# The Official: All-encompassing Scouting thread on Beasley and Rose.



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

It would be pretty cool if everyone on here can add *scouting reports*, *video clips*, pre camp *workout results*, *measurements* and even reports/articles on what these guys are like off the court.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Derrick Rose

Strengths:


> A breath taking athlete with terrific size for the point guard position at 6-4 … His upside is truly special





> Likely to be the most athletic PG in the league for years to come … A point guard in the truest sense of the word. His development in this area has been phenomenal in the past 2 years





> Gives the same intensity and effort on both ends of the floor … Excellent handle on the ball, with a deadly crossover, very tough to contain one on one


Weaknesses:


> Mechanics on his shot are not fluid, so he may need to adjust it some as he sort of slings the ball from his shoulder, though his shot has shown steady improvement





> A streaky shooter, can go through cold spells





> Can become a lot better at running the pick and roll


Michael Beasley

Strengths:


> A fabulous athlete with an NBA ready body... Completed one of the most dominant seasons in college basketball history, as a freshman





> He has range from anywhere on the floor all the way out to NBA three, but is especially effective with his soft touch around the rim, where he uses both hands to finish with a variety of moves





> Most dangerous out of the mid-post where he can square his man up, and attack with a variety of moves; including strong takes to the hoop, a nice midrange pull-up, or simply shooting over the top of helpless defenders





> A strong personality with great confidence who never gets down on himself.


Weaknesses:


> Even though he has great length and body strength, he is somewhat undersized for the PF spot at the next level





> His game is based on sheer athleticism and strength, but his actual basketball skills can use some refinement





> There is some concern about his work ethic and whether cashing huge checks before the age of 19 will have an effect on his motor.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I advise looking out for the next couple of Bulls Beats from dougthonus. He's got access to the professional-level scouting video and whatnot and will be doing a podcast each for both Beasley and Rose.

As excited as we all are right now, there's still a ways to go till it's draft time. We'll have some greater insight into what the Bulls will be doing as time goes on.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

http://www.bullsbeat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=9

Bulls Beat #42 is all about Beasley. Should be a good listen, I'm downloading now.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> http://www.bullsbeat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=9
> 
> Bulls Beat #42 is all about Beasley. Should be a good listen, I'm downloading now.


It is a good listen, and Doug makes a lot of sense.

But to be honest, what he says is what you see on that KState montage in the Rose vs. Beasley thread I posted. 

The guy is good.

Doug's beat does emphasize that his offensive repertoire is THE story. He's not a defender, he doesn't know how to play in a system, he doesn't pass. 

His conclusion is that the guy is a hard worker -- MUST be to have the moves he does -- and should be able to adjust to the team concept. 

Anyway, he didn't have to sell me. I like the guy a lot, and I'm not really put off by his personality or intelligence. He knows what he's doing on the court, that's for sure.

But the unfamiliarity of playing within a system is potentially a bigger hurdle than we might think. 

You never know, and the interviews and work they do with him will help clarify whether it is something he wants but just hasn't had the chance, or whether his personality and style is going to make him a "Soriano"-type player who has his strengths, and that's the way it is...

Of what I've seen, Rose is not far from him in terms of body control, and he probably uses his strength more than Beasley. He isn't ambidextrous like Beasley, but good control, nonetheless. But what I haven't seen of Rose is the pass first mentality everyone talks about -- understandable, since that doesn't make the highlight reels.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Great thread idea.

Instead of offering up opinions on who we should draft, the goal is more to provide insights into these guys as if we were the GM's. I like it.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

IMO I think the whole barefoot height is useless, nobody will ever play Barefoot in the NBA.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Doug's Beasley podcast from yesterday, he goes in alot of depth in here.

You really should listen to it.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Doug's Beasley podcast from yesterday, he goes in alot of depth in here.
> 
> You really should listen to it.


http://www.basketballforum.com/5511911-post4.html

Already up, buddy. :biggrin:

I'm looking forward to the Derrick Rose one.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Two background articles on Beasley

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=3269294
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=379383


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t1yqOwIMdUA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t1yqOwIMdUA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Here is Beasley against France in the U19 games last year... check his ability to finish with his right hand (better than our right handed big men, sadly)...


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

King Joseus said:


> http://www.bullsbeat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=9
> 
> Bulls Beat #42 is all about Beasley. Should be a good listen, I'm downloading now.


this guy on the podcast has a lot of love for tyrus thomas... must do alot more than his 6 and 4 stats show


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

4putt said:


> this guy on the podcast has a lot of love for tyrus thomas... must do alot more than his 6 and 4 stats show


Not to threadjack, but I tend to agree... he's a great help-side defender and has game-changing athleticism on that end of the court.


It's actually interesting (and to get back to the draft), because for me, that's the stuff I want to know about Beasley... obviously the numbers are all there, but what about the stuff that doesn't show up on the stat sheet? Does he "show" as a help defender when he needs to? Does he set a solid pick? Does he track down loose balls? Those kind of things.


Here's a quote on Beasley's defense from Draftexpress on January 13th:



> Taking a look at Beasley first, there was much concern about his defensive awareness and effort in our first look at his game earlier in the season, but his defensive effort has been much improved over the past few games, and is hopefully something that will continue through conference play. There seemed to be a lot of “going through the motions” defensively earlier in the season with Beasley, but his aggressiveness has been much better of late, with him getting into tougher defensive stances, contesting more outside shots, and fighting a little harder to hold position in the post.
> 
> With that said, there is still much concern about his defensive awareness, as even though he’s clearly trying harder, he can still look like a fish out of water here at times. He reminds of Drew Gooden a lot on the defensive end, in that he has the length and athleticism to occasionally make some impact plays, but can often look a little lost or confused, making some questionable decisions and not showing the greatest awareness of what’s going on around him. It’s obviously early in his development, though, and there is much room for improvement, especially if he is going to consistently devote the effort necessary on this end of the floor, and try to focus more with his awareness. Consistently doing these things would take Beasley to the next level as a prospect in the eyes of many, though it’s no sure thing that he does.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Here is Beasley against France in the U19 games last year... check his ability to finish with his right hand (better than our right handed big men, sadly)...


Very nice. Really has a nose for the basket. He's a player.

But the lack of experience working in a system concerns me.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> Very nice. Really has a nose for the basket. He's a player.
> 
> *But the lack of experience working in a system concerns me.*


Oh... they had a system... it was "Give it to Mike and get out of the way"
We ran the same system for a good chunk of the 80's.

I guess it is a legitimate concern... but its hard to say that Lebron really played in a 'system'... or Kevin Durant... with some of these guys the coaches will understandably give them free reign to do what they want offensively... I think as long as B-Easy (as the kids say) knows his role, which will probably involve scoring the ball, he'll be fine.

Unless he's an idiot... which some have entertained as a possibility.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/5511911-post4.html
> 
> Already up, buddy. :biggrin:
> 
> I'm looking forward to the Derrick Rose one.


oops sorry about that, haha. here i thought i was doing something good instead i just look like an idiot :biggrin:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Oh... they had a system... it was "Give it to Mike and get out of the way"
> We ran the same system for a good chunk of the 80's.
> 
> I guess it is a legitimate concern... but its hard to say that Lebron really played in a 'system'... or Kevin Durant... with some of these guys the coaches will understandably give them free reign to do what they want offensively... I think as long as B-Easy (as the kids say) knows his role, which will probably involve scoring the ball, he'll be fine.
> ...


Nah, he's no idiot.

But, and I'm depending on Doug Thonus' scouting to back me up here, he shows no idea of how to play with others in an organized fashion, which shows up as: lack of passing, poor recognition on defense of where he's supposed to be. I don't think Lebron's game was ever characterized in this way.

And, just as an aside, it's funny how the music people pick for Beasley on his mix tapes sounds the same, easy and rhythmical, never in a hurry. It's a good name for him B-easy.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> oops sorry about that, haha. here i thought i was doing something good instead i just look like an idiot :biggrin:


Nah, no worries.

On a random note, I made a post or two in your Poet's Corner the other day...


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGV_wGpupbM


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Doug's Beasley podcast from yesterday, he goes in alot of depth in here.
> 
> You really should listen to it.


Thanks for that. Was a good listen.

Some points the guy made:
Beasley was on a really bad team
He recognized double teams and dribbled out of them just didn't pass out of them.
Has a wide range of ways to score.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Guys, it's been reported by ESPN and others that Beasley colored outside the lines yesterday. We need to pick Rose.



> This year, the companies distributed 50% more kits and received 62% more entries than in 1998. And the promotion spent only half the time in the stores, says Michelle Buckley, a Hallmark spokesperson. Part of this year's boost - especially in the targeted cities - can be attributed to a seven-cities bus tour that stopped at schools and retail facilities in the cities. Most notably the presence of Chicago Bulls bound Michael Beasley...





> The contest invited kids to design a card for a chance to win trips, a $1,000 cash prize, a $500 school grant and a place in the Expressions For Hallmark card line. The "Free Entry Kit" included two blank cards, an envelope and a Crayola coupon. Buckley wouldn't reveal the cost of the campaigns but says "the contest's success can be measured in three ways"


This is really not good.

link


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

darlets said:


> Thanks for that. Was a good listen.
> 
> Some points the guy made:
> Beasley was on a really bad team
> ...


I liked some of the stuff Doug had to say but I dont agree with the idea that Beasley's teams was horrible. 

He played next to a top 7 recruit in Bill Walker who did his share of scoring for Kansas State and besides Kansas State was a NCAA Tournament team so I dont see how anyone can call that team horrible.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rose's scouting report on himself aand beasley.




> LAKE BUENA VISTA - The debate over who will be the top pick in the June 26 NBA Draft might not be a debate at all.
> 
> While he wouldn't say that Kansas State power forward Michael Beasley should be the No. 1 selection by the Bulls and that he should go No. 2 to the Heat, Memphis point guard Derrick Rose said today he considers himself second to one.
> 
> ...



http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basketball/heat/sfl-rose0808a,0,5532903.story


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> Rose's scouting report on himself aand beasley.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do I get the feeling that both guys would rather play for the Heat than the Bulls, Cant Say I blame them (hmm play next to Dwade or Joakim Noah) but Rose is such a humble guy, the kid is going to be a coaches dream.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont quite understand how its become a common assertion that Rose was a dominant player in the ncaa...that he may even have been the best player .

he was 3rd team ncaa . the common perception after 30+ games was that while he had great pro potential(possibly the most pro potential) , he was not even among the top 10, but very good , it seems like a hype machine gone awry. ...i mean really rose wasn't even considered the best player on his own team douglass roberts was who was also 1st team all american.

i dont think i've ever seen a 3rd team all nba player touted as the league's best player no matter how well he's played in the playoffs, and they can last nearly 30 games, far more substantial than lets say a 6 game at most tourney run.

but oh well.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont quite understand how its become a common assertion that Rose was a dominant player in the ncaa...that he may even have been the best player .
> 
> he was 3rd team ncaa . the common perception after 30+ games was that while he had great pro potential(possibly the most pro potential) , he was not even among the top 10, but very good , it seems like a hype machine gone awry. ...i mean really rose wasn't even considered the best player on his own team douglass roberts was who was also 1st team all american.
> 
> ...


If thats the case then Tyler Hansborough should be the #1 pick in the draft.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Some updates from the pre-draft camp where players went through some basic drill sets.

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/NBA-Pre-Draft-Camp,-Day-Four-2905/

*Rose*
Clearly the most impressive workout of any of the 15 players belonged to Derrick Rose. Not so much for what he showed, but mostly just for what he is. He got up and down the floor fluidly and smoothly, covering tons of ground with each and every stride, and looked excellent changing speeds and operating skillfully with both hands in the ball-handling drills. His athleticism is nothing short of stunning, starting with his phenomenal first step, his ability to change gears, and his incredible explosiveness finishing around the basket. He came out with a business-like approach, and left no doubt about just how unique his talent-level and physical tools are. A nice bonus was the way he shot the ball, hitting more than one NBA 3-pointer and looking solid from mid-range as well. 

*Beasley*
Michael Beasley looked super fluid and athletic getting up and down the court, finishing with either hand and looking to be in pretty good shape. He attacked the drills with a lot of competitive fire, but most definitely was clowning around way too much throughout the day right underneath the noses of the Miami Heat and Chicago Bulls. There were a few people that expressed concern with some of his antics over the past few days. He shot the ball just decently.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Coaches say Beasley character concerns overblown



> Either way, Beasley's two most recent coaches consider the character allegations to be ridiculous.
> 
> "I had Michael at school here for one year and there was never one character issue or flaw," said Bill Barton, Beasley's coach at Notre Dame Prep. "He was a personable, well-mannered kid who showed up to school every day. All his teachers liked him. He was great to have around.
> 
> ...


Lots of good background at the link.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont think i've ever seen a 3rd team all nba player touted as the league's best player no matter how well he's played in the playoffs, and they can last nearly 30 games, far more substantial than lets say a 6 game at most tourney run.
> 
> but oh well.


Those six games were FAR more significant than the 34 preivious games. He played and OWNED top flight competition every night.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Not to Hijack the thread, but I found this very interesting:



> O.J. Mayo was very smooth and very confident in everything he did, barely missing in the perimeter shooting drills. He’s clearly not on the same level athletically as Derrick Rose or Russell Westbrook for example, but already has the looks of an NBA player with the way his body looks and how he conducts himself out on the floor.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont quite understand how its become a common assertion that Rose was a dominant player in the ncaa...that he may even have been the best player .
> 
> he was 3rd team ncaa . the common perception after 30+ games was that while he had great pro potential(possibly the most pro potential) , he was not even among the top 10, but very good , it seems like a hype machine gone awry. ...i mean really rose wasn't even considered the best player on his own team douglass roberts was who was also 1st team all american.
> 
> ...


On some level you could be right about a hype machine gone awry. However, the important things to remember are:

a) He was a freshman in the NCAA -- we've gotten spoiled seeing freshman come in and dominate in recent years with Oden, Durant, Beasley, etc. But historically most freshman need an adjustment period. Some of this could be PG versus big men. Go back to Deron Williams and CP3 as college freshman and I don't think their production was mindblowing.

b) We're talking about a big 6'3, off the charts athletic PG (as in a pure PG with natural court vision and unselfishness). They don't come around often. It's a hard position to fill well.

It took those 6 tournament games for his talent to really become known I think. But it was clear, to me at least, that he was the best player on his team by season's end. Douglas-Roberts was more experienced and obviously had a better season, but that wasn't really the case by the title game.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

yodurk said:


> It took those 6 tournament games for his talent to really become known I think. But it was clear, to me at least, that he was the best player on his team by season's end. Douglas-Roberts was more experienced and obviously had a better season, but that wasn't really the case by the title game.


and, how'd that title game go for him? 1 for 6 from three and 5 turnovers, what anyone would admit was a poor performance... and a loss

i just can't put together how we are to minimize rose's season scoring performance because he is touted as the "point guard saviour" and "playmaker extraordinare" and yet, he was 70th in assists per game... third team all-ncaa and 70th in assists in a weak conference

i truly hope the guy develops into a great nba player... but it's clear that what's happening now re: the first pick is either a head-fake or a colossal hype-job


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Nu_Omega said:


> Some updates from the pre-draft camp where players went through some basic drill sets.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/article/NBA-Pre-Draft-Camp,-Day-Four-2905/
> 
> ...


Very interesting find, It sounds like Rose impressed by just showing up lol. 

Beasley still being a goof but still showing what he can do on the court.
Its starting to come down to who will want it MORE in the next level, I think Rose will be the guy who goes in to work everyday just wanting to win while I think Beasley will show up put up great numbers but play for a check.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Lets just end this hype machine, *this thread is not for that.* 

If you only consider stats then I can see your point where you dont think he was the best in the NCAA but if you saw this kid play at Simeon and in all the summer camps vs other high end top talent you know that this kid is the real deal.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

4putt said:


> and, how'd that title game go for him? 1 for 6 from three and 5 turnovers, what anyone would admit was a poor performance... and a loss
> 
> i just can't put together how we are to minimize rose's season scoring performance because he is touted as the "point guard saviour" and "playmaker extraordinare" and yet, he was 70th in assists per game... third team all-ncaa and 70th in assists in a weak conference
> 
> i truly hope the guy develops into a great nba player... but it's clear that what's happening now re: the first pick is either a head-fake or a colossal hype-job


Being that this is a scouting thread, I will point out that you chose to point out only his worst stats from the title game. He shot 7 of 17 overall (1-6 on 3 pointers, but 6-11 from within the 2 pt territory). He also had 6 rebounds, 8 assists, and 2 steals. I believe he was one of the few on his team who really came out and produced. 

Whether you think this is good or not, remember that Kansas' perimeter defense was out of this world good. Rose also played against UCLA the previous game and completely owned one of the nation's elite backcourts. 

Assists per game is really indicative of the system being run and how much the offense is run through him. 4.5 is still good at the college level. I'm more concern w/ assists per turnover, which indicates ball control and decision making. He had better than 2:1 in that area as a college freshman.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

My take on Beasley right now, in light of scouting info:

1) I still think it's worth considering that Beasley MIGHT be a small forward at the NBA level. When do measurements get released? There were rumblings that he might be closer to 6'7 than 6'10 based on visual observations of some scouts. If he's around 6'8, then you might have to think of him as Carmelo Anthony Part II in terms of his playing style. (Remember that Anthony was a 20-10 PF type in college as well...)

2) On his attitude, I agree that he doesn't seem like a "bad kid" at all. In fact, this goofy attitude could be a positive for SOME teams. Apparently Dwight Howard has a really goofy personality as well and it helps loosen up teammates. But it's hard to determine if this makes him a distracted or unfocused player. Could go either way...


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

yodurk said:


> My take on Beasley right now, in light of scouting info:
> 
> 1) I still think it's worth considering that Beasley MIGHT be a small forward at the NBA level. When do measurements get released? There were rumblings that he might be closer to 6'7 than 6'10 based on visual observations of some scouts. If he's around 6'8, then you might have to think of him as Carmelo Anthony Part II in terms of his playing style. (Remember that Anthony was a 20-10 PF type in college as well...)
> 
> 2) On his attitude, I agree that he doesn't seem like a "bad kid" at all. In fact, this goofy attitude could be a positive for SOME teams. Apparently Dwight Howard has a really goofy personality as well and it helps loosen up teammates. But it's hard to determine if this makes him a distracted or unfocused player. Could go either way...


1. He's young and he might grow.

2. Some may beg to differ I guess, but the Bulls especially do not need another joker.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Being that this is a scouting thread, I will point out that you chose to point out only his worst stats from the title game. He shot 7 of 17 overall (1-6 on 3 pointers, but 6-11 from within the 2 pt territory). He also had 6 rebounds, 8 assists, and 2 steals. I believe he was one of the few on his team who really came out and produced.
> 
> Whether you think this is good or not, remember that Kansas' perimeter defense was out of this world good. Rose also played against UCLA the previous game and completely owned one of the nation's elite backcourts.
> 
> Assists per game is really indicative of the system being run and how much the offense is run through him. 4.5 is still good at the college level. I'm more concern w/ assists per turnover, which indicates ball control and decision making. He had better than 2:1 in that area as a college freshman.


Allow me to add to that, re: the title game.

Derrick Rose absolutely OWNED the second half of the second half of that game. That is the part of the game known as crunch time. I watched it thinking "when is derrick rose going to take over this game?" Douglas Roberts (who he deferred to ALOT) wasn't getting it done. It took a while for Rose to realize that he was going to have to take over, but when he did, he was CLEARLY the best player on the floor. I believe at one point, he single handedly went on a 8-0 run.

Perhaps most importantly, as a former basketball player (and a skilled one at that), I can state in no uncertain terms that of all the skills to be not good at, shooting is the EASIEST to master. If he practices, he WILL get better.

When I was his age, I completely re-tooled my jumpshot, for largly the same reason he did. I needed to be able to get it off in a hurry against top flight competition, AND make it harder to defend.

By the time I was 22, I was deadly, out to 26 feet, and that and that was while taking FAR FAR less than 5-600 jumpers a day. Though I did take many.

He'll be fine.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Allow me to add to that, re: the title game.
> 
> Derrick Rose absolutely OWNED the second half of the second half of that game. That is the part of the game known as crunch time. I watched it thinking "when is derrick rose going to take over this game?" Douglas Roberts (who he deferred to ALOT) wasn't getting it done. It took a while for Rose to realize that he was going to have to take over, but when he did, he was CLEARLY the best player on the floor. I believe at one point, he single handedly went on a 8-0 run.
> 
> ...



Did you play in the NBA?


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

thebizkit69u said:


> Lets just end this hype machine, *this thread is not for that.*
> 
> If you only consider stats then I can see your point where you dont think he was the best in the NCAA but if you saw this kid play at Simeon and in all the summer camps vs other high end top talent you know that this kid is the real deal.


since you took it back to simeon and to a comparison when playing against 'high end talent'... how did rose look compared to beasley say at the mcdonalds all-star game? how 'bout in games vs the national champion?


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

The Krakken said:


> Allow me to add to that, re: the title game.
> 
> Derrick Rose absolutely OWNED the second half of the second half of that game. That is the part of the game known as crunch time. I watched it thinking "when is derrick rose going to take over this game?" Douglas Roberts (who he deferred to ALOT) wasn't getting it done. It took a while for Rose to realize that he was going to have to take over, but when he did, he was CLEARLY the best player on the floor. I believe at one point, he single handedly went on a 8-0 run.
> 
> ...


you misinterpret me as someone trying to tear down rose... i'm only responding to posts that try to defend him as a best college player available and better potential nba player by tearing down beasley with in-defensible generalities, insane comparisons, and outright falsehood rather than any actual analysis of their games

the support includes 'he's a point guard and true leader so points scored don't matter' yet he's only 70th in the ncaa on a team in a weak conference... 'he peaked in the tournament when it mattered" or "he OWNED the championship game" while his stats were marginal at best and he didn't lead his team to victory, or those that diss beasley because... "his game is similar to derrick coleman and because of that fact won't amount to anything" or "he's not a leader" because his team and coaching was bad, or "he doesn't work hard" because the game comes effortless to him

beasley, was 23 and 11 and 23 and 13 in in the two games the collective talent of his team allowed him to play in the ncaa tournament... yes, down games for him, but hardly a failure on his part on the national stage.... and two games vs the national champions, not only led his team to victory in one but dominated in the other going for 39 and 11 in their building on national tv despite foul trouble... i would say 39 and 11, 11 for 23 and 4 for 7 from three sitting out most of the first half is closer to OWNAGE than 18 and 6, 8 assists and 5 turnovers

the fact is that beasley is a goofy immature kid who happens to be a prodigious talent on the court and gets buckets in bunches... because of that fact, he leaves the opening for people to paint rose as a mature leader and team saviour (the same way his demeanor allowed 'hard working' 'face of college basketball' tyler hansbrough to be judged the ncaa player-of-the-year)... i'm guessing he will be just fine in the nba, reap quite a bit of money on the endorsement trail, and take care of himself during a long successful career

regardless, while they both may be all-star-quality nba players... i just feel when you reach beyond reality to justify the pick you set yourself up for a fall... go ahead and pick rose because he's from chicago, or because the team has a glaring need at the point guard spot and be proud of that... just not because beasley signed his name on the headmasters bumper

eventually (and i say in a very, very short time into next season) we will all know if the bulls make the right choice


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Did you play in the NBA?


I can only assume this is a sarcastic question. The answer is no. I couldn't stay healthy enough to make a real run at it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

4putt said:


> beasley, was 23 and 11 and 23 and 13 in in the two games the collective talent of his team allowed him to play in the ncaa tournament... yes, down games for him, but hardly a failure on his part on the national stage.... and two games vs the national champions, not only led his team to victory in one but dominated in the other going for 39 and 11 in their building on national tv despite foul trouble... i would say 39 and 11, 11 for 23 and 4 for 7 from three sitting out most of the first half is closer to OWNAGE than 18 and 6, 8 assists and 5 turnovers


I'm sorry but looking at raw numbers to determine who's the better player, when they were asked to play VASTLY different roles is ludicrous.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> I can only assume this is a sarcastic question. The answer is no. I couldn't stay healthy enough to make a real run at it.


Actually I wasnt being sarcastic, you said that you where once a very skilled player, I just thought maybe you where an x NBA player thats all.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Actually I wasnt being sarcastic, you said that you where once a very skilled player, I just thought maybe you where an x NBA player thats all.


No. My apologies. But I can tell you who I have played with in the offseason back in the day.

Xavier McDaniel
Kenny Smith
Tyrone Corbin

and a few other NBAers that I wasn't all that familiar with.

I was not intimidated by them in the least, though they towered over me (except Kenny smith). I held my own.

Again, numerous injuries (dislocated both shoulders at least 12 times, hyperextended both knees and dislocated both feet 3 times.....and this was just during my HS and college years), ended any real shot I had at playing at that level. I just could stay healthy long enough to dedicate myself to the kind of training and shape necessary to do that. So I went and got a degree, and played with those guys as much as possible.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

The Krakken said:


> No. My apologies. But I can tell you who I have played with in the offseason back in the day.
> 
> Xavier McDaniel
> Kenny Smith
> ...


wow lots of injuries! I hope they're at least feeling better. do you go to a physical therapist now?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> On some level you could be right about a hype machine gone awry. However, the important things to remember are:
> 
> a) He was a freshman in the NCAA -- we've gotten spoiled seeing freshman come in and dominate in recent years with Oden, Durant, Beasley, etc. But historically most freshman need an adjustment period. Some of this could be PG versus big men. Go back to Deron Williams and CP3 as college freshman and I don't think their production was mindblowing.
> 
> ...



see to me things go in progressions , if you can't dominate college its unlikely you can do it in the pro's , if you cant play well in summer league , the regualr season may wind up being too much for you , if you cant perform in the regular season the playoff performance may be aweful...and so on and so on., there is something to be said for domianting whatever level of basketball you play on until you move up. rose was a very good player in college , Beasley was dominant .

does it mean beasley will automatically be better than rose ...absolutely not , but its at the very least a good start.

i also dont doubt that Rose has alot of professional advantages that beasley doesn't have , he is big and athletic for his position while beasley is only athletic for whatever spot he is slotted at...unless beasley is turned into a 3, and a 3 all things being equal is a little less impactful than a 4.

i dont see how professional talent evaluators after seeing him play dozens of times over the past few years would suddenly change their opinion of him , its not like he was some flash in the pan he has been a top prospsect for a good while now and is as scrutinized as much as beasley or mayo....they are freshman too but did not have the good fortune or maybe the good sense to join teams as talented as rose did...i dont generally find it wise to grade a player out on anything but his play and what it looks like he can get done on a court .

he wasn't as good as CDR and deferred to him basically until the 2nd half of the last game , i think people make mountains out of molehills to what amounts as 8 points scored quickly in a game he ultimately lost...it was impressive but i see too many occasions where a good playoff run makes guys overvalued.

i think a body of work is more important , and likelyhood to make good on potential , thats all i'm saying in addition to the idea that he was a better player than beasley at the college level is preposterous, he had one of the best seasons if not the best season any fresheman has ever had .

the idea that rose is on that level is the hype machine gone awry.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> wow lots of injuries! I hope they're at least feeling better. do you go to a physical therapist now?


No. Not anymore. I just quit playing ball. Occasionally, I'll get out there and show that I'm still the man here locally, but otherwise, I'm done (much to my chagrin).

I did have regular appointments with the PT years ago.

Yeah, its alot. For a while, I was afraid to go anywhere NEAR a b-ball court. Even now, as I look back, I don't think I've played the kind of "balls to the wall" agressive game of hoops I was known for in 6-8 years.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> see to me things go in progressions , if you can't dominate college its unlikely you can do it in the pro's


He wasn't ASKED to do that in college. Did you watch many of his games? Nearly ALL of the plays were run for Douglas-Roberts. Almost ALL OF THEM.

All he was asked to do was run the team. And he did.



> there is something to be said for domianting whatever level of basketball you play on until you move up. rose was a very good player in college , Beasley was dominant .


Again, this fallaciously assumes that they were asked to play the same roles. They weren't. ROSE WAS ASKED to play second fiddle to Douglas Roberts. DOUGLAS ROBERTS was ASKED to be the Memphis equivalent of KSU's Beasley. By season's end, Rose, while still being asked to play second fiddle, was clearly the best player on the floor, nearly every time he was on it.

Moreover, just how dominant do you want a freshman guard to be? Remember, a FRESHMAN GUARD. So lets look at some other guards as freshman, shall we?

*Derrick Rose*

14.9ppg, 4.5 rpg, 4.7apg. 48% FG% in 29 minutes per game.

*Freshamn Guard #1*

13.5ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.8apg. *53% fG shooting in 32 minutes per game.
*Did not attempt a 3pt FG all season.

By the way, their FT% are nearly Identical.

Derrick rose's numbers look better right?

Lets look at another Freshman Guard

*Freshamn Guard #2*

14.6ppg, 4.0Rpg, 5.5apg. 51% FG shooting in 29 Minutes.
No 3pt FG attempts.

Those numbers look JUST LIKE Derrick ROSE's as a freshman. Right?

This Guard didn't play much as a freshman so we'll look at his SOPHOMORE NUMBERS!

*Guard #3*
11.2 ppg, 2.5rpg, and 5.0 apg. 57% fg%

Derrick rose, FG% aside clearly looks superior to this SOPHOMORE right? By the way, this guard had a 67% FT% that season.

*Guard #4*

14.8ppg, 5.9apg, 0.0 rpg. 49% FG%

Shall I continue? One more for the road?

*Guard #5*

12.5ppg, 4rpg, and 7.6apg on 46% shooting. We'll call this one a draw when comparing this to Rose, though I think rose is slightly better in this comparison. BTW this guard only shot 67% from the FT line.



> does it mean beasley will automatically be better than rose ...absolutely not , but its at the very least a good start.


No it isn't. And let me reveal the guards above to make a point. By your logic, it makes more sense to draft Beasley over the following players based on college dominance as a freshman

In order of comparison

1) Michael Jordan
2) Isaiah Thomas
3) John Stockton
4) Chris Paul
5) Gary Payton

Now go back and compare Rose's freshamn statistics to these individuals freshman stats again.




> i dont see how professional talent evaluators after seeing him play dozens of times over the past few years would suddenly change their opinion of him , its not like he was some flash in the pan he has been a top prospsect for a good while now and is as scrutinized as much as beasley or mayo....they are freshman too but did not have the good fortune or maybe the good sense to join teams as talented as rose did...


Which is precisely why they were allowed to shine more. THEY WERE ASKED TO BE THE MEN on their teams from the word go.



> he wasn't as good as CDR and deferred to him basically until the 2nd half of the last game , i think people make mountains out of molehills to what amounts as 8 points scored quickly in a game he ultimately lost...it was impressive but i see too many occasions where a good playoff run makes guys overvalued.
> 
> i think a body of work is more important , and likelyhood to make good on potential , thats all i'm saying in addition to the idea that he was a better player than beasley at the college level is preposterous, he had one of the best seasons if not the best season any fresheman has ever had .
> 
> the idea that rose is on that level is the hype machine gone awry.


Again if that's the case, then you go on ahead and draft Beasley.

I'll take EACH AND EVERY ONE of the guards mentioned above over him.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

The Krakken said:


> Moreover, just how dominant do you want a freshman guard to be? Remember, a FRESHMAN GUARD. So lets look at some other guards as freshman, shall we?
> 
> *Derrick Rose* 14.9ppg, 4.5 rpg, 4.7apg to 2.6 turnovers 48% fg in 29 minutes per game.
> 
> I'll take EACH AND EVERY ONE of the guards mentioned above over him (beasley).


using your logic... why would you not take THIS point guard over rose?

*freshman stats* 14.4pts, 2.8 rpg, 6.7 apg to 3.3 turnovers, 45% fg in 36 minutes per game
*sophomore stats* 19.2pts 2.9 rpg, 5.8 apg to 2.8 turnovers, 44% fg in 37 minutes per game

this year dj augustin was unquestionably "the man" as well as the point leader of the texas longhorns, played practically every minute and led them to victories over kansas, tennessee, at ucla and stanford and led them deep into the tournament

first team all-america... 4.0gpa and first team academic all-american

so, based on potential, rose is the leader to run the bulls, when as you say he wasn't even asked to be "the man" on his college team? less than 5 assists per game when as you say his whole job was to get the ball to cd-r? that's putting a whole lot of trust in potential

i think drafting a 19yr-old freshman point guard at the top and then telling him 'you are the leader' and 'we will adjust the team around you' (in his hometown) is a very, very dangerous step

please name a point guard that has pulled that off at all (not to mention doing it from the top spot)


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

PAX, PLEASE MAKE THE OBVIOUS PICK. its ROSE.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Chris Paul or David West? Deron Williams or Carlos Boozer? 

I think these 2 examples are pretty good reference points to what Rose or Beasley can achieve during their career.

I'll pick Chirs and Deron because they make their team mates much better as compared to West and Boozer.


----------



## Diplomat (May 18, 2008)

Why do so many of you got this urge to sign guards to Bulls?

How many guards we need?

How many small players we need? 

Cmon...this is going way too far, just wish that Pax picks Rose and gets some nice trades for Kirk and Hughes.

And he could throw in Gooden in that trade mix too...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

> With the Heat eager to clear big 2009 salary-cap space to add another elite player, one logical scenario -- if the Bulls pass up on Derrick Rose -- would be drafting Rose at No. 2 (Miami's hope) and pursuing potential free agent power forwards Carlos Boozer or Elton Brand in the summer of 2009. But if Miami drafts and keeps power forward Michael Beasley, Pat Riley faces harder decisions. Although nothing can be assumed in free agency, an associate said Boozer -- who has a residence here -- likes Dwyane Wade and would be very receptive to Heat interest in 2009, when he is expected to opt out of his Utah contract. Miami Herald


A list of current Allstar PF's or PG's who made more than 1 appearance.

PF- Garnett, Duncan, Stoudemire, Boozer, Brand, JO'Neal, Jamison, Nowitski, RWallace, Bosh

PG- Parker, Nash, Billups, Kidd, BDavis, Arenas

If we don't draft Rose we will never get our hands on an allstar point. There will not be one on the market for a long long time, and we shouldn't have that high of pick for a while. They just don't get traded unless they are over the hill and you offer way too much. I am sure Dallas regrets the trade a ton, and to think they let Nash walk ouch. 

On the other hand not only are there more 50% more names at PF but 5 out 9 of them have been traded for. JO will most likely make it 6-9 after the offseason, Jamison may be traded for the 3rd or 4rth time, and Brand could also be moved for the 2nd time. Even Boozer has been brought up, though I don't think with any grounds.



4putt said:


> using your logic... why would you not take THIS point guard over rose?)


He was arguing against using stats, I think you missed the point of the post. If we are going to draft based on stats we would take Beasley over Jordan pretty quickly.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Hustle said:


> A list of current Allstar PF's or PG's who made more than 1 appearance.
> 
> PF- Garnett, Duncan, Stoudemire, Boozer, Brand, JO'Neal, Jamison, Nowitski, RWallace, Bosh
> 
> ...


God I would HATE dirk or sheed on this team. (I know, Dirk would prolly fit with our inside scoring need but HELL NO!)


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> No. My apologies. But I can tell you who I have played with in the offseason back in the day.
> 
> Xavier McDaniel
> Kenny Smith
> ...


Dude you sound like you have a centers body and health stuck in the body of PG lol. 

Too bad you dint stay healthy enough to get in the NBA but glad to hear your healthy now.

I'm curious, Did you play against Xavier McDaniel before he got drafted or after, funny you mention his name in this thread because this guy reminds me of Beasley. 

McDaniel's wasnt a big freshman sensation he only got like 13 minutes per game in his freshman season but look at the similarities in stats when McDaniels got Beasley like minutes. I also remember McDaniels was listed as like 6'8 - 6'9 in College and once he hit the NBA floor he was listed as 6'7.

wasnt McDaniel the first player ever to lead the NCAA in Rebounds and Scoring in one season?

Beasley 1st year
31 MPG 26.2 ppg 12.4 rbs 1 stl 1 blk 53% FG % 1 ast

McDaniels Sophmore
35 mpg 18.8 ppg 14.4 rbs 1stl 1 blk 59% fg% 1 ast

McDaniels Junior
37 mpg 20 ppg 13 rbs 1 blk 1 stl 56% FG% 2.4 ast

McDaniels Senior
36 MPG 27 ppg 15 rbs 1 blk 1 stl 2 ast 55% FG%.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Doug Thonus' scouting report on Rose here

Nice and complete. 

The one thing he mentions, which had concerned me, was that he isn't the pass-first point guard people talked about. He does say he's unselfish, and won't force the issue if his game isn't coming to him. But when he is going well, he created mostly for himself.

Still, pretty good report.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> Doug Thonus' scouting report on Rose here


Another good report by Doug. His offhand doesn't bother me. It can be worked on, and I still haven't seen Tony Parker finish with his right but when you are the fastest guy on the court it doesn't often matter.

The Parker comparision is pretty good, more potential due to size and not knowing how much Rose can improve his shot.

Just to Compare


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hustle said:


> Another good report by Doug. His offhand doesn't bother me. It can be worked on, and I still haven't seen Tony Parker finish with his right but when you are the fastest guy on the court it doesn't often matter.
> 
> The Parker comparision is pretty good, more potential due to size and not knowing how much Rose can improve his shot.
> 
> Just to Compare


Yeah, at this point we're still working on guards that can finish with "A" hand, let alone their off hand. 

If he can get to the rim like Tony Parker it matters less and less whether or not he can consistently shoot the jumper... we do, however, need to have some guys back there to nail the open looks he creates.

I wish I could see more footage that would prove to me that Rose has the court vision we're looking for... a super-Devin Harris (who is my guy, so no offense meant) would be great to have, but I don't know if it is worth the #1 pick.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

4putt said:


> using your logic... why would you not take THIS point guard over rose?
> 
> *freshman stats* 14.4pts, 2.8 rpg, 6.7 apg to 3.3 turnovers, 45% fg in 36 minutes per game
> *sophomore stats* 19.2pts 2.9 rpg, 5.8 apg to 2.8 turnovers, 44% fg in 37 minutes per game
> please name a point guard that has pulled that off at all (not to mention doing it from the top spot)


Rose as a freshman OWNED THAT PG.

But that's besides the point.

To answer your question: Magic Johnson.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I dont know about Dougs scouting reports, he was very high on Beasley but whenever a negative trait came up for Beasley he would say something like "Well Beasley dint do this in college but he could do it in the NBA" but did not say similar things when bringing up some of the negatives of Rose. 

He said Rose has a bad jump shot but Rose had a FG% of 45%. 

Rose an NBA Devin Hester? 

Hmm I dunno it seems like Doug just scouted one of Roses bad games because the only thing I really agreed with him on was that Rose rellies alot on his right hand other than that I dont agree with some of his other Observations but thats just my opinion.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I noticed that as well. His excuses about Beasleys defense (lots of schools and not alot of structure) didn't seem to make a lot of sense given his comments on his work ethic. He inferred from Beasleys skill level and body that he must be a hard worker, which I don't have a problem with, but surely he can work hard at his defense too. 

I'm not concerned about his size, I think Beasley at 235 currently can fill out to 245-250 but can he play D and pass. Some big question marks there. Doug did point out that he dribbles out of double teams well so he recognizes them well. Just doesn't pass out of them. 

But it still leaves a big question mark over his D.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

darlets said:


> I noticed that as well. His excuses about Beasleys defense (lots of schools and not alot of structure) didn't seem to make a lot of sense given his comments on his work ethic. He inferred from Beasleys skill level and body that he must be a hard worker, which I don't have a problem with, but surely he can work hard at his defense too.
> 
> I'm not concerned about his size, I think Beasley at 235 currently can fill out to 245-250 but can he play D and pass. Some big question marks there. Doug did point out that he dribbles out of double teams well so he recognizes them well. Just doesn't pass out of them.
> 
> But it still leaves a big question mark over his D.


Yeah, He also talked a bit negatively about Roses defense, he said that other PG's got past Rose easily but if he watched all the games those guys usually went NOWHERE lol. Rose steals passes and blocks shots well for his possition and Doug say's that Rose might not be a good defender at all in the NBA. 

He also said Rose is blazing fast on the break but slow at the half court set? Huh, has he seen Rose just destroy some of his defenders off the dribble near the 3 point line? 

I'm not blasting the guy but it seems like he spent more time scouting Beasley then he did Rose.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I'm not blasting the guy but it seems like he spent more time scouting Beasley then he did Rose.


I haven't heard the Rose podcast yet, but from memory, in the Beasley one, he said he watched every offensive play for Beasley. Not quite sure what that means precisely, but even if it's only his made shots, that's a lot of tape.

On another note, I wonder what real information is left to gather on these guys.

They get brought in for work outs but GM's have said in the passed the one on none work out aren't real helpful. 

And I don't put a lot of stock in the combine measurements and physical results. (We already have their heights and reaches as of a year ago)

So it really just comes down to the interviews with the players themselves and their coaches.

Glad it's Paxson and not me.

The measurements from last year
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/2008-Nike-Hoop-Summit-Official-Measurements,-plus-2007-Analysis/
Michael Beasley 
6' 9 Height
9'1 Standing reach
7'0 Wingspan

Derrick Rose 
6' 3 1/2 Height
8'3 STanding reach 
6'7 wingspan


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Apparently, both fellows have shrunk an inch. It's because they weren't wearing Nikes.

People have been saying Beasley's lower height is more significant, but I think it changes a lot of things for Rose, too.

We were hoping he could guard 2- guards. No way, Jose!

The guy is a point. He's just taller than Ben Gordon.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

The Krakken said:


> Rose as a freshman OWNED THAT PG.
> 
> But that's besides the point.
> 
> To answer your question: Magic Johnson.


"owned"?

and, i apologize... i didn't know magic was 6'-1 1/2" and grew up in los angeles


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2008&sort2=ASC&draft=0&sort=

There's the full measurements and whatnot.

Beasley: 6'8.25" (w/shoes), 239 lbs, 7'0.25" wingspan, 8'11" standing reach

Rose: 6'2.5" (w/shoes), 196 lbs, 6'8" wingspan, 8'0.25" standing reach


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2008&sort2=ASC&draft=0&sort=
> 
> There's the full measurements and whatnot.
> 
> ...


So Beasley is the exact same height as Tyrus Thomas pre-draft. Thomas did have a 7'3" wing span though.

Rose is 1/4th of an inch taller than Ben Gordon.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2008&sort2=ASC&draft=0&sort=
> 
> There's the full measurements and whatnot.
> 
> ...


I guess one remarkable thing about Rose is his wingspan. I think it was the biggest among the guards, except for one. So, it gives you hope that he'd play bigger than his height. 

The other thing that stood out for Rose, negatively, was the lane agility test. Significantly worse than Kirk. 

His 3/4 court speed was good, 3.05 s, but just better than Kirk at 3.11 s. 

His no step and max step jumps were tops, at 34.5 inches and 40 inches, respectively. 

Strong, as measured by the number of reps, but less than Ben Gordon.

In general, I think they are good to great, and I'm uncertain as to how much of a difference the height makes for Rose. 

Beasley's numbers are good. He is what he is, a smooth and efficient three/four on offense.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Beasley*
no shoes - 6'7"
shoes - 6'8.25" (he'll be listed at 6'9" by NBA standards)
weight - 239
wingspan - 7'0.25"
standing reach - 8'11"
no step vert - 30"
max vert - 35"
bench - 19
lane agility - 11.06
3/4 sprint - 3.24

*Tyrus Thomas*
no shoes - 6'7.25"
shoes - 6'8.25"
weight - 217
wingspan - 7'3"
standing reach - 9'0"
no step vert - 34"
max vert - 39.5"
bench - 8
lane agility - 11.36
3/4 sprint - 3.20

--------------------

*Rose*
no shoes - 6'1.5"
shoes -	6'2.5"
weight - 196
wingspan - 6'8"
standing reach - 8'0.25"
no step vert - 34.5"
max vert - 40"
bench -	10
lane agility - 11.69
3/4 sprint - 3.05

*Ben Gordon*
no shoes - 6'1"
shoes - 6'2.25"
weight - 192
wingspan - 6'8.5"
standing reach - 8'3"
no step vert - N/A
max vert - 37.5"
bench - 12
lane agility - 11.28
3/4 sprint - N/A

*Kirk Hinrich*
no shoes - 6'2.75"
shoes - 6'3.75"
weight - 186
wingspan - 6'6"
standing reach - 8'2.5"
no step vert - N/A
max vert - 33.5"
bench - 10
lane agility - 10.98
3/4 sprint - 3.10

*Dwayne Wade*
no shoes - 6'3.75"
shoes - 6'4.75"
weight - 212
wingspan - 6'10.75"
standing reach - 8'6"
no step vert - N/A
max vert - 35"
bench - 9
lane agility - 10.56
3/4 sprint - 3.08

Seems to be about the same size as Ben Gordon and the same speed as Kirk Hinrich. The 40" vertical is impressive, however.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

What do you make of the lane agility times. 

Rose is worse than anyone on your list, more than a second worse than Wade. 

Just a bad day? Or a symptom of inability to change directions?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> What do you make of the lane agility times.
> 
> Rose is worse than anyone on your list, more than a second worse than Wade.
> 
> Just a bad day? Or a symptom of inability to change directions?


I'm not exactly sure how the tests are conducted. One chance only? Best of 3? If Rose is worse than bigs like Thomas or Beasley, something seems strange. I suppose a slip could probably knock a half second off of your time.

Other interesting comparisons:

*Jay Williams*
no shoes - 6'0.25"
with shoes - 6'1.75"
weight - 197
wingspan - 6'3.5"
standing reach - 8'1"

*Deron Williams*
no shoes - 6'1.75"
with shoes - 6' 2.75"
weight - 202
wingspan - 6'6.25"
standing reach - 8'2"
no step vert - NA
max vert - 35.0
bench - 15
lane agility - 10.83
3/4 sprint - 3.25


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> The other thing that stood out for Rose, negatively, was the lane agility test. Significantly worse than Kirk.
> 
> His 3/4 court speed was good, 3.05 s, but just better than Kirk at 3.11 s.
> 
> In general, I think they are good to great, and I'm uncertain as to how much of a difference the height makes for Rose.





> Seems to be about the same size as Ben Gordon and the same speed as Kirk Hinrich. The 40" vertical is impressive, however.


The same speed as Kirk? When did these agility tests start meaning a damn thing? Wasn't Durant the worst athlete of last years class. Take the meaurements and throw the rest in the garbage.

There is no need to worry about Roses's athleticism in any way, so don't even bother comparing him to Kirk.

I'd say those numbers are just fine as well.

Beasley however is just as short as I thought. There isn't a dominant big in the league with his size. His verticals also weren't great. I will officially be heartbroken if we take Beasley now, but then I'll just pretend he dropped to 9 and be happy again.

I agree Doug was certainly a little biased in his scouting reports, Beasley is obviously his guy.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Dude you sound like you have a centers body and health stuck in the body of PG lol.
> 
> Too bad you dint stay healthy enough to get in the NBA but glad to hear your healthy now.
> 
> ...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hustle said:


> The same speed as Kirk? When did these agility tests start meaning a damn thing? Wasn't Durant the worst athlete of last years class. Take the meaurements and throw the rest in the garbage.
> 
> There is no need to worry about Roses's athleticism in any way, so don't even bother comparing him to Kirk.
> 
> ...



Good call -- oh, and apologies for posting a new thread on measurements, I didn't catch this in here.

But yeah, the agility, speed, and vertical tests aren't always accurate in the pre-draft camp. Measurements, weight, and bench press are gonna be consistent. But the other stuff only tells you so much about their athletic ability. There are ALWAYS goofy results that turn up in those things. I think you can discover good athletic traits with good performances, but I also wouldn't let poor performances define a player too much. That could be from a bad day, effort, or simply poor timing on the stop watch.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> What do you make of the lane agility times.
> 
> Rose is worse than anyone on your list, more than a second worse than Wade.
> 
> Just a bad day? Or a symptom of inability to change directions?


Lane agility drills test a person's combination of athletic ability and technique much more so than the vertical tests do. Considering that Rose is just a freshman, his experience with lane agility drills (something practiced much more in college than in high school) is considerably less than that of Hinrich (a senior at the time of his combine), Gordon (junior), and Wade (junior).

The vertical leap is nearly all based on natural ability (see Allen Iverson) and is considered to be one of the biggest indicators of athletic ability, but a couple inches can be gained by training the twitch muscles (see Amare Stoudemire post-microfracture surgery).

In my opinion, these measurements aren't as important in basketball as they are in football (take Kevin Durant last year, for example), but obviously bad numbers can raise red flags about a person's dedication to the sport.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Lane agility drills test a person's combination of athletic ability and technique much more so than the vertical tests do. Considering that Rose is just a freshman, his experience with lane agility drills (something practiced much more in college than in high school) is considerably less than that of Hinrich (a senior at the time of his combine), Gordon (junior), and Wade (junior).
> 
> The vertical leap is nearly all based on natural ability (see Allen Iverson) and is considered to be one of the biggest indicators of athletic ability, but a couple inches can be gained by training the twitch muscles (see Amare Stoudemire post-microfracture surgery).


Thanks. That gives a better context. I saw that ScottMay had posted a diagram of the drill at Realgm. It looks like something that you would have to practice at to do well on.

But, I mean, Beasley beat him by .3 seconds. 

I don't want to make it a big deal. Everything else is just great for a point guard (though it rules out his being able to guard 2's). I was just putting that result together with Doug's scouting report that Rose used his speed well in the open court, but not so much in the half court. 

I am wondering if Rose has a deficiency in side-to-side speed, and that is why Doug reported that his man always got around him (all the while acknowledging it could be the system Memphis ran).

Go Bulls!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> The same speed as Kirk? When did these agility tests start meaning a damn thing? Wasn't Durant the worst athlete of last years class. Take the meaurements and throw the rest in the garbage.
> 
> There is no need to worry about Roses's athleticism in any way, so don't even bother comparing him to Kirk.


Rose 3/4 sprint = 3.05
Hinrich 3/4 sprint = 3.10

I, for one, have never been worried about Hinrich's speed or lateral quickness.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I, for one, have never been worried about Hinrich's speed or lateral quickness.


Me neither but we are comparing him to a guy with phenominal speed. Where they might be close is lateral quickness, Kirk's is pretty good.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Hustle said:


> The same speed as Kirk? When did these agility tests start meaning a damn thing? Wasn't Durant the worst athlete of last years class. Take the meaurements and throw the rest in the garbage.
> 
> There is no need to worry about Roses's athleticism in any way, so don't even bother comparing him to Kirk.
> 
> ...


I agree about Doug and I haven't even heard his Rose podcast yet. Doug mentioned briefly about Beasley's non existent defense and seemed to shrug it off. Must be coaching.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Thanks Rhyder for posting those comparisons. Saved me a lot of time going to look that stuff up.


Some thoughts on the measurements.
I do expect more from guys that have spend long in college for the bench press and the lane agility test and these guys are both freshmen.
Beasley bench press if quite impressive, though, how much bearing it has on BBall is in question.
I was impressed by Beasley weight, after a few more years of weight training getting to 250 should be achievable.
Rose is a point guard. (i.e should only be guarding point guards)

At the end of the day they're both only 19 and you don't have a lot to go on. (As opposed to a college junior/senior)

The big question mark for me over Beasley is his defense. The question mark (not as big) over Rose for me is his ability to score, he put up ~20ppg on a good % in the tournament and played a different style in H.S, I'm curious about how much fitting into the system alter his game. 

Either way, I think you'd have to do some trading to make a balance team regardless of who we draft.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Beasley: 6'8.25" (w/shoes), 239 lbs, 7'0.25" wingspan, 8'11" standing reach
> 
> Rose: 6'2.5" (w/shoes), 196 lbs, 6'8" wingspan, 8'0.25" standing reach


Would I be wrong to say that Rose measured out better than Beasley? 

Beasley has ok averages for a PF, But I'm very surprised that Rose almost has the same Wingspan as Beasley who is 6 inches taller.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Would I be wrong to say that Rose measured out better than Beasley?
> 
> Beasley has ok averages for a PF, But I'm very surprised that Rose almost has the same Wingspan as Beasley who is 6 inches taller.


Rose undoubtedly measured out better. He's 6'2.5 in shoes which is plenty big enough. The NBA lists this as 6'3 anyways. His 6'8 wingspan is solid and should really help him defensively. The athletic tests validated what we already knew.

Honestly, there has to be real concern about Beasley playing PF on a full time basis. He's Tyrus Thomas without the wingspan or insane vertical (but with 20 lbs extra of course). 

This link is to the 2003 draft measurements: http://collegebasketballnews.scout.com/2/115362.html

You'll see that Beasley is nearly identical to Mike Sweetney on the height/wingspan/standing reach measurements. I think we all know that Sweets was too undersized to excel in the post. Another intersting comparison is Carmelo Anthony. Melo has a similar body type -- 1 inch shorter than Beasley and about 7 lbs which is proportionally about the same (also had similar college production as a freshman). This guy has tweener written all over him. 

ALSO -- some have brought up David West comparisons. David West measured out a full inch bigger than Beasley at 6'9.25 in shoes, with a MUCH bigger wingspan of 7'4, and standing reach of over 9'0. There more I look, the more I doubt Beasley's size...


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Beasley measurements are being blown out of proportion.
guys can and do produce in this league at that height. 

```
Weight wingspan standing reach
David Lee       230	7' 0"	     8' 10.5"
Drew Gooden     227	7' 0.5"	     8' 10.5"
Al Horford 	246	7' 0.75"     8' 11"
M Beasley       239     7' 0.25"     8' 11"
```
People assume because someone is the number 1 pick they have to be a franchise player or a superstar. You can only pick who's in the draft. If Shane Battier is the best player available in the draft then you draft him with the number one pick. Not every draft has a Duncan or a Shaq.

If Rose for some unfortunate reason, got seriously injuried tomorrow and never played bball again would you guys not take Beasley because of his height?????

I accept the argument that Rose is likely to be at least in the top 3 athletes at his position and we should draft him. But I doubt very much if we had the 2nd pick, and Rose was a lock to go number one, people would be saying don't pick at 2 Beasley cause his a tweener.

If Paxson thinks Beasley is the Best Player Available then you take him with the pick.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Rose undoubtedly measured out better. He's 6'2.5 in shoes which is plenty big enough. The NBA lists this as 6'3 anyways. His 6'8 wingspan is solid and should really help him defensively. The athletic tests validated what we already knew.
> 
> Honestly, there has to be real concern about Beasley playing PF on a full time basis. He's Tyrus Thomas without the wingspan or insane vertical (but with 20 lbs extra of course).
> 
> ...


Yeah, I have yet to find a good player-comparison for Beasley, and these measurements just confirm that...

He really is a tweener on the charts... the exact same height as Tyrus without the 7'3" wingspan and 39 inch vertical (or whatever it was) pretty much screams small forward... he's certainly capable of playing that position offensively in the NBA today... 

Here are some other players who measured out similar in height and wingspan to Beasley -

Taj Gray: 6'8.50", 7'.075"

Shelden Williams: 6'8.5", 7'4.25"

Ike Diogu: 6'8", 7'3.5"

Danny Granger: 6'8.5", 7'1.5"

Sean May: 6'8.5", 7'1.25"

Hakim Warrick: 6'8.5", 7'2"

Marvin Williams: 6'8.25", 7'3"

Trevor Ariza: 6'8.25, 7'2"
_
Luol Deng: 6'8", 7'.05"_


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> He's Tyrus Thomas without the wingspan or insane vertical (but with 20 lbs extra of course).


Do you just mean physically?

Because Beasley is 10 times the player and light years more skilled than Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you just mean physically?
> 
> Because Beasley is 10 times the player and light years more skilled than Tyrus Thomas.


I would think that's what he meant, yeah.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you just mean physically?
> 
> Because Beasley is 10 times the player and light years more skilled than Tyrus Thomas.


Yes sir, I was talking in the context of physical attributes. The main point being, Thomas is "bigger" by NBA physical standards. Because in the NBA, length is ultimately how "big" you are. 

Again, I'm not knocking Beasley's insane scoring skills. I have little doubt he'll be a career 20 ppg scorer. But I'm starting to wonder if he'll be in the Carmelo Anthony mold, where he's a "power 3". A strong guy who has the game of a small forward. I think he could really excel in that position.

But I'm constantly hearing that Beasley will fill our POST scoring needs. I really can't believe that anymore. Yes, there are guys his size who play in the post, but let's be real -- Drew Gooden, David Lee, and even Al Horford (who is still not much of a scorer yet) are not exactly dominant post scorers. Good rebounders, yes, but not post scorers. 

If we're not getting a pure post scoring threat with the #1 pick, then I don't understand why Beasley should be our pick.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

yodurk said:


> But I'm starting to wonder if he'll be in the Carmelo Anthony mold, where he's a "power 3". A strong guy who has the game of a small forward. I think he could really excel in that position.
> 
> But I'm constantly hearing that Beasley will fill our POST scoring needs. I really can't believe that anymore. Yes, there are guys his size who play in the post, but let's be real -- Drew Gooden, David Lee, and even Al Horford (who is still not much of a scorer yet) are not exactly dominant post scorers. Good rebounders, yes, but not post scorers.
> 
> If we're not getting a pure post scoring threat with the #1 pick, then I don't understand why Beasley should be our pick.


I'm starting to wonder that too. And you are right if we are not getting a dominant post scorer, there is just no reason to take Beasley. You really can't compare him to any dominant post scorer in the league, is he going to be the exception or is he gong to end up at the 3 spot.

Not only aren't Gooden, Horford, and Lee dominant post scorers but none of them would be the top talent of any draft ever. I really like all 3 BTW.

I do think he will be better than those guys but I don't know by how much, and I'm especially skeptical if he can dominate the paint on either side.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I never said those three were dominant post players, I simple said they were productive. 

Do people think his going to drop past the second pick because of his height?

If Rose didn't come out these year would you not take Beasley with the number 1 pick?

You'd take him give him a year or two to find his position and see how good he is and adjust your roster accordingly.

Personally, I'd take Rose with the number one pick now, but I know who'd I take if he wasn't in this draft.

Beasley is strong for a 19 year old and is 235 pounds+ now. The big question marks on him for me are his D and passing.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

back on topic

http://nbadraft.net/2008nbapredraftcamp009.asp

This is an article on the physicals. There's some good tables at the bottom of the page

"
Big 2

Michael Beasley

The big question came with a small answer, (well at least smaller than initially thought) as Beasley measured in at 6’ 8.25” with shoes. This may not seem too bad, but consider the fact that he was listed at 6’ 10”, yet is only 6’ 7” barefoot. It definitely raises some red flags as it puts him into the “undersized post player” category, along with the “not yet ready to play on the wing full time” that he has already been tagged with. He has a great build at 239 lbs and was able to pump 19 reps on the bench press. His 7’ 0.25” wingspan, 8’ 11” standing reach and 35” vertical are impressive, but still not exceptional to the point where they cancel out the height shortage completely.

Derrick Rose

Measured in at 6’ 2.5” and a solid 196 lbs, his wingspan is 6’ 8” with a 40” vertical. While he may be a little shorter than first thought, he still has good height for a point guard and the rest of his numbers are exceptional. One concern (it may just be an anomaly) is his somewhat slow 11.69s in the lane agility drill, he seems to have great quickness and lateral foot speed and such a high number doesn’t seem to fit him. "


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

darlets said:


> I never said those three were dominant post players, I simple said they were productive.
> 
> Do people think his going to drop past the second pick because of his height?
> 
> ...


I don't disagree w/ anything you're saying. Rose is our guy because he will likely be a dominant match up every night at his position. Beasley is still the undisputed #2 because he's a great scorer. I'm just not sold on him as a POST scorer (which was the point of my recent string of posts). If he even attempts to make a living in the post, I don't see the length/strength to get his shot off consistently. I see him getting his shot blocked alot. But, he seems to have plenty of other facets to score. And yeah, he doesn't seem to have any real defensive advantage, and his turnover rate seems suspect as well. Call me old school, I just really like players that do more than just score.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I was pro beasley based off his "old" measurements from the hoop summit (9
1" standing reach). But he seems to have shrunk. 

Rose's will be a handful physically night in and out at point guard. You can just plug him in at that position.

I can see teams just going at Beasley on the defensive end and trying to get him into foul trouble.

To change topics, some H.S stats of Rose's

"As a junior in 2005-06, averaged 20.1 points, 5.4 rebounds, 8.7 assists and 2.6 steals ... Shot 57 percent from the field ... Helped lead the Wolverines to a 33-4 record and the Illinois Class AA championship ... Simeon also won the Chicago city crown ... 

As a sophomore in 2004-05, averaged 19.8 points, 5.1 boards, 8.3 assists and 2.4 steals, while shooting 50 percent from the floor ... Simeon finished the 2004-05 campaign with a 30-5 record ... 

As freshman in 2003-04, averaged 18.5 points, 4.7 rebounds, 6.6 assists and 2.1 steals" 
http://gotigersgo.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/rose_derrick00.html

It's been suggested on Draftexpress that his assist total in college was lowered by the system he played in.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

basically what i got from this is that Beasley is undersized a bit and Rose is not quite the physical freak he has been hyped as ....not as good as hoped but not enough to devalue them from being 1 and 1a in the draft no matter who you favor.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

Da Grinch said:


> basically what i got from this is that Beasley is undersized a bit and Rose is not quite the physical freak he has been hyped as ....not as good as hoped but not enough to devalue them from being 1 and 1a in the draft no matter who you favor.


It would appear that Rose still IS that physical freak...just an inch shorter than advertised. So he'll be listed at 6'3" instead of 6'4".


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Case said:


> It would appear that Rose still IS that physical freak...just an inch shorter than advertised. So he'll be listed at 6'3" instead of 6'4".


his #'s were really good but basically there is a point guard every year who does just as well...he is just an inch or 2 taller than them.

just to name a few.

jordan farmar
jay williams
mike conley
tj ford

there are also guys like will bynum , daniel horton keydren clark and troy bell who have these types of #'s and cant even make it the league.

i dont know if i classify 1 or 2 inches in height enough to qualify for that 1 in a decade freak level people were exclaiming with rose.

rose's numbers are actuually pretty close to kirk hinrich's no slouch athletically but no freak either.

i pretty much take combine #s like this , if they are good ...thats great , if i thought a guy was an athlete and he's real poor its a red flag


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> his #'s were really good but basically there is a point guard every year who does just as well...he is just an inch or 2 taller than them.
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> ...


Combine Workout numbers are overrated. There's having a good workout, and there's being able to translate that on the court. Rose translates his athleticism on the court as well as anyone I've seen in recent memory. At least he has to date. Can he do it in the NBA? We'll see.


But your evaluation of height is a bit off. Its the standing reach that is important, and in that respect, Rose TOWERS over everyone above.

Its worth noting also, that of that group, only Conley was the same age as rose (and much shorter when standing reach is factored in). Both Farmar and Ford were a year older, and Williams was 2 years older.

This is significant, because his body is likely to be a bit more mature a year from now, and his combine numbers likely would have benefitted from that maturity as well.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Combine Workout numbers are overrated. There's having a good workout, and there's being able to translate that on the court. Rose translates his athleticism on the court as well as anyone I've seen in recent memory. At least he has to date. Can he do it in the NBA? We'll see.
> 
> 
> But your evaluation of height is a bit off. Its the standing reach that is important, and in that respect, Rose TOWERS over everyone above.
> ...


1st of all rose turns 20 in oct. making him 1 yr, younger than jay will as a draftee who turned 21 in nov. of 2002...whom i believe skipped a yr. somwhere in school, in reality ....while rose actually left school a year late...so your years are off on his physical maturity..beasley also was born in 1989 as opposed to 1988 for rose, for instance sophmore russell westbrook is actually a month younger than rose. farmar and ford actually turned 20 the year they were drafted same as rose.

jay will has a 8'1. standing reach, rose has a 8'2.5 standing reach he really isn't this guy you are touting him as , 

troy bell 8'1.5

towers?

i dont think so , just a bit taller his dimensions are about where ben gordon's are, whose standing reach is at 8'3 no one was declaring gordon would tower over point guards if he played that position.kirk's is at 8'2.5, chris duhon 8'2 i dont see it being all that important....and even if it is its not a significant amount of inches or in years of physical maturation.

personally maybe our definitions differ , i would consider a guy like shaun livingston to tower over point guards, he has a 8'9 standing reach and is 6'8 in sneakers , not rose, whom i would say is just somewhat above avg.

he is a big pg, but not freakishly big, i dont see deron williams being called freakishly big and he is the same size , except he has more bulk, this is what i mean by a hype machine gone awry.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> basically what i got from this is that Beasley is undersized a bit and *Rose is not quite the physical freak he has been hyped as* ....not as good as hoped but not enough to devalue them from being 1 and 1a in the draft no matter who you favor.


How many point guards can do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6G_RRGHzfA

Baron Davis, maybe, anyone else?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

hehe I love this comment...



> history repeats itself...
> once again lakers vs. celtics in the finals...
> bulls can hire doug collins again?
> bulls draft a superstar and collins coaches him in the beginning years during the lakers vs. celtics era
> ...


----------



## Miracles (May 12, 2008)

Hustle said:


> How many point guards can do this?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6G_RRGHzfA
> 
> Baron Davis, maybe, anyone else?


Uhm...cap'n kirk...maybe...seeing as how their athletic grades in work outs are soooo close? Maybe not.  just my stupid attempt at humor, forgive me please. -willieblack-


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hustle said:


> How many point guards can do this?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6G_RRGHzfA
> 
> Baron Davis, maybe, anyone else?


Nobody else.



> 1st of all rose turns 20 in oct. making him 1 yr, younger than jay will as a draftee who turned 21 in nov. of 2002...


I was wrong there. But 1 year is still 1 year.



> whom i believe skipped a yr. somwhere in school, in reality *....while rose actually left school a year late...*


No he didn't. You can't start school if your birthday is AFTER September in most school districts. As you can see his birthday is in October. So he had to wait until nearly the END of his 5th birthday year to start school. Its actually very common and is something my daughter has had to deal with. She'll be 2 months after starting the 1st grade behind that stupidity. He just happened to be one of the first people to turn 6 in his class, and so on and so forth. THe same with Beasley, who is only a couple months younger. That isn't them leaving school late. He was still 18 when he graduated.



> so your years are off on his physical maturity.


Not really. He's MONTHS older than I thought, not years. 



> beasley also was born in 1989 as opposed to 1988 for rose


Again, you are arguing about months, not years. Isn't his birthday in january or february? AT MOST you are talking about the same difference between January and MAY. 4 months. I'm pretty sure you already knew this.:sad:



> for instance sophmore russell westbrook is actually a month younger than rose. farmar and ford actually turned 20 the year they were drafted same as rose.


Again, explained above. I was wrong about his age by MONTHS, but not years. Either way, physical maturity is not just about the amount of years you've been on the planet, but also what kind of rigors you expose your body to and how it learns to recover. Its not farfetched to arrive at the conclusion that the longer you play and practice at a higher level, the more mature your body becomes. We could debate this on scientific merit, but you would lose.



> jay will has a 8'1. standing reach, rose has a 8'2.5 standing reach he really isn't this guy you are touting him as
> 
> troy bell 8'1.5
> 
> ...


Relative degrees. I disagree. Lets just leave this portion of the discussion there.



> personally maybe our definitions differ


Perhaps.



> i would consider a guy like shaun livingston to tower over point guards, he has a 8'9 standing reach and is 6'8 in sneakers , not rose, whom i would say is just somewhat above avg.


Thats an extreme, and I do agree. But Rose is NOT above average for PG's. He plays bigger than MOST of them. That's not just "Somewhat above average " to me. But again, tomato, tah-mah-toe.



> he is a big pg, but not freakishly big, i dont see deron williams being called freakishly big and he is the same size , except he has more bulk, this is what i mean by a hype machine gone awry.


I don't believe I ever used the word "freakishly big" to describe him. So scratch that accusation right there. Most of my previous post (the part you conveniently ignored), was centered around the argument of how well your athleticism translates on the court, and my point regarding that still stands. I've actually watched him play. Extensively. And not because I thought we had a snowballs chance in hell at landing him. I was just curious as to what all the hype was about, and like you are now, at one time, I was VERY skeptical. But I can't think of a single PG in the league now who is willing to even attempt to dunk in traffic the way I watched him do it on numerous occasions.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and this means what exactly ? i never said years i said a year , you want to be a stickler about word usage than you need to tighten up on the words we use.

also i dont know what school district he came out of and i really donrt care , i just know he isn't as young as you are making him out to be, that cant be disputed he turns 20 this year , and usually whether due to day care or the fact that 2/3s of people are simply born before september when the school term starts he is or was finishing a year later than most as far as what year he was born....for instance most of the people i named at pg didn't have that issue.





> Not really. He's MONTHS older than I thought, not years.


nope stil a *year* 



Again, you are arguing about months, not years. Isn't his birthday in january or february? AT MOST you are talking about the same difference between January and MAY. 4 months. I'm pretty sure you already knew this.:sad:

its still the next year i never used years , whats sad is you are still pounding points that dont exist like that whole stat argument thread you supposedly ended ...when i never used a single stat, in fact if you go and re-read it you will see it was you using all the numbers.


http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...stics-argument-passing-rose-bed-shall-we.html




> Again, explained above. I was wrong about his age by MONTHS, but not years. Either way, physical maturity is not just about the amount of years you've been on the planet, but also what kind of rigors you expose your body to and how it learns to recover. Its not farfetched to arrive at the conclusion that the longer you play and practice at a higher level, the more mature your body becomes. We could debate this on scientific merit, but you would lose.



well then most of the time growing up he was basically among the oldest kids in his class, if not the oldest(no one has ever proven if it was a school district thing or if he was simply held back) , and when you are younger that can mean alot




> Relative degrees. I disagree. Lets just leave this portion of the discussion there.



why?

you want to talk about *towering* over other pg's , and really he doesn't not all just most, a guy like shaun livingston towers over pg's because he is the biggest one, a guy like rose is just a bit taller than most , but even so there are others like crawford who measured 6'6 (really 6'5 and a half but since we are rounding off on rose why not right). there is also arenas , jason kidd, acie law beno udrih , marko jaric and randy foye, all of whom are listed at least 6'4 most of whom with a standing reach equal or above rose's








> Thats an extreme, and I do agree. But Rose is NOT above average for PG's. He plays bigger than MOST of them. That's not just "Somewhat above average " to me. But again, tomato, tah-mah-toe.


its not really a tomato , tom-mah-toe thing these are actual #s either he is , or he isn't





> I don't believe I ever used the word "freakishly big" to describe him. So scratch that accusation right there. Most of my previous post (the part you conveniently ignored), was centered around the argument of how well your athleticism translates on the court, and my point regarding that still stands. I've actually watched him play. Extensively. And not because I thought we had a snowballs chance in hell at landing him. I was just curious as to what all the hype was about, and like you are now, at one time, I was VERY skeptical. But I can't think of a single PG in the league now who is willing to even attempt to dunk in traffic the way I watched him do it on numerous occasions.


actually i have been using freak and it was case who has disputed me on that one not you, a mistake i can admit to unlike you on that whole statistical argument thing aforementioned on this thread, when i was speaking about role, not numbers which you so causally missed time and again .

i've seen rose and he is really athletic but you act as though he is the only guard who has taken it to the hole in college , i've seen AI dunk over big men in college and have his privates in the man face , i've seen marbury catch reverse alley oops and do windmills , crawford has thrown the ball off the backboard and dunked it at least 5 times as a pro all in traffic , heck a guy like keyon dooling catches dunks in traffic on a semi regular basis ,truthfully the highlights aren't that important , tony parker is the best pg finisher in the game and he never dunks it , whats important is that goes in....and of course there are a couple of guards in G.S. in monta ellis and baron davis who can really take it into the interior and get resluts in spectacular fashion

the bulls need a guy to be their kobe, wade, LBJ, deron williams, nash or chris paul , that means more than ochestrating that means sometimes he has to be the guy who they run plays for maybe 15-20 times in a row at the end of games for him to be that kind of star people keep saying he can be , even by your own admission they ran plays for CDR all the time , its a role that for all the hype thrown on him , he hasn't been in ....thats a huge red warning sign to me, beasley on the other hand has proven he is capable of being in that role at least at the college level ...maybe physically he is too small for it supposedly, but chances are thats not the case , there have been smaller guys with his skillset who were capable like barkley or larry johnson before he got hurt , if he cant do it , its because he just wasn't good enough , not a lack of physical talent to do it.

and CDR is no beasley there is no way , he would hav been deferring to him , and I cant see Calipari asking him to.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

i don't know why people are so hung up on the post scoring. beasley scoring from wherever would be nice.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

theyoungsrm said:


> i don't know why people are so hung up on the post scoring. beasley scoring from wherever would be nice.


because we haven't had it since Eddy Curry


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Stats Rose vs. Beasley Against NBA-Caliber Competition

For what it's worth.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

darlets said:


> Stats Rose vs. Beasley Against NBA-Caliber Competition
> 
> For what it's worth.





> Per-40 minute pace adjusted numbers for Beasley and Rose against NBA-caliber competition:
> 
> Beasley: 8.8/17.9, 25.4ppg, 11.8rpg, 1.0apg, 3.9topg
> Rose: 7.9/15.9, 22.1ppg, 7.5rpg, 6.4apg, 3.5topg


I bet no one thought stats could be used against Beasley. Rose's competition was also more talented than Beasley's by a lot.



theyoungsrm said:


> i don't know why people are so hung up on the post scoring. beasley scoring from wherever would be nice.


No I think it is especially important he scores inside. We already have shooters. If Beasley is taking shots instead of posting up or taking it to the basket all he is doing is spreading the floor a bit and making the team a slightly better jump shooting team. We would need him to open up the outside by being doubled down low and scoring down low.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm beginning to think Beasley will be Carmelo Anthony on offensive and Drew Gooden on Defense/Rebounding.

Draftexpress compares him to Gooden on D and his standing reach, wing span are very similar. 

Drew (draft weight)
Weight Wingspan Standing Reach 
227	7' 0.5" 8' 10.5"
Beasley
Weight Wingspan Standing Reach
239	7' 0.25" 8' 11"

Anthony 
Max Vert 33.5
Rep 7	
Lane 11.40

Beasley
Max Vert 35.0	
Rep 19	
Lane 11.06

Long term 22-24ppg/9rpg with mediocre defense.

Not a super star (top 10 player) but a top 30 player.

Anyway that's my speculation for the night. eace:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hustle said:


> I bet no one thought stats could be used against Beasley. Rose's competition was also more talented than Beasley's by a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> No I think it is especially important he scores inside. We already have shooters. If Beasley is taking shots instead of posting up or taking it to the basket all he is doing is spreading the floor a bit and making the team a slightly better jump shooting team. We would need him to open up the outside by being doubled down low and scoring down low.


If you follow the link, their idea of "NBA Talent" is pretty liberal... Brian Butch, Drew Neitzel and the like aren't exactly NBA quality defenders... and I like those guys...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Dornado said:


> If you follow the link, their idea of "NBA Talent" is pretty liberal... Brian Butch, Drew Neitzel and the like aren't exactly NBA quality defenders... and I like those guys...


But that is not all that relevant to the numbers. A lot of those guys are not NBA talent, but this was the best competition both players faced.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hustle said:


> But that is not all that relevant to the numbers. A lot of those guys are not NBA talent, but this was the best competition both players faced.


Well, if a lot of the guys weren't NBA talent then I don't know exactly what we can deduce from the stats... 

So they both put up decent numbers over a small sample size of games against talent far below what they'll see at the next level.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Know what I say? Trade the #1 pick for their ****ing coach, Riley


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Well, if a lot of the guys weren't NBA talent then I don't know exactly what we can deduce from the stats...
> 
> So they both put up decent numbers over a small sample size of games against talent far below what they'll see at the next level.


Okay i guess we should never look at a college stats then? 

It shows that when Beasley was put up against tougher college level competition his numbers were not as godly. 

When Rose was put up against tougher college level competition he stepped his game up probably because that was when his team needed him. Good college teams usually have good college level point guards.

It shows that Rose was closer to Beasley statistically when Rose had the minutes and was needed to step up. Beasley was always needed to step up so I take more from the Rose numbers. 

That said nothing is going to change my mind about wanting Rose so you can chalk it up to favoritism but I think these numbers do show something.


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

Hustle said:


> But that is not all that relevant to the numbers. A lot of those guys are not NBA talent, but this was the best competition both players faced.


we will agree to disagree...

but on review of the 'best teams faced'... i really don't think the sample shows much other than a list of roses best statistical games of the year... both teams played and beat usc... memphis beat texas... k-state beat kansas... competition level was even at best... what we can agree on is that there is absolutely no question at all that rose was on a much, much better team with much higher talent around him and better coaching

if the analysis is based on play against "nba-caliber players"... by simply switching out beasley's worst statistical game (5pts vs josh duncan of xavier who had 12.4pt 4.7reb 49.6fg%) for his best (44pts vs kevin rogers of baylor who had 12.3pts 8.5reb and 50fg%) or even for the two mizzou games (17 and 40pts vs leo lyons 13.4pt 5.7reb 58.3fg% and demarre carroll 13.0pt 6.7reb and 53.6fg%) all three players with better numbers than xaviers duncan and two declared for this years draft, slants the "statistical proof theory" and the sample wildly in beasley's direction... i mean, are you saying that alec maric and connor atchley aren't 'nba caliber'?

the numbers game can be played in any direction.. and so can the "potential" and other intangibles such as "leadership" and "effort"... all i can say is watch several games of each player or a sampling of their work and then decide who is the 'best player available' and make the pick... if that is rose, it's fine with me

it's not my intent to lobby for anyone, just to observe the lengths some go to tear down beasley to convince themselves that rose is the best player with the greater upside... we both understand how first-hand how the media and hype machine works, i mean, tyler hansbrough was the college basketball player-of-the-year and rose wasn't even first team all-american


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I really don't think you can split the pair based on what they've done. You can only split them by team need, position they play or some perceived better potential of one over the other.

Personally I think they're way more like to be top 30 all league talent than top 10.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Can't remember who said, but I really thought this Beasley comparison was right on the money:

Carmelo Anthony on offense (inside-outside game, thick body, physical, 25-pt type of scorer)

Drew Gooden on defense (good athletic rebounder, average length, occasionally good, but occasionally gets abused by some matchups)


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> and this means what exactly ? i never said years i said a year , you want to be a stickler about word usage than you need to tighten up on the words we use.


Only if we were arguing in court. But even your use of the word year is incorrect, since it isn't 12 months. Its 4. Last time I checked 4 months isn't a year except maybe on Mercury or Venus.



> also i dont know what school district he came out of and i really donrt care , i just know he isn't as young as you are making him out to be, that cant be disputed he turns 20 this year


And I'm not disputing it. I've already acknowledged as much. Repeating it isn't going to bolster anything.



> and usually whether due to day care or the fact that 2/3s of people are simply born before september


Where did you pull THAT from? Or did you just use the most simple math possible based on the number of months? I would venture to guess that 2/3 of the people in this country are NOT born before september actually. But that's not relevant, except to highlight your OWN set of leaps you must make to formulate your argument. It really isn't all that different than anyone else's.



> when the school term starts he is or was finishing a year later than most as far as what year he was born....for instance most of the people i named at pg didn't have that issue.


We are still talking about months. And not 12 of them. Not even 9 of them. And most of the people you named at PG were still around the same age or older than him. So this is irrelavent.



> its still the next year i never used years , whats sad is you are still pounding points that dont exist like that whole stat argument thread you supposedly ended ...when i never used a single stat, in fact if you go and re-read it you will see it was you using all the numbers.


I will allow for that, and even apologize for it. Though I've long since let go of "pounding" anything. That's reaching. Terribly. Though I'll point out two things about it. 

1) I wasn't arguing just with you. There were others who used the same argument and included stats. Since your argument was similar to theirs minus the stats, I merely used yours as a launching point for the discussion. That may have been an error, HOWEVER:

2) Your argument DID make claims that can only be effectively argued two ways: Either you watched MOST of ALL of his games at Memphis, and are making your judgements based STRICTLY on observation of that SUM total, and NOTHING ELSE (which would make your entire argument subjective).

OR 

Your argument requires stats in order to retain any measure of validation. That you did not include them does makes me suspect the former position, but it does not invalidate my argument against those who did. Don't make the mistake of assuming that you are important enough by yourself for me to dedicate enough time and energy to debating ad-nauseum alone. I have a wife and 3 kids, work 70 hours a week, and spend the rest of my time that isn't with them, studying. I simply don't have enough time to make you that important.

That said, I'll allow that you weren't making a statistical argument, and I apologize for using your post as a launching pad for my point.


http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...stics-argument-passing-rose-bed-shall-we.html




> you want to talk about *towering* over other pg's , and really he doesn't not all just most, a guy like shaun livingston towers over pg's because he is the biggest one, a guy like rose is just a bit taller than most , but even so there are others like crawford who measured 6'6 (really 6'5 and a half but since we are rounding off on rose why not right). there is also arenas , jason kidd, acie law beno udrih , marko jaric and randy foye, all of whom are listed at least 6'4 most of whom with a standing reach equal or above rose's


He isn't playing, and likely won't play anytime soon. But point taken and acknowledged.



> actually i have been using freak and it was case who has disputed me on that one not you, a mistake i can admit to unlike you on that whole statistical argument thing aforementioned on this thread, when i was speaking about role, not numbers which you so causally missed time and again.


Time and again? We had, what, 3 exchanges tops over that? And the first one wasn't even about you, as much as the argument. Again, get over yourself. You aren't that important.



> i've seen rose and he is really athletic but you act as though he is the only guard who has taken it to the hole in college,


No I'm not, and I never said as much. You are reaching again.



> i've seen AI dunk over big men in college and have his privates in the man face,


He isn't really helping an argument AGAINST drafting rose.



> i've seen marbury catch reverse alley oops and do windmills


I couldn't care less about alley oops and windmills. This is irrelavent.



> crawford has thrown the ball off the backboard and dunked it at least 5 times as a pro all in traffic , heck a guy like keyon dooling catches dunks in traffic on a semi regular basis ,truthfully the highlights aren't that important


All irrelavent. You have erroneously assumed that I care in the least about sportcenter highlights. I don't.



> tony parker is the best pg finisher in the game and he never dunks it , whats important is that goes in....and of course there are a couple of guards in G.S. in monta ellis and baron davis who can really take it into the interior and get resluts in spectacular fashion


It's the results I care about, not the spectacular fashion. Its his WILLINGNESS TO CHALLENGE in traffic that I was impressed with. Not whether or not they made sportscenter. As I recall, most of those moments didn't.



> the bulls need a guy to be their kobe, wade, LBJ, deron williams, nash or chris paul , that means more than ochestrating that means sometimes he has to be the guy who they run plays for maybe 15-20 times in a row at the end of games for him to be that kind of star people keep saying he can be , even by your own admission they ran plays for CDR all the time , its a role that for all the hype thrown on him , he hasn't been in....


This is a lie. He was in that role CONSTANTLY PRIOR to THIS SEASON.



> and CDR is no beasley there is no way , he would hav been deferring to him , and I cant see Calipari asking him to.


SO now you speak for Calipari too? Maybe your problem is that you are arrogant enough to believe you know what a Hall of Fame level coach would do. Hey I got an idea, maybe YOU should be coaching at that level.

**I've no desire to keep this up. I have better things to do with my time than dedicate roughly 8 hours a week typing responses to this type of stuff. Lets just end it here.**


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Can't remember who said, but I really thought this Beasley comparison was right on the money:
> 
> Carmelo Anthony on offense (inside-outside game, thick body, physical, 25-pt type of scorer)
> 
> Drew Gooden on defense (good athletic rebounder, average length, occasionally good, but occasionally gets abused by some matchups)


That was me. It's worth noting though, he is a slightly better athelete than Melo and shot a higher fg%, 3p% and ft% in college. 


```
MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
02-03 Syracuse   36.4  45.3   33.7  70.6 10.0  2.2  2.2  0.9  1.6  22.2
```


```
Year	League	GP	Min	Pts	FG%	FT%	3Pt	3PtA	3P%	Off	Def	TOT	Asts	Stls	Blks	TOs	PFs
2007/08	NCAA	33	31.5	26.2	53.2	77.4	1.1	2.9	37.9	4.0	8.4	12.4	1.2	1.3	1.6	2.9	2.6
```
Beasley is quite strong for a 19 year old. He had one less bench press than Horford. And Horford was a Junior when he came out.

The big thing with him is can you find him someone to defend?
Is he better suited to small forward?

Is a forward rotation of TT, Deng and Beasley good enough defensively?

He might be very well suited to Miami's team, with their forward line up and to be the secondary scorer behind Wade.

I think with Beasley you really need a PF post defender to play along side him and play him at small forward and only play him at PF against the back up PF.

Lots and lots of question about Beasley on D.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

darlets said:


> That was me. It's worth noting though, he is a slightly better athelete than Melo and shot a higher fg%, 3p% and ft% in college.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


It's funny -- if we had the luxury of playing Noah at PF, I would almost consider Beasley & Noah to be an excellent SF/PF combination, if you wanted to go really big. But then we have a gaping hole at center. I'd much rather just get our 5 best players on the floor rather than worrying about positions that much.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Only if we were arguing in court. But even your use of the word year is incorrect, since it isn't 12 months. Its 4. Last time I checked 4 months isn't a year except maybe on Mercury or Venus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you really should be embarrased.

you want to disagree wirth me at every turn but get proven wrong so you need you invent things, thats ok , to each their own ....the posts are for every1 to read in black and white.

you misread what i wrote about role and made a whole thread about a stats analysis that never existed...i'm still mystified about that especially since 

i write a post that says basically his numbers weren't freakish he was just a bit taller than most but was athletic and you make up some stuff about standing reach being so important ...not realizing his standing reach only further illustrated my point, he was taller than most but not really in the class of the really big point guards in the nba (livingston, Crawford )

you then make up some stuff about his physical maturity ...when he was not really so much younger than most of the people i listed and he was older than some guards that were sophmores like westbrook.

this is funny that you can get so worked up over this ...and the funny thing is I think when you read my posts is that i dont say which player is a better pro prospect ,simply put i just say based on their past Beasley has proven more ready at this point to be a lead guy in the nba .

and thats it .

your posts are almost comical in the sense of how you want to annoint rose the next big thing , which he very well may be , but it would be hard to fathom how your posts show how thats likely("its standing reach thats important" were you really serious with that ?)

and what is that you've seen that we could have read about ?

all you posted about was better than avg. #s to make a mountain out of a molehill, nothing even close to substantial in anything in this thread...in truth the lack of anything in your posts about his "point guard qualities" is really very telling that you are just a fanboy and thats all fine and dandy you like the guy and you like his game, thats great but the tone of your posts and the manner in which you are trying to debate or convert me is silly .

a _towering_ standing reach that was less than 2 inches different from jay will a player who was once erronerously thought to have "gator arms"


you go on and on and you say nothing really and thats ok this is a purely speculative thread ...most of us here understand that and no one is taking the tone in their posts that you are , you are the one who is reaching going in all directions and not really saying anything but acting like you have dropped some great knowledge.I'm not impressed .

you are done fine be done , but dont act like you did me a favor coming on here I too have a life outside of this forum and if you cant actually make point worth a darn maybe its best you do let it go.

i've gone over your posts in the last few pages , the end of this post that i'm responding to is actually the only time you have actually spoken about what he's done in an actual game( you like how he takes it to the paint) everything else has been about cockeyed numbers from standing reach to comparing freshman guards stats from different eras birth dates and his ahem physical maturity

i can only deduce you have been arguing for the sake of arguing or "debating" or whatever and you got frustrated because i dont really agree with you and have told you why , you started a whole thread about a post of mine and i wasn't even responding to you , it was a post to yodurk...and you wanted to call my post out on a basis that had no point (stats when i didn't use any) i find fault with myself in that i kept taking this bait and kept it going.

post over.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

yodurk said:


> It's funny -- if we had the luxury of playing Noah at PF, I would almost consider Beasley & Noah to be an excellent SF/PF combination, if you wanted to go really big. But then we have a gaping hole at center. I'd much rather just get our 5 best players on the floor rather than worrying about positions that much.


Yeah, agreed. The only other way I see it working on the bulls is if TT goes on to become a guy who can guard both forward positions. So you just put Beasley on the second guy. But that's a big IF

I kinda hate splitting who you take with the 1st pick by team need and team fit, but it really seems like the only way I can split these two. I don't have enough info to say ones better or going to be better than the other. 

I also considered for a while that drafting both require a bit of a roster reshuffle and considered that a push. But the more I look at it, the more Rose seems like the pick.

You can just plug him in at PG. Physically at least his going to have a good chance of matching up on a vast majority of point guards in the league. The only special requirement for the guard you play along side him is that he be able to shoot well, which for a shooting guard isn't a big ask.

With Beasley you really have to expect the other forward to be a very versatile defender, or have a really versatile forward rotation. (A guy that can guard the post and a guy that can guard small forwards and plug them in around him depending on match up)


----------



## 4putt (May 21, 2008)

time to pick the tool that fits the best...


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

hahah clever picture


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Anyone that's interested should watch a bit of Memphis/Texas from the Elite 8... just follow this link, and look for Sunday, March 30th in the pull-down menu...

All of the NCAA Tourney Games on Demand

Rose really shows some of his upside in the first half... makes his first 4 shots or so, grabs boards, breaks down his defender... good to see.


----------

