man. He will never be a good offensive big man but I don't wee why he cant become a very good defensive player/ rebounder. He is also a very smart player and I believe has the potential to be a valuable asset to any team much like Dennis Rodman.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> when you say a foot or two you must mean 6 or 7 feet.


So what are you saying, he covers seven feet in only 2 steps!? :10:

Thats WAY more impressive than dunking it from the ft line lol. 


Call me crazy but when he drives to basket it looks smooth and mechanical like Paul Pierce, NOW I'm not comparing the two but just watching Johnson taking his man to the basket I just think Pierce for a second or two.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I am not sure that agility has anything to do with core strength 

And didn't Noah have one of the best lane agility scores from his draft ( for a big ) such that he is regarded as having some of the best lateral quicks / foot speed of any big in the NBA ?

Sure he could get stronger through the trunk though ...but I think that will come

I am not so much worried about his wingspan and standing reach stuff as in the stuff that really matters ( in game situations ) he is right there to challange shots and is quite a decent shotblocking presence

I credit this to his smarts / defensive awareness ( better than Tyrus ) which leads to superior reactive ability , which , combined with his lateral quicks and foot speed make him a handy guy to have around 

Quite frankly , I think the whole playing "short" thing is utter nonsense


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

In addition to which he is a very very good passing big and doesn't make bonheaded plays in the offense 

Bigs always sacrifice strength for speed and vice versa if you want to play games of comparatives 

I mean... there aren't too many bigs that can get out and press on the perimeter like Joakim can. That shot of Sugar Ray's was just freaky ...otherwise who knows what might have been ? And Jo was right there in his grill at full tilt. 

I can't think of many other bigs in the league that would have made that challenge. To get there and challenge was impressive in itself 

For a guy drafted 9th ..hey .. I think he's a good pick up and a great fit

We can get our meat elsewhere


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> So what are you saying, he covers seven feet in only 2 steps!? :10:


Joakim must have come close to this mark when he beat Pierce down the court in Game 6 with that two dribble flush 

Again .. can Baby or Perkins do that ?

Horses for Courses ....and all that


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> So what are you saying, he covers seven feet in only 2 strides!? :10:
> 
> Thats WAY more impressive than dunking it from the ft line lol.


Ummmmm.... yeah. The average amounts of steps in a 40 yard dash is 18. 40*3=120/18=6.66 feet per stride. So I think it is safe to assume that he was at least 6 or 7 feet past the free throw line. I am guessing that even you would cover 6 or 7 feet in that situation. But I guess we just dont find the same things super impressive. 

Just to be clear I am not knocking JJ but i just think it is interesting that you would point to that clip and say that he should be a mid round pick based on that dunk. In *D2* basketball, every year I played, a third of the guys on my team could dunk from that spot on the court. (I am not saying they could do that at his level, just that they could do it consistently in practice).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Yeah, Noah tends to hold his spot, but he gets pushed over like one of those punching bags that pops back up....


Yeah he is tenacious, and that's the reason I don't think he's 100% worthless as I did before. Pretty high bball IQ as well, but just doesn't have the physical tools to play CENTER. He doesn't have the jumpshot to play PF either, so he's not a starter IMO. He's a garbage man until he develops the strength/size to play C or the shot to play PF. Of course there's exceptions like Rodzilla, but no way does Noah become a Rodzilla where he's so amazing at rebounding and defense that it makes up for any lack of O he had. Plus, keep in mind that the Rodzilla teams could afford for him to be offensively inept since they had Jordan, Robinson, etc.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> I don't know if Noah was made to look like a ***** by perkins...
> Noah avg 10 points 13 rebounds 2 blocks
> Perkins avg 13 points 11.5 rebounds and 3 blocks...
> I mean Noah outrebounded him and also had a significantly better assist-tornover ratio. And it is only Noah's second year in the NBA. I like what Noah does for the bulls and think he will continue to develop as a very solid NBA big man. He will never be a good offensive big man but I don't wee why he cant become a very good defensive player/ rebounder. He is also a very smart player and I believe has the potential to be a valuable asset to any team much like Dennis Rodman.


I'm not talking statistically. I felt that Perkins imposed his will on all of the Bulls' bigs. He was too big and physical for Noah, and too physical and athletic for Miller. I think that Noah will be "solid", but that's as a 3rd big man, not a starter. Of course, if we grabbed a dominant scorer elsewhere we could probably get by with his lack of scoring and size. I don't see him ever being half as good as Rodman though.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Ummmmm.... yeah. The average amounts of steps in a 40 yard dash is 18. 40*3=120/18=6.66 feet per stride. So I think it is safe to assume that he was at least 6 or 7 feet past the free throw line. I am guessing that even you would cover 6 or 7 feet in that situation. But I guess we just dont find the same things super impressive.
> 
> Just to be clear I am not knocking JJ but i just think it is interesting that you would point to that clip and say that he should be a mid round pick based on that dunk. In *D2* basketball, every year I played, a third of the guys on my team could dunk from that spot on the court. (I am not saying they could do that at his level, just that they could do it consistently in practice).


The 40 yard dash and dribbling a basketball from half court IMO is a bit difference. He took off maybe 3-4 feet from the line and those where not long strides either, pretty impressive IMO. 

Hes 6'8 250.. he can dribble, pass, rebound and attack the basket well! How the hell is he not a mid round pick?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I am not sure that agility has anything to do with core strength
> 
> And didn't Noah have one of the best lane agility scores from his draft ( for a big ) such that he is regarded as having some of the best lateral quicks / foot speed of any big in the NBA ?
> 
> Sure he could get stronger through the trunk though ...but I think that will come


Agility has to do with core body strength. The more muscular you are in the back, torso, midsection, glutes, quads, etc, the better your balance and agility will be (unless you overdo it and become muscle-bound of course). Like I said, I'm speaking from experience in a lot of this. I was always an athlete growing up, and it wasn't till I got to college and the football team's weightlifting coach put me on a weight training program which consisted of a lot of lower back and ab workouts that I'd never touched before that I developed that core body strength and my balance and agility increased tenfold. Even after a blown out knee took 12 inches off my vert I still had better agility and balance. 

Noah 11.79, Mullens 11.10 agility. Way better for Mullens, and it's way more impressive due to his size. I'm not using that as a knock on Noah. I'm saying that Mullens is just that damn impressive.



> I am not so much worried about his wingspan and standing reach stuff as in the stuff that really matters ( in game situations ) he is right there to challange shots and is quite a decent shotblocking presence
> 
> I credit this to his smarts / defensive awareness ( better than Tyrus ) which leads to superior reactive ability , which , combined with his lateral quicks and foot speed make him a handy guy to have around


I'll agree with that. I think that Noah is a much smarter player, but that Tyrus is a much more gifted player. You combine Tyrus's athleticism and technique (shooting) with Noah's IQ and hustle, and you'd have an all-pro. 



> Quite frankly , I think the whole playing "short" thing is utter nonsense


You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine. I know when he first joined the team I was hardly the only one to say it, though I was the first.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> In addition to which he is a very very good passing big and doesn't make bonheaded plays in the offense
> 
> Bigs always sacrifice strength for speed and vice versa if you want to play games of comparatives
> 
> ...


You do realize I'm not saying we should junk him right? I'd keep him as the 3rd big, or the PF. I just want a real C. And I saw a youtube of Mullens doing that exact same thing (blocking a 3)....it was pretty impressive how he came out and did it, just as it was when Noah did it. And yes I realize I'm comparing a high schooler to NBA, but the athleticism and mobility is more than there for Mullens as well. 

Ideally, we'd make a trade for a 1st next year (Gordon, Deng, Tyurs, etc) and land Cole Aldrich, and add him to the trio of Tyrus, Noah and Mullens. We'd be set in the paint then for sure, and if Tyrus doesn't work out we could slide Aldrich or Noah to PF alongside Mullens (or whoever was the best 2 of the bunch).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm not adverse to BJ .... I just think he is a Euro or D League stash for 2 to 3 seasons and therefore is a late first rounder

If we hang on to our pick at 16 ... I think the target should be a guy who can come in and do his thing straight away 

And I believe JJ, Terrence Williams and Wayne Ellington are those types of guys 

Ellington in particular is waaaay underrated and is too far down on draft mocks IMO 

I would likely have him over Gerald Henderson


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Agility has to do with core body strength. The more muscular you are in the back, torso, midsection, glutes, quads, etc, the better your balance and agility will be (unless you overdo it and become muscle-bound of course). Like I said, I'm speaking from experience in a lot of this. I was always an athlete growing up, and it wasn't till I got to college and the football team's weightlifting coach put me on a weight training program which consisted of a lot of lower back and ab workouts that I'd never touched before that I developed that core body strength and my balance and agility increased tenfold. Even after a blown out knee took 12 inches off my vert I still had better agility and balance.
> 
> Noah 11.79, Mullens 11.10 agility. Way better for Mullens, and it's way more impressive due to his size. I'm not using that as a knock on Noah. I'm saying that Mullens is just that damn impressive.
> 
> ...


fair enough


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I'm not adverse to BJ .... I just think he is a Euro or D League stash for 2 to 3 seasons and therefore is a late first rounder
> 
> If we hang on to our pick at 16 ... I think the target should be a guy who can come in and do his thing straight away
> 
> ...


Well, I pointed out that Mullens would need a while, just as Tyrus has. But Tyrus started to come alive last season at times....just takes a while and still inconsistent.

I think you draft the player with the most upside. Rose isn't ready to compete yet, and he IS our team moving forward. Draft guys that can develop with him and have some star potential. That's Mullens IMO. 16 is hit and miss IMO anyway.

I agree with Ellington, and suspect he'll get drafted higher than expected personally. I'll be sick if we draft Henderson, especially if it's a trade up. He plays tough physical D, but that's it. I'd take Ellington over him every time. And that's not just because I'm a Tarheel fan. Ellington was never hyped up like a lot of the other players, but he's still been the one that I liked the best the last few years, just because there's something I really like about his game. Seems like he nailed the tough 3 in big games more often than anyone else. 

The reason I don't think immediate contribution is important is, like I said, because we aren't going anywhere anyway till the young guys develop. Way too many weaknesses and holes. If Deng comes back healthy and with some balls again, SF isn't a need (not holding my breath, but this is a hypothetical). If Gordon isn't resigned, we still have Salmons at the 2, along with Kirk backing up the 1 and 2. So G isn't a need, and between Tyrus, Deng and Noah the forwards should be locked down. Then Noah and Miller at C. It's same roster we had this year, just minus Gordon plus Deng, so a net wash if Deng is decent. Now add a few developmental guys with huge ceilings like Mullens, and a shooter like Ellington or Budinger or another wing like Austin Daye or Josh Heytvelt and you got something to look forward to. 

Rose/Hinrich
Salmons/Hinrich/Ruoff
Deng/Thomas/Budinger
Thomas/Noah/Heytvelt
Noah/Miller/Mullens

If we got lucky enough for Mullens at 16, Budinger at 26 and traded Gray for a 2nd to take Heytvelt with and buy another 2nd to take Alex Ruoff with. Heytvelt is the big that can shoot, so basically a younger (stupider and without the passing) more athletic Miller hopefully (if we get him lol). Bring in Alex Ruoff as a UFA or late 2nd if we need more shooters, which I think we will. 

But anyway, if we do trade up it'd damn well better be for Mullens.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

BTW, if you wanna see why I'd want Heytvelt if he falls to the 2nd, check out the youtube video of him on nbadraft.net. That's where I found out who he was (in that game, not the youtube lol). He was outplaying UNC for sure.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Hes 6'8 250.. he can dribble, pass, rebound and attack the basket well! How the hell is he not a mid round pick?


Obviously he is a mid first round pick. But for those reasons, not because of a random dunk.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

McGraw has some updates to this rumor:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=301963

•


> The Bulls will send their No. 16 and 26 picks to New Jersey for the No. 11 selection.
> 
> This has been discussed, but hasn't really heated up. There has been talk that the Nets like North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough, who should be available at 16. So it's possible New Jersey is more interested in moving down than the Bulls are in moving up.
> 
> This is generally regarded as a weak draft, so the Bulls have to ask themselves if it's really worth giving up that No. 26 pick, which could bring a backup point guard like Toney Douglas or Darren Collison, or an extra big man.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> No we don't. Noah isn't 7' for starters, and he's rail-thin at 6'11" 232 lbs. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/joakim_noah/
> 
> He's also not a true C, he's more of a PF, as we saw by a real C (Perkins) making him his ***** in the playoffs. He may be able to play C, but he's not really a C. As I already stated in my prior post, he's a PF trying to play C. Doesn't get the job done against a big C that knows how to use his body. A legit C is what I specified as well. Noah is NOT a legit C. And I'm just assuming you aren't implying that Gray or Miller are athletic lol.
> 
> ...



You wasted a lot of time with all of these arguments. Noah, playing C, played like a stud for the Bulls down the stretch and demonstrated he is easily the team's starting solution long-term at the center position. I don't think telling me he's half an inch shorter than some rookie (who Noah is much more athletic than) is going to change any of that.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Obviously he is a mid first round pick. But for those reasons, not because of a random dunk.


I just take it you haven't read any other thread about JJ besides this one, I have on many occasions stated that Johnson is worth a mid round pick because of the skills he posses, if my statement about his dunk makes you believe that THATS the only reason to draft him, then I can understand why you would think that I'm hopping we draft him based on one dunk.

I believe JJ is a multi talented player who would be a great pick at where the Bulls are drafting.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> You wasted a lot of time with all of these arguments. Noah, playing C, played like a stud for the Bulls down the stretch and demonstrated he is easily the team's starting solution long-term at the center position. I don't think telling me he's half an inch shorter than some rookie (who Noah is much more athletic than) is going to change any of that.


Maybe you need to go read it again, cause it's obvious you didn't comprehend jack. 1 1/4 inches taller, 5 inch higher reach, faster, more agility, all at 35 lbs heavier and 2 years younger. Yet, Noah is only 1/2 inch shorter, and more athletic? Get real.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

One more thing, if Noah is going to be the long-term solution at C, he needs to pack on some major bulk, and be paired up with a bruiser PF. The two twigs we have now doesn't cut it when we play a team with a real big man. I like stuff that both do, and dislike stuff that both do, but fact of the matter is we just can't match up against a good, true C. Until we get a legit big, that'll be a thorn in our side come playoff time. Think we'd stand a chance against Dwight in a best of 7 series? Nope. How about Gasol and the Lakers? Nope. Oden (if he gets healthy) and the Blazers? Nope. Hell we couldn't even beat a KG-less Celtics team, when Ray Allen was off. And no I'm not blaming it all on Noah, but we'll have huge mismatch problems there, and Dwight will be an obstacle in the East for Noah's entire career. Not that Mullens would shut him down or anything, but a legit sized center that can move would certainly help, and if nothing else make him play defense on someone he has to work against.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> One more thing, if Noah is going to be the long-term solution at C, he needs to pack on some major bulk, and be paired up with a bruiser PF. The two twigs we have now doesn't cut it when we play a team with a real big man. I like stuff that both do, and dislike stuff that both do, but fact of the matter is we just can't match up against a good, true C. Until we get a legit big, that'll be a thorn in our side come playoff time. Think we'd stand a chance against Dwight in a best of 7 series? Nope. How about Gasol and the Lakers? Nope. Oden (if he gets healthy) and the Blazers? Nope. Hell we couldn't even beat a KG-less Celtics team, when Ray Allen was off. And no I'm not blaming it all on Noah, but we'll have huge mismatch problems there, and Dwight will be an obstacle in the East for Noah's entire career. Not that Mullens would shut him down or anything, but a legit sized center that can move would certainly help, and if nothing else make him play defense on someone he has to work against.


I don't think it is a knock on Noah, but I do agree that we need more big men... I mean, in lieu of having a superstar big (and hopefully we'll get one in 2010, but who knows) it seems the best replacement is a really deep frontcourt (see the bad boy Pistons, early 90's Blazer's teams, etc...) where you have enough serviceable guys to get the job done. To me Mullens has more upside than the White Panther (though I do love me some Aaron Gray), and Brad Miller isn't going to be around very long... it just makes sense to add him (Mullens) at this point.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Maybe you need to go read it again, cause it's obvious you didn't comprehend jack. 1 1/4 inches taller, 5 inch higher reach, faster, more agility, all at 35 lbs heavier and 2 years younger. Yet, Noah is only 1/2 inch shorter, and more athletic? Get real.


Problem with stats is it doesnt show how soft Mullens is mentally. I mean the kid was flat out crying after he got schooled by Luke Nevill of Utah in a workout

Then theirs this which after watching you have to question his IQ

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/vi...an-get-compared-to-garnett-nowitzki-or-amare/

Really? KG, Dirk and Amare? lolol 

Mullens has bust written all over him


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Merk said:


> Problem with stats is it doesnt show how soft Mullens is mentally. *I mean the kid was flat out crying* after he got schooled by Luke Nevill of Utah in a workout


Link? Video? Substantiation?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

He said top FIFTEEEN in that video did he not?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Maybe you need to go read it again, cause it's obvious you didn't comprehend jack. 1 1/4 inches taller, 5 inch higher reach, faster, more agility, all at 35 lbs heavier and 2 years younger. Yet, Noah is only 1/2 inch shorter, and more athletic? Get real.



It's you who is missing the point. We have a young, athletic center who was consistently pulling down a double double down the stretch last year. You think a 7-footer picked at #16 in a weak draft is the solution? That's crazy talk. People always get nuts before the draft thinking there are all these diamonds in the rough. Most of the time it does not play out that way.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's you who is missing the point. We have a young, athletic center who was consistently pulling down a double double down the stretch last year. You think a 7-footer picked at #16 in a weak draft is the solution? That's crazy talk. People always get nuts before the draft thinking there are all these diamonds in the rough. Most of the time it does not play out that way.


Yeah, our team is so great there's no possible way any of them can be upgraded upon is there? Lets see, a .500 team who won a whopping 3 playoff games against a team without their best player. 

I think that in a weak draft we should go with the guy with the biggest upside and most hard to find/rarest combination of physical attributes. That would be Mullens. You act like Noah isn't upgradable from and that there's no way we can find a good player. There are some great mid-1sts and even 2nd rounders occassionally. If Mullens gets coached up he could be on. Also, where is our depth? Miller will be gone in a year, Gray isn't even worth mentioning, leaving 2 twigs in Tyrus and Noah as our ONLY post players. Yeah, it'd be really stupid to draft Mullens. God forbid we have a guy with legit C size, rare athleticism and potential.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

At 16, most teams are probably looking for role players not starting caliber players. I just dont know why you'd be so adamant about picking Mullens at 16, when the Bulls have holes at other positions also. The guy could pan out and turn out to be an all star, on the other hand he could be a bust. Thats a wasted pick right there.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

HB said:


> At 16, most teams are probably looking for role players not starting caliber players. I just dont know why you'd be so adamant about picking Mullens at 16, when the Bulls have holes at other positions also. The guy could pan out and turn out to be an all star, on the other hand he could be a bust. Thats a wasted pick right there.


Cause, as I've said before, I think that we need a big, and it's rare when a playoff team has a shot at one with that kind of athleticism and size. Could bust...sure. They all could, which is why they're not top 10 picks. Hell the top picks bust sometimes. It happens.

But where are the holes at? If Deng comes back healthy and decent again, not a need at SF. Salmons, Rose and Hinrich nail down the guard pretty well. So I see it as take the guy with the most potential to compliment what we have. The only thing we don't have, is a an athletic big BIG. I could live with others but not Blair or Henderson, in a trade up.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Yeah, our team is so great there's no possible way any of them can be upgraded upon is there? Lets see, a .500 team who won a whopping 3 playoff games against a team without their best player.
> 
> I think that in a weak draft we should go with the guy with the biggest upside and most hard to find/rarest combination of physical attributes. That would be Mullens. You act like Noah isn't upgradable from and that there's no way we can find a good player. There are some great mid-1sts and even 2nd rounders occassionally. If Mullens gets coached up he could be on. Also, where is our depth? Miller will be gone in a year, Gray isn't even worth mentioning, leaving 2 twigs in Tyrus and Noah as our ONLY post players. Yeah, it'd be really stupid to draft Mullens. God forbid we have a guy with legit C size, rare athleticism and potential.



I'm not against Mullens, necessarily. We need more young bigs. What I think is beyond ridiculous is your viewpoint seems to be that he's going to come in and take Noah's starting job at center. That's pie in the sky.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm not against Mullens, necessarily. We need more young bigs. What I think is beyond ridiculous is your viewpoint seems to be that he's going to come in and take Noah's starting job at center. That's pie in the sky.


I agree. Or at the very least, Mullens wouldn't be taking Noah's starting job for at least a couple years. The guy seems really talented, probably more pure talent than Noah. But it takes so much more than talent alone. Experience is also key, and Noah (whether you like him or not) blows away Mullens in that department. Noah has two NCAA titles, two years of NBA experience, and some great NBA playoff experience. Mullens has one pedestrian year at Ohio State, and that's it. 

Like jnrjr79, I am not opposed to Mullens. He may actually be a solid pick who helps form a great combo at center alongside Noah! That would be alot of size with both scoring and defense.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

dsouljah9 said:


> I'll go on the record in saying that 16 and 26 is way too much to give up for 11. if that was for picks 1-10, then I'd do it. But no way I'd do it for 11...


It probably is, but could it be the bulls may be trying to save money by not having to pay for #26? That way they could free up a few bucks to sign Ben.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*


HB said:



At 16, most teams are probably looking for role players not starting caliber players. I just dont know why you'd be so adamant about picking Mullens at 16, when the Bulls have holes at other positions also. The guy could pan out and turn out to be an all star, on the other hand he could be a bust. Thats a wasted pick right there.

Click to expand...

*So true! Especially in this draft.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Cause, as I've said before, I think that we need a big, and it's rare when a playoff team has a shot at one with that kind of athleticism and size. Could bust...sure. They all could, which is why they're not top 10 picks. Hell the top picks bust sometimes. It happens.
> 
> But where are the holes at? If Deng comes back healthy and decent again, not a need at SF. Salmons, Rose and Hinrich nail down the guard pretty well. So I see it as take the guy with the most potential to compliment what we have. The only thing we don't have, is a an athletic big BIG. I could live with others but not Blair or Henderson, in a trade up.


We need a big that is for sure, but can Mullens contribute now? I would not be so worried if I knew that we had a trade promised for a veteran big man first. That way we could play Mulllens the minutes Gray had. No pressure on him or the team.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Link? Video? Substantiation?



In Jonathan Givony(draftexpress) podcast he says an Asst GM saw Mullens crying after the workout. They also talked about it today on the B team on Mad Dog unleashed on Sirius XM radio.




> Remember BJ Mullens? The hillbilly oaf that played one mediocre season at Ohio State this past winter and then declared for the NBA Draft eventhough he couldn't even start for them? Yeah. That guy. He also characterized himself as a mix between Garnett, Dirk, and Amare. You would think that a man of that sort of ability would be an absolute beast on the court and dominate whatever is in his path.
> 
> You would be wrong. Very wrong.
> 
> Jonathan Givony says in his podcast that an assistant GM saw BJ Mullens crying in the locker room at one of the mass workouts following a head-to-head matchup with Luke Nevill of Utah. Givony says that the workout hurts Mullens because Nevill is projected as "undrafted".


http://gmoneysack.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-is-what-it-sounds-like-when-trash.html


I'd stay away from him, a lot of OSU fans I know says he has zero feel or IQ for the game and is about as soft as they come.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Merk said:


> In Jonathan Givony(draftexpress) podcast he says an Asst GM saw Mullens crying after the workout. They also talked about it today on the B team on Mad Dog unleashed on Sirius XM radio.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whether he end up with us or not, I find it hard to believe that he would drop to second round, let alone "undrafted".


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hillbilly oaf... what class.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ok, to clarify here. It is my opinion that he has way more talent than Noah does and in a few years could possibly replace him as the C. Also, with the way Tyrus is in and out of the doghouse in Chicago, it's also a thought of Noah sliding to PF if he leaves and Mullens sliding into Noah's old spot at C. In the meantime, we have depth, size and some scoring in the post. I don't see why it'd be any different than with Gray, where he just gets whatever minutes they need him for. We got by last year with just Noah, Tyrus and Brad mainly, so this year I'd expect more of the same, with Mullens getting the clean-up minutes that Gray used to get, and then some. 

I am also not in the mindset that we need to get a player that can contribute now. Draft for potential. It's a weak draft. Anyone ready to contribute from day 1 at 16 in this draft will be a very average player (which we're already loaded with), or they'd have went sooner. Sorry, but I'm sick of all these safe picks that were already maxed out or so flawed they'd never turn into anything great. So Mullens fits the bill to perfection for me. And I'm not saying he's going to be a star, or won't bust. It's just a risk in this weak draft that I want to take, since I am not impressed with hardly anyone in it.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Merk said:


> In Jonathan Givony(draftexpress) podcast he says an Asst GM saw Mullens crying after the workout. They also talked about it today on the B team on Mad Dog unleashed on Sirius XM radio.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not going to trust the objectivity of a source that calls someone a "hillybilly oaf"... 

and other than that we got an anonymous guy who told Jonathan Givony (who I consider mostly credible) that he saw Mullens crying... not sure how damning that really is.

I mean, I'm not going to doubt that a lot of Ohio State fans had that impression... I generally catch a lot more OSU games than I did last season, but I wasn't overly impressed when I did see him. College basketball, however, is a very different game than the NBA in terms of how the floor is spaced and what the looks are like.... sometimes a guy can seem better (Deandre Jordan) in the pros than he did in school. 

Anyway, he's tall... tall wins... we need tall...


----------

