# Tyrus Thomas, Lamarcus Aldridge, Joakim Noah Combo thread



## such sweet thunder

Just finished watching Texas - WVA. I would be absolutely pleased if we came away with Aldridge from this years draft. He has a complete pro-skill set that will make him an instant impact player: plays defense like a pro; passes out of a double-team like a pro; doesn't draw ticky-tack fouls so he'll be able to stay on the court as a pro; runs the open court like a pro; establishes position like a pro; turn around jumper will be effective as a pro. And, most of all, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the five best rebounders in the league next year.

Aldridge reminds me a lot of Iguodala in that his deficiencies will not hamper his ability to learn on the court. He may not have an arsenal of post moves, but that will come. He catches everything and does the type of things that could help the Bulls win right now. 

On a side note, good luck to whomever drafts Daniel Gibson next year. Half the reason Aldridge's hands are so good is Gibson has been feeding him some of the ugliest passes this side of Khalid El-Amin. Most pros are not going to be able to handle that garbage. Add in the brutal shot selection, and bad on-court decisions and you have a recipe for disaster.


----------



## T.Shock

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Yea Gibson needs to stay at Texas and learn how to run the point. He looked awful tonight but yea LaMarcus was definitely on the top of his game. I still like Morrison (despite the idiocy of J.P. Batista and Derek Raivio) but Aldridge's game looks better for what we need right now.


----------



## such sweet thunder

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I haven't seen Morrison yet (we only get tournament games) so my post wasn't comparing the two. Maybe Morrison could be the star we were looking for? Regardless, I bet the Bulls are instantly a playoff team with Aldridge on the roster.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I agree that Aldridge is what we need out of a post player. He brings a skill set that no one on our roster comes close to (unfortuantely). He would likely be a starter from day one. His ability is also yet to be realized since the texas guards are so bad and selfish. He's already everything Chandler should be but isn't. Outside of being a shot blocker, he's a better player than Chandler now.

Morrison is a very good shooter and has a fire you love to see in a guy. But again, does he really bring what we are lacking? Does he bring such a complete game that we would move an existing starter and be able to win with the current holes? I keep answering no. He a good, not great player. I'm sorry, but I've watch 6 or 7 of his games this season and he is given the benefit of calls that he's not gonna get in the NBA (just ask Kirk Hinrich). Also, his defense really is poor. Ask Ben Gordon what happens - doesn't matter how good your offense is, you give up too many points on the other end and get your frontcourt in foul trouble. Can Morrison be a all-star caliber player - maybe, if he's only judged on offense. Would he be an NBA top 100 all-time player - No. I don't see anyone in this draft of that caliber. So if there are a number of guys close in talent and impact range, gotta fill a need. Getting Morrison causes us to have to move Deng and he's our best player and a much better two way player than Morrison. Yeah, we might be able to bulk up Deng and get him minutes at the PF spot, but ask Kirk Hinrich how well that works in the long run.


----------



## Showtyme

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



such sweet thunder said:


> Just finished watching Texas - WVA. I would be absolutely pleased if we came away with Aldridge from this years draft. He has a complete pro-skill set that will make him an instant impact player: plays defense like a pro; passes out of a double-team like a pro; doesn't draw ticky-tack fouls so he'll be able to stay on the court as a pro; runs the open court like a pro; establishes position like a pro; turn around jumper will be effective as a pro. And, most of all, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the five best rebounders in the league next year.
> 
> Aldridge reminds me a lot of Iguodala in that *his deficiencies will not hamper his ability to learn on the court. He may not have an arsenal of post moves, but that will come. He catches everything and does the type of things that could help the Bulls win right now.*


Great post. Helped me come to a decision on him myself. I think that the "Iggy in a big man's body" is a perfect analogy.



> On a side note, good luck to whomever drafts Daniel Gibson next year. Half the reason Aldridge's hands are so good is Gibson has been feeding him some of the ugliest passes this side of Khalid El-Amin. Most pros are not going to be able to handle that garbage. Add in the brutal shot selection, and bad on-court decisions and you have a recipe for disaster.


Totally true. But I think that he's going to be able to get drafted anyway because he is quick and really aggressive, and a good handler. Terrible passing vision, though, and not a generally good passer. Aldridge really spoiled him.


----------



## TripleDouble

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I think there's some doubt about Aldridge because he's skinny but not an elite athlete. He is very skilled though and has good instincts. I've said a few times that I think his development as a pro will be based on his ability to put on useful weight.


----------



## such sweet thunder

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



TripleDouble said:


> I think there's some doubt about Aldridge because he's skinny but not an elite athlete. He is very skilled though and has good instincts. I've said a few times that I think his development as a pro will be based on his ability to put on useful weight.


 I've heard that knock. . . and I don't really see it on two accounts.

First, Aldridge has a Yao Ming type frame. He has a lot of weight on his lower body so he is deceptively strong. He positions himself well and I don't think weight will be much of a factor.

Second, Aldridge is more of a slippery-type rebounder. I actually think he blocks out too much. He is at his best when he just moves around the hoop chasing the ball. More of a Rodman-type of rebounder than a Shaq-type. Aldridge's instincts on the glass really are superb. I don't think his ability to clear the ball is all that dependant on his strength. 

In many ways his frame looks to me like the new-prototype for center: a little bit smaller, more agile, and quicker in transition.


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



such sweet thunder said:


> Just finished watching Texas - WVA. I would be absolutely pleased if we came away with Aldridge from this years draft. He has a complete pro-skill set that will make him an instant impact player: plays defense like a pro; passes out of a double-team like a pro; doesn't draw ticky-tack fouls so he'll be able to stay on the court as a pro; runs the open court like a pro; establishes position like a pro; turn around jumper will be effective as a pro. And, most of all, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the five best rebounders in the league next year.
> 
> Aldridge reminds me a lot of Iguodala in that his deficiencies will not hamper his ability to learn on the court. He may not have an arsenal of post moves, but that will come. He catches everything and does the type of things that could help the Bulls win right now.
> 
> On a side note, good luck to whomever drafts Daniel Gibson next year. Half the reason Aldridge's hands are so good is Gibson has been feeding him some of the ugliest passes this side of Khalid El-Amin. Most pros are not going to be able to handle that garbage. Add in the brutal shot selection, and bad on-court decisions and you have a recipe for disaster.


I don't think Gibson will be coming out. You've got to make a pretty significant impact to get drafted high as a combo guard, and he hasn't made one this year. He's the third best player on that team. Going into the season he looked like an Iverson type lottery pick, at this point he's mid first round at best, IMHO.

Aldridge had a nice game but I'm still not sold. Texas has made it to the Elite 8 playing low seeds and teams with no interior presence, I've seen too many lackluster performances from Aldridge this year for me to get excited about him. I hope Texas keeps advancing so I can get a better look but as of now I don't see him as a sure thing.


----------



## DaBullz

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



such sweet thunder said:


> I haven't seen Morrison yet (we only get tournament games) so my post wasn't comparing the two. Maybe Morrison could be the star we were looking for? Regardless, I bet the Bulls are instantly a playoff team with Aldridge on the roster.


As I watched Gonzaga lose to UCLA in the last seconds of the game, I couldn't help but think that Pax and Skiles were watching the game together. I was looking at Morrison and wondering what it'd be like for him to be on the court for the Bulls. Pax was looking at Morrison and wondering what he'd look like with a shave and a haircut. Skiles was looking at Morrison and wondering what he'd look like on the bench.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I was talking with my buddy yesterday about how big men are so hard to judge. Because the quality and unselfishness of your guards have such a huge effect on the big man's ability to produce numbers. Like last night, Bradley's guards couldn't slash past the free throw line, nor could they find daylight to feed O'Bryant (he finished with 8 points on 8 shots, mostly off put-backs); though that speaks volumes about how good Memphis is. Same with Aldridge though, it's hard to get a read on him because of his guards. And Shelden Williams is the opposite...his numbers could very well be inflated because he plays in an unselfish system with unselfish players. Guards control the game, and big man is only as good as the guards make him (the NBA example of this is the Knicks, who have some real talent on the frontline, but a horrible group of perimeter players).

Anyway, back to Aldridge. I haven't seen much of him this year, but I chose a good night to see him yesterday. The kid looks VERY skilled, just as good as advertised. Very smooth handling and shooting the ball from 10-12 feet in (I would think this would expand with hard work). And I didn't know he was Big 12 DPOY either, so it sounds like his defense is up to par. 

Man, if we could somehow draft Aldridge with the Knicks' pick AND O'Bryant with our own pick, that'd be MONEY.


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I was going to watch this game but they showed the other game here! 

We got excited over O'bryant and now we are doing the same over Aldridge. I know some people have been in his corner all season. When I saw him play(4-5 times) he did not impress me. Maybe I saw all of his bad games, I dont know. 

Since they are in the final 8, I hope to go I get to watch him this weekend. I will say more about him then. 

As a change of direction does anybody else think that Pittsnogle is the second coming of Brad Lohaus??? The kid can shoot the three. I would say Bill Lambieer but he was more physical than Pittsnogle is at this time.


----------



## fl_flash

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I was impressed with Aldridge last night. I must admit to not having seen a whole lot of him throughout this season, but what I saw last night was pretty good. He's got nice touch on his shot. Nice, high release point. He's very fluid for a guy his size. He runs the floor effortlessly. The kid's a player. I think his skillset would translate well to the NBA. There were a few times when Pittsnogle was overplaying his right hand and it would have been nice to see him spin and drive left (he tried it once but sort of lost control of his dribble and had to pass out). That'll come in time. I wouldn't be too upset if he ended up on the Bulls. He definatly helped his stock out last night, that's for sure!


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



truebluefan said:


> As a change of direction does anybody else think that Pittsnogle is the second coming of Brad Lohaus??? The kid can shoot the three. I would say Bill Lambieer but he was more physical than Pittsnogle is at this time.


Pittsnogle is better than Lohaus. I think there is a place in the league for him.


----------



## T.Shock

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Sorry I didn't mean to bring Morrison into this, but I can't help but see that competitive fire that people like Wade had, etc. Morrison isn't the next Bird, but he can shoot, handle, and can get to the bucket. Aldridge has to be our pick if we get one. We need a low post scoring option and if we can pick up Gooden in FA, bringing Aldridge in as our third big makes us so much better I can't even comprehend it, AND he can pass the ball and play defense. Pittsnoggle intrigues me. I'd blow a high 2nd round pick on him simply because he's in that Matt Bullard/Brad Lohaus mode of a big guy who can shoot the 3. If he beefs up and catches the desire to play in the low post sometime I could see him having a similar impact to that of Sam Perkins. He'd be the perfect center to play next to Stoudemire in Phoenix or hell even Dirk in Dallas.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I see Aldridge being ALOT better than Gooden....

Aldridge is NBA ready. All he needs his summer league play and training camp & he should easily be able to contribute. Him being the 3rd big in a rotation where he'd prolly be better than both isn't a good idea IMO. He needs to start


----------



## Showtyme

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I have watched a lot of Aldridge this season, as Texas has been on national TV almost every week. I've said this in other threads, but I really see a lot of Shareef in him, with that turnaround jumper, smooth skill, and rebounding. Aldridge IS a bit skinnier but Shareef wasn't that thick when he came in the league.

I know that sounds like a terrible comparison because Reef has such a terrible knock on him. But the fact is, he's been a big-time big man in this league during his career. He averaged more than a steal and a block per game in three different seasons and other than his very weird penchant to shoot a few threes here and there, the guy is a really solid player. The Kings are playing like a team with a passion, so I think they'll hold onto that 8th seed and finally give Shareef his playoff berth. In all fairness, that knock that he's a perennial loser isn't really fair when you look at the teams he's been on: Vancouver, Atlanta, Portland after they got really bad.

I digress. If Aldridge comes in the league as a 19 and 7 guy and goes on to become a 20/10/3/1/1 guy, I think we'll have done better than getting anyone on the FA market.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I can't see Pax passing on Aldridge. The guy really fits what we need.


----------



## HKF

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Pittsnogle would be alright, if he rebounded worth a damn. He's a 6'11 C who doesn't want to go down low and rebound at all. I mean check the numbers, WVU got outrebounded by 29 yesterday.


----------



## Ron Cey

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



johnston797 said:


> I can't see Pax passing on Aldridge. The guy really fits what we need.


Me neither. Its just that I think we need the #1 pick to get him. Or the #2 pick with Charlotte having the #1. 

Its still a statistical longshot in my book.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

To me the only slightly legit first round pick Aldridge has played against all year is Williams and we saw how that went. What he did against Pittsnogle does not impress me.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> To me the only slightly legit first round pick Aldridge has played against all year is Williams and we saw how that went. What he did against Pittsnogle does not impress me.


He had 21 and 6 in that game. Yeah, Texas got crushed, but I wouldn't say it's because Lamarcus had a bad game.

I'm on record as liking Aldridge, but the questions people have about him are certainly legit. He's answering his critics to some extent with his tourney play, but still needs to drop another big game or two to become a lock IMO.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Ron Cey said:


> Me neither. Its just that I think we need the #1 pick to get him. Or the #2 pick with Charlotte having the #1.
> 
> Its still a statistical longshot in my book.


the only team we'd have to beat out in the top 5 is atlanta...they're the only other team that needs him


----------



## Showtyme

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> To me the only slightly legit first round pick Aldridge has played against all year is Williams and we saw how that went. What he did against Pittsnogle does not impress me.


But he gets triple teamed regularly, so it's still a big deal that he's the player that he is. And he did matchup against Sasha Kaun a few times, who is projected to be a high lottery pick next year. One game towards the end of the season, he sort of disappeared; the other game, he got his 18 and 8.

People love Patrick O'Bryant on this board too and who has he played in the mighty MVC?

You can't just judge a player by the competition, although I agree that it's important. But Aldridge has great footwork, creates his own offense, is a decent passer, and handles himself well when the other team is trying to be physical with double- and triple- teams. That's a big deal.

Aldridge isn't a power player but he's going to be a solid pro, at the least. I wish he had more back-to-the-basket moves but it doesn't matter as long as he can get points in the paint and rebound well.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ViciousFlogging said:


> He had 21 and 6 in that game. Yeah, Texas got crushed, but I wouldn't say it's because Lamarcus had a bad game.
> 
> I'm on record as liking Aldridge, but *the questions people have about him are certainly legit*. He's answering his critics to some extent with his tourney play, but still needs to drop another big game or two to become a lock IMO.


That's all I'm saying. Also I will say this. He's good. I just don't think he's good for us. I'd rather have a decent player whose game involves trying to pound the ball down low than a good player whose game involves faceups and jumpshots when you're talking *young post players*. As we know, when you get to the playoffs the cute stuff tends to go away and you need a power game. So, if we still had Curry and we had traded Chandler, I'd want Aldridge over O'Bryant. Since it's the other way around, I want O'Bryant. At this point Hibbard is the wildcard.

Also I'd add that what he needs more than two good games against nobodies like Pittsnogle is at least a decent game against someone like Tyrus/Big Baby, or Hilton Armstrong. Somebody who is a big who is going to be drafted first round, and their best attribute can't be their outside shot like Pittsnogle. At least, that's what I want to see.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Showtyme said:


> But he gets triple teamed regularly, so it's still a big deal that he's the player that he is. And he did matchup against Sasha Kaun a few times, who is projected to be a high lottery pick next year. One game towards the end of the season, he sort of disappeared; the other game, he got his 18 and 8.
> 
> People love Patrick O'Bryant on this board too and who has he played in the mighty MVC?
> 
> You can't just judge a player by the competition, although I agree that it's important. But Aldridge has great footwork, creates his own offense, is a decent passer, and handles himself well when the other team is trying to be physical with double- and triple- teams. That's a big deal.
> 
> Aldridge isn't a power player but he's going to be a solid pro, at the least. I wish he had more back-to-the-basket moves but it doesn't matter as long as he can get points in the paint and rebound well.


Uhhh he played Aaron Gray, a player who should go top 15-20 at worst, a player who has an NBA centers body and he destroyed him. People love Aldridge for one game he had against a jumpshooting player. And back to the basket moves do matter.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Gotta disagree, IMHO, O'Bryant and Hibbard aren't even in the conversation if you are looking for low-post offense or talking about top 5 picks.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



johnston797 said:


> Gotta disagree, IMHO, O'Bryant and Hibbard aren't even in the conversation if you are looking for low-post offense or talking about top 5 picks.


I said Hibbard was a wild card. Is there a rationale behind you not thinking O'Bryant is a top 5 pick? I'll admit he may be a top 8 player, but he may be gone by our second pick, which means you have to take him early if you want him. Remember it's not the best player, but the best player FOR US.


----------



## Showtyme

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> That's all I'm saying. Also I will say this. He's good. I just don't think he's good for us. I'd rather have a decent player whose game involves trying to pound the ball down low than a good player whose game involves faceups and jumpshots when you're talking *young post players*. As we know, when you get to the playoffs the cute stuff tends to go away and you need a power game. So, if we still had Curry and we had traded Chandler, I'd want Aldridge over O'Bryant. Since it's the other way around, I want O'Bryant. At this point Hibbard is the wildcard.
> 
> Also I'd add that what he needs more than two good games against nobodies like Pittsnogle is at least a decent game against someone like Tyrus/Big Baby, or Hilton Armstrong. Somebody who is a big who is going to be drafted first round, and their best attribute can't be their outside shot like Pittsnogle. At least, that's what I want to see.


You know what I realized? There's not many of these types of players left. Who is truly a low-post banger on offense anymore? Shaq, Brand, Duncan, and Amare come to mind. Maybe Zach Randolph. Maybe Boozer, sort of. Who else is really like this?

Not KG. Not Rasheed. Not really Jermaine O'Neal, when you watch him carefully. Not Dwight Howard, yet. Chris Webber had inside game but always mixed in his jumper, even before his legs gave out. Antawn Jamison is another inside-outside guy. Drew Gooden is slippery around the basket but not a banger. Dirk Nowitzki is a jump shooter also.

So this archetype of low post banger is sort of overplayed, in my opinion. Those of us who watched NBA ball in the 80's and 90's think on Karl, Patrick, Sir Charles, Hakeem, etc., and remember how integral they were to franchise success. But today's NBA doesn't look like that so much.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Ron Cey said:


> Me neither. Its just that I think we need the #1 pick to get him. Or the #2 pick with Charlotte having the #1. Its still a statistical longshot in my book.


I've heard Portland is hot for Morrison, which makes positional and geographic sense. If Pryz does come back, they have two if not spectacular bigs.

You're right, I think Charlotte will take a 3: Morrison, Gay, or maybe Carney. Morrison would fill the biggest need for them. They need shooting more than athleticism.

Atlanta would almost certainly take Aldridge...or Noah. Chad Ford, in all his wisdom, seems to think Atlanta likes him. The kid is clearly growing by leaps and bounds in front of our eyes in the tourney. Let's see if he continues his rise tonight.

As for Noah, I'm glad for the Bulls that there's another promising big on the radar. I haven't checked him out, but I sure will tonight.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I said Hibbard was a wild card. Is there a rationale behind you not thinking O'Bryant is a top 5 pick? I'll admit he may be a top 8 player, but he may be gone by our second pick, which means you have to take him early if you want him. Remember it's not the best player, but the best player FOR US.


I don't disagree completely with this, but you have to be careful about thinking this way. This kind of thing leads to Bowie over MJ or Rafael freaking Araujo at #8 overall. The rest of the tourney and predraft workouts will hopefully help things shake out better.


----------



## 7RINGS?

*Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

I was reading an artical today that said Larry Brown could see Tyrus Thomas being drafted as the number one pick! What do you guys think? He's is very athletic but to me not worthy of the 1st pick.He helped beat Duke that says alot, but to me he is too young and hasn't showed enough yet.He could become the best player in the draft.But I'm tired of could be,might be ect.We need talent now!!! The good thing is we should be able to get a decent guard and power forward/center out of this draft.I say Aldridge and Carney.Even though Carney is I beleive a SF. Aldridge=young version of Duncan.


----------



## DANNY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

i would rate aldridge higher than thomas

but thomas would definitely be worth the #2 pick

above morrison and gay


----------



## GB

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

We have a thread for this discussion.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Individual workouts and the testing at the Chica--I mean, Orlando combine can have a huge impact on draft positioning.

If LSU gets to the Final Four and Thomas plays well, and if he measures out well with good size and vertical and quickness, and if he shows in workouts that he can handle the ball well and hit some jumpers and has something approximating a post move, I could see him going top 3. 

I think the number one spot is Aldridge's to lose, however (and I think that even a team like Charlotte would take him #1).


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> Individual workouts and the testing at the Chica--I mean, Orlando combine can have a huge impact on draft positioning.
> 
> If LSU gets to the Final Four and Thomas plays well, and if he measures out well with good size and vertical and quickness, and if he shows in workouts that he can handle the ball well and hit some jumpers and has something approximating a post move, I could see him going top 3.
> 
> I think the number one spot is Aldridge's to lose, however (and I think that even a team like Charlotte would take him #1).


Bernie Bickerstaff loves Morrison...they also need star power and outside shooting

why exactly would they draft aldridge when they have Brezec, Okafor and Sean May? that makes no sense


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> Bernie Bickerstaff loves Morrison...they also need star power and outside shooting
> 
> why exactly would they draft aldridge when they have Brezec, Okafor and Sean May? that makes no sense


You think Primoz Brezec is really their long-term answer at the 5? Come on.

Okafor has a chronic back problem, wrecked his ankle this year, and is a dyed-in-the-wool 4.

May doesn't even enter this equation. 

The Bobcats already have Kirilenko-lite at the 3, which is the only position Morrison is going to be able to guard in the NBA.

They need a center and a 2. Even if Charlotte loves Morrison (not saying they don't), it would be an enormous reach to take him at 1. They'll trade down to get him if they want him that bad.


----------



## HKF

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Hibbert isn't ready yet. Seriously, the guy needs 2 more years because he still isn't ready for the pros.


----------



## GB

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*


----------



## iverson101

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Showtyme said:


> And he did matchup against Sasha Kaun a few times, *who is projected to be a high lottery pick next year.*


just passing by, but who on earth is projecting this


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> You think Primoz Brezec is really their long-term answer at the 5? Come on.
> 
> Okafor has a chronic back problem, wrecked his ankle this year, and is a dyed-in-the-wool 4.
> 
> May doesn't even enter this equation.
> 
> The Bobcats already have Kirilenko-lite at the 3, which is the only position Morrison is going to be able to guard in the NBA.
> 
> They need a center and a 2. Even if Charlotte loves Morrison (not saying they don't), it would be an enormous reach to take him at 1. They'll trade down to get him if they want him that bad.


Actually, I think Morrison and Gerald Wallace would be a pretty good fit. Morrison would play the 2 on offense and 3 and defense, and vice versa.

I dunno about Okafor's health, but I still think Brezec is pretty decent. The Bobcats in general are better than their record in terms of talent for the same reason the Bulls were a couple years ago: they have gaping holes at a couple positions and not a lot of depth.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> You think Primoz Brezec is really their long-term answer at the 5? Come on.
> 
> Okafor has a chronic back problem, wrecked his ankle this year, and is a dyed-in-the-wool 4.
> 
> May doesn't even enter this equation.
> 
> The Bobcats already have Kirilenko-lite at the 3, which is the only position Morrison is going to be able to guard in the NBA.
> 
> They need a center and a 2. Even if Charlotte loves Morrison (not saying they don't), it would be an enormous reach to take him at 1. They'll trade down to get him if they want him that bad.


um..i don't know if u've realized it but Aldridge isn't a center....they're not gonna give up on okafor and they didn't draft sean may for NO reason...no matter if brezec is long term or not...they like him..alot and he's contributes....


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*




The ROY said:


> um..i don't know if u've realized it but Aldridge isn't a center....they're not gonna give up on okafor and they didn't draft sean may for NO reason...no matter if brezec is long term or not...they like him..alot and he's contributes....


Regardless of terminology, Aldridge's playing alongside Okafor certainly isn't more or less farfetched than Aldridge's playing alongside Chandler. Brezec is a very poor rebounder, a poor shotblocker, a poor interior defender, and not much of a post scorer, and the Bobcats could definitely use what Aldridge brings to the table.

Unless one of the available two guards distinguishes himself as being worthy of #1-3 between now and the draft (and I doubt Morrison ends up in that category between last night and the fact that I just can't imagine him testing well at the combine), I think Aldridge is a very logical pick for Charlotte. You have a ton of depth across the frontline and lots of capspace to fill the 2-guard spot now or in the future.

EDIT: Oh, and as far as May goes, no, the Bobcats didn't draft him for no reason. But when you get a guy at 13, you're most likely not counting on him to be a perennial All-Star, either.


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Tyrus Thomas will be one of the NBA's best defenders right away, and while his offensive game needs some polishing, he'll make a huge impact with his athleticism his rookie year. He's not the second coming of Stromile Swift—he's much too fiery and energetic for that—and I can see him being a VERY good big man within his first three years in the League. Keep in mind that Aldridge will likely not make a huge impact his first season in the NBA should he enter this year. His offense is much more honed than Thomas’ but his strength needs a lot of improvement before he can be a consistent scoring threat. And on the defensive side of the ball, Aldridge will never be on Thomas’s level, and he’ll never make that same imposing impact down under the basket.


----------



## dkg1

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



iverson101 said:


> just passing by, but who on earth is projecting this


I would be more impressed by Chaka Khan


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Just for argument's sake, Stromile Swift looked like he cared back when he was tearing up Chris Mihm in the NCAAs too.


----------



## TwinkieTowers

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jworth said:


> And on the defensive side of the ball, Aldridge will never be on Thomas’s level, and he’ll never make that same imposing impact down under the basket.


I'm not so sure on that. Kenyon Martin was a big time shot blocker in college, but it hasn't really translated much to the NBA. Plus, the fact that Thomas is a redshirt freshman and that he has already bulked up from his high school days from 175 pounds to 219 pounds today makes me wonder if he can add much more weight without affecting his athleticism. If he can add some perimeter skill to his game he could become a very effective power 3, like Josh Smith.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jworth said:


> on the defensive side of the ball, Aldridge will never be on Thomas’s level, and he’ll never make that same imposing impact down under the basket.


Don't u think you're goin a BIT too far?

Aldridge won a defensive player of the year award last year..you're talking as if he's as bad as morrison on the defense..as good as tyrus is on defense..he's not as GREAT as you're makin him out to be..

Tyrus will NEVER be on aldridge's level offensively if u wanna take it there


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> I think Aldridge is a very logical pick for Charlotte. You have a ton of depth across the frontline and lots of capspace to fill the 2-guard spot now or in the future.


The Bobcats don't NEED Aldridge....which is why Charlotte fans are already talking as if they've already gotten Morrison (or Gay)....hit their message boards...Their newspapers also talk about him being their choice barnone.

I'll go on record right now, there's no way they'll take him in the draft, period. Why take him when they'll probably bad enuff to get Greg Oden NEXT year...

Oden 
Okafor
Morrison 

looks alot better than 

Aldridge
Okafor
Wallace

any day of the week...


----------



## 7RINGS?

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Does Tyrus remind anyone of Chris Bosh a little?He does to me.I think Bosh had far more skill at this point however.Tyrus Thomas has a long way to go but I agree that the tournament will show us alot about him.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't disagree completely with this, but you have to be careful about thinking this way. This kind of thing leads to Bowie over MJ or Rafael freaking Araujo at #8 overall. The rest of the tourney and predraft workouts will hopefully help things shake out better.


Not at all. I was simply talking about when I'm deciding between two bigs. First, I don't think Bowie had any back to the basket game. His game was more like Tyson than a back to the basket player. Second, just cause I'd take a player like O'Bryant over another BIG like Aldridge, doesn't mean I'd start taking O'Bryant over someone like Jordan, Wade etc. But there is nobody like that in this draft.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



7RINGS? said:


> Does Tyrus remind anyone of Chris Bosh a little?He does to me.I think Bosh had far more skill at this point however.Tyrus Thomas has a long way to go but I agree that the tournament will show us alot about him.


nah...he's more of a kenyon/amare player if ANYTHING...


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Not at all. I was simply talking about when I'm deciding between two bigs. First, I don't think Bowie had any back to the basket game. His game was more like Tyson than a back to the basket player. Second, just cause I'd take a player like O'Bryant over another BIG like Aldridge, doesn't mean I'd start taking O'Bryant over someone like Jordan, Wade etc. But there is nobody like that in this draft.


Fair enough, but if (hypothetically) you think Aldridge is a substantially better basketball player than O'Bryant, you should probably take him (obviously if you think there's little difference, take the better fit). It's not like Aldridge has no post ability - it's just not his bread and butter at the moment. He reminds me somewhat of Bosh, though he's not as ridiculously skilled on offense (maybe a little more stout on defense, though).

I think we just differ on our estimations of Aldridge. No biggie.


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Like MikeDC said, I think Morrison would be a perfect fit for the Bobcats. I could really see him and Gerald Wallce fitting well together. Each one brings something that the other doesn't. Wallace would be the lock-down defender and athletic wing, whereas Morrison would have the ball in his hands and makes plays offensively.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Showtyme said:


> You know what I realized? There's not many of these types of players left. Who is truly a low-post banger on offense anymore? Shaq, Brand, Duncan, and Amare come to mind. Maybe Zach Randolph. Maybe Boozer, sort of. Who else is really like this?


All this rationale proves is that when you get a guy who can actually do it, you have a rarity. The game becomes much easier for you. Last year we beat plenty of teams who might have had two players better than anyone on our roster. But we had easy buckets inside and the ability to run the floor later in games. First thing I'd say is that if you're going to back a guy down, you should be a center. A four who backs people down is not consequential to me because there will be a lot of frontcourt players that will have the size advantage on a backdown four. But if someone says to me that one of the biggest ways teams have won a championship over the years is to have a center who could shoot a high clip backing people down and drawing extra attention to the basket, but there's only 3, 4 or 5 players like that in the league, that just lets me know, im trying to grab a player like that every chance I get. 



> Not KG.


And what happens to KG almost every year he makes it to the playoffs? He gets bounced in the first round. KG is actually a perfect example. An MVP who goes away every year because all his cute up and unders and faceups are countered with more physical play and it's allowed by the officials. 



> Not Rasheed.


To me Rasheed is a special case. He never would have won a ring being the best player on the team by far like he was once Scottie was older in Portland. He's probably been the least powerful player to ever be the leading scorer for the frontcourt of a championship team that DID NOT have Michael Jordan on it. But I think when you talk about Ben, Rip and Chauncey all with him, it's easy to see why they still win. Rasheed can score with his back to the basket, *which is perhaps how I should have phrased it*, and he can back people down. I still say take Ben off his team and replace him with Tyson and the Pistons have no chance to win anything.



> Not really Jermaine O'Neal, when you watch him carefully.


Jermaine will never lead the frontcourt of a champion unless, like Wallace, that team is stacked. Yeah with Brad, Ron AND Reggie they looked like they might have had a chance, but without that you can forget it. And when you talk about the type of player Lamarcus is going to be, it does't get much better than Rasheed and Jermaine. 



> Not Dwight Howard, yet.


Dwight Howard will definitely over time be the kind of player who can put someone on his back, back them down, turn around and get high percentage shots for his team whenever he wants them. 



> Chris Webber had inside game but always mixed in his jumper, even before his legs gave out. Antawn Jamison is another inside-outside guy. Drew Gooden is slippery around the basket but not a banger. Dirk Nowitzki is a jump shooter also.


I think they are outside-in guys. All of them shoot jumpers way too much for my taste. Dirk even. He's ALMOST good enough to pull it off, but you'll see in the playoffs. SAS will be going inside to Duncan for easy looks while Dirk settles for the jumper. 



> So this archetype of low post banger is sort of overplayed, in my opinion. Those of us who watched NBA ball in the 80's and 90's think on Karl, Patrick, Sir Charles, Hakeem, etc., and remember how integral they were to franchise success. But today's NBA doesn't look like that so much.


It's not overplayed at all. Ever since Russell joined the NBA to win a championship you have either had a dominant offensive option downlow (O'neal, Duncan, Olajuwon, Abdul-Jabbar, McHale, M. Malone, Walton, Chamberlain, Reed, Cowens), a dominant defensive player down low (Russell, Debusschere, Hayes, Rodman, Robinson, B. Wallace), you have had Michael Jordan, or you have been the 1975 Warriors or 1979 Supersonics. That's 50 years! 

Now, of the dominant offensive options, how many have not been able to get 6 feet from the basket, post up, get the entry pass, back down, and get high percentage shots? On that list I can maybe see Willis Reed. I've watched 10 or so games with Willis in it and he seemed to back people down about 8-10 feet away from the rim and then turn around. But then, that team also had Debusschere, satisfying the dominant defensive player requirement. Everyone else on that list, which includes O'neal and Duncan (6 of the last 7 rings), could do just that. 

So my whole thing is, if you can find a player who can do that, even on a decent level, like Curry, or like I think O'Bryant will be able to do, who cares if the rest of their game sucks? I don't. They can't play D. Go get some defenders. They can't rebound? Get some rebounders! You even admitted how few players there are who can do that. So I'll tell you this. There are a hell of a lot more players who can get 10 RPG or play great help defense than there are players who can put somebody on their back and make things happen.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Not at all. I was simply talking about when I'm deciding between two bigs. First, I don't think Bowie had any back to the basket game. His game was more like Tyson than a back to the basket player. Second, just cause I'd take a player like O'Bryant over another BIG like Aldridge, doesn't mean I'd start taking O'Bryant over someone like Jordan, Wade etc. But there is nobody like that in this draft.



Agreed. 

Here's the problem with O'Bryant. He's still so raw. he's essentially what we have in Chandler; a guy that will give us 10 very good minutes of play on the offense and a full night of defense.

O'Bryant is 2 to 3 years away from being feared, especially if he's playing next to deathstick v3 (CHandler). Thomas is the same. Moster on Defense and will score on easy put backs. He's a better, though smaller, version of Chandler.

Aldridge has the defense and offense to contribute and lead our frontcourt for many years to come. I don't need to see a guy who dunks everytime. Frankly, that's all that Chandler and his small hands are good for. We need someone who can play inside, yet score from 10 feet out as well. Aldridge, Bargnani and Splitter are the only qualified guys at that. 

With our pick, O Bryant might not be available, but if he's gone that means Williams (who I'm luke warm on) or maybe even Noah slips to the #8-10 range where I think we'll be using our pick.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ViciousFlogging said:


> Fair enough, but if (hypothetically) you think Aldridge is a substantially better basketball player than O'Bryant, you should probably take him (obviously if you think there's little difference, take the better fit). It's not like Aldridge has no post ability - it's just not his bread and butter at the moment. He reminds me somewhat of Bosh, though he's not as ridiculously skilled on offense (maybe a little more stout on defense, though).
> 
> I think we just differ on our estimations of Aldridge. No biggie.


Actually, the ability to put someone on your back from 6 feet out and make something happen is probably the one attribute that will make me take a guy who is more than a little worse than another guy who can't do that. 

People always say what you just said (and this isn't a knock on you, just the way you phrased that). That "oh well Aldridge has post offense too." That kind of misstates things. Aldridge has a different TYPE of post offense. The whole "I can face you up, and hit a runner on you, and maybe hit a jumper close to the basket, and show you my GUARD skills" is all fine and dandy. But in the playoffs when more contact is allowed, those are the guys who go away much moreso than guys who can put someone on their back, back em down and turn around for the pop. One style gets worse when more contact is allowed, while the other THRIVES in a high contact situation. A power scorer with size loves when a guy is allowed to get more physical with him. Then he can just get physical back. A finesse scorer, even great ones like KG, Dirk, Jermaine O'neal, suffers when more contact is allowed. There is a reason why players like this continuously look worse in the playoffs. 

And you're right. It is no biggie. I don't think either one of us changes our mind here, and we're both well stated, so it's just a good back-and-forth. I disagree with you, but I appreciate what you have to say. I just don't know how the game last night against a guy in Pittsnogle who has one NBA trait (his jumper) shows that Aldridge is a bad mutha. He's played a potential top 15 pick once in Shelden Williams, and Williams is looking more like a 15-25 guy to me. I've seen O'Bryant not only drop almost 30 points on Aaron Gray, but do a great job on him in all aspects of the game.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Here's the problem with O'Bryant. He's still so raw. he's essentially what we have in Chandler; a guy that will give us 10 very good minutes of play on the offense and a full night of defense.
> 
> O'Bryant is 2 to 3 years away from being feared, especially if he's playing next to deathstick v3 (CHandler). Thomas is the same. Moster on Defense and will score on easy put backs. He's a better, though smaller, version of Chandler.
> 
> Aldridge has the defense and offense to contribute and lead our frontcourt for many years to come. I don't need to see a guy who dunks everytime. Frankly, that's all that Chandler and his small hands are good for. We need someone who can play inside, yet score from 10 feet out as well. Aldridge, Bargnani and Splitter are the only qualified guys at that.
> 
> With our pick, O Bryant might not be available, but if he's gone that means Williams (who I'm luke warm on) or maybe even Noah slips to the #8-10 range where I think we'll be using our pick.


Again, I can't see how you can say that about O'Bryant. He cleaned house against Aaron Gray, who is probably better than anyone Lamarcus has played. Not only that, but he posted the 270 lb. center like he was a rag doll, and I saw more pure post instinct in him than I did in Curry up until maybe mid-season last year. So I think 2-3 years, a subjective opinion, is off. I think he'll be ready NEXT year to give us something far greater than anything we're getting from anyone else, and in the long run, 2-3 years from now (btw were not contending in the next 2 years either way), what O'Bryant gives us will definitely be better, IMO, than what Aldridge will give us. 

You say Aldridge will lead us. I say a player like Aldridge has never led a team to anything. The offense the two players bring is drastically different.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I feel ya pip on these Finesess PF's...I hate em too LOL

While I do believe Aldridge will be a 18 & 9 (or possibly higher) guy in Chicago, if we could just a center next to him that DOES bang downlow, we'd have the perfect inside/outside frontline combo. I'm not completely sold on him but a Nene/Aldridge combo is perfect. The problem with most centers in the league is, outside of Shaq, Nene, Dalembert & maybe a FEW others, nobody else fits that mold IMO. I like what I've seen from Bargnani but him being another Dirk/Pau really isn't ALL that impressive once u think about what they've done in the league. They're REALLY good players but without another guy as good or BETTER they won't win a ring, period. Tyson needs to come off the bench and get u alot of boards & blks. We don't have a good enuff team for him to be that SORRY on offense night in and night out. If not, ship his a** OUT

P.S. I can't be the only one to notice that Aldridge has bulked up a bit in the last couple months.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Again, I can't see how you can say that about O'Bryant. He cleaned house against Aaron Gray, who is probably better than anyone Lamarcus has played. Not only that, but he posted the 270 lb. center like he was a rag doll, and I saw more pure post instinct in him than I did in Curry up until maybe mid-season last year. So I think 2-3 years, a subjective opinion, is off. I think he'll be ready NEXT year to give us something far greater than anything we're getting from anyone else, and in the long run, 2-3 years from now (btw were not contending in the next 2 years either way), what O'Bryant gives us will definitely be better, IMO, than what Aldridge will give us.
> 
> You say Aldridge will lead us. I say a player like Aldridge has never led a team to anything. The offense the two players bring is drastically different.



Wow Pip, I respectfully disagree. Which is tough, cause I really want O'Bryant and was one of the first guys on board early in the season to tout him. Unfortunately, he didn't bring it any more than the rest of the players. If we are talking about a guy who's consistent and instinctual, you have to give the edge to Aldridge. He is sometimes effortless (which is a problem) and makes his offense look easy. Aldridge was constantly double teamed and his guards have less court awareness than Marbury. Aldridge is a much more complete player at this point. In the NBA if you only dunk and hit the 3 footers, you are Tyson Chandler. 

O'Bryant (who I want with our pick - which is likely each time people see him) has a more power driven game (which I love), but it is also a more limited game. We won't be going wrong with either guy, but I'd be shockled to see O'Bryant gone before # 7. Especially if Noah comes out, I think Noah goes before him.

Aldridge, Bargnani, Morrison, Gay, Carney, Thmoas and Splitter should go before him. Bottom line - great to have another ligit Front court prospect.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> People always say what you just said (and this isn't a knock on you, just the way you phrased that). That "oh well Aldridge has post offense too." That kind of misstates things. Aldridge has a different TYPE of post offense. The whole "I can face you up, and hit a runner on you, and maybe hit a jumper close to the basket, and show you my GUARD skills" is all fine and dandy. But in the playoffs when more contact is allowed, those are the guys who go away much moreso than guys who can put someone on their back, back em down and turn around for the pop. One style gets worse when more contact is allowed, while the other THRIVES in a high contact situation. A power scorer with size loves when a guy is allowed to get more physical with him. Then he can just get physical back. A finesse scorer, even great ones like KG, Dirk, Jermaine O'neal, suffers when more contact is allowed. There is a reason why players like this continuously look worse in the playoffs.


I've seen Aldridge back people down and spin to the hoop for easy buckets or dunks a few times, but not against NBA-sized competition - so O'Bryant does have that on him. I personally think he has the frame to add more muscle and become more of a banger without losing run-jump athleticism, so I don't think his post game is in a state of completion at this point. He's only a soph after all. Will he become a steady to dominant post scorer like Duncan or Shaq? I doubt that, but I do think he has the skill and body to develop a post game where you can throw it to him on the block and let him operate. That's just a hunch though, I'll admit that much. Maybe I'm projecting too much onto him - I do that sometimes. 

I like O'Bryant too, for the record. Heck, I'd think about taking both guys (if possible, which is basically up to luck right now) and then using our cap space for the big guard to help Kirk and a veteran frontcourt player to hold the fort if our young guys need time to get comfortable. That could be a deep team with a high ceiling.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> Wow Pip, I respectfully disagree. Which is tough, cause I really want O'Bryant and was one of the first guys on board early in the season to tout him. Unfortunately, he didn't bring it any more than the rest of the players. If we are talking about a guy who's consistent and instinctual, you have to give the edge to Aldridge. He is sometimes effortless (which is a problem) and makes his offense look easy. Aldridge was constantly double teamed and his guards have less court awareness than Marbury. Aldridge is a much more complete player at this point. In the NBA if you only dunk and hit the 3 footers, you are Tyson Chandler.
> 
> O'Bryant (who I want with our pick - which is likely each time people see him) has a more power driven game (which I love), but it is also a more limited game. We won't be going wrong with either guy, but I'd be shockled to see O'Bryant gone before # 7. Especially if Noah comes out, I think Noah goes before him.
> 
> Aldridge, Bargnani, Morrison, Gay, Carney, Thmoas and Splitter should go before him. Bottom line - great to have another ligit Front court prospect.


Your disagreement is well stated, but remember what it comes back to. Who says that being the more complete player is always better? We have complete players on this team. Kirk, Deng and Noce give me enough players whose best selling point is their all around game. So I think adding another player and saying he's more "complete" leads to diminished returns on that front. In fact, Eddy Curry was a more incomplete player than I see O'Bryant being. To me, O'Bryant is already a better rebounder and help defender than Curry. And then you look at the fact that with Curry, the incomplete player that O'Bryant, who you call the less complete player than Aldridge, would be replacing... we were a 47 win team last year.

I'll also disagree and say he did bring it. To me Aaron Gray was more like NBA center competition than anything Aldridge faced all season and O'Bryant tore Gray up. It wasn't even close. Then you look at last night, Memphis had 3 front court players who would all be the 2nd best player overall on the entire Bradley team, AND Rodney Carney to deny the post and O'Bryant still had 10 rebounds at halftime. 

Furthermore, I don't want to sound offensive, but I am describing SPECIFIC skills I feel O'Bryant has. The ability, on an NBA level (when you consider how few people can actually do it anymore) to put somebody on his back, clear with his behind, get the ball, back the defender down and put up high percentage shots close to the basket. And all I'm getting back from a lot of people is "Aldridge has better instincts" "Aldridge is the more complete player." It sounds a lot like the "Kirk is the best player on the team because he does so many things" argument from last summer. It's not that I disagreed, I just wanted someone to elaborate. 

I know Aldridge brings skills to the table, and I've admitted that if we had Curry I'd easily want Aldridge over O'Bryant. My whole thing is this. Overall of course Aldridge is more polished. Lord knows he's been as prepackaged as most high school megastars. O'Bryant brings one VERY valuable thing (even if there is dispute as to how good/ready that thing is). We all know that players like O'Bryant make it less than players like Aldridge. BUT when they do work out, they yield greater possibilities. As long as a kid has a good attitude, and from what I saw of O'Bryant, he certainly looks like he busts his tail, I'm willing to take that risk at this point. The idea that this kid could be Eddy Curry in 2 years but with good rebounding and defense IS enough to make me drool, and I HATE when people say that. Then you have Aldridge. Best case scenario he becomes JO, and we saw that even with Ron, Brad AND Reggie, JO wasn't enough, because of what happens to the games of players like him in the playoffs.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ViciousFlogging said:


> I've seen Aldridge back people down and spin to the hoop for easy buckets or dunks a few times, but not against NBA-sized competition - so O'Bryant does have that on him. I personally think he has the frame to add more muscle and become more of a banger without losing run-jump athleticism, so I don't think his post game is in a state of completion at this point. He's only a soph after all. Will he become a steady to dominant post scorer like Duncan or Shaq? I doubt that, but I do think he has the skill and body to develop a post game where you can throw it to him on the block and let him operate. That's just a hunch though, I'll admit that much. Maybe I'm projecting too much onto him - I do that sometimes.
> 
> I like O'Bryant too, for the record. Heck, I'd think about taking both guys (if possible, which is basically up to luck right now) and then using our cap space for the big guard to help Kirk and a veteran frontcourt player to hold the fort if our young guys need time to get comfortable. That could be a deep team with a high ceiling.


And that's the thing. Look I'm not saying he's Chandler where we're going to be waiting 7 years for the first time he backs someone down, turns and dunks. He can do it. 

But then I've seen O'Bryant take a 270 lb. man in Aaron Gray, and not only do it, but throw him around like a ragdoll and look more instinctual about setting Gray up than Eddy Curry ever did. And Curry, for all his faults, was probably better than anyone besides O'neal at purely bulldozing guys down low and throwing up a baby hook. O'Bryant can do it NOW. I mean I'm kinda giving in when people argue he can't do it now, and arguing "well say he can in two years" but if you're asking me, from what I saw (and you know my feelings on Curry), I think O'Bryant will be as good at that one thing as Eddy was NEXT YEAR, as a rookie. 

Next the weight gain. Aldridge already DID put on 20 lbs. of muscle this summer to get up to 245, so I don't know how much more he can do. 260? Maybe? O'Bryant is 260 now and I haven't talked to anyone who doesn't think he could be 280 and rather comfortable. When you're 245 you need some finesse cause there are going to be a lot of guys (majority) that you just aren't gonna back down. When you're 280 there pretty much isn't anyone in the league you aren't backing down if you're not fat. 

My theory, and I think you have to admit it is presented well even if you disagree, is that being a 280 banger is a way to cheat the system. Even if you can't D up or rebound like an all star, throw a player like Chandler and Davis out there who CAN D up and rebound and you can artificially create the effect of a Shaquille O'neal (which is what I believe we did last year -- Eddy gave us some poor man's Shaq offense, and Tyson and AD provided defensive balance). I'm willing to gamble for that, even if I am not in any way denying the overall game of a Lamarcus Aldridge.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

PS - Chi, Vicious just want to say as an aside that I appreciate the big man dialogue here. Very rare that a few good posters can delve so deeply into the "big man" topic without becoming contentious, especially when such stark opinions are on the table.

:banana:


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

fwiw, I really like the idea of a Chandler-Aldridge-O'Bryant rotation in our frontcourt in theory. They're probably too young and raw (that includes 5th year Tyson unfortunately) to be a workable solution next year, but they could bring a fair amount of everything you want in a frontcourt skillwise and you could put any two of them on the court together and match up well. I don't know if Pax (or fans, for that matter) have the stomach to sit and wait for another young frontcourt to develop into a winning tandem, even though these guys shouldn't need nearly as long as Ty and Ed did.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> PS - Chi, Vicious just want to say as an aside that I appreciate the big man dialogue here. Very rare that a few good posters can delve so deeply into the "big man" topic without becoming contentious, especially when such stark opinions are on the table.
> 
> :banana:



I appreciate it as well. Especially since we have talked about skills and fits and not stereotypes.

FWIW - I would be ecstatic with Aldridge and O'Bryant. That would give us such an incredible Front court for the next 10 years........Wow. I'd also grab Nazr or Wilcox and then see if we couldn't make a move for a 2. If no one else, get Bonzi Wells for two years. Not the blockbusters in FA anuy of us hope for, but I can't see Harrington or Nene coming here if we grab two big men in the top of the draft.

I really think that we grab Aldridge (if there) or Bargnani in the top 3 NY pick and at the 10-12 spot we grab whoever is left from O'Bryant, Noah, Roy, Carney, Brewer, Splitter. That would still give us an incredible player.

Any combo of Aldridge/Bargnani and O'Bryant, Noah, Carney, Brewer, Splitter, Williams, Fernandez is a huge upgrade to our roster before we even get to Free agency.

Give O'bryant to pund the ball and patrol the inside. Give me Aldridge/Bargnani to help inside but keep it open for O'Bryant and yet not let anyone sag out to our shooters.

let's be honest. Our inside offense is screwed until Tyson develops some skillz and his hands improve or we just replace him till we need his defensive prowess.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

If Aldridge doesn't delcare

we're screwed...foreal


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> I appreciate it as well. Especially since we have talked about skills and fits and not stereotypes.
> 
> FWIW - I would be ecstatic with Aldridge and O'Bryant. That would give us such an incredible Front court for the next 10 years........Wow. I'd also grab Nazr or Wilcox and then see if we couldn't make a move for a 2. If no one else, get Bonzi Wells for two years. Not the blockbusters in FA anuy of us hope for, but I can't see Harrington or Nene coming here if we grab two big men in the top of the draft.
> 
> I really think that we grab Aldridge (if there) or Bargnani in the top 3 NY pick and at the 10-12 spot we grab whoever is left from O'Bryant, Noah, Roy, Carney, Brewer, Splitter. That would still give us an incredible player.
> 
> Any combo of Aldridge/Bargnani and O'Bryant, Noah, Carney, Brewer, Splitter, Williams, Fernandez is a huge upgrade to our roster before we even get to Free agency.
> 
> *Give O'bryant to pund the ball and patrol the inside. Give me Aldridge/Bargnani to help inside but keep it open for O'Bryant and yet not let anyone sag out to our shooters.*
> 
> let's be honest. Our inside offense is screwed until Tyson develops some skillz and his hands improve or we just replace him till we need his defensive prowess.


If we got an O'Bryant, I'd rather see us get a player like Antonio Davis than someone like LaMarcus Aldridge. When you say "keep it open for O'Bryant," unless I'm misunderstanding you, that to me is not the role of the four. It gets back to the mantra I live by. I want my guards and swings to play like wings and my frontcourt players to play like frontcourt players. Keeping it open downlow is the role of the guards, who must step forward and take advantage of the space a player of the GENERAL type of a Shaq, Curry or O'Bryant grants an offense. Our GUARDS must hit the jumpers. That's the role of your Scott Skiles, Penny Hardaway, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Only when LA had to find a way to get Kobe offense did you see a jumpshooter like Horry at the four. Otherwise you have had Haslem, Ho Grant, etc. Role players. In fact, only when a guy is as good as Shaq, IMO, can you clear the middle of the four and let him open it up for the big fella as well. 

So if you can get offense of the RARE type that a player like O'Bryant affords you, I think you are far better off with players like Tyson and Davis around O'Bryant than with more offense like Aldridge. 

This is just my philosophy. I understand that there are tenets you must subscribe to if you're also going to subscribe to these later beliefs.


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> Don't u think you're goin a BIT too far?
> 
> Aldridge won a defensive player of the year award last year..you're talking as if he's as bad as morrison on the defense..as good as tyrus is on defense..he's not as GREAT as you're makin him out to be..
> 
> Tyrus will NEVER be on aldridge's level offensively if u wanna take it there


Tyrus will be one of the best interior defenders in the NBA within his first couple years. Just because Aldridge won't make that same defensive impact doesn't mean he'll be just as weak as Morrison.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jworth said:


> Tyrus will be one of the best interior defenders in the NBA within his first couple years. Just because Aldridge won't make that same defensive impact doesn't mean he'll be just as weak as Morrison.


honestly...that's just YOU'RE opinion....

and aldridge could be one of the best bigs in the NBA within his first couple of years also. MY opinion...

Tyrus can't go #1 this year...but NOAH can!


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> honestly...that's just YOU'RE opinion....
> 
> and aldridge could be one of the best bigs in the NBA within his first couple of years also. MY opinion...
> 
> Tyrus can't go #1 this year...but NOAH can!


and that's just your opinion. what's your point?


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jworth said:


> and that's just your opinion. what's your point?


my point was you're jumping to conclusions and stating your OPINIONS as FACTS..when u really don't know how GOOD they'll be in the league...

i thought it was clear...


plus u discredited my man's aldridge's defense like he isn't a GOOD defender....


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> my point was you're jumping to conclusions and stating your OPINIONS as FACTS..when u really don't know nor do i
> 
> i thought it was clear...


don't take those statements so personally next time. of course they're nothing more than predictions since it's impossible to state a fact before something happens. don't jump to conclusions and think that I didn't realize what I said was just an opinion based on observation.


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> plus u discredited my man's aldridge's defense like he isn't a GOOD defender....


Just because he's not as good as Tyrus on defense doesn't mean he's not GOOD.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> So if you can get offense of the RARE type that a player like O'Bryant affords you,


How hard are 13.4 ppg to come by in the Missouri Valley? The guy only drew 4 FTA / G. 

Granted, he had one monster game in the NCAA game against Pitt, but aren't people getting a bit carried away here?


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Pip, that's one area you and I will never agree on. Unless he's coaching, I never want to see AD on the Bulls bench again.


When I say open, I'm refering to not having the second interior defender double him. Right now, Tyson's guy could stay at the other end of the court and Chandler still couldn't score.

I'm really refering to keeping the other defender's honest and on their man. Open probably wasn't the right way to describe it.

I'm also not convinced that O'Bryant can handle a heavy offensive load yet, but will need some time to develop it. It would be nice to not have the wieght of Chicago on his back from the start. 

that's something that happened to Eddy and Tyson and both were miserable at it.


----------



## CbobbyB

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

hmm...interesting.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



johnston797 said:


> How hard are 13.4 ppg to come by in the Missouri Valley? The guy only drew 4 FTA / G.
> 
> Granted, he had one monster game in the NCAA game against Pitt, but aren't people getting a bit carried away here?


When I say type, I did not meant to suggest that he's gonna put up 20 PPG in the NBA. 14 PPG on 53% shooting while opening things up for our outside would be more than enough. 

And I think his play against Gray, who is going to be very very good IMO, shifts the presumption. Who has Aldridge played? I've identified one potential first round pick and Pittsnogle.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> Pip, that's one area you and I will never agree on. Unless he's coaching, I never want to see AD on the Bulls bench again.
> 
> 
> When I say open, I'm refering to not having the second interior defender double him. Right now, Tyson's guy could stay at the other end of the court and Chandler still couldn't score.
> 
> I'm really refering to keeping the other defender's honest and on their man. Open probably wasn't the right way to describe it.
> 
> I'm also not convinced that O'Bryant can handle a heavy offensive load yet, but will need some time to develop it. It would be nice to not have the wieght of Chicago on his back from the start.
> 
> that's something that happened to Eddy and Tyson and both were miserable at it.


Ahhh I see. Yeah that's why I think Tyson is better on the bench.

When I say AD, I mean a younger player who plays LIKE AD. And I know nobody is gonna bring AD's veteran stability before somebody starts with that. But there are guys who can bring a lot of what he brings. And they aren't as expensive as many.

I think things would be difference for Patrick cause Paxson will be drafting him. Chandler and Curry have always suffered from the dreaded distinction by the media (even if they'd never say it) of "being drafted by that fat man that makes arrogant comments to us and doesn't ask us how our wives are." From day one with Curry it was "oh yeah, he's gonna be the next Shaq. Sure." It was really a backlash at Krause and it was a label Curry never asked for. He and Chandler never asked for the happenings of the previous 3 years to be dumped on their lap from day one.

Besides, I think when you look at who O'Bryant would be pairing with, in players like Deng, Hinrich, Noce, etc. (i.e. not Ron Mercer and Greg Anthony), O'Bryant would have to carry far less of the load. Far less than Curry did even last year because Kirk, Deng, Noce, Du, Ben, etc. all have two more years under their belt than they did on opening night 2004-05.


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

i dont see what the big fuss about obryant is just because he did good against gray.

gray isnt all that good and i think aldridge is twice as good as obryant.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> i dont see what the big fuss about obryant is just because he did good against gray.
> 
> gray isnt all that good and i think aldridge is twice as good as obryant.


I don't see what the big fuss about Aldridge is just because he did decent against Shelden Williams in a blow out 3 months ago.

Williams isn't all that good and I think O'Bryant is twice as good as Aldridge.

See how easy that was?


----------



## yodurk

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> i dont see what the big fuss about obryant is just because he did good against gray.
> 
> gray isnt all that good and i think aldridge is twice as good as obryant.


It's not just that he did well against Gray (although that performance show-cased his talents in a big time way). Unfortunately most folks not living in Peoria haven't seen O'Bryant more than a few times, but it's obvious that he'll be a good pro. All the tools are there...he beats most big men down the floors who are normally smaller than him. He has good hands and a soft touch on his jumpshot. He's ALL over the lane defensively. Bradley jumped to another level defensively after O'Bryant came back from his suspension. I think it's his presence in the middle why Bradley was able to upset 2 good teams, just by taking away their ability to get to the basket. If you're wondering why he doesn't put up bigger scoring numbers, I believe (from my observations) that this is a by-product of Bradley's guards. Bradley has some super-athletic guards that are dynamite defenders, but they struggle with ball-handling and feeding the post. In the NBA, guys like Hinrich and Duhon could really make O'Bryant a threat offensively. But again, this is just one man's opinion judging from what I've seen.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



yodurk said:


> It's not just that he did well against Gray (although that performance show-cased his talents in a big time way). Unfortunately most folks not living in Peoria haven't seen O'Bryant more than a few times, but it's obvious that he'll be a good pro. All the tools are there...he beats most big men down the floors who are normally smaller than him. He has good hands and a soft touch on his jumpshot. He's ALL over the lane defensively. Bradley jumped to another level defensively after O'Bryant came back from his suspension. I think it's his presence in the middle why Bradley was able to upset 2 good teams, just by taking away their ability to get to the basket. If you're wondering why he doesn't put up bigger scoring numbers, I believe (from my observations) that this is a by-product of Bradley's guards. Bradley has some super-athletic guards that are dynamite defenders, but they struggle with ball-handling and feeding the post. In the NBA, guys like Hinrich and Duhon could really make O'Bryant a threat offensively. But again, this is just one man's opinion judging from what I've seen.


If me and you agree, then it must be true lol! :banana:


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Aldridge with the SWEET face-up jumper from 16ft over big baby


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The ROY said:


> Aldridge with the SWEET face-up jumper from 16ft over big baby


I know you know the deal on this, so this isn't directed AT you, but when I look at bigs, I'm looking for someone who can score in other ways besides jumpers and driving it to the hoop on a faceup from mid-range and beyond.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I know you know the deal on this, so this isn't directed AT you, but when I look at bigs, I'm looking for someone who can score in other ways besides jumpers and driving it to the hoop on a faceup from mid-range and beyond.



Pip, Any big man should be able to dunk and power it up. We've been ruined because Chandler couldn't catch and hold on to a ball going up if he had to. 

Dunks are not impressive to me. it's easy for a team to collapse players in to the Key and stop that. I want a guy who is more than dangerous than just from 4 feet in.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I know you know the deal on this, so this isn't directed AT you, but when I look at bigs, I'm looking for someone who can score in other ways besides jumpers and driving it to the hoop on a faceup from mid-range and beyond.


I feel ya homie...

I just don't think we have many options..

But at the same time...that doesn't mean we WON'T be able to add a center that can bang down low like say Nene to throw next to Aldridge...


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> Pip, Any big man should be able to dunk and power it up. We've been ruined because Chandler couldn't catch and hold on to a ball going up if he had to.
> 
> Dunks are not impressive to me. it's easy for a team to collapse players in to the Key and stop that. I want a guy who is more than dangerous than just from 4 feet in.


I think that you think in a European way more than an NBA championship way (you won't find players like Shaq, Curry, O'Bryant [turnaround 280+ pounders] there). 

Getting a high percentage close to the basket is by far the MOST impressive thing an offensive oriented big man can do to me. *Let the other team collapse*. THAT'S WHAT TEAMS DID TO US LAST YEAR. The teams that decided that they'd prevent the inlet to Curry quickly saw how dangerous our jumpshooters were when they had that extra space and how dangerous Davis, Chandler, Noce and Deng were on the offensive boards when, because of the extra attention on Curry, our guys knew a jumper was going up and they had a head start on crashing the boards. 

So to me it's not "oh teams can stop that." On the contrary it's that they're forced to pick their poison. Once the inlet is caught with the player on your back, a player like Curry or O'Bryant has only one guy in between him and the basket if he sets up right. If the inlet pass is denied the jumper is opened up. 

It's about creating space. 

Jumpers and driving to the hoop from a big man are not impressive to me. When the playoffs come, guys like that, even good ones, find that the more physical play takes away the finesse game.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The ROY said:


> I feel ya homie...
> 
> I just don't think we have many options..
> 
> But at the same time...that doesn't mean we WON'T be able to add a center that can bang down low like say Nene to throw next to Aldridge...


Ok but if you get a player like Nene, Nazr, Curry, O'Bryant... I think you want your other guy to be more like AD than Aldridge. Nene requires two bigs in the three man rotation who specialize in D and boarding up. So do all those guys. O'Bryant may require that less than the others. Also I'd want to know what Nene we are getting. AND Nene is 260 I think, not like 285 (which POB would probably get to rather easily), so who is he really going to bulldoze POST injury? I'm not saying he can't, I'm just saying that I don't know. Plus I believe he is restricted.


----------



## HKF

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Even though O'Bryant dominated him, Aaron Gray will be a stiff on the pro level.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Aldridge's shots aren't falling, he's like 1-7 but he's getting GOOD looks...he looks very KG/J'O out there...

He does have 2blks & 6rebs though


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I think that you think in a European way more than an NBA championship way (you won't find players like Shaq, Curry, O'Bryant [turnaround 280+ pounders] there).
> 
> Getting a high percentage close to the basket is by far the MOST impressive thing an offensive oriented big man can do to me. *Let the other team collapse*. THAT'S WHAT TEAMS DID TO US LAST YEAR. The teams that decided that they'd prevent the inlet to Curry quickly saw how dangerous our jumpshooters were when they had that extra space and how dangerous Davis, Chandler, Noce and Deng were on the offensive boards when, because of the extra attention on Curry, our guys knew a jumper was going up and they had a head start on crashing the boards.
> 
> So to me it's not "oh teams can stop that." On the contrary it's that they're forced to pick their poison. Once the inlet is caught with the player on your back, a player like Curry or O'Bryant has only one guy in between him and the basket if he sets up right. If the inlet pass is denied the jumper is opened up.
> 
> It's about creating space.
> 
> Jumpers and driving to the hoop from a big man are not impressive to me. When the playoffs come, guys like that, even good ones, find that the more physical play takes away the finesse game.


It kills me to debate this point since we both like the guy alot. However, Curry lead the league in percentage and WE SUCKED. I'd rather have Luc Longley or Bill Cartwright and WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. 

I agree, I'd love to have a guy throing down dunks and forcing teams to stay at home. However, SHAQ didn't win those championships himself.

Also, the Spurs, The Pistons, The Rockets, The BULLS, etc....did not win CHAMPIONSHIPS with a Center that was Dunking in the middle. The won with guys who could score, create a little space and not clog the middle so that there perimeter guys could drive and dish. Granted, our Guards are not good drive and dish guys. However, they might try if there was anyone reliable in the paint to dish to.

Let's be honest, besides Shaq (who had Kobe), who brings what you are describing and praying for? Eddy Curry? Curry is a disaster (as are the Knicks). And if you wondering if I'd take Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki over Shaq...the answer is Yes. Also, you seem to think Aldridge won't bang or dunk and that's not true. 

I love Tyrus Thomas and Patrick O Bryant, but being honest, they are only dunkers. Atleast Noah can hit a shot from 6 feet out. All I'm asking for is a guy who other teams have to fear. Whether it's from dunking 15 times a game or from a variety of post moves, we need one more than ever.


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

i just dont understand why so many people seem to think that a team cant win an nba title without a big offense center who is just unstoppable down low.

a lot of teams that have won in the last 20 or 30 actually didn't have that.

the pistons won 3 without one

the bulls won 6 without one

the spurs have tim duncan but he is mostly a jump shooter

go back even farther and russell used to always win vs wilt even though russell wasnt a scorer and wilt was

the centers that can be unstoppable down low that won are guys like olajuwon and shaq and kareem and parish and those guys are all in the hall of fame or sure to be there without a doubt.

does anyone really think that obryant is going to be a hall of famer

maybe half of the teams that win had a center that can score a lot down low but they all had a center that can play defense and rebound and block shots and pass

so it seems to me like the defense and rebounds and block shots are the important thing and to me it looks like obryant is too slow to play very good defense or block shots or rebound a lot

i read an interview with david stern a while ago that said the owners are already talking about going to the international trapezoid lane which will move centers even farther fron the basket.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> It kills me to debate this point since we both like the guy alot. However, Curry lead the league in percentage and WE SUCKED. I'd rather have Luc Longley or Bill Cartwright and WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS.


AHHH we sucked for other reasons. Had Curry done that with Davis and a better Chandler and had we had Hinrich, Deng, Duhon and Noce we would have been good. Antonio Davis was everything that Corie Blount and Donyell Marshall PROFESSED to be. Those two clowns talked about being veterans and Davis just went out there and WAS a veteran. That team also had Jalen Rose. 

Curry did what I was talking about (remember in 02-03 he wasn't drawing double teams or much extra attention yet) LAST YEAR and we were good. We were better than the sum of our parts.



> I agree, I'd love to have a guy throing down dunks and forcing teams to stay at home. However, SHAQ didn't win those championships himself.


NO, he didn't, but ask yourself this. Who the hell is Dennis Scott playing with Kevin Garnett?? Hmmm. That gives you the answer. Shaq didn't need Kobe. Had he stayed with Penny, 3-D, Anderson and Grant he would have won rings. And IMO you put those four around a finesse frontcourt player and you can forget winning rings. 



> Also, the Spurs, The Pistons, The Rockets, The BULLS, etc....did not win CHAMPIONSHIPS with a Center that was Dunking in the middle. The won with guys who could score, create a little space and not clog the middle so that there perimeter guys could drive and dish. Granted, our Guards are not good drive and dish guys. However, they might try if there was anyone reliable in the paint to dish to.


Ahhhh don't forget the premise of my argument.

*There have been three ways to win championships since Russell joined the league*

1. A dominant offensive postman (almost always the kind that could play back to the basket and have some power game). This is not always a dunker. You merely have to be able to back a guy down, turn around and get high percentage shots. Hakeem and Duncan do this. But I'm saying you can cheat the system by getting a less skilled guy like O'Bryant or Curry who can give you this because of their weight. It's much easier to get them and put better players around them than it is to get a player like Hakeem or Duncan. 

2. *A dominant defensive post man*, which would include the Pistons (Wallace and Rodman), Bullets (Hayes), Celtics of the 60s and the Knicks of the 70s.

3. Have Michael Jordan

There have only been two champions since 1956 who won without one of these three things. 



> Let's be honest, besides Shaq (who had Kobe), who brings what you are describing and praying for? Eddy Curry? Curry is a disaster (as are the Knicks). And if you wondering if I'd take Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki over Shaq...the answer is Yes. Also, you seem to think Aldridge won't bang or dunk and that's not true.


Curry's teammates are a disaster. We saw what he could do here and more importantly what WE as a team could do with him here. O'Bryant offers less offense, but not much less, and is already a better rebounder and defender. And you'd take Nowitzki and Ming over Shaq now. Give me 1999 O'neal and Yao probably ends up in two pieces in the first row. Duncan to me fits the same category Shaq does as a guy who CAN go down and muscle for high percentage points with his back to the basket. That he ALSO can bring the outside game just makes him more dangerous.

I don't think that Aldridge won't be able to dunk, but it's about getting to the dunk. If a decent defender is between Aldridge and the rim I don't see him muscling for a dunk. Can he get one when someone leaves him alone or on a drive when a defender makes a mistake? No doubt. But in the playoffs when it comes down to it, he's not going to be able to muscle a 255 pounder and turn around for a dunk. Not like a guy who is 280 mostly muscle with long arms. 



> I love Tyrus Thomas and Patrick O Bryant, but being honest, they are only dunkers. Atleast Noah can hit a shot from 6 feet out. All I'm asking for is a guy who other teams have to fear. Whether it's from dunking 15 times a game or from a variety of post moves, we need one more than ever.


I couldn't disagree more. O'Bryant showed great rebounding to me in the three games I saw him play against programs where the other teams starting five could have all been the second best player on Bradley. Hell Memphis had like 2-3 bench guys who would have been second best on Bradley. He also showed me great help defense even though he struggled in man defense. 

I'd rather have an inside guy who can master the game from 6 feet and IN and then have my outside players hit shots from the outside. 

*Maybe I was not clear and made you think that I think that whipping around and dunking is the only way to do this, but it's not. Curry hit way more baby hooks than he hit dunks. And another very dangerous part of his game was how many weakside putbacks we got off of Curry misses. AD was a monster on the opposite side of Curry. And I think O'Bryant will be better.*

But look at champions who didn't fit the defensive big man/Jordan molds. 

Sixers: Wilt Chamberlain
Knicks: Willis Reed
Bucks: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Celtics: Dave Cowens
Lakers: Wilt Chamberlain
Blazers: Bill Walton
Lakers: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Celtics: Kevin McHale
Sixers: Moses Malone
Rockets: Hakeem Olajuwon
Spurs: Tim Duncan
Lakers: Shaquille O'neal

All of these players could get position with their backs to the basket from 6 feet out, back a player down (with the exception of McHale whose fakes were SO good that he could just get anyone to bit and then slide underneath them to either side and finish), use power, turn around and get high percentage shots. All of them except McHale could play center against the big boys. And ALL of them had one thing in common. Their low-post, back to the basket game, was their MOST dangerous offensive tool. Yeah some of them like Timmy could hit the jumper. But his best attribute has always been his ability to get good looks in the key.[/b]

Also Chi, I love that we can have this debate. I feel like we are really getting places.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



chifaninca said:


> I love Tyrus Thomas and Patrick O Bryant, but being honest, they are only dunkers. Atleast Noah can hit a shot from 6 feet out. All I'm asking for is a guy who other teams have to fear. Whether it's from dunking 15 times a game or from a variety of post moves, we need one more than ever.


I think Tyrus proved me wrong today...he hit the 12footer atleast 3 times so far from the wing today...not to mention him going coast to coast on texas's guards and scoring on the layup...

My biggest issue with Aldridge is, the only type of shot he seems to be looking for is turnaround j's...he's looked like rasheed/kg all day with that...we all know he has a great jumper but he does need to show some more moves in the low posts....i'm still sold on him but tyrus is wowing me today...


----------



## T.Shock

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Since we're talking about space, man Glen Davis looks solid. I know people here are somewhat down on him but the agility and quickness he possess for a man his size is unreal. I think he'd be the perfect compliment next to Chandler and if Tyrus Thomas gets drafted by a team that likes to run he will have a real nice career. Aldridge is also solid but I don't think he'll be a star. My guess is for the first two years he averages 15/8 or something like that.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> i just dont understand why so many people seem to think that a team cant win an nba title without a big offense center who is just unstoppable down low.
> 
> a lot of teams that have won in the last 20 or 30 actually didn't have that.
> 
> the pistons won 3 without one
> 
> the bulls won 6 without one
> 
> the spurs have tim duncan but he is mostly a jump shooter
> 
> go back even farther and russell used to always win vs wilt even though russell wasnt a scorer and wilt was
> 
> the centers that can be unstoppable down low that won are guys like olajuwon and shaq and kareem and parish and those guys are all in the hall of fame or sure to be there without a doubt.
> 
> does anyone really think that obryant is going to be a hall of famer
> 
> maybe half of the teams that win had a center that can score a lot down low but they all had a center that can play defense and rebound and block shots and pass
> 
> so it seems to me like the defense and rebounds and block shots are the important thing and to me it looks like obryant is too slow to play very good defense or block shots or rebound a lot
> 
> i read an interview with david stern a while ago that said the owners are already talking about going to the international trapezoid lane which will move centers even farther fron the basket.


You can, it's just that having an offensive load down low wins more titles than any other way. Remember the basis for the argument:

*Since Russell entered the league there have been four ways to win a title:

1. Have a dominant offensive post player who can put his back to the basket and get high percentage looks down low -- of these players, only one, McHale, was a four.

2. Have a dominant defensive post player (Rodman, B. Wallace, Hayes, Russell, Debusschere)

3. Have Michael Jordan

4. Be the 1975 Warriors or 1979 Supersonics*

If I saw anyone in the draft who could help us fit molds 2 or 3 I'd be all over them too.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



T.Shock said:


> Since we're talking about space, man Glen Davis looks solid. I know people here are somewhat down on him but the agility and quickness he possess for a man his size is unreal. I think he'd be the perfect compliment next to Chandler and if Tyrus Thomas gets drafted by a team that likes to run he will have a real nice career. Aldridge is also solid but I don't think he'll be a star. My guess is for the first two years he averages 15/8 or something like that.


so u like Davis's fat *** over Aldridge? u can't be serious

a davis/chandler frontline would be one of the worst in the nba....


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

i agree with what chifaninca just said about having a good center who can score i dont care if its shaq or kareem or wilt or a jump shooter like duncan or jack sikma or bill laimbeer but he better be able to play defense and rebound so no eddy curry


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



T.Shock said:


> Since we're talking about space, man Glen Davis looks solid. I know people here are somewhat down on him but the agility and quickness he possess for a man his size is unreal. I think he'd be the perfect compliment next to Chandler and if Tyrus Thomas gets drafted by a team that likes to run he will have a real nice career. Aldridge is also solid but I don't think he'll be a star. My guess is for the first two years he averages 15/8 or something like that.


My problem with Big Baby is the Ron Dayne effect. When you have one thing that college players can't deal with that NBA players will deal with. Davis is going to be fat and nothing special in the NBA as much as I LOVE his game and root for him. But in college his 310 lbs. is just overwhelming to the point that his other deficiencies are masked.

Like Dayne. In college he could just bowl people over so he didn't have to worry about being a blocker or receiving out of the backfield. In the NFL linebackers were bigger than him, and once that threat was gone all that was left was a terrible all-around back. 

That's why I root for Big Baby to grow 3". Then we'll have a SERIOUS prospect.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> i agree with what chifaninca just said about having a good center who can score i dont care if its shaq or kareem or wilt or a jump shooter like duncan or jack sikma or bill laimbeer but he better be able to play defense and rebound so no eddy curry


Well thankfully we're talking about O'Bryant, who brings Curry's post offense but CAN rebound and defend. 

Duncan get get points close to the basket. Laimbeer had a dominant defender on his team, and Sikma may have won a ring in the worst season of NBA ball since Russell came into the NBA before recently. Players like Sikma usually diminish at a much greater rate in the playoffs than players who can get the inside points. 

Don't confuse "BEING ABLE" to shoot a jumper like Duncan with that being your only or primary weapon.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

It's over ya'll..no more debates

WE NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED Tyrus Thomas? This kid is doing it ALLL today, straight BEASTING against Texas...

I still love Aldridge but Thomas would DEFININTELY be a better fit in Chicago.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The ROY said:


> It's over ya'll..no more debates
> 
> WE NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED Tyrus Thomas? This kid is doing it ALLL today, straight BEASTING against Texas...
> 
> I still love Aldridge but Thomas would DEFININTELY be a better fit in Chicago.


I love the debate first, because everyone who is in it is being cool. There is no "Olytitis" going on LMFAO.

As far as Thomas, he's definitely winning me over. Can you imagine O'Bryant, Tyrus and Tyson? I can and it makes me happy :banana:


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

first of all, there is no mold for winning a title there are many different ways to do it and those ways are always changing

and pippenatorade you said that reed and wilt and kareem and cowens and walton and malone and duncan and shaq and olajuwon dont fit a defensive big man mold. well i guess maybe you are in your young 20s and didnt see many of those guys because they could all play defense and rebound and block shots


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> As far as Thomas, he's definitely winning me over. Can you imagine O'Bryant, Tyrus and Tyson? I can and it makes me happy :banana:


yep..that would be sick..

my problem with aldridge is, he's AFRAID to bang downlow...we'd litterally have JOE SMITH, a nice forward who settles for jumpers.....i'm not saying he won't be as good as kg or o'neal but they will bang downlow...i know he's young too so i won't put too much on him....

I HONESTLY believe Tyrus will be better than Kenyon..he may even be the next Amare...


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

obryant only averaged 8.3 rebounds not that good playing in the mvc without a lot of centers. he blocked 2.8 which is good but in the ncaa he only blocked 2 total in 3 games that is not good at all.

and duncan shoots 57% jump shots doesnt that make it his primary weapon. maybe we have different definition of primary but when you do something more than half the time i thought that was primary.


----------



## McBulls

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Davis is sure making Aldridge look bad today. 

Guys like Davis are rather common in the NBA (See Sweetney). The way Aldridge has been pushed around by him today suggests he will be in for a tough time in the NBA. Maybe he should stay at Texas for another year and gain some weight.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> first of all, there is no mold for winning a title there are many different ways to do it and those ways are always changing
> 
> and pippenatorade you said that reed and wilt and kareem and cowens and walton and malone and duncan and shaq and olajuwon dont fit a defensive big man mold. well i guess maybe you are in your young 20s and didnt see many of those guys because they could all play defense and rebound and block shots


Doubt it. Did I affirmatively say that they couldn't defend? Or did I say that they were offensive oriented in the sense that that's the first thing you notice about them? Leave my arguments as my arguments. Don't turn my argument which showed that without a defensive big man next to them, guys like Sikma win about 1 ring every 50 years into "Kareem couldn't play defense." 

That's not what I said. That's a whack version of what you decided to say I said.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

*BTW Aldridge is playing the best big man he has faced all year in Tyrus Thomas and:

2-14 FG* 4 points, 8 rebounds, ZERO free throws.

Need I say much more?


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> obryant only averaged 8.3 rebounds not that good playing in the mvc without a lot of centers. he blocked 2.8 which is good but in the ncaa he only blocked 2 total in 3 games that is not good at all.
> 
> and duncan shoots 57% jump shots doesnt that make it his primary weapon. maybe we have different definition of primary but when you do something more than half the time i thought that was primary.


Duncan can go down low and get a shot close to the basket whenever he wants. That's his most effective and primary weapon. That's how I would define it. 

What did O'Bryant do in the tourney? You want to give me his RPG there? Aldridge got 4 points and 8 rebounds in regulation against Oliver Miller Jr. I like Big Baby Davis' charisma but that's what he is.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> *BTW Aldridge is playing the best big man he has faced all year in Tyrus Thomas and:
> 
> 2-14 FG* 4 points, 8 rebounds, ZERO free throws.
> 
> Need I say much more?


 he got 4 or 5 blks tho..

TYRUS THOMAS!


----------



## MemphisX

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

There are "molds" to winning a title and www.82games.com had a good recent article on it. It boiled down to this: (1) Have a player that was 1st team All NBA within 4 years of the title or a player that was 1st team Defense within 4 years of winning the title AND have sidekick that was 1st or 2nd team ALL NBA within four years of the title or 1st or 2nd team All Defense within four years of the title. I think something like >75% of all title winners fit into this criteria. I am not able to pull up the article right now but it is a very good article.


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

wow pipenattorade no need to get defensive because someone disagrees with you.

so let me see if i have this strait i dont want to offend you

you say that about half of teams that win have a great offensive center. i agree

i say that almost all of teams that win have a great defensive center. do you disagree


----------



## McBulls

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Tyrus Thomas and Davis just may have moved ahead of Aldridge in the draft with this game. They both outplayed him one-on-one as well as putting up good stats.


----------



## jworth

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The ROY said:


> It's over ya'll..no more debates
> 
> WE NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED Tyrus Thomas? This kid is doing it ALLL today, straight BEASTING against Texas...
> 
> I still love Aldridge but Thomas would DEFININTELY be a better fit in Chicago.


Agreed


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Davis was nowhere even near the top 10 in the draft...

but Tyrus Thomas DEFININTELY moved ahead of him...


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> wow pipenattorade no need to get defensive because someone disagrees with you.
> 
> so let me see if i have this strait i dont want to offend you
> 
> you say that about half of teams that win have a great offensive center. i agree
> 
> i say that almost all of teams that win have a great defensive center. do you disagree


I very much disagree. 

Teams without a great defensive CENTER:

LA Lakers 2000-02
Chicago Bulls 1991-93, 1996-98
Detroit Pistons 1989-90
Los Angeles Lakers 1987-88
Boston Celtics 1981, 1984, 1986
Seattle Supersonics 1979
Washington Bullets 1978
Golden State Warriors 1975
New York Knicks 1970, 1973

So right there that's 21 teams of the last 50 that did not have a great defensive center. 

Further I'd caution that most of these great defensive centers were even greater offensive centers. Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem... how many titles is that by guys who were known for their offense moreso than their D? 

I think by saying great defensive centers you're implying that a team can have much success with a guy like Motumbo whose defense is far greater than their offense.

I think that if you said "how many teams won with lead post players whose greatest attribute was:

a. offense
b. defense"

The answer would be offense every time.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

I was wrong..

YES, Tyrus Thomas CAN go #1 in the NBA DRAFT


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

lol define it how you will but duncan PRIMARILY SHOOTS JUMPERS the stats dont lie

i hope you plan to be a lawyer when you grow up because you certainly have the double and triple talk down very well

i am just trying to have a civil conversation why do you have to be a jerk with comment like this one:

What did O'Bryant do in the tourney? You want to give me his RPG there?

you cant just make your point without being snotty about it why is that

obryant had one good game that you keep on bringing up over and over and over but in the other 2 ncaa games he had 8 points in each game wow i am impressed. i thought he was supposed to be some kind of great scorer it doesnt look that way to me. 

in the other two games he hit 6 out of 15 field goals and 4 out of 9 free throws it sounds to me like he had one good game and two bad games so i dont see what all the fuss is about

even chandler has scored 27 points in a nba game so getting 28 in one ncaa game doesnt mean that much

i have only found this site and this is my first day writing i just hope the other people here arent as rude as you are to someone who is only trying to have a talk about basketball


----------



## Aesop

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

What back-to-back games!

I'm sold. Tyrus should go #1.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

My question is this...will a team who doesn't even NEED a PF still take Tyrus Thomas?


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

i guess i should have said great defensive center or power forward since you want to include mchale and duncan on your list of offense and they are power forwards

i dont see why duncan counts anyway since he PRIMARILY SHOOTS JUMPERS and he has taken 522 shots that arent jumpers. mohammed and nesterovic have taken 391 shots that arent jumpers so they take 43% of the spurs inside shots and i dont think either one of them are a great center


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> I was wrong..
> 
> YES, Tyrus Thomas CAN go #1 in the NBA DRAFT


That was my bad on the earlier comments, though. I definitely made them sound arrogant, but the little thing behind all of that is that I'm a big LSU fan so I was just going a little over the top for one of my players. Tyrus just keeps on impressing me and everyone else.



The ROY said:


> My question is this...will a team who doesn't even NEED a PF still take Tyrus Thomas?


Probably just depends how good they think a guy like Rudy Gay will be at another position.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> I think the number one spot is Aldridge's to lose, however


And I think he lost that spot today. Yikes.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> And I think he lost that spot today. Yikes.


He definitely got outplayed today. But how important should one game be?

Thomas is showing me more. He's got more tricks than dunks in his bag. I do love the combination of frenetic energy and athleticism.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> lol define it how you will but duncan PRIMARILY SHOOTS JUMPERS the stats dont lie
> 
> i hope you plan to be a lawyer when you grow up because you certainly have the double and triple talk down very well
> 
> i am just trying to have a civil conversation why do you have to be a jerk with comment like this one:
> 
> What did O'Bryant do in the tourney? You want to give me his RPG there?
> 
> you cant just make your point without being snotty about it why is that
> 
> obryant had one good game that you keep on bringing up over and over and over but in the other 2 ncaa games he had 8 points in each game wow i am impressed. i thought he was supposed to be some kind of great scorer it doesnt look that way to me.
> 
> in the other two games he hit 6 out of 15 field goals and 4 out of 9 free throws it sounds to me like he had one good game and two bad games so i dont see what all the fuss is about
> 
> even chandler has scored 27 points in a nba game so getting 28 in one ncaa game doesnt mean that much
> 
> i have only found this site and this is my first day writing i just hope the other people here arent as rude as you are to someone who is only trying to have a talk about basketball


I thought O'Bryant's games against Kansas and Memphis were pretty good too. 

Today Aldridge faced the second best big he has seen all season.

44 minutes, 4 points, 10 rebounds, 2-14 FG, zero FTs

And Big Baby Davis is not an NBA-caliber defender by any means.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> i guess i should have said great defensive center or power forward since you want to include mchale and duncan on your list of offense and they are power forwards
> 
> i dont see why duncan counts anyway since he PRIMARILY SHOOTS JUMPERS and he has taken 522 shots that arent jumpers. mohammed and nesterovic have taken 391 shots that arent jumpers so they take 43% of the spurs inside shots and i dont think either one of them are a great center


I think my analysis was terming jumpshooters as guys who "shoot jumpers as their main attack and lack the ability to get low post back to the basket buckets while backing someone down." 

If after all, someone can hit a jumper, but they can also do exactly what I want them to do (back someone down and get good looks), how does that counteract what I'm saying at all? 

And I believe I used post player. You used center.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Maybe those of us who are interested in Aldridge should be happy he had a bad game. Maybe it will be more likely he's around when we're picking.


----------



## nanokooshball

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I very much disagree.
> 
> Teams without a great defensive CENTER:
> 
> Chicago Bulls 1991-93, 1996-98


I'd have to disagree... I think Longley was a great DEFENSIVE center, he was totally under-rated on the Bulls


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> He definitely got outplayed today. But how important should one game be?


Today's game will loom very large in the eyes of a Paxson/Malcolm Gladwell-school GM. On the big stage vs. a team with actual NBA-level talent across the frontline, Aldridge fell way short. It's another red flag (I personally am also very wary of the terrible games he put up against the likes of Ok. State and Baylor and what-not).

And if you take him at his word that he's at least strongly considering staying in school, it would stand to reason that this game would have pushed him back in that direction. 

Man, this draft is looking more schizophrenic and wide-open by the minute.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> And I think he lost that spot today. Yikes.


LOL nothing like bumping yourself Mr. May. You give me a lesson in humility.

Moreso than how great Thomas was was this.

I remember saying to people "Aldridge has played one guy, Shelden Williams (whom I severely overrated) all year." In today's game I believe he faced his second biggest challenge in big baby davis and pulled a complete Houdini. 2-14 FG? 0 FTs? 4 points in 44 minutes? I really don't know if I've seen a bigger prospect pull a bigger houdini. 

Way to call yourself out. Very few have the nads to do that. This tourney has smacked me in the midsection a few times as I've also found out how wrong I was about some players.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> He definitely got outplayed today. But how important should one game be?
> 
> Thomas is showing me more. He's got more tricks than dunks in his bag. I do love the combination of frenetic energy and athleticism.


I'd say pretty important when he's played one other potential first rounder all season. And Shelden Williams IMO kicked himself to the lower half of the first round this week. I'm not saying the guy isn't good at all. I don't think he's nearly as good as some think.

4 points 10 rebounds 2-14 FGs 0 FTs in 44 minutes? Well he'd sure have a lot in common with Tyson Chandler from that statline.


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

obryant is supposed to be a scoring center and you think he had good games when he had 8 points and 8 points lol

i guess you win lol


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



nanokooshball said:


> I'd have to disagree... I think Longley was a great DEFENSIVE center, he was totally under-rated on the Bulls


I'll have to strongly disagree with your disagreement lol. I think before you call someone GREAT they should make at least one NBA defensive first team. Longley to me isn't anywhere close to great as a defender. Good? Decent? Yeah. Exceptional? Maybe he fits the lower wrung of this. Great? No way. Did the guy ever even make one NBA Defensive second team?


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

and i dont know why you keep bringing up aldridge to me i havent mentioned him once i am only talking about obryant but whatever makes you feel better lol


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> obryant is supposed to be a scoring center and you think he had good games when he had 8 points and 8 points lol
> 
> i guess you win lol


First I'd say he's pretty good as a rebounder and defender. 

Second I'd say that when you consider that Memphis had 8 guys who would be the second best player on Bradley and Kansas probably did also, AND that Bradley's wings were almost completely denied the post (see Julian Wright, Rodney Carney), I think he showed the skills sufficient that when competition level is even across the board, he will excel.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



jetsrule923 said:


> and i dont know why you keep bringing up aldridge to me i havent mentioned him once i am only talking about obryant but whatever makes you feel better lol


Ehhh I don't know. The name of the thread might hold a clue :banana:


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> LOL nothing like bumping yourself Mr. May. You give me a lesson in humility.
> 
> Moreso than how great Thomas was was this.
> 
> I remember saying to people "Aldridge has played one guy, Shelden Williams (whom I severely overrated) all year." In today's game I believe he faced his second biggest challenge in big baby davis and pulled a complete Houdini. 2-14 FG? 0 FTs? 4 points in 44 minutes? I really don't know if I've seen a bigger prospect pull a bigger houdini.
> 
> Way to call yourself out. Very few have the nads to do that. This tourney has smacked me in the midsection a few times as I've also found out how wrong I was about some players.


At the end of game Texas went man to man, and Barnes didn't even put Aldridge on Davis. Big Baby abused him in the post all game long.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jbulls said:


> At the end of game Texas went man to man, and Barnes didn't even put Aldridge on Davis. Big Baby abused him in the post all game long.


I missed the last 8 minutes of the game


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jbulls said:


> At the end of game Texas went man to man, and Barnes didn't even put Aldridge on Davis. Big Baby abused him in the post all game long.


Somebody got continuously abused

Thomas 21 points 13 rebounds 10-14 FGs 71.4% FG
Big Baby 26 points 9 rebounds 11-19 FGs 57.8% FG
Total: 47 points 22 rebounds 21-33 FGs 63.6% FG

Buckman and Aldridge, put your clothes back on cause you just got undressed.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> And I think he lost that spot today. Yikes.


I have said all along I don't really like him 

And its got nothing to do with Daniel Gibson or the Longhorns lack of a dependable guard that can feed the post properly 

Today showed that against a physical dominant frontline LaMarcus is just too easily handled in trying to get position and when he has to rely on his hook and turnaround J - body him up and have the help swatter covering those plays and he's easily rattled 

On top of that I just don't like the way he moves .. too mechanical 

Aldridge is not a top 3 pick IMO - top 5 - maybe but Tyrus Thomas just has an off the charts motor 

Did you see that play where he blocked it and was in traffic with 2 or 3 Longhorn players - leapt back up immediately after the block and grabbed the rebound . Crazy 

Showed a nice face up J on that right baseline flank on a few occasions .. steal - coast to coast and adjusted in mid air to finish 

This guy has sold me that he's definately one of the first 2 or 3 guys taken .

#1 ? 

Sure why not 

He's rising to the occasion and really standing out - a guy that can contribute in the pro's straight away . Will be a project and will need to develop but he will be a project that will still contribute straight away 

And he's got leadership ability stamped all over him - and he's good enough to be one of the mroe dominant players on whatever team gets him to legitimately wear this role , when in time , he warrants it / grows into it 

Morrison , Thomas and Roy are just flat stick balls out .. leave it all out there types 

I love Carney too but I can't get away from a current line of thinking that Thomas and Roy are our picks if we are in position to get them with the Knicks pick and our pick respectively


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> I'd say pretty important when he's played one other potential first rounder all season. And Shelden Williams IMO kicked himself to the lower half of the first round this week. I'm not saying the guy isn't good at all. I don't think he's nearly as good as some think.
> 
> 4 points 10 rebounds 2-14 FGs 0 FTs in 44 minutes? Well he'd sure have a lot in common with Tyson Chandler from that statline.


I know LaMarcus just played like **** today, but I still want him with the NY pick. I see in him a greater combination of size, athleticism, and skill - like actual post moves that have a chance to translate to the NBA - than in any other player in the draft. 

I do note how he got schooled today, and I do not believe he is a sure bet. Neither, do I believe, is Thomas or Noah.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> Don't u think you're goin a BIT too far?
> 
> Aldridge won a defensive player of the year award last year..you're talking as if he's as bad as morrison on the defense..as good as tyrus is on defense..he's not as GREAT as you're makin him out to be..
> 
> Tyrus will NEVER be on aldridge's level offensively if u wanna take it there



Well based on how he was exposed today I hope not


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> my point was you're jumping to conclusions and stating your OPINIONS as FACTS..when u really don't know how GOOD they'll be in the league...
> 
> i thought it was clear...
> 
> 
> plus u discredited my man's aldridge's defense like he isn't a GOOD defender....


Well he got owned on the defensive end by Big Baby 

Its not just one game IMO 

Today showed some fundamental weaknesses in Aldridge's make up at he next level 

can he overcome them ?

maybe 

But I doubt his heart and desire


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> I know LaMarcus just played like **** today, but I still want him with the NY pick. I see in him a greater combination of size, athleticism, and skill - like actual post moves that have a chance to translate to the NBA - than in any other player in the draft.
> 
> I do note how he got schooled today, and I do not believe he is a sure bet. Neither, do I believe, is Thomas or Noah.


Yeah but Tyrus Thomas has now made Lamarcus Aldridge and Shelden Williams look ABSOLUTELY silly in back to back games. I mean we're not talking about outplayed. We're talking about discombulated.

I'll throw one out on Thomas that I held back after the Duke game, but that I can't hold back anymore. Amare Stoudemire -- Someone told me that a week ago and I laughed. Mind you I'm not saying he's exactly like Amare or even as good, but that's who he's been reminding me of.

And today Aldridge just confirmed what I already felt. His type of offense is the type that goes away as the game gets more physical.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Jetsrule (but they don't),

welcome to the boards. We do have a policy of strong debates and making your points. However, while making your points, don't demean others opinions, lest you and yours be demeaned as well.

Everyone, this has been a good thread. No personal attacks, no demeaning. Strongly disagree, make your points, but no need to demean a fellow Bulls or basketball fan for that matter (unless they're also a Pacher fan - J/K.).


keep up the good debates.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> Yeah but Tyrus Thomas has now made Lamarcus Aldridge and Shelden Williams look ABSOLUTELY silly in back to back games. I mean we're not talking about outplayed. We're talking about discombulated.
> 
> I'll throw one out on Thomas that I held back after the Duke game, but that I can't hold back anymore. Amare Stoudemire -- Someone told me that a week ago and I laughed. Mind you I'm not saying he's exactly like Amare or even as good, but that's who he's been reminding me of.
> 
> And today Aldridge just confirmed what I already felt. His type of offense is the type that goes away as the game gets more physical.


Thomas did not make Sheldon look silly. Come on now.

And even LaMarcus, who did suck based on his standards, did manage 10 rebounds, 5 blocks, and 2 steals.

Amare may be a reasonable comparison for Thomas.


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> Yeah but Tyrus Thomas has now made Lamarcus Aldridge and Shelden Williams look ABSOLUTELY silly in back to back games. I mean we're not talking about outplayed. We're talking about discombulated.
> 
> I'll throw one out on Thomas that I held back after the Duke game, but that I can't hold back anymore. Amare Stoudemire -- Someone told me that a week ago and I laughed. Mind you I'm not saying he's exactly like Amare or even as good, but that's who he's been reminding me of.
> 
> And today Aldridge just confirmed what I already felt. His type of offense is the type that goes away as the game gets more physical.


Nobody made Shelden Williams look silly in that LSU-Duke game. Williams scored 23 points, grabbed 13 rebounds, and blocked 4 shots - he was really the only reason Duke was even in it. I like Thomas better than Aldridge and Williams but it's not like he went head to head with either of those guys - they were matched up with Glen Davis for the bulk of each game.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jbulls said:


> Nobody made Shelden Williams look silly in that LSU-Duke game. Williams scored 23 points, grabbed 13 rebounds, and blocked 4 shots - he was really the only reason Duke was even in it. I like Thomas better than Aldridge and Williams but it's not like he went head to head with either of those guys - they were matched up with Glen Davis for the bulk of each game.


I simply meant that Thomas had a great game. Maybe silly was the bad way to put it. Maybe Thomas and Shelden made each other look silly but then redeemed their own silliness by the silliness that they laid upon others?? lol


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

im sorry chifaninca i dont mean to demean anyones opinions but after pipenattorade made what i thought was a smarmy rude comment about why dont you tell me his rebounding numbers that he was demeaning what i said.

even his last response to me about how the name of the thread might hold a clue well he is the one who has been all praising of obryant in this thread. well i just read a lenghty obryant thread a few days ago so why does he keep bringing up obryant in a aldridge thread. and then when i am not discussing aldridge he keeps bringing him up to me instead of obryant who i am discussing with him

i wont let it happen again i just thought that was a very condascending comment for him to make and i was being very civil. but i am new here and really dont want to cause any trouble so i am sorry

i do like the debate and strong opinions i have read here which is why i started posting i dont have a lot of time to spend on the computer with work and family but today the wife and kids have been gone yay lol. they went to the inlaws for the weekend so hoepfully i can be involved tomorrow as well. 

and youre right the jets dont rule lately but thank goodness herm edwards is finally gone he was the dumbest coach in nfl history. although im sure bears fans can certainly argue that point lol


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

No worries. We all get heated. Just wanted to drop a friendly reminder.

All opinons are welcomed, especially well thought out and explained ones. Those you don't agree with - counter them with your opinion and your knowledge or just ignore them.


----------



## mgolding

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

As far as the bulls go I dont how Aldridge will fit beside Chandler, but Im not sure Thomas would either. I might point out though to make up for the holes in Chandlers offensive and power games a player would have to have a similair game and frame to Shaq.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

before anybody goes crazy comparing Thomas to Amare, please remember Amare has been a dissapointing rebounder and defender thus far. T2 looks to me like he'll be better at those things that Amare is.

It may be symptomatic of playing for the Phoenix Suns, but word of caution. You might compare them athletically, and maybe sizewise if T2 grows some more...But they could be kind of like two sides of the same coin. One a defender/rebounder type. One an offensive menace type. Both of whom can have good days on the other end


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

amare is about as CLOSE to shaq as you're gonna get...

he's a POWERHOUSE...only difference is, he's a PF and can shoot the 15footer...


----------



## TwinkieTowers

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

I simply cannot compare Tyrus Thomas similarly to Amare. He's getting by with athleticism only, not athleticism and strength like Amare had been doing his first two years in the NBA. Thomas is not getting his weakness (mainly lack of strength) exposed because he playing alongside a giant post presence in Glen Davis, and he may fit with other NBA teams, but I don't think he would be a great fit for the Bulls unless he develops a perimeter game.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> *BTW Aldridge is playing the best big man he has faced all year in Tyrus Thomas and:
> 
> 2-14 FG* 4 points, 8 rebounds, ZERO free throws.
> 
> Need I say much more?


well Aldridge was matched up against Davis more than Thomas. Maybe that helps you make your point better actually :cheers:


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jbulls said:


> Nobody made Shelden Williams look silly in that LSU-Duke game. Williams scored 23 points, grabbed 13 rebounds, and blocked 4 shots - he was really the only reason Duke was even in it. I like Thomas better than Aldridge and Williams but it's not like he went head to head with either of those guys - they were matched up with Glen Davis for the bulk of each game.


Shelden's statline against LSU was impressive, but it doesn't show how badly he was dominated in the last five minutes.


----------



## fleetwood macbull

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TwinkieTowers said:


> I simply cannot compare Tyrus Thomas similarly to Amare. He's getting by with athleticism only, not athleticism and strength like Amare had been doing his first two years in the NBA. Thomas is not getting his weakness (mainly lack of strength) exposed because he playing alongside a giant post presence in Glen Davis, and he may fit with other NBA teams, but I don't think he would be a great fit for the Bulls unless he develops a perimeter game.


Too bad Sweetney fouls so much, they might make a nice combo on the floor next year often.


alrighty then, heres what you do Pax: Draft Thomas, and then get Zeke on the phone...."Say Isiah?, ahhmmmaru mmm ahhh.... I know this is gonna sound ridiculous, but can we have Eddy Back? How bout a nice Tyson Chandler in exchange?" :cannibal: 
:grinning:


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TwinkieTowers said:


> I simply cannot compare Tyrus Thomas similarly to Amare. He's getting by with athleticism only, not athleticism and strength like Amare had been doing his first two years in the NBA. Thomas is not getting his weakness (mainly lack of strength) exposed because he playing alongside a giant post presence in Glen Davis, and he may fit with other NBA teams, but I don't think he would be a great fit for the Bulls unless he develops a perimeter game.


our WHOLE team is perimeter oriented so EXACTLY do we need a perimeter oriented big man?? if that's the case, get aldridge.

thomas showed he could hit 15ft jumpers ALL game long.....he showed the scouts today another reason to peg him #1...

sorry but today he also proved to the ENTIRE world that he was a better prospect than LaMarcus Aldridge.

We need inside scoring, easy baskets and someone who's not afraid to bang downlow. He's ALLLLL of those things while LaMarcus isn't, he makes the game HARDER for himself settling for 14ft turnaround jumpers all day...he REFUSED to put the ball on the floor and bang dow low like his opponents did to him ALL game....

I'm still and Aldridge fan, but I'm an even BIGGER Thomas fan. He's a WARRIOR, we already have ENUFF scared big men.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/s...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"After he blocked a shot early in L.S.U.'s 62-54 victory over top-seeded Duke on Thursday, Thomas walked up to Josh McRoberts, one of the Blue Devils' star freshmen, glared at him and continued to follow McRoberts on the court.

"I just let him know he was a McDonald's All-American, I wasn't; he goes to Duke and I didn't get recruited by them," said Thomas, who had 9 points and 13 rebounds. "He's known as one of the premier players in America, I'm not. But I'm not going to let him kick my butt. *My objective is to take his soul and win the game.*

"It's not a chip on my shoulder. It's motivation."

DAMN!


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/s...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
> 
> "After he blocked a shot early in L.S.U.'s 62-54 victory over top-seeded Duke on Thursday, Thomas walked up to Josh McRoberts, one of the Blue Devils' star freshmen, glared at him and continued to follow McRoberts on the court.
> 
> "I just let him know he was a McDonald's All-American, I wasn't; he goes to Duke and I didn't get recruited by them," said Thomas, who had 9 points and 13 rebounds. "He's known as one of the premier players in America, I'm not. But I'm not going to let him kick my butt. *My objective is to take his soul and win the game.*
> 
> "It's not a chip on my shoulder. It's motivation."
> 
> DAMN!


That's just awesome.

Whether it's Thomas or not, our squad absolutely needs a hardscrabble, wrong-side-of-the-tracks sort of guy. The Duke/UConn/Kansas/blue chip player doesn't experience enough (real, not imagined) adversity in college.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

the good thing about that article is, he said he won't make up his mind until the tournament is over...which is far from him saying he wasn't going PERIOD earlier this year...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

I've got to give it to Thomas and Morrison: they are two of the most overtly competitive draft prospects I have seen in years.


----------



## TwinkieTowers

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/s...html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
> 
> "After he blocked a shot early in L.S.U.'s 62-54 victory over top-seeded Duke on Thursday, Thomas walked up to Josh McRoberts, one of the Blue Devils' star freshmen, glared at him and continued to follow McRoberts on the court.
> 
> "I just let him know he was a McDonald's All-American, I wasn't; he goes to Duke and I didn't get recruited by them," said Thomas, who had 9 points and 13 rebounds. "He's known as one of the premier players in America, I'm not. But I'm not going to let him kick my butt. *My objective is to take his soul and win the game.*
> 
> "It's not a chip on my shoulder. It's motivation."
> 
> DAMN!


Thomas is a redshirt freshman, so he already has two years of college basketball experience. McRoberts already has more all-around skill than Thomas but is definitely not as athletic as he is. Yeah, it's good to find motivation, but let's see if McRoberts finds motivation in that and schools Thomas next year, should both decide to stay in college and Duke schedules a game against LSU.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ScottMay said:


> That's just awesome.
> 
> Whether it's Thomas or not, our squad absolutely needs a hardscrabble, wrong-side-of-the-tracks sort of guy. The Duke/UConn/Kansas/blue chip player doesn't experience enough (real, not imagined) adversity in college.


Yes Scott! A guy like AD (in this sense only) who the team goes to battle with saying "so and so isn't gonna back down from anyone and I'm not either."


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TwinkieTowers said:


> Thomas is a redshirt freshman, so he already has two years of college basketball experience. McRoberts already has more all-around skill than Thomas but is definitely not as athletic as he is. Yeah, it's good to find motivation, but let's see if McRoberts finds motivation in that and schools Thomas next year, should both decide to stay in college and Duke schedules a game against LSU.


guess what, THOMAS would beast against him AGAIN...lol probably even worse...McRoberts can't handle that kid...


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TwinkieTowers said:


> Thomas is a redshirt freshman, so he already has two years of college basketball experience. McRoberts already has more all-around skill than Thomas but is definitely not as athletic as he is. Yeah, it's good to find motivation, but let's see if McRoberts finds motivation in that and schools Thomas next year, should both decide to stay in college and Duke schedules a game against LSU.


McRoberts aint schooling bleep. Please. He may school himself on how to not go "4 year old rich boy" a.k.a. "give me my ball back" when he tries to get the ball from Big Baby Davis and almost gets his shoulders torn off. Thomas is far distanced from McRoberts, and we're not talking age specific stuff here.


----------



## TwinkieTowers

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

We'll see. I still think Thomas is hiding behind Glen Davis' big body, but I guess the same can be said about McRoberts and Shelden Williams. Let's see what happens if/when Thomas and McRoberts are the Men on their teams.


----------



## step

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Man, I so would love to have 2 high picks in this draft. Roy and Thomas ftw.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TwinkieTowers said:


> We'll see. I still think Thomas is hiding behind Glen Davis' big body, but I guess the same can be said about McRoberts and Shelden Williams. Let's see what happens if/when Thomas and McRoberts are the Men on their teams.


I know you made an admission here, so don't take this the wrong way, but someone talking about a DUKE player and saying another player is hiding behind someone is kinda priceless. So I'm glad you didn't actually say that lol. Duke is like a bunch of players who hid behind the collective value of the team Brand, Deng and Maggette lol. That's the entire history of Duke. Let's not forget that McRoberts frontcourt mate is the All-American, not Thomas'.


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

chifaninca you are totally right. but there is not one single post by pipenattorade in this thread where he mentions aldridge without mentioning obryant although there are several where he mentions obryant and not aldridge.

so why is he being smart with me and mentioning the title of the thread and throwing out dancing bananas when i ask him an honest question about why he is bringing up aldridge when i am discussing obryant with him.


----------



## MemphisX

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Glen Davis is going to be a good player in the NBA and a potentially lethal rebounder. His instincts are uncanny and he has very quick feet. He also creates a lot of space with his physicality that will help his entire team rebound better. You are forced to put a body on him and sometimes that is not enough. He is going to go in the lottery especially if he loses some weight predraft.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



MemphisX said:


> Glen Davis is going to be a good player in the NBA and a potentially lethal rebounder. His instincts are uncanny and he has very quick feet. He also creates a lot of space with his physicality that will help his entire team rebound better. You are forced to put a body on him and sometimes that is not enough. He is going to go in the lottery especially if he loses some weight predraft.


Did you see the article (not sure exactly where it is on this board) about Davis' eating habits? I agree that he's super-talented, but if was an NBA team, I'd be scared about what he longs to do at the dinner table.


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Thomas has really impressed me big time!! He can play both ends of the court! He is unbelievable! 

I gave aldridge a chance, but he didnt deliver. Davis man=handled him the entire game. Imagine what real nba centers will do to him? 

If we get Thomas, we will still need to try and get a center for the team via FA or a trade. 

Thomas seems to be a paxson/skiles type player.


----------



## truebluefan

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

getting to aldridge, i was leary about him all year long. I was interested in seeing what he would do against a good front line and the game did not change my mind. 

Davis handled him well. When Aldridge gets into the NBA and plays against larger, stronger centers, he will have a hard time!! 

I dont want him with our pick. He isnt ready to be a center in the league. It is going to take him a while.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



truebluefan said:


> Thomas has really impressed me big time!! He can play both ends of the court! He is unbelievable!
> 
> I gave aldridge a chance, but he didnt deliver. Davis man=handled him the entire game. Imagine what real nba centers will do to him?
> 
> If we get Thomas, we will still need to try and get a center for the team via FA or a trade.
> 
> Thomas seems to be a paxson/skiles type player.


I'd even go further. 

Remember how I always come at you with the fact that very few players give you talent and jib and more often than not you need to choose between one or the other (not to say that most players don't give you a PRETTY decent amount of both, but usually a player is somewhat higher in one of them).

From what I've seen in Thomas, and it has been just 3 games, he's the rare player that gives you both. I mean some players who give you both aren't necessarily all world. Andre Iguodala is an example of a player who gives you both but at the same time lacks the natural fluidity to be a star TO THIS POINT.

From what I saw he does all the things that Pax and Skiles want a player to do, but with ridiculous explosion. Aldridge got in his way on the baseline and he just put the ball about a foot over Aldridge's outstretch arm and laid it DOWN at the rim right over his head.


----------



## fleet40

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Well thankfully we're talking about O'Bryant, who brings Curry's post offense but CAN rebound and defend.
> 
> Duncan get get points close to the basket. Laimbeer had a dominant defender on his team, and Sikma may have won a ring in the worst season of NBA ball since Russell came into the NBA before recently. Players like Sikma usually diminish at a much greater rate in the playoffs than players who can get the inside points.
> 
> Don't confuse "BEING ABLE" to shoot a jumper like Duncan with that being your only or primary weapon.


Laimbeer was at that time, their big stopper on defense in the middle."Said Chuck Daley" I would most definatley put Laimbeer as a defensive minded player who was a great defensive rebounder and lane clogger. Who could get to his spot and draw fouls "flops" Dont hate on Laimbeer Bulls fans. And the guy single handedly siched out the entire Portland Trailblazers team in the 90's finals.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



fleet40 said:


> Laimbeer was at that time, their big stopper on defense in the middle."Said Chuck Daley" I would most definatley put Laimbeer as a defensive minded player who was a great defensive rebounder and lane clogger. Who could get to his spot and draw fouls "flops" Dont hate on Laimbeer Bulls fans. And the guy single handedly siched out the entire Portland Trailblazers team in the 90's finals.


Laimbeer was good, but that team had Rodman, which is why they were able to win. They could all be jumpshooters because he grabbed any miss practically. AND he also guarded the other teams best player and shut down hall of famers in big games.


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

pippenatorade, i am curious as to your apparent double standard.

you said that you were talking about teams that win having a great scoring center, but then you said that you used the term post player while i said center

then you make a list of teams that won without a great defensive center and listed the bulls second three peat team. well they had a great defensive post player, as did some of the other teams you named that didnt have a great defensive center

im just curious if you want to have a serious discussion or do you want to backtrack and play word games because thats what i am seeing. correct me if i am wrong

you are right that using your phrase of post players makes my point that much more valid. there have been more winning teams with a great defensive post player than winning teams with a great offensive post player. 

since you want to use the term post player to be fair go ahead and list all the winning teams without a great defensive post player.


----------



## El Chapu

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

WHat I find funny is how people jump from one player's bandwagon to another. After Aldridge had a monster game two nights ago, he was a cant miss player, "Draft Him, Pax!" guy. Now, after a poor performace, he shouldnt be a top 5 pick and Thomas, who had an exceptional game, is the next Amare. 

First it was Gay, then Aldridge, now Thomas. Who is next? 

I dont like when people judge some guy potential based on one play, one game or even two games. 

This being said, I love the fact that there are 3 capable big men at the top of the draft board, with Aldridge, Bargnani and Thomas. Plus many teams have their sights on Gay and Morrison, so we cant do bad with that Knick pick. IMO Obryant wont be available when the Bulls draft around 13. 

BTW, watched Memphis-UCLA today and Carney was dissapointing. Again, one game. 

And finally, I read that some users compare Tyrus to Amare. Are those comparisons legit? Their bodies are similar, with Amare having more weight. Could Thomas do the same without losing his explosiveness and athletic ability?


----------



## jetsrule923

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

also rodman played almost nothing but sf for the bad boys he wasnt a post defender but instead a wing defender back in those days

the 89 pistons had laimbeer mahorn edwards and salley combine for almost 96 minutes or almost all the pf and c minutes

the 90 pistons had laimbeer edwards and salley combine for 84 minutes and greenwood and bedford 6 minutes so rodman barely played any pf that year either


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



El Chapu said:


> WHat I find funny is how people jump from one player's bandwagon to another. After Aldridge had a monster game two nights ago, he was a cant miss player, "Draft Him, Pax!" guy. Now, after a poor performace, he shouldnt be a top 5 pick and Thomas, who had an exceptional game, is the next Amare.
> 
> First it was Gay, then Aldridge, now Thomas. Who is next?
> 
> I dont like when people judge some guy potential based on one play, one game or even two games.
> 
> This being said, I love the fact that there are 3 capable big men at the top of the draft board, with Aldridge, Bargnani and Thomas. Plus many teams have their sights on Gay and Morrison, so we cant do bad with that Knick pick. IMO Obryant wont be available when the Bulls draft around 13.
> 
> BTW, watched Memphis-UCLA today and Carney was dissapointing. Again, one game.
> 
> And finally, I read that some users compare Tyrus to Amare. Are those comparisons legit? Their bodies are similar, with Amare having more weight. Could Thomas do the same without losing his explosiveness and athletic ability?


I'm still on the Aldridge train, BTW. Not everyone jumped off! That doesn't mean I'm right and he's going to be a great NBA player, but he's still the player I want the most, with Roy being a very close second. I really wish I had seen more of Brandon this year.


----------



## FanOfAll8472

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



jbulls said:


> Nobody made Shelden Williams look silly in that LSU-Duke game. Williams scored 23 points, grabbed 13 rebounds, and blocked 4 shots - he was really the only reason Duke was even in it. I like Thomas better than Aldridge and Williams but it's not like he went head to head with either of those guys - they were matched up with Glen Davis for the bulk of each game.


This was pointed out earlier, but let me reiterate. With 5-6 minutes left in the game, Tyrus Thomas re-entered the game with 4 fouls. He primarily guarded Shelden Williams and completely shut him down. Williams did absolutely nothing for the rest of the game, except almost commit a foul. In addition, Thomas blocked several shots, poked the ball away at least once, picked up a loose ball, and altered more shots. And he had that breakaway dunk.

Tyrus Thomas is my favorite college player, but is he really what the Bulls need? Yes, he is intense, energetic, and will be a superb defender/shot changer. But aren't the Bulls sorely lacking a post presence inside? That's what LaMarcus Aldridge is. Tyrus Thomas has a faceup 15' jumper, but little post game. Aldrige has the back to the basket game, even if he often prefers the turnaround jumper. He has an arsenal of moves that threaten the defense. His inability to produce against bigger, more physical players does concern me. The Bulls would definitely benefit from Thomas' energy, hustle, and intensity.


----------



## remlover

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

I'm still hoping the Bulls take Aldridge. One game wont make me jump off his wagon and onto to Tyrus Train. 

Aldridge was facing a guy 6'7 guy weighing 320 pounds. He was getting pushed off the box and shooting from a couple steps back he is not used to.


----------



## step

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



> Aldridge was facing a guy 6'7 guy weighing 320 pounds. He was getting pushed off the box and shooting from a couple steps back he is not used to.


He's going to have to get used to it if he's going to play with the big boys. 
I'm not off the idea of getting him either, I would love to get 2 out of the following 3, Aldridge, Thomas and Roy, idealy the latter two. Those 3 to me stand out and there's still some quality choices not included.


----------



## remlover

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Facing a guy in the NBA built like a Fire hydrant will not be an every game occurrence.


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm still on the Aldridge train, BTW. Not everyone jumped off! That doesn't mean I'm right and he's going to be a great NBA player, but he's still the player I want the most, with Roy being a very close second. I really wish I had seen more of Brandon this year.


I'm definitely on the Aldriddge train, even WITH last nights performance. The kid just has instincts and fundamental skills that no amount of "superior athleticism" is going to be able to overcome long term. He doesn't have to be taught how to box out. He puts a body on everyone when the ball goes up. He knows how to get position and seal his man. Yes, he'll struggle with that against people that outweigh him by 80 freaking pounds, but I suspect that will be less of a problem when he gains about 20 pounds or so. He runs the floor like a gazelle, and plays hard. He has to learn when NOT to settle for the Jumpshot, something he admitted last night.

But last nights game notwithstanding, I see absolutely NOTHING to suggest he won't be a REALLY GOOD player in the NBA at worst. And I can live with that.

Tyrus Thomas reminds me of Kenyon martin. And sometimes Amare Stoudamire. He's still very raw, and despite his ridiculous athleticism, he is both undersized, and needs some work on the block with the ball in his hands. And given our penchant for NOT being able to bring big men along and have them grasp the simplest of things in recent years (eddy curry is still learning how to jump for rebounds for petes sake, and tyson chandler still brings the ball down to his waist every time he touches it), I don't want any part of having to "train" another big man to do the simplest of tasks.

Yes to Aldridge, and 

Despite is OOZING potential and athleticism, No thanks to Thomas.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



remlover said:


> I'm still hoping the Bulls take Aldridge. One game wont make me jump off his wagon and onto to Tyrus Train.
> 
> Aldridge was facing a guy 6'7 guy weighing 320 pounds. He was getting pushed off the box and shooting from a couple steps back he is not used to.


First off, I'd say that Big Baby Davis may be 265 under all of that fat. Not to knock Davis, but you're really not gonna find much of a difference in strength and explosiveness between Davis and most NBA defenders. Not to mention, like you said, Davis is 320. Are you telling me that Aldridge could not use quickness to get around a guy who weighs 75 pounds more than him? 

Big Baby Davis made Aldridge look like a high school player. 4 points on *2-14* FG and 0 free throws. Then Aldridge goes down on the other end and lets Davis get 26 points and 9 rebounds on a pretty good FG%. AND I saw Tyrus Thomas finish over Aldridge once like he wasn't even there.

This isn't "one bad game." This is one awful horrendous game from a guy who only played one other game all year against a guy who has ANY chance of seeing the top half of the first round of the NBA draft in Shelden Williams. 

So when you consider that he's only had one other good game against semi-NBA competition, one game becomes a big deal. And again, it's one thing for a guy to come out and have the shots not fall his way, but what Aldridge showed me was much more damning. He didn't even appear to have TOOLS against Davis. It wasn't like he had skills, was getting decent position and putting up good shots that just weren't falling. He was knocked off the block, couldn't face up, couldn't get by for a runner, couldn't even back off for a jumper. Everything he put up he was getting jarred, off balance and looked generally out of sorts. 

One game is "just one game" when a guy has a body of work he can show me other than that game and one other game against a guy like Williams. When a guy has had 7 good games against future first rounders/top-15 picks and he lays a stink bomb where he looks good but the shots aren't falling or the loose balls are getting away, that's "just one game."


----------



## giusd

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Thomas and Roy would be a huge draft for us and i think if we have a top four pick we should be able to get thomas but i bet Roy is gone by the 8th pick so we would need some luck to draft him. Also portland is really going into the tank to get the worst record. The Knicks could end up the the 3rd worst pick behind the bobcats and the trailblazers but as long as we end up with the 4th pick i think we can get thomas.

daivd


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> And given our penchant for NOT being able to bring big men along and have them grasp the simplest of things in recent years (eddy curry is still learning how to jump for rebounds for petes sake, and tyson chandler still brings the ball down to his waist every time he touches it), I don't want any part of having to "train" another big man to do the simplest of tasks.


To play devil's advocate, given our recent penchant for drafting fundamentally sound players who don't seem to want to lead (note: that's Pax and Skiles talking, not just me; almost every interview I've heard/read this year makes reference to the team's leadership vacuum), maybe there are better choices than Aldridge?

Some posters have discussed the Knicks pick as if it's a luxury; pure icing on the cake. It's not -- it's absolutely essential to how far this team will go in the near and far term. This player (or the player the pick is traded for) has to become the alpha dog that the team currently lacks. History says we are not likely to land that type of player at 10-16 or wherever our own pick ends up.

No, we didn't have much luck with improving Eddy's or Tyson's skill levels. But those guys were thrown into an awful situation with awful coaches and awful teammates. We're a little more stable now, and we could bring along a big-man project like Thomas, Bargnani, or Noah more slowly and effectively. Hopefully we'd hire a good big-man coach like Sikma or Moses Malone to work with our pick, too.

And at least there's a track record of NBA big men improving their skill level their first few years in the league. On the other hand, it seems much harder and maybe even impossible to improve a guy's "engine." Between his getting thoroughly housed by LSU (and I don't buy the "Glen Davis is a physical oddity" excuse; there are literally dozens of NBA power forwards/centers who are as strong and quick as Davis) and his no-shows against some of the Little Sisters of the Poor in the Big 12, I have severe doubts about Aldridge's "engine."


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> I'm definitely on the Aldriddge train, even WITH last nights performance.


Puzzling when he's only had one other GOOD performance against a 2006 first round pick.



> The kid just has instincts and fundamental skills that no amount of "superior athleticism" is going to be able to overcome long term. He doesn't have to be taught how to box out. He puts a body on everyone when the ball goes up. He knows how to get position and seal his man. Yes, he'll struggle with that against people that outweigh him by 80 freaking pounds, but I suspect that will be less of a problem when he gains about 20 pounds or so. He runs the floor like a gazelle, and plays hard. He has to learn when NOT to settle for the Jumpshot, something he admitted last night.


I think that superior athleticism and strength will cause Aldridge serious problems on the next level. 

Most competent NCAA sophomoes vying for the first round don't have to be taught how to box out. I think anybody who is considered a top ten pick seals his man, boxes out and puts a body on someone. 

Lamarcus Aldridge has already gained 20 lbs. He doesn't have this massive shoulder frame and mesomorphic build. At 265 I don't see much athleticism there at all. He doesn't play with a meanstreak or the engine of a Joakim Noah or something like that, so athleticism is VERY important for a player like him. And he's just soft. I watched him shoot flailing fadeaways and fallers. And honestly tonight wasn't the first time I've seen it from him, it was just the first time I've seen it all game long.

I'd rather a guy learn how to not settle for a jumper LONG before the Bulls consider drafting him. Big Baby Davis may have 75 lbs. on him, but how many pounds of muscle? 35? And Big Baby Davis would be one of the least athletic centers in the NBA. In the NBA you'll have guys who outweight Aldridge by 20-25 lbs. and are several gears more athletic AND STRONGER than Big Baby Davis.

I just don't see NBA scouts looking at Aldridge's offensive weaknesses and saying "well you know 'Big Baby Davis' was the one that was defending him. That's pretty much a ticket to lockdown even for a good NBA post player."



> But last nights game notwithstanding, I see absolutely NOTHING to suggest he won't be a REALLY GOOD player in the NBA at worst. And I can live with that.


Are you serious? What did you see? He shot 2-14 FGs and had 0 FTs against a guy in Big Baby Davis who wouldn't SNIFF the top ten of this summers draft. I'll tell you what I saw. EXACTLY what I suspected. A guy whose offensive repertoire completely goes away when more physical play is allowed. Aldridge's repertoire consists mostly of putbacks, jumpers and then drives that only work against college stiffs who will be saying "and most of us are going pro in something other than sports" in two years. He sure wasn't driving last night, and let's face it. Big Baby Davis is fat. Yes he's very strong and quick, but he's still fat. If you're 245 you should have no problem using quickness to get around Big Baby Davis. AND if you have any strength, once he's off balance from your quickness, the smaller player should be able to jar him and make fouls look very obvious.



> Tyrus Thomas reminds me of Kenyon martin. And sometimes Amare Stoudamire. He's still very raw, and despite his ridiculous athleticism, he is both undersized, and needs some work on the block with the ball in his hands. And given our penchant for NOT being able to bring big men along and have them grasp the simplest of things in recent years (eddy curry is still learning how to jump for rebounds for petes sake, and tyson chandler still brings the ball down to his waist every time he touches it), I don't want any part of having to "train" another big man to do the simplest of tasks.
> 
> Yes to Aldridge, and
> 
> Despite is OOZING potential and athleticism, No thanks to Thomas.


WOW. You came away from yesterday's game with THOMAS being the one who has the dreaded "P" word attached to him and who we have to train? Didn't Thomas have 27 points and 11 rebounds or something like that on 10-14 FG against two former five-star recruits in Buckman and Aldridge??

A guy doesn't have POTENTIAL when he's getting those numbers in the ELITE 8 and leading his team to the final four. That's called *producing.* The potential label isn't something to be slapped on guys who just aren't "your guy." That's for guys who show you flashes, but can't put it together. *POTENTIAL and RAW = 2-14 FG against a 6'9" freshman who is carrying at least 40 pounds of pure fat* Production is 27 and 11 on 10-14 FG.

And what does Tyrus Thomas have to do with Eddy Curry? Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler would have been producing three years ago if Skiles was their coach from day one and if AD was their frontcourt mate from day one and everybody knows it. Floyd? Cartwright? You expected high school players to develop when their coaches had the attitude of "I want veterans. If you aren't a veteran I can't work with you. And because I'm not getting my way I'll just sit you for the biggest scrubs on earth." And then you had guys who were here to "teach the kids" ERRR "freeze them out of the offense and point fingers at them" like Jalen Rose, Greg Anthony and Charles Oakley. I'm not saying Curry and Chandler could not have done better on their own and are not accountable for themselves. They are. But I think even Pax nation knows what they saw out of Ed and Ty last year and knows that Skiles had WORLDS to do with that, and so did AD. Is it any wonder that in his first full season with Skiles EC was 2 coaches votes away from the All Star team? The point? You can't expect Thomas to develop so poorly when we don't have a bleep poor coach anymore and when we don't have selfish veterans who have no accountability anymore. 

And while Thomas may be 2" shorter than Aldridge and 20 lbs. lighter, he's not going to have to pretend to be a center like Aldridge. Aldridge does not have the minimum athleticism required to match up with a lot of NBA fours. Maybe half of all fours in the NBA could take him out of his game on athleticism alone. He will have matchup problems in the NBA, I guarantee that. Thomas on the other hand is a FOUR plain and simple. He'll never play spot minutes at the 3 or 5, unless the other coach is playing a player who is out of position at that spot as well. So I don't think size is an issue because Thomas is what he is. He's a four with the kind of RARE athleticism that would actually make me want to see some guard play out of a post man. I'd liken him to being a Vernon Davis type (Davis who ran a 4.3 at the combine as a TIGHT END).


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ScottMay said:


> To play devil's advocate, given our recent penchant for drafting fundamentally sound players who don't seem to want to lead (note: that's Pax and Skiles talking, not just me; almost every interview I've heard/read this year makes reference to the team's leadership vacuum), maybe there are better choices than Aldridge?
> 
> Some posters have discussed the Knicks pick as if it's a luxury; pure icing on the cake. It's not -- it's absolutely essential to how far this team will go in the near and far term. This player (or the player the pick is traded for) has to become the alpha dog that the team currently lacks. History says we are not likely to land that type of player at 10-16 or wherever our own pick ends up.
> 
> No, we didn't have much luck with improving Eddy's or Tyson's skill levels. But those guys were thrown into an awful situation with awful coaches and awful teammates. We're a little more stable now, and we could bring along a big-man project like Thomas, Bargnani, or Noah more slowly and effectively. Hopefully we'd hire a good big-man coach like Sikma or Moses Malone to work with our pick, too.
> 
> And at least there's a track record of NBA big men improving their skill level their first few years in the league. On the other hand, it seems much harder and maybe even impossible to improve a guy's "engine." Between his getting thoroughly housed by LSU (and I don't buy the "Glen Davis is a physical oddity" excuse; there are literally dozens of NBA power forwards/centers who are as strong and quick as Davis) and his no-shows against some of the Little Sisters of the Poor in the Big 12, I have severe doubts about Aldridge's "engine."


:clap: :clap: :clap:

Mr. May! The PTPer! Alpha dog is EXACTLY the way I'd put it. This team has a lot of lead-by-example, quiet, Ryne Sandberg and Andre Dawson types. We need a guy who can give us that killer instinct and make us think that we can punch anyone in the mouth. 

And then you speak on engines. From my understanding, that sort of thing has a lot to do with natural testosterone production and HGH production AND other factors relating to oxygen intake. Without getting into biology here, "engine" is kind of an "either you have it or you don't" thing as I UNDERSTAND it. 

Also props for identifying the logical discrepancy involving Curry and Chandler and the awful coaches and teammates they had in the early years.


----------



## giusd

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Funny Thomas didnt seem two inches shorter than LA. Thomas looks like the second coming of AS and they are about the same age. AS was an older senior and i think both will get drafted at about 19 years old. Tell you what Thomas will likely be gone by the 4th pick. funny how this is looking like a stronger and stronger draft every day.

david


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



giusd said:


> Thomas and Roy would be a huge draft for us and i think if we have a top four pick we should be able to get thomas but i bet Roy is gone by the 8th pick so we would need some luck to draft him. Also portland is really going into the tank to get the worst record. The Knicks could end up the the 3rd worst pick behind the bobcats and the trailblazers but as long as we end up with the 4th pick i think we can get thomas.
> 
> daivd


:banana: 

Yeah, BUT if we ended up with Carney or Brewer would that really be the worst thing ever? I'm just saying that if Pax decides we need a SG from the draft, things could be a lot worse.


----------



## giusd

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

I agree that we are very likely now to get the big we need either Thomas or Alridge and one of roy, brewer, or carney. That would go a long way to fixing our problems and with a FA and the continued maturity of BG and Dend we could really turn the team around for next year.

david


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



giusd said:


> Funny Thomas didnt seem two inches shorter than LA. Thomas looks like the second coming of AS and they are about the same age. AS was an older senior and i think both will get drafted at about 19 years old. Tell you what Thomas will likely be gone by the 4th pick. funny how this is looking like a stronger and stronger draft every day.
> 
> david


Actually it's not really looking that much stronger. BUT, in Thomas and O'Bryant I've seen two guys who could lead a team in different scenarios. Thomas could be the next Amare Stoudemire. Will he be? I can't say for sure. But at least I'm not already ruling it out. O'Bryant would need a lot of good players around him but could possibly thrive as the inside attack on a team with as many GOOD players as the Bulls had last year. Being a true center though, it's also much more likely that he could be a complete bust. 

But as the draft has gotten stronger in some aspects it has gotten weaker in others. How long ago was it that JJ Redick was thought of as a top ten pick. IMO he was exposed as not as good as people thought in the tourney. Maybe some already knew that, but now most people (i.e. not the Duke fanboy crowd) know. Shelden Williams also saw his stock drop dramatically. IMO Lamarcus Aldridge was exposed big time. 

So as players like Thomas and O'Bryant have emerged as being much better than many thought, others have shown that they are not as good as once thought. 

BUT at least this draft has shown me one potentially serious difference maker. It's definitely not the 2000 NBA draft all over again. I was erroneous in that belief.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



giusd said:


> I agree that we are very likely now to get the big we need either Thomas or Alridge and one of roy, brewer, or carney. That would go a long way to fixing our problems and with a FA and the continued maturity of BG and Dend we could really turn the team around for next year.
> 
> david


I'm starting to get more optomistic about a big turnaround. If we got O'Bryant, Harrington and Roy I'd be pretty excited. If we got Thomas, Mohammed and Carney, I'd be equally excited. 

Won't it be nice to have 1 PF clear above the rest next year instead of picking between five of them lol?


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> I'm starting to get more optomistic about a big turnaround. If we got O'Bryant, Harrington and Roy I'd be pretty excited. If we got Thomas, Mohammed and Carney, I'd be equally excited.
> 
> Won't it be nice to have 1 PF clear above the rest next year instead of picking between five of them lol?


If we just get THOMAS? I'd be content, PERIOD lol

Anything else is just added bonus...

For some odd reason I see Paxson liking Aldridge more though.

drafexpress says carney's stock could fall dramatically and put him possibly out of the 10 ten because of his inconsistency as a senior this year and cuz of their last game vs. ucla..

if this kid fell to our pick and we got Thomas? We'd have the two most athletic players in their position out of the draft....


----------



## TripleDouble

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

I'm concerned about a 210 pounder who builds his reputation off being a tough-guy bada$$. NBA players are going to take issue with his antics and shove him around like a rag doll.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TripleDouble said:


> I'm concerned about a 210 pounder who builds his reputation off being a tough-guy bada$$. NBA players are going to take issue with his antics and shove him around like a rag doll.


sure, like they did to kenyon and amare right?

that kid isn't gonna back down from anyone

if andrew bynum won't back down from SHAQ

what makes u think tyrus will be scared of any forward in the NBA? when he's EASILY much more of an intimadator than bynum...

we NEED that....we lost alot of that enforcer when AD left....lamarcuz is TOO soft..hell our whole frontline is probbaly the SOFTEST in the league...

i don't see how ya'll don't realize that the kid is PERFECT for us...if you lose a player like curry and GAIN a player like tyrus, u haven't lost ANYTHING..you've gained, dramatically...


----------



## TripleDouble

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> sure, like they did to kenyon and amare right?
> 
> that kid isn't gonna back down from anyone
> 
> if andrew bynum won't back down from SHAQ
> 
> what makes u think tyrus will be scared of any forward in the NBA? when he's EASILY much more of an intimadator than bynum...
> 
> we NEED that....we lost alot of that enforcer when AD left....lamarcuz is TOO soft..hell our whole frontline is probbaly the SOFTEST in the league...
> 
> i don't see how ya'll don't realize that the kid is PERFECT for us...if you lose a player like curry and GAIN a player like tyrus, u haven't lost ANYTHING..you've gained, dramatically...


Kmart and Amare were 230-240. This guy is 210. There really hasn't been a PF at that weight except maybe Rodman.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TripleDouble said:


> Kmart and Amare were 230-240. This guy is 210. There really hasn't been a PF at that weight except maybe Rodman.


I don't see what him weighing 20lbs less means? He'll gain atleast 10lbs before the season starts...He won't change, that's just HIM...

I don't understand why you wouldn't WANT that....

We're becoming a laughingstock again...why wouldn't I want a 6"9 forward to take it to the rim and dunk it on your frontline with brute force then STARE them down??? then have that same frontline try to score on the other end and that SAME 6"9 forward send their shot in the stands???

Why should we want a Bosh, KG, O'Neal type in Aldridge when we could have THAT? Aldridge proved to the entire world last night that he was SOFT, quite frankly, we don't NEED more of that...


----------



## Electric Slim

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> We're becoming a laughingstock again...why wouldn't I want a 6"9 forward to take it to the rim and dunk it on your frontline with brute force then STARE them down??? then have that same frontline try to score on the other end and that SAME 6"9 forward send their shot in the stands???


That's how i felt in March 2000 when I saw that guy from Iowa State play.

What was his name.....................


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



TripleDouble said:


> Kmart and Amare were 230-240. This guy is 210. There really hasn't been a PF at that weight except maybe Rodman.


Draft.net lists him at 219 and I believe that that report was written pretty early on. He looks about 225 to me. I don't really see him being much skinnier than Scottie Pippen who was 228.


----------



## T.Shock

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Okay let's do this...

First, Tyrus Thomas absolutely dominated the game yesterday on both ends of the court. Scoring in the post, from 15 ft, blocking shots, rebounding. The only question I have on him is his low post game and in some respects his weight (however, once he gets drafted the team is gonna have him up 20 pds through an NBA strength regiment right away). 

Aldridge will be a decent pro but anytime you get abused like that on the biggest stage of your career, you need to head back to school and get mean or declare and enjoy that 1st contract while you are sitting on the bench. He looked intimidated the entire game.

And just to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation, people are loving Thomas but no mention has been made of Big Baby Davis. Some want to make the Sweetney comparison but Davis' agility and athleticism for a man his size is unparallel. I was really impressed last night but how well he moved in the paint, his passing skills, his jump shot (remember the 3 he hit), and the way he finished in traffic by using his body when Aldridge had the angle on him.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



T.Shock said:


> And just to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation, people are loving Thomas but no mention has been made of Big Baby Davis. Some want to make the Sweetney comparison but Davis' agility and athleticism for a man his size is unparallel. I was really impressed last night but how well he moved in the paint, his passing skills, his jump shot (remember the 3 he hit), and the way he finished in traffic by using his body when Aldridge had the angle on him.


Nobody is going crazy over him cuz he's Fat....We've all seen these fat guys dominate in college before then come to the league and be come Tractor Traylor's, Oliver Millers & Michael Sweetney's...

Plus with his recent comments about wanting to get back into his crazy eating habits...I don't think he deserves consideration...


----------



## TripleDouble

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> Nobody is going crazy over him cuz he's Fat....We've all seen these fat guys dominate in college before then come to the league and be come Tractor Traylor's, Oliver Millers & Michael Sweetney's...
> 
> Plus with his recent comments about wanting to get back into his crazy eating habits...I don't think he deserves consideration...


Davis also seems to have really short arms.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> I don't see what him weighing 20lbs less means? He'll gain atleast 10lbs before the season starts...He won't change, that's just HIM...
> 
> I don't understand why you wouldn't WANT that....
> 
> We're becoming a laughingstock again...why wouldn't I want a 6"9 forward to take it to the rim and dunk it on your frontline with brute force then STARE them down??? then have that same frontline try to score on the other end and that SAME 6"9 forward send their shot in the stands???
> 
> Why should we want a Bosh, KG, O'Neal type in Aldridge when we could have THAT? Aldridge proved to the entire world last night that he was SOFT, quite frankly, we don't NEED more of that...


I wouldn't sweat it too much. What you have is SOME people who drooled over Aldridge and told you what they "just think" about Lamarcus Aldridge, and now, after he was exposed and left homeless, at least SOME of these same people can take last nights game and say that "at the very least I still think Aldridge will be a very good pro" and "Thomas = potential"... and they're willing to try to discredit Thomas' game because he's made himself an obstacle to the Bulls drafting "their guy" with the cool name "Lamarcus." 

There is really nothing to say for Lamarcus last night. Like someone said earlier, there are dozens upon dozens of bigs with a better combination of strength and quickness than Big Baby Davis in the pros. Lamarcus not only played bad, offensively he was completely handcuffed. He didn't throw up good shots and watch them simply not go down. He was soft and everything he threw up was with him going away from the basket and not having control of his body. So what's the next easiest thing? When YOUR GUY is exposed, find something to latch onto about the other guy. Build something up about Tyrus so that despite Lamarcus' stink bomb last night, maybe you can tear Thomas down one notch below where Lamarcus put himself last night!

ROY, you know the deal. So let me just tell you all you need to know about last night's game, Tyrus, Lamarcus and Lamarcus' fans. A pro Lamarcus fan watched last nights game and actually said that he still thinks Lamarcus will be a very good pro at the very least and then continued to associate the word POTENTIAL with Tyrus. That's right. The guy who put up 21 points and 10 rebounds on 70% FG or whatever is not a PRODUCER, but he has POTENTIAL. And the guy who put up 4 points on 2-14 FG is going to be a very good pro at the very least. Kwame Brown had potential. Darius Miles had potential. Someone putting up double doubles and making play after play after play on their way to leading their team to the final four has passed up the potential label.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



T.Shock said:


> Okay let's do this...
> 
> First, Tyrus Thomas absolutely dominated the game yesterday on both ends of the court. Scoring in the post, from 15 ft, blocking shots, rebounding. The only question I have on him is his low post game and in some respects his weight (however, once he gets drafted the team is gonna have him up 20 pds through an NBA strength regiment right away).
> 
> Aldridge will be a decent pro but anytime you get abused like that on the biggest stage of your career, you need to head back to school and get mean or declare and enjoy that 1st contract while you are sitting on the bench. He looked intimidated the entire game.
> 
> And just to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation, people are loving Thomas but no mention has been made of Big Baby Davis. Some want to make the Sweetney comparison but Davis' agility and athleticism for a man his size is unparallel. I was really impressed last night but how well he moved in the paint, his passing skills, his jump shot (remember the 3 he hit), and the way he finished in traffic by using his body when Aldridge had the angle on him.


If Davis gets up to a legit 6'11", all while losing about 20 pounds in the process, he'll be on the Shaq side of Eddy Curry, not the Tractor Traylor side like he is now. 

You're dead on on Aldridge. He will be decent in the league, but we need more than decent. He needs to go back to school, and take anger management, as in like *how to get some*.

As far as Thomas, I think he is one of the rare fours who is athletic enough to attack the basket like a forward. I also love his potential without the ball. I'd rather have the guy on my team who backs someone down be a center anyway. I think if we also get O'Bryant, or a Nazr or Nene, you can have a 3 man rotation that resembles last year with Thomas playing more of an AD-energy role (I realize he won't bring the leadership, but will bring much more youth and athleticism and more toughness than we have now by far).


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> If Davis gets up to a legit 6'11", all while losing about 20 pounds in the process, he'll be on the Shaq side of Eddy Curry, not the Tractor Traylor side like he is now.


And if Curry gets mean, he is an all-star. 

But Davis is about 6'7".


----------



## smARTmouf

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

If his play isn't enough...Just read this kids quotes!...This is the sort of attitude the Bulls NEEDS!...You can't tell me Tyson wouldn't benefit from being around a hungry guy like this!!!....He's a STAR

Tyrus Thomas on Josh McRoberts...

"He's known as one of the premier players in America, I'm not. But I'm not going to let him kick my butt. My objective is to take his soul and win the game."

"It's not a chip on my shoulder. It's motivation."


Tyrus' take on his dunk followed by block against Duke...

"It was like clocking out of work before you're supposed to," Thomas said of racing back for the block. "I did half my job on one end. I had to get back and finish the rest."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/sports/ncaabasketball/25lsu.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



johnston797 said:


> And if Curry gets mean, he is an all-star.
> 
> But Davis is about 6'7".


He was 2 coaches votes from making the team last year. Not bad for age 22. Oh, and we won 47 games. He won't sniff it in NYK though. If someone told me I was going to be on a team with Jalen, Marbury and Jamal I'd just cry. 

Davis is short, all I'm saying is how tall he gets will be the difference. If he grows like Jordan (3" taller summer after freshman year) or Pippen (grew from 6'1" as a freshman to 6'8"), he'll go from a guy who could be a decent role player in the NBA to a star.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> Tyrus Thomas reminds me of Kenyon martin. And sometimes Amare Stoudamire. He's still very raw, and despite his ridiculous athleticism, he is both undersized, and needs some work on the block with the ball in his hands. And given our penchant for NOT being able to bring big men along and have them grasp the simplest of things in recent years (eddy curry is still learning how to jump for rebounds for petes sake, and tyson chandler still brings the ball down to his waist every time he touches it), I don't want any part of having to "train" another big man to do the simplest of tasks.


After watching Thomas, I'm not too worried about the little things. The problem with Curry and Chandler wasn't/isn't the little things, it's the big things.. Chandler's the closer comparison to guys like Thomas/Amare/KMart. What's the difference? It's not that Chandler is still bringing the ball down. That's annoying yes, but it's not an absolute killer.

What is a killer is that he's weak, he can't ****ing catch the ball and has a noticeable mental fragility.

Those are the important differences between him and Amare or KMart. And I don't think they're all that coachable.

Thomas... well, like I said, the little things aren't all that imporant if you get the big things right. Here, he seems to have the big things down pretty well. He jumps out of the gym, collecting every board and swatting every ball in sight.

Much more importantly, with respect to the Chandler/Amare comparison, he catches everything thrown his way. How much more effective would Tyson be if he could catch those alley-oops and lobs in side and just dunk them the way Amare can? A lot. Why isn't he doing it? Because he can't catch a damn thing. And that's the sort of thing I've seen Thomas doing throughout the tournament.

I'm not yet sold on the guy, but it looks to me like that's a very important thing he can do that Chandler can't. So I don't think the Chandler comparison is a very big one. Teaching guys the small things isn't much of an issue. Teaching them the big things is. And Thomas seems to have most of the big things down.

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

Aldridge... looks like a Joe Smith type guy to me. Fundamentally solid, has the right size and fairly good at every aspect of the game. Athletic enough to play, but not enough to be special. Not a headcase or a mental midget, but not a leader or a guy who steps up when the going gets tough either.

In short, he's completely safe but has no tangible upside other than being a solid but unspectacular starting quality player. If we were to pick him with a middle or late lottery pick, I'd think we did really well. If we were to pick him with a high lottery pick when there are potential stars on the board I'd think we were out of our minds.


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Mikedc said:


> After watching Thomas, I'm not too worried about the little things. The problem with Curry and Chandler wasn't/isn't the little things, it's the big things.. Chandler's the closer comparison to guys like Thomas/Amare/KMart. What's the difference? It's not that Chandler is still bringing the ball down. That's annoying yes, but it's not an absolute killer.
> 
> What is a killer is that he's weak, he can't ****ing catch the ball and has a noticeable mental fragility.
> 
> Those are the important differences between him and Amare or KMart. And I don't think they're all that coachable.
> 
> Thomas... well, like I said, the little things aren't all that imporant if you get the big things right. Here, he seems to have the big things down pretty well. He jumps out of the gym, collecting every board and swatting every ball in sight.
> 
> Much more importantly, with respect to the Chandler/Amare comparison, he catches everything thrown his way. How much more effective would Tyson be if he could catch those alley-oops and lobs in side and just dunk them the way Amare can? A lot. Why isn't he doing it? Because he can't catch a damn thing. And that's the sort of thing I've seen Thomas doing throughout the tournament.
> 
> I'm not yet sold on the guy, but it looks to me like that's a very important thing he can do that Chandler can't. So I don't think the Chandler comparison is a very big one. Teaching guys the small things isn't much of an issue. Teaching them the big things is. And Thomas seems to have most of the big things down.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> Aldridge... looks like a Joe Smith type guy to me. Fundamentally solid, has the right size and fairly good at every aspect of the game. Athletic enough to play, but not enough to be special. Not a headcase or a mental midget, but not a leader or a guy who steps up when the going gets tough either.
> 
> In short, he's completely safe but has no tangible upside other than being a solid but unspectacular starting quality player. If we were to pick him with a middle or late lottery pick, I'd think we did really well. If we were to pick him with a high lottery pick when there are potential stars on the board I'd think we were out of our minds.



That's a fair assessment. I can live with both parts of that.


Pippenatorade.....rescinded.


EDIT: And for the record, L.A. is NOT my guy. Hell, I JUST NOW got off the Rudy GAY bandwagon, so I have no idea What you are talking about.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> Davis is short, all I'm saying is how tall he gets will be the difference. If he grows like Jordan (3" taller summer after freshman year) or Pippen (grew from 6'1" as a freshman to 6'8"), he'll go from a guy who could be a decent role player in the NBA to a star.


About an inch is all you realistically can hope for...at best. And Davis will still be short.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Mikedc said:


> After watching Thomas, I'm not too worried about the little things. The problem with Curry and Chandler wasn't/isn't the little things, it's the big things.. Chandler's the closer comparison to guys like Thomas/Amare/KMart. What's the difference? It's not that Chandler is still bringing the ball down. That's annoying yes, but it's not an absolute killer.
> 
> What is a killer is that he's weak, he can't ****ing catch the ball and has a noticeable mental fragility.
> 
> Those are the important differences between him and Amare or KMart. And I don't think they're all that coachable.
> 
> Thomas... well, like I said, the little things aren't all that imporant if you get the big things right. Here, he seems to have the big things down pretty well. He jumps out of the gym, collecting every board and swatting every ball in sight.
> 
> Much more importantly, with respect to the Chandler/Amare comparison, he catches everything thrown his way. How much more effective would Tyson be if he could catch those alley-oops and lobs in side and just dunk them the way Amare can? A lot. Why isn't he doing it? Because he can't catch a damn thing. And that's the sort of thing I've seen Thomas doing throughout the tournament.
> 
> I'm not yet sold on the guy, but it looks to me like that's a very important thing he can do that Chandler can't. So I don't think the Chandler comparison is a very big one. Teaching guys the small things isn't much of an issue. Teaching them the big things is. And Thomas seems to have most of the big things down.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> Aldridge... looks like a Joe Smith type guy to me. Fundamentally solid, has the right size and fairly good at every aspect of the game. Athletic enough to play, but not enough to be special. Not a headcase or a mental midget, but not a leader or a guy who steps up when the going gets tough either.
> 
> In short, he's completely safe but has no tangible upside other than being a solid but unspectacular starting quality player. If we were to pick him with a middle or late lottery pick, I'd think we did really well. If we were to pick him with a high lottery pick when there are potential stars on the board I'd think we were out of our minds.


:banana:


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> That's a fair assessment. I can live with both parts of that.
> 
> 
> Pippenatorade, you seem to enjoy making alot of other assumptions about the motivations behind other peoples posts. And then you belittle them from differing from you in their opinions. I never thought I'd say this, but welcome to "ignore".
> 
> EDIT: And for the record, L.A. is NOT my guy. Hell, I JUST NOW got off the Rudy GAY bandwagon, so I have no idea WTF you are talking about.


I don't think it was belittling and wasn't meant that way. But PM me and we'll talk about it man. I most often find myself agreeing with you on a lot of things.

And the "your guy" stuff wasn't directed at you specifically. I have no basis for knowing that YOU specifically approach things that way. 

:banana:


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Puzzling when he's only had one other GOOD performance against a 2006 first round pick.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that superior athleticism and strength will cause Aldridge serious problems on the next level.
> 
> Most competent NCAA sophomoes vying for the first round don't have to be taught how to box out. I think anybody who is considered a top ten pick seals his man, boxes out and puts a body on someone.
> 
> Lamarcus Aldridge has already gained 20 lbs. He doesn't have this massive shoulder frame and mesomorphic build. At 265 I don't see much athleticism there at all. He doesn't play with a meanstreak or the engine of a Joakim Noah or something like that, so athleticism is VERY important for a player like him. And he's just soft. I watched him shoot flailing fadeaways and fallers. And honestly tonight wasn't the first time I've seen it from him, it was just the first time I've seen it all game long.
> 
> I'd rather a guy learn how to not settle for a jumper LONG before the Bulls consider drafting him. Big Baby Davis may have 75 lbs. on him, but how many pounds of muscle? 35? And Big Baby Davis would be one of the least athletic centers in the NBA. In the NBA you'll have guys who outweight Aldridge by 20-25 lbs. and are several gears more athletic AND STRONGER than Big Baby Davis.
> 
> I just don't see NBA scouts looking at Aldridge's offensive weaknesses and saying "well you know 'Big Baby Davis' was the one that was defending him. That's pretty much a ticket to lockdown even for a good NBA post player."
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? What did you see? He shot 2-14 FGs and had 0 FTs against a guy in Big Baby Davis who wouldn't SNIFF the top ten of this summers draft. I'll tell you what I saw. EXACTLY what I suspected. A guy whose offensive repertoire completely goes away when more physical play is allowed. Aldridge's repertoire consists mostly of putbacks, jumpers and then drives that only work against college stiffs who will be saying "and most of us are going pro in something other than sports" in two years. He sure wasn't driving last night, and let's face it. Big Baby Davis is fat. Yes he's very strong and quick, but he's still fat. If you're 245 you should have no problem using quickness to get around Big Baby Davis. AND if you have any strength, once he's off balance from your quickness, the smaller player should be able to jar him and make fouls look very obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW. You came away from yesterday's game with THOMAS being the one who has the dreaded "P" word attached to him and who we have to train? Didn't Thomas have 27 points and 11 rebounds or something like that on 10-14 FG against two former five-star recruits in Buckman and Aldridge??
> 
> A guy doesn't have POTENTIAL when he's getting those numbers in the ELITE 8 and leading his team to the final four. That's called *producing.* The potential label isn't something to be slapped on guys who just aren't "your guy." That's for guys who show you flashes, but can't put it together. *POTENTIAL and RAW = 2-14 FG against a 6'9" freshman who is carrying at least 40 pounds of pure fat* Production is 27 and 11 on 10-14 FG.
> 
> And what does Tyrus Thomas have to do with Eddy Curry? Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler would have been producing three years ago if Skiles was their coach from day one and if AD was their frontcourt mate from day one and everybody knows it. Floyd? Cartwright? You expected high school players to develop when their coaches had the attitude of "I want veterans. If you aren't a veteran I can't work with you. And because I'm not getting my way I'll just sit you for the biggest scrubs on earth." And then you had guys who were here to "teach the kids" ERRR "freeze them out of the offense and point fingers at them" like Jalen Rose, Greg Anthony and Charles Oakley. I'm not saying Curry and Chandler could not have done better on their own and are not accountable for themselves. They are. But I think even Pax nation knows what they saw out of Ed and Ty last year and knows that Skiles had WORLDS to do with that, and so did AD. Is it any wonder that in his first full season with Skiles EC was 2 coaches votes away from the All Star team? The point? You can't expect Thomas to develop so poorly when we don't have a bleep poor coach anymore and when we don't have selfish veterans who have no accountability anymore.
> 
> And while Thomas may be 2" shorter than Aldridge and 20 lbs. lighter, he's not going to have to pretend to be a center like Aldridge. Aldridge does not have the minimum athleticism required to match up with a lot of NBA fours. Maybe half of all fours in the NBA could take him out of his game on athleticism alone. He will have matchup problems in the NBA, I guarantee that. Thomas on the other hand is a FOUR plain and simple. He'll never play spot minutes at the 3 or 5, unless the other coach is playing a player who is out of position at that spot as well. So I don't think size is an issue because Thomas is what he is. He's a four with the kind of RARE athleticism that would actually make me want to see some guard play out of a post man. I'd liken him to being a Vernon Davis type (Davis who ran a 4.3 at the combine as a TIGHT END).


Funny, I don't ever remember using the word "potential" to describe Thomas.

Remember, I WAS THE ONE who referred to him as the second coming of Amare a couple weeks ago, and I got laughed at. SO it isn't that I don't think he'll be good. I was where you guys are just getting now, quite a while ago. I just don't know that WE as an organization have the TOOLS or the PATIENCE to teach him what he needs to know to REACH that level, given our track record. 

I'm not leary of drafting him because of HIM. I'm leary of drafting him because of US.

I just happen to think we won't have to work as hard to teach L.A. But that being said, I don't believe his ceiling is as high either.

What's not to understand about that??


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



johnston797 said:


> About an inch is all you realistically can hope for...at best. And Davis will still be short.


I was just framing the analysis man. I never said I wanted Davis or think he's gonna be a great pro. But you can't deny that IF he does get to 6'11", however unlikely, he'll be a freak.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> Funny, I don't ever remember using the word "potential" to describe Thomas.


"Despite is OOZING potential and athleticism, No thanks to Thomas." 

That was at the end of the post I quoted. It's not that I think you're some kind of terrible person. On the contrary I enjoy your posts, which is why you may have sensed a feeling of shock or an overbearing feeling from my post. I just wanted to know the basis for you mentioning the "P" word with Thomas.



> Remember, I WAS THE ONE who referred to him as the second coming of Amare a couple weeks ago, and I got laughed at. SO it isn't that I don't think he'll be good. I was where you guys are just getting now, quite a while ago. I just don't know that WE as an organization have the TOOLS or the PATIENCE to teach him what he needs to know to REACH that level, given our track record.


Two things. One, congrats... looks like you're laughing now huh?

Secondly, I just don't think we're that good. If Thomas is the only "potential" (hate to use that word with a guy who is doing what he's doing) difference maker in the draft, and I haven't found another one, we aren't good enough to turn him down period. I don't want Lamarcus Aldridge because we don't have patience enough to go for greatness. If WE don't have the tools then WE need to start asking why and fix it. Because that's a serious problem. 



> I'm not leary of drafting him because of HIM. I'm leary of drafting him because of US.
> 
> I just happen to think we won't have to work as hard to teach L.A. But that being said, I don't believe his ceiling is as high either.
> 
> What's not to understand about that??


I do understand now. I just wanted you to tell me exactly where you were coming from, because that's not what I got out of your first post. I didn't mean to be so abrasive, I was just kinda amazed at the P-card. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself.

:banana:


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> "Despite is OOZING potential and athleticism, No thanks to Thomas."
> 
> That was at the end of the post I quoted. It's not that I think you're some kind of terrible person. On the contrary I enjoy your posts, which is why you may have sensed a feeling of shock or an overbearing feeling from my post. I just wanted to know the basis for you mentioning the "P" word with Thomas.
> 
> 
> 
> Two things. One, congrats... looks like you're laughing now huh?
> 
> Secondly, I just don't think we're that good. If Thomas is the only "potential" (hate to use that word with a guy who is doing what he's doing) difference maker in the draft, and I haven't found another one, we aren't good enough to turn him down period. I don't want Lamarcus Aldridge because we don't have patience enough to go for greatness. If WE don't have the tools then WE need to start asking why and fix it. Because that's a serious problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand now. I just wanted you to tell me exactly where you were coming from, because that's not what I got out of your first post. I didn't mean to be so abrasive, I was just kinda amazed at the P-card. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself.
> 
> :banana:


Potential is a bad choice there, then.

I'm still not sold on him as the next amare, but I think he's close.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> Potential is a bad choice there, then.
> 
> I'm still not sold on him as the next amare, but I think he's close.


Oh when I say next Amare I think you're usually saying "Amare Jr." or "like Amare." When I say that I mean that his game may be closer than anyone else's. I certainly don't think it means he's as good now, or even that he will be as good. But give me 80% of Amare and then Nazr, Obryant or someone else who can give us size and let Tyson come off the bench and IM happy. That may not make others happy. 

I admit that I thought you meant potential in a different context/misread you.

Don't ignore me


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Oh when I say next Amare I think you're usually saying "Amare Jr." or "like Amare." When I say that I mean that his game may be closer than anyone else's. I certainly don't think it means he's as good now, or even that he will be as good. But give me 80% of Amare and then Nazr, Obryant or someone else who can give us size and let Tyson come off the bench and IM happy. That may not make others happy.
> 
> I admit that I thought you meant potential in a different context/misread you.
> 
> Don't ignore me


I'm not. :laugh:

I agree with your assesment. In fact, I'm thinking if Tyson doesn't come in ready to play next fall, I've actually thought about trading him. Right now, he's firmly in the "overrated" camp, and for someone who didn't garner alot of FA attention last offseason, that is utterly pathetic.

Edit: I'm actually thinking that Thomas may give us what we THOUGHT we were getting in Tyson.

And Ironically, ROY, if we could by some miracle land him, Might do the same thing to Ben Gordon.


----------



## Frankensteiner

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ScottMay said:


> (and I don't buy the "Glen Davis is a physical oddity" excuse; there are literally dozens of NBA power forwards/centers who are as strong and quick as Davis)


There are? I must have missed the influx of the dozens of 300+ pound power forwards to the NBA.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> I'm not. :laugh:
> 
> I agree with your assesment. In fact, I'm thinking if Tyson doesn't come in ready to play next fall, I've actually thought about trading him. Right now, he's firmly in the "overrated" camp, and for someone who didn't garner alot of FA attention last offseason, that is utterly pathetic.
> 
> Edit: I'm actually thinking that Thomas may give us what we THOUGHT we were getting in Tyson.
> 
> And Ironically, ROY, if we could by some miracle land him, Might do the same thing to Ben Gordon.


Don't you mean what YOU thought you were getting in Tyson? LOL, jk, I won't open up that can of worms right now.

As far as Thomas, I totally agree. But I also think that a player like Thomas, combined with the best 7' 250+ lb. center we can get, might allow Tyson to play under less pressure and be more effective. I just think Tyson is a good bench player. The defensive version of John "Hot Rod" Williams if you will. I think Tyson is gonna be like Marcus Camby. Problem is, I also think it's gonna take him about that long to get things figured out. It took Camby quite a few years to become who he has been the last few. 

I'm not so sold on Roy. I think he's good. I'm just not so sure what people see that sets him apart from Brewer or Carney. But believe me, I'm far less involved in that opinion than I am in my whole thing with the bigs. I'm really worried about this bigs issue. We could sink or swim without a tall SG, but we need a frontcourt bad. So don't get me wrong. Roy may be head and shoulders better than Carney. I just haven't gotten as involved in it to know for sure.


----------



## Frankensteiner

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Mikedc said:


> Aldridge... looks like a Joe Smith type guy to me. Fundamentally solid, has the right size and fairly good at every aspect of the game. Athletic enough to play, but not enough to be special. Not a headcase or a mental midget, but not a leader or a guy who steps up when the going gets tough either.


When the going got tough for LSU against Texas A&M, Thomas contributed 7 points and 3 rebounds. I would be careful with coming to conclusions based off one game. Evaluating their seasons as a whole, both had good and bad performances.



> In short, he's completely safe but has no tangible upside other than being a solid but unspectacular starting quality player.


Aldridge and Thomas are the same age, and Aldridge is the better player right now. So why does Thomas have a higher upside? Because he can jump higher?


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

OK everyone, let me just say I'd be very happy to grab Thomas. 

But a couple of points of reality please:

1 - It's TWO GAMES! If he had played this way all year he'd be the #1 guy without any discussions (which would make for a boring message boars -LOL). Still, the reason for discussion is you can't go on a few games. If that's the case - Thomas, Morrison, Carney, Roy, Aldridge and all others have been non-NBA guys for a week, then future HOF'ers for a week.

2. You can't deny his physical prowess and ability to change games ont he defensive end(Wow, sounds like descriptions of Chandler), but guys in college don't use the pump fake effectively like they do in the NBA. Remember when Chandler came in, he wanted to block everything and picked up 4 fould in 37 seconds (slight exagerration. So, I hope he will be schooled on that.

3. I am concerned because I have 6 games now of Thomas, and from the little I've seen, he's very much a dunk the ball, put back guy. No, I don't expect him to go outside the key, but I would like some acutally post moves. A guy with his energy, talents, etc...could be unstoppable if he had a few good post moves. Unfortuantely, I also have very little faith in our organization to help him develop any (Thus, my continued existence in the fire Pax/Skiles/Whoever is in charge of player development clubs).

4. The guy is do damned oozing with potential I'm afraid will ruin him. We have the worst organizational supprt of any team in the league (sans NY Knicks). Ok, that's probably not fair, but I'm tired of seeing great potential guys like Chandler, Crawford, Curry, Hinrich, Gordon, and Thomas year after year, without any development to their games. So if the organziation is going to help, then we need to bring in some front court coaches to teach these guys (AD would be a great fit).

5. I am curious how all this will affect our FA signings. I'm not necessarily saying I want Harrington over Thomas, but I am willing to consider that Harrington is good for 18 and 7 every night. I'd have no problem in still signing him if we couldn't get Nene, but Nazr or another Center becomes very important and less of a guarantee unless JR is really committed to building a winner and willing to let Pax overpay.

7. Is Paxson ballsy enough to take the uncertain risk of Thomas vs. the "Bulls type" player (you know, the guy with the right opedigree and major college experience)? I'm not so sure he would do that. It will be interesting to see how Paxson does business this off-season. This is, IMO, his and the organization's make or break off-season. That's also why I advocate taking and signing as many quality big men as you can. Much easier to trade Big for small, than smalls for bigs.


OK - Back to the Thomas love fest.

Can't wait to see him in action in a Bulls Uni............... :cheers:


----------



## rosenthall

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Mikedc said:


> After watching Thomas, I'm not too worried about the little things. The problem with Curry and Chandler wasn't/isn't the little things, it's the big things.. Chandler's the closer comparison to guys like Thomas/Amare/KMart. What's the difference? It's not that Chandler is still bringing the ball down. That's annoying yes, but it's not an absolute killer.
> 
> What is a killer is that he's weak, he can't ****ing catch the ball and has a noticeable mental fragility.
> 
> Those are the important differences between him and Amare or KMart. And I don't think they're all that coachable.
> 
> Thomas... well, like I said, the little things aren't all that imporant if you get the big things right. Here, he seems to have the big things down pretty well. He jumps out of the gym, collecting every board and swatting every ball in sight.
> 
> Much more importantly, with respect to the Chandler/Amare comparison, he catches everything thrown his way. How much more effective would Tyson be if he could catch those alley-oops and lobs in side and just dunk them the way Amare can? A lot. Why isn't he doing it? Because he can't catch a damn thing. And that's the sort of thing I've seen Thomas doing throughout the tournament.
> 
> I'm not yet sold on the guy, but it looks to me like that's a very important thing he can do that Chandler can't. So I don't think the Chandler comparison is a very big one. Teaching guys the small things isn't much of an issue. Teaching them the big things is. And Thomas seems to have most of the big things down.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> Aldridge... looks like a Joe Smith type guy to me. Fundamentally solid, has the right size and fairly good at every aspect of the game. Athletic enough to play, but not enough to be special. Not a headcase or a mental midget, but not a leader or a guy who steps up when the going gets tough either.
> 
> In short, he's completely safe but has no tangible upside other than being a solid but unspectacular starting quality player. If we were to pick him with a middle or late lottery pick, I'd think we did really well. If we were to pick him with a high lottery pick when there are potential stars on the board I'd think we were out of our minds.


Honestly, after watching some of LaMarcus Aldridge, I wish I had seen more of Chris Bosh in college and watched one iota of Joe Smith at Maryland, so I could get a better feel of where Aldridge fits on the Joe Smith-Chris Bosh spectrum. I remember watching Chris Bosh play a little bit, and not being entirely impressed him, and I called him out as a future bust at #4, and used the Joe Smith comparison often.........obviously, I was wrong. If the difference the two was just mental, then, I'd be really hesitant to take L.A. with anything higher than 7 or 8, since he's pretty clearly a passive guy on the court, but if there really is a large talent gap between the two (Smith and Bosh), then I might consider him to be a reasonable risk to take with a higher pick if he's a lot closer to Bosh than Smith.

Concerning Thomas, I agree that he has most of the big things.........but there are still question marks lingering for me. Concerning his actual game, I actually think it's pretty darn good. He doesn't have coordination/finesse/skill issues like Tyson has, it seems. When he actually had to use some skill, everything looked fluid and natural, it's just that he doesn't use it very much since most of the time he can just dunk the hell out of the ball, which to me is a very good thing. At the very least, he looked at least on the same level as Kenyon Martin in college, and better than Stromile Swift. However, his size is a bit of a concern for me. From what I can tell, he does most of his damage on the defensive end from the weak side, and that doesn't seem to translate very well into the pros for guys with his size and/or game. IIRC, Stromile was a load on defense too in college (although maybe not as much as Thomas, I'll admit, I'm not a connisseur when it comes to Stromile's college game), Kenyon Martin looked like Zo in his prime in Cincy, and Amare is a fairly average rebounder/defender. Other guys who were primarily weakside defenders in college like Emeka have been taken down a notch now that they're around bigger guys. So, realistically, I think there's a good chance that he only has an average ceiling as a defender. And similarly, I think he'll have equal, if not larger problems as a man defender in the post as well, so if we drafted him, getting a quality rough 'em up AD type of guy would still have to be a priority.

Overall though, I wouldn't be against drafting him with the NY pick. He definitely provides something that we lack in spades, and he seems to have a good head on his shoulders. He wouldn't be the post scorer that Curry was, but I'd have confidence that Skiles would figure out a way to use him very well as a scorer/finisher who could create easy scoring opportunities for himself, and consequently, the rest of the offense. And I think potentially, he could be just as useful as Eddy Curry in the halfcourt offense, although he'd do it in a slightly different way. We do a good job of moving without the ball in our offensive sets and have pretty good passers at all positions, so I think Skiles could devise a pretty exceptional offensive plan to utilize his explosiveness.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Frankensteiner said:


> When the going got tough for LSU against Texas A&M, Thomas contributed 7 points and 3 rebounds. I would be careful with coming to conclusions based off one game. Evaluating their seasons as a whole, both had good and bad performances.


Alridge also has has bad games. But what has each done when facing future NBA players? Aldridge was good against Shelden Williams and had one of the worst games I've ever seen against Big Baby Davis.





> Aldridge and Thomas are the same age, and Aldridge is the better player right now. So why does Thomas have a higher upside? Because he can jump higher?


Thomas was out with a neck injury last year. I'd say that will set your development back a little.

*Aldridge is the better player based on what?* That stinkbomb he laid last night in his second game against a 2006 first round prospect? Thomas is ripping up the tournament and the undisputed best player on the hottest team in the tournament. Aldridge just pulled a no-show in the elite 8 and watched THOMAS' blow right by his team. And that may have been the biggest no-show I've ever seen from a player who was being hailed by some as the #1 pick in the NBA draft.

What makes Thomas better? His motor. The fact that from what I've seen of both he's not the one falling away from the basket when he attempts most of his shots. Like Scott or DC said, you can't teach motor. Thomas could sharpen up on plenty of things though. I think Skiles would be a GREAT coach for him. And when he sharpens up on those things we're still gonna see the same difference in motor between he and softy.

But the overwhelming thing I want to know is what makes Lamarcus better?


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



rosenthall said:


> Honestly, after watching some of LaMarcus Aldridge, I wish I had seen more of Chris Bosh in college and watched one iota of Joe Smith at Maryland, so I could get a better feel of where Aldridge fits on the Joe Smith-Chris Bosh spectrum. I remember watching Chris Bosh play a little bit, and not being entirely impressed him, and I called him out as a future bust at #4, and used the Joe Smith comparison often.........obviously, I was wrong. If the difference the two was just mental, then, I'd be really hesitant to take L.A. with anything higher than 7 or 8, since he's pretty clearly a passive guy on the court, but if there really is a large talent gap between the two (Smith and Bosh), then I might consider him to be a reasonable risk to take with a higher pick if he's a lot closer to Bosh than Smith.
> 
> Concerning Thomas, I agree that he has most of the big things.........but there are still question marks lingering for me. Concerning his actual game, I actually think it's pretty darn good. He doesn't have coordination/finesse/skill issues like Tyson has, it seems. When he actually had to use some skill, everything looked fluid and natural, it's just that he doesn't use it very much since most of the time he can just dunk the hell out of the ball, which to me is a very good thing. At the very least, he looked at least on the same level as Kenyon Martin in college, and better than Stromile Swift. However, his size is a bit of a concern for me. From what I can tell, he does most of his damage on the defensive end from the weak side, and that doesn't seem to translate very well into the pros for guys with his size and/or game. IIRC, Stromile was a load on defense too in college (although maybe not as much as Thomas, I'll admit, I'm not a connisseur when it comes to Stromile's college game), Kenyon Martin looked like Zo in his prime in Cincy, and Amare is a fairly average rebounder/defender. Other guys who were primarily weakside defenders in college like Emeka have been taken down a notch now that they're around bigger guys. So, realistically, I think there's a good chance that he only has an average ceiling as a defender. And similarly, I think he'll have equal, if not larger problems as a man defender in the post as well, so if we drafted him, getting a quality rough 'em up AD type of guy would still have to be a priority.
> 
> Overall though, I wouldn't be against drafting him with the NY pick. He definitely provides something that we lack in spades, and he seems to have a good head on his shoulders. He wouldn't be the post scorer that Curry was, but I'd have confidence that Skiles would figure out a way to use him very well as a scorer/finisher who could create easy scoring opportunities for himself, and consequently, the rest of the offense. And I think potentially, he could be just as useful as Eddy Curry in the halfcourt offense, although he'd do it in a slightly different way. We do a good job of moving without the ball in our offensive sets and have pretty good passers at all positions, so I think Skiles could devise a pretty exceptional offensive plan to utilize his explosiveness.


I agree with most of what you said except I think that Tyrus does provide the AD role with more scoring. Therefore you don't get an AD type, you get a Curry type. Someone who gives you size and then let Tyrus and Tyson be active around that size. Someone like O'Bryant, Nazr or even Nene (I hope not though).  Isn't Nazr from Chicago? I think Tyson, Tyrus and an AD type would be a ridiculously small front line that would wear out over the course of time and fail to muscle anyone around. They need an anchor.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



rosenthall said:


> We do a good job of moving without the ball in our offensive sets and have pretty good passers at all positions, so I think Skiles could devise a pretty exceptional offensive plan to utilize his explosiveness.


I don't know. Cartwright got more out of a 19yr Chander and just as much out of a 19yr Curry as Skiles has been able to get out of either.

p.s. Not that this would stop me from wanting Thomas.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Frankensteiner said:


> When the going got tough for LSU against Texas A&M, Thomas contributed 7 points and 3 rebounds. I would be careful with coming to conclusions based off one game. Evaluating their seasons as a whole, both had good and bad performances.


Obviously I agree you shouldn't read too much into single performances, but you're missing a big factor if you don't notice that Thomas had 7 and 3 (and 3 blocks) *in only 20 minutes* against A&M.

That was his worst performance by far, and how does it compare to Aldridge's less than stellar tourney game (8 points, 10 boards, 2 blocks *in 34 minutes* vs. NC State?).



> Aldridge and Thomas are the same age


Aldridge is like a year and a month older, which at this point is a meaningful difference. As is a year of college ball experience. Those are temporary advantages Aldridge holds that will fade quickly in pro ball, I don't think they're things that really signify he's a better player.

Looking at things statistically, Aldridge looks like a a better player as a freshman than Aldridge did as a freshman, and almost as good as LA does now (as a soph).



> Aldridge is the better player right now. So why does Thomas have a higher upside? Because he can jump higher?


Yeah, being able to jump helps a lot ofr a ball player  

Second, I like the fire I see from Thomas and I don't like the lack of fire I see from Aldridge

But above all of those things, it looks to me like Thomas is a better player than Aldridge a year ago, and we expect, on average, for that sort of improvement to level off. Thomas is closer to the bottom of a learning curve, Aldridge is closer to the top, and the marginal improvement we can expect between them is for Thomas to improve quite a bit and Aldridge to improve not a huge amount.

Then we'll just be looking at two fully formed players. One who is nicely skilled but only an OK athlete (for the NBA) and who doesn't appear to be a really strong minded player.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



chifaninca said:


> OK everyone, let me just say I'd be very happy to grab Thomas.
> 
> But a couple of points of reality please:
> 
> 1 - It's TWO GAMES! If he had played this way all year he'd be the #1 guy without any discussions (which would make for a boring message boars -LOL). Still, the reason for discussion is you can't go on a few games. If that's the case - Thomas, Morrison, Carney, Roy, Aldridge and all others have been non-NBA guys for a week, then future HOF'ers for a week
> 
> OK - Back to the Thomas love fest.
> 
> Can't wait to see him in action in a Bulls Uni............... :cheers:


Honestly, sometimes all it take IS a few games. Joakim Noah wasn't even talked about until the tournament started. He went from not even being mentioned to declare this year to being a potential top 5 pick.

I wasn't sold on Tyrus OFFICIALLY until yesterday when he showed me he could hit the 15 footer consistently & pretty much catch ANYTHING thrown towards the rim LOL. We DESPERATELY miss those easy baskets Eddy Curry used to give us. On top of Tyrus's ability to put the ball on the floor or take his man off the dribble, he's pretty much the best OVERALL big in the draft IMO. Some of his moves were very SF like but he still has the power of a PF.

Like I said before, the only thing that worries me is the thought that Aldridge might be more of a Paxson player. That and the fact that I can see a team who doesn't even NEED a PF taking Thomas just BECAUSE of his incredible potential.

After LSU walks thru UCLA & goes to the championship, I think he'll be #1 barnone.


----------



## MikeDC

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



rosenthall said:


> Honestly, after watching some of LaMarcus Aldridge, I wish I had seen more of Chris Bosh in college and watched one iota of Joe Smith at Maryland, so I could get a better feel of where Aldridge fits on the Joe Smith-Chris Bosh spectrum. I remember watching Chris Bosh play a little bit, and not being entirely impressed him, and I called him out as a future bust at #4, and used the Joe Smith comparison often.........obviously, I was wrong. If the difference the two was just mental, then, I'd be really hesitant to take L.A. with anything higher than 7 or 8, since he's pretty clearly a passive guy on the court, but if there really is a large talent gap between the two (Smith and Bosh), then I might consider him to be a reasonable risk to take with a higher pick if he's a lot closer to Bosh than Smith.


I think Bosh is quite a bit more skilled than Smith was, or than Thomas is. What I really think is impressive about Bosh is that he's a smart and hard-working kid. I have no idea, and my hunch is that Thomas doesn't have the head that Bosh does. But he might be hungrier, which sort of makes up for not having the pure smarts.

Smith... I don't remember him too much in college, I was still living at home back then, and I just don't have that good of a recollection. But he was a statistical marvel in college... I think he must just not work all that hard.

However, his size is a bit of a concern for me. From what I can tell, he does most of his damage on the defensive end from the weak side, and that doesn't seem to translate very well into the pros for guys with his size and/or game. IIRC, Stromile was a load on defense too in college (although maybe not as much as Thomas, I'll admit, I'm not a connisseur when it comes to Stromile's college game), Kenyon Martin looked like Zo in his prime in Cincy, and Amare is a fairly average rebounder/defender. Other guys who were primarily weakside defenders in college like Emeka have been taken down a notch now that they're around bigger guys. So, realistically, I think there's a good chance that he only has an average ceiling as a defender. And similarly, I think he'll have equal, if not larger problems as a man defender in the post as well, so if we drafted him, getting a quality rough 'em up AD type of guy would still have to be a priority.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's my concern too. But he does look bigger to me than 215lbs or whatever it is he's listed at. I wonder if he's put on a fair amount of size since then? If he comes out, seeing his official measurements and how strong he is will be important.

I think KMart is a pretty good comparison too, but we should also keep in mind that today's KMart is a shadow of his former self. Messing up the knee and breaking his leg twice has had an effect.

Actually, that raises another concern... another guy who comes to mind is Antonio McDyess. Dice couldn't have been more than 220-225 when he came into the league, but he was a very effective player. And that's a good thing. The bad thing is that he's another piece of evidence that a significant injury or two can really hamper a big guy whose game relies on his legs.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Also don't forget, Shelden Williams could possibly fall to us at our pick....

Bargnani's also slipping in the espn mock's..he's up to #7 since the emergence of Noah & Thomas..


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ScottMay said:


> To play devil's advocate, given our recent penchant for drafting fundamentally sound players who don't seem to want to lead (note: that's Pax and Skiles talking, not just me; almost every interview I've heard/read this year makes reference to the team's leadership vacuum), maybe there are better choices than Aldridge?
> 
> Some posters have discussed the Knicks pick as if it's a luxury; pure icing on the cake. It's not -- it's absolutely essential to how far this team will go in the near and far term. This player (or the player the pick is traded for) has to become the alpha dog that the team currently lacks. History says we are not likely to land that type of player at 10-16 or wherever our own pick ends up.
> 
> No, we didn't have much luck with improving Eddy's or Tyson's skill levels. But those guys were thrown into an awful situation with awful coaches and awful teammates. We're a little more stable now, and we could bring along a big-man project like Thomas, Bargnani, or Noah more slowly and effectively. Hopefully we'd hire a good big-man coach like Sikma or Moses Malone to work with our pick, too.
> 
> And at least there's a track record of NBA big men improving their skill level their first few years in the league. On the other hand, it seems much harder and maybe even impossible to improve a guy's "engine." Between his getting thoroughly housed by LSU (and I don't buy the "Glen Davis is a physical oddity" excuse; there are literally dozens of NBA power forwards/centers who are as strong and quick as Davis) and his no-shows against some of the Little Sisters of the Poor in the Big 12, I have severe doubts about Aldridge's "engine."


It seems to me that the chances of LaMarcus Aldridge becoming an alpha dog are extemely slim. I don't doubt that Aldridge is a hard worker, and he may well turn out to be a good pro, but he certainly isn't mean. Thomas is, and we could really use some of that.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*

Thomas is a WARRIOR man...

played thru two injured hamstrings just to secure the victory even though it was damn near already won....

That's LEADERSHIP...

Aldridge stated after the game, since his shot wasn't falling, he'd just rebound and blk shots. WTF!?!? You're 6"11 and the biggest and probably most skilled guy on the court and you're just gonna completely quit trying to score? That's a SERIOUS loser mentality. He didn't even ATTEMPT to score in other ways. I question his heart.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



Pippenatorade said:


> He was 2 coaches votes from making the team last year. Not bad for age 22. Oh, and we won 47 games. He won't sniff it in NYK though. If someone told me I was going to be on a team with Jalen, Marbury and Jamal I'd just cry.
> 
> Davis is short, all I'm saying is how tall he gets will be the difference. If he grows like Jordan (3" taller summer after freshman year) or Pippen (grew from 6'1" as a freshman to 6'8"), he'll go from a guy who could be a decent role player in the NBA to a star.


And let's not forget how Tyrus will fill out either 

Also anyone remember skinny assed Shaq as a frosh at LSU ?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



chifaninca said:


> OK everyone, let me just say I'd be very happy to grab Thomas.
> 
> But a couple of points of reality please:
> 
> 1 - It's TWO GAMES! If he had played this way all year he'd be the #1 guy without any discussions (which would make for a boring message boars -LOL). Still, the reason for discussion is you can't go on a few games. If that's the case - Thomas, Morrison, Carney, Roy, Aldridge and all others have been non-NBA guys for a week, then future HOF'ers for a week.
> 
> 2. You can't deny his physical prowess and ability to change games ont he defensive end(Wow, sounds like descriptions of Chandler), but guys in college don't use the pump fake effectively like they do in the NBA. Remember when Chandler came in, he wanted to block everything and picked up 4 fould in 37 seconds (slight exagerration. So, I hope he will be schooled on that.
> 
> 3. I am concerned because I have 6 games now of Thomas, and from the little I've seen, he's very much a dunk the ball, put back guy. No, I don't expect him to go outside the key, but I would like some acutally post moves. A guy with his energy, talents, etc...could be unstoppable if he had a few good post moves. Unfortuantely, I also have very little faith in our organization to help him develop any (Thus, my continued existence in the fire Pax/Skiles/Whoever is in charge of player development clubs).
> 
> 4. The guy is do damned oozing with potential I'm afraid will ruin him. We have the worst organizational supprt of any team in the league (sans NY Knicks). Ok, that's probably not fair, but I'm tired of seeing great potential guys like Chandler, Crawford, Curry, Hinrich, Gordon, and Thomas year after year, without any development to their games. So if the organziation is going to help, then we need to bring in some front court coaches to teach these guys (AD would be a great fit).
> 
> 5. I am curious how all this will affect our FA signings. I'm not necessarily saying I want Harrington over Thomas, but I am willing to consider that Harrington is good for 18 and 7 every night. I'd have no problem in still signing him if we couldn't get Nene, but Nazr or another Center becomes very important and less of a guarantee unless JR is really committed to building a winner and willing to let Pax overpay.
> 
> 7. Is Paxson ballsy enough to take the uncertain risk of Thomas vs. the "Bulls type" player (you know, the guy with the right opedigree and major college experience)? I'm not so sure he would do that. It will be interesting to see how Paxson does business this off-season. This is, IMO, his and the organization's make or break off-season. That's also why I advocate taking and signing as many quality big men as you can. Much easier to trade Big for small, than smalls for bigs.
> 
> 
> OK - Back to the Thomas love fest.
> 
> Can't wait to see him in action in a Bulls Uni............... :cheers:


Great post Chi 

If we draft Tyrus - our #1 free agent target is Nene 

#2 is Nazr 


Which relegates Tyson ( in time ) to coming from the bench where he belongs


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Great post Chi
> 
> If we draft Tyrus - our #1 free agent target is Nene
> 
> #2 is Nazr
> 
> Which relegates Tyson ( in time ) to coming from the bench where he belongs


very concise post LOL

*prays we're in postion to draft thomas*


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The ROY said:


> Aldridge stated after the game, since his shot wasn't falling, he'd just rebound and blk shots. WTF!?!? You're 6"11 and the biggest and probably most skilled guy on the court and you're just gonna completely quit trying to score? That's a SERIOUS loser mentality. He didn't even ATTEMPT to score in other ways. I question his heart.


I agree. I'm not ready to write off Aldridge as a total fraud based on that game, but the fact that he decided not to even try asking for the ball for most of the 2nd half was pretty disappointing. I don't think he was playing as bad in the 1st half as his numbers indicate. He got a few looks that he should have made easily and they just didn't go down. That happens to everybody, but good players don't mail it in after that, they either keep at it or find a new way to score. He had a quickness advantage on Davis and didn't try to face him up and dribble drive or anything like that - he just hung out on the weak side and stayed away from the ball.

As far as Davis scoring on him, that doesn't bother me. Davis is bigger (heavier) right now than most people Aldridge will guard in the NBA. He needs to keep working on his lower body strength to hold position better, but the fact that he couldn't hold his ground against a 310 pounder with a very low center of gravity isn't the end of the world. There aren't many of those in the NBA. If you want to write him off as a weakling due to this game, feel free, but I see it differently. 

He did contribute on the glass and with some nice blocks, but the way that he took himself out of the offense was pretty lame. I like his skills and all, but he's not a leader.


----------



## ScottMay

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Frankensteiner said:


> There are? I must have missed the influx of the dozens of 300+ pound power forwards to the NBA.


My fault. I should have said that there are literally dozens of NBA power forwards and centers who are both stronger and faster than Davis. I didn't mean to imply that dozens of NBA power forwards and centers weigh more than he does.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ViciousFlogging said:


> I agree. I'm not ready to write off Aldridge as a total fraud based on that game, but the fact that he decided not to even try asking for the ball for most of the 2nd half was pretty disappointing. I don't think he was playing as bad in the 1st half as his numbers indicate. He got a few looks that he should have made easily and they just didn't go down. That happens to everybody, but good players don't mail it in after that, they either keep at it or find a new way to score. He had a quickness advantage on Davis and didn't try to face him up and dribble drive or anything like that - he just hung out on the weak side and stayed away from the ball.
> 
> As far as Davis scoring on him, that doesn't bother me. Davis is bigger (heavier) right now than most people Aldridge will guard in the NBA. He needs to keep working on his lower body strength to hold position better, but the fact that he couldn't hold his ground against a 310 pounder with a very low center of gravity isn't the end of the world. There aren't many of those in the NBA. If you want to write him off as a weakling due to this game, feel free, but I see it differently.
> 
> He did contribute on the glass and with some nice blocks, but the way that he took himself out of the offense was pretty lame. I like his skills and all, but he's not a leader.


I agree...I'm not saying I'd be completely dissapointed if we took him but I just think we should take Tyrus Thomas if we have the choice between the two...

I'd HATE to see Tyrus get drafted by someone else seriously, especially with all the young teams with great foundations having great bigs to anchor their futures (orlando/howard, charlotte/okafor, toronto/bosh etc.) while we're stuck with just two guard guards & a promising sf.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The ROY said:


> I agree...I'm not saying I'd be completely dissapointed if we took him but I just think we should take Tyrus Thomas if we have the choice between the two...
> 
> I'd HATE to see Tyrus get drafted by someone else seriously, especially with all the young teams with great foundations having great bigs (orlando/howard, charlotte/okafor, toronto/bosh etc.) while we're stuck with just two guard guards & a promising SF.


yeah, I'd prefer Thomas as well after seeing him yesterday. He's kind of raw, but so what. He'll contribute, provide the team with some emotion and a ton of frontcourt athleticism, and I think he has all the tools to become a good scorer. I didn't know he was _that_ good.

Thomas and either O'Bryant or a good SG type like Roy or Brewer (BPA at our pick, anyway) sounds good to me. Aldridge would be fine, but he's not my guy anymore after yesterday.

edit: the blessing in disguise here is that Thomas has cemented himself at the top of the draft if he comes out, so we have better odds of being able to choose either him or Aldridge (whoever isn't gone yet) if the lottery balls don't bounce our way. The more good prospects at the top, the better IMO.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ViciousFlogging said:


> yeah, I'd prefer Thomas as well after seeing him yesterday. He's kind of raw, but so what. He'll contribute, provide the team with some emotion and a ton of frontcourt athleticism, and I think he has all the tools to become a good scorer. I didn't know he was _that_ good.
> 
> Thomas and either O'Bryant or a good SG type like Roy or Brewer (BPA at our pick, anyway) sounds good to me. Aldridge would be fine, but he's not my guy anymore after yesterday.


good part about this tourney is...alot of folks fell on espn's charts...

brewer fell past 8, s. williams fell past 10 which would be good if we could get him with our pick...


----------



## rosenthall

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I agree with most of what you said except I think that Tyrus does provide the AD role with more scoring. Therefore you don't get an AD type, you get a Curry type. Someone who gives you size and then let Tyrus and Tyson be active around that size. Someone like O'Bryant, Nazr or even Nene (I hope not though). Isn't Nazr from Chicago? I think Tyson, Tyrus and an AD type would be a ridiculously small front line that would wear out over the course of time and fail to muscle anyone around. They need an anchor.


Pippy, I'm a little confused by this. You state that Tyrus would fill AD's role, and then later state that we need size and an anchor to allow Tyrus to be more active. I thought AD WAS our anchor in our frontcourt last year. Was there a typo, or am I missing something??


----------



## rosenthall

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Mikedc said:


> I think Bosh is quite a bit more skilled than Smith was, or than Thomas is. What I really think is impressive about Bosh is that he's a smart and hard-working kid. I have no idea, and my hunch is that Thomas doesn't have the head that Bosh does. But he might be hungrier, which sort of makes up for not having the pure smarts.
> 
> Smith... I don't remember him too much in college, I was still living at home back then, and I just don't have that good of a recollection. But he was a statistical marvel in college... I think he must just not work all that hard.
> 
> However, his size is a bit of a concern for me. From what I can tell, he does most of his damage on the defensive end from the weak side, and that doesn't seem to translate very well into the pros for guys with his size and/or game. IIRC, Stromile was a load on defense too in college (although maybe not as much as Thomas, I'll admit, I'm not a connisseur when it comes to Stromile's college game), Kenyon Martin looked like Zo in his prime in Cincy, and Amare is a fairly average rebounder/defender. Other guys who were primarily weakside defenders in college like Emeka have been taken down a notch now that they're around bigger guys. So, realistically, I think there's a good chance that he only has an average ceiling as a defender. And similarly, I think he'll have equal, if not larger problems as a man defender in the post as well, so if we drafted him, getting a quality rough 'em up AD type of guy would still have to be a priority.



I agree that he's got a PF body. He's definitely Kenyon Martin and not Shawn Marion. Regardless of his weight though, I think he definitely has the Kenyon/Amare/Stromile/Dyess body type and game, which is both a good and a bad thing, as you alluded too. Injuries are actually something I didn't think about, which could be another caveat emptor. With the exception of Stromile, all the guys I listed have suffered pretty serious injuries that have adversely affected their athleticism, and I'm prone to think that maybe the reason that Stromile hasn't had a similar fate is because he plays like a complete pansy and doesn't attack like the other guys do. Which begs the question.....what's the shelf life of guys with Thomas' body type and style of play?? I'm trying to think of other guys that played like him at PF, but sadly, my years of basketball observation started in the early 90's..... around when McDyess first came into the league, so I don't have anything to work with beyond that. It does raise concerns about the possible long term effectiveness of Tyrus though.


----------



## AnaMayShun

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



The ROY said:


> *prays we're in postion to draft thomas*


So am I.


----------



## rosenthall

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



johnston797 said:


> I don't know. Cartwright got more out of a 19yr Chander and just as much out of a 19yr Curry as Skiles has been able to get out of either.
> 
> p.s. Not that this would stop me from wanting Thomas.


Decent points, but concerning Cartwright and Skiles, I think there's an important difference that I was trying to get at. I agree that this regime has an unproven track record in terms of taking a big man, and from the standpoint of his own individual development and production, see marked improvements from said player.

However, the one thing that Skiles has proven to be remarkably adept at, is to take a player, regardless of his position or skill set, and use what he's good at in conjunction with the other players' strengths and weaknesses and devise a system that gives the team the most balance overall. 

So, while, individually, Tyrus theoretically may have had more individual production and personal development under a guy like Cartwright, I was getting at the point that I'd think that if we had Tyrus, Skiles would do an excellent job of taking what he was good at - his explosiveness and ability to attack the basket - and incorporate that into his offensive gameplans that would utilize it to get to the basket and get easy shots and mesh that with the abilities of our other guys while simultaneously implementing some sort of defensive game plan that would take advantage of that same explosiveness while hiding his lack of size, giving our team, as a whole, the best chance of winning while having him on the floor.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



chifaninca said:


> OK everyone, let me just say I'd be very happy to grab Thomas.
> 
> But a couple of points of reality please:
> 
> 1 - It's TWO GAMES! If he had played this way all year he'd be the #1 guy without any discussions (which would make for a boring message boars -LOL). Still, the reason for discussion is you can't go on a few games. If that's the case - Thomas, Morrison, Carney, Roy, Aldridge and all others have been non-NBA guys for a week, then future HOF'ers for a week.


That is the part that is troubling.

Nothing turns a mock draft upside down like March Madness.

Sometimes it is a true coming of age, sometimes folks buy into Fools Gold.

Tough to tell.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

But think about this...

Tyrus has had a nice season..

but stepped it up TREMENDOUSLY in the tournament...doesn't that count for something? Now if he beasted all season but dissapeared in the tournament, nobody would be talking about taking him...he's doing it when it matters most..that's what important to me...


----------



## ENIGMATIC 1

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

What would you prefer a guy only shows up for the season but not in the tournament or playoffs. I'm impressed with a guy who shows when his team needs him too. Aldridge,Redick,and Gay did not do this in the tournament. Big time players show up like Tyrus and Glen Davis.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



ENIGMATIC 1 said:


> What would you prefer a guy only shows up for the season but not in the tournament or playoffs. I'm impressed with a guy who shows when his team needs him too. Aldridge,Redick,and Gay did not do this in the tournament. Big time players show up like Tyrus and Glen Davis.


Tyrus Thomas, Glen Davis, Randy Foye, Joakim Noah & Marcus Williams all stepped up BIG time IMO.


----------



## chifaninca

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*

Hey I merged threads and changed titles at the request of some of this threads' posters so we could avoid triple posting the same things about the same guys. I'm not putting it in the draft thread, cause this so specific to a few players.

Keep the debate going strong like a Thomas DUNK!


----------



## L.O.B

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

How much do you think Thomas benefits from having a beast next to him?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

Now that my bracket has completely imploded, I'd love to see a Florida vs. LSU final, with Horford and Noah up agaist Big Baby and Tyrus.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



L.O.B said:


> How much do you think Thomas benefits from having a beast next to him?


Honesly..I don't know...

I think THOMAS is the beast..the question is, what type of Center do u put around him...Nene or Tyson chandler?


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



L.O.B said:


> How much do you think Thomas benefits from having a beast next to him?


There's no question that Thomas benefits from playing next to Big Baby. Thomas never gets guarded by the opposition's best big and Davis' presence on the block at the other end of the court frees up Thomas to help weakside and fly over the top of guys for blocks. At this point he'd be my pick, but you bring up an important point - one that needs to be taken into consideration while evaluating Thomas.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

I have to agree with Billy Packer. :eek8: 

Noah's shooting form is a concern.


----------



## L.O.B

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The ROY said:


> Honesly..I don't know...
> 
> I think THOMAS is the beast..the question is, what type of Center do u put around him...Nene or Tyson chandler?


I am not sure Thomas and Tyson would be a good match. I believe that Thomas and Tyson are very similar and that a player like Nene or another physically strong big could help them. The center doesn't have to be tall if he has strength. Antonio Davis from last season shows the Bulls could be successful defensively if they had someone to muscle an opposing center and allow Tyson to do what Tyson does.


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> I have to agree with Billy Packer. :eek8:
> 
> Noah's shooting form is a concern.


What really concerns me about Noah is that, like Chandler coming out of high school, the things that he's skilled at (handles well for a big man, can shoot okay for outside for a guy his size) aren't necessarily going to translate to the NBA, while the things that he isn't very good at (post moves, interior touch) he's going to NEED to improve. Can he? Who knows. I think he's a very risky pick, and a bit of a project.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

Joakim Noah has 18pts, 14rebs & 5blks

BEAST!!!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



jbulls said:


> What really concerns me about Noah is that, like Chandler coming out of high school, the things that he's skilled at (handles well for a big man, can shoot okay for outside for a guy his size) aren't necessarily going to translate to the NBA, while the things that he isn't very good at (post moves, interior touch) he's going to NEED to improve. Can he? Who knows. I think he's a very risky pick, and a bit of a project.


Agreed. Unlike many here, I'm not particularly high on either Thomas or Noah. I'm VERY glad I'm going to get to see at least one more game with Thomas, and it looks like at least one more with Noah too.

Nice spin move by Noah there. He does suprise you here and there.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



jbulls said:


> What really concerns me about Noah is that, like Chandler coming out of high school, the things that he's skilled at (handles well for a big man, can shoot okay for outside for a guy his size) aren't necessarily going to translate to the NBA, while the things that he isn't very good at (post moves, interior touch) he's going to NEED to improve. Can he? Who knows. I think he's a very risky pick, and a bit of a project.


I think he will..

Remember, folks trashed Charlie Villueava last year with the same claims...now he's dropping 48pts playing SF LOL

Noah's a beast, I think he'd adjust just fine...


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Agreed. Unlike many here, I'm not particularly high on either Thomas or Noah. I'm VERY glad I'm going to get to see at least one more game with Thomas, and it looks like at least one more with Noah too.
> 
> Nice spin move by Noah there. He does suprise you here and there.


Great move. Albiet against a 6'3'' Randy Foye. That's exactly the kind of play that I can't ever see happening in the NBA.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ScottMay said:


> This player (or the player the pick is traded for) has to become the alpha dog that the team currently lacks.


I think this is an unfair expectation of the draft pick. It'd be great if you could get a guy who could be that guy with the pick, but I don't think that is the standard by which you should judge whether or not getting the pick was worthwhile, just because we didn't give up and alpha dog to get the pick. There are a couple of levels of quality in a player between the player(s) we gave up and the alpha dog level. The thing we should be looking at is whether or not what we get makes the team better than what it would've been otherwise.

I don't disagree with your doubts about Aldridge, though. I think he'll be a good player, but he does seem to lack toughness, or fire in his belly, or something.


----------



## Frankensteiner

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Mikedc said:


> Obviously I agree you shouldn't read too much into single performances, but you're missing a big factor if you don't notice that Thomas had 7 and 3 (and 3 blocks) *in only 20 minutes* against A&M.
> 
> That was his worst performance by far, and how does it compare to Aldridge's less than stellar tourney game (8 points, 10 boards, 2 blocks *in 34 minutes* vs. NC State?).


There's a reason the guy only played 20 minutes, though. If your intent in bringing up Aldridge's performance vs. LSU was to point out his lack of leadership or focus in a big game, then I believe a player's ability to stay on the court and avoid fouls also falls into that category.



> Aldridge is like a year and a month older, which at this point is a meaningful difference. As is a year of college ball experience. Those are temporary advantages Aldridge holds that will fade quickly in pro ball, I don't think they're things that really signify he's a better player.


Aldridge and Thomas are at the same age in basketball years, Thomas is a RS freshman and Aldridge a sophmore (Aldridge didn't go to prep school). Also, Aldridge only played 16 games last year because of a hip injury so I don't know that he's that much more experienced than Thomas. 



> Then we'll just be looking at two fully formed players. One who is nicely skilled but only an OK athlete (for the NBA) and who doesn't appear to be a really strong minded player.


I think Aldridge is somewhere in the Chris Bosh-Jermaine O'Neal-Rasheed Wallace-Channing Frye level of athleticism. Probably not as good as Bosh, but better than Frye. In comparison to Thomas, while he doesn't jump as high, Aldridge does have a bigger wingspan, is taller, and weighs more. He should be a fine athlete at the next level.

I've read numerous opinions pointing out Al Harrington as being an undersized PF at 6'9", 245. If you're of that opinion (and I believe you personally are, Mike), then you should be traumatized by a 6'9, 210 PF in Thomas.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

I don't see why not...if you're talented, you're TALENTED...I don't care if it's HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE or the PRO's...

I just don't like the argument that certain people won't be able to adjust to the nba or their game's won't translate...

Kenny Smith had a great portion on TNT postgame about players in college who people said would NEVER be able to adjust or make it in the nba....he said that that was a weak comment to make and that if u could do it in college, u can do it in the pro's...said they also knocked him with the same comments coming out of north carolina...

I like Noah ALOT but I'd rather have Tyrus though.


----------



## Frankensteiner

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



ScottMay said:


> My fault. I should have said that there are literally dozens of NBA power forwards and centers who are both stronger and faster than Davis.


Ok, plenty of NBA power forwards have a football lineman’s weight lifting regimen. I'm sure Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh, and Rasheed Wallace are much more stronger than Davis.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

21pts, 16rebs & 6blks

BEAST!!!!!!!


----------



## T.Shock

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

Call me crazy but I like Horford better than Noah. Noah looks very awkward out there and a lot of those points came when Nova had to start following. If Horford stayed another year at Florida, I think he could go top 5 with his combination of size and skill. If he came out this year, I'd consider drafting Morrison (who can only help) and then take Horford with our pick.


----------



## FanOfAll8472

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Now that my bracket has completely imploded, I'd love to see a Florida vs. LSU final, with Horford and Noah up agaist Big Baby and Tyrus.


Haha, me too. Would be a very interesting matchup. I think the LSU bigs are better.



> I am not sure Thomas and Tyson would be a good match. I believe that Thomas and Tyson are very similar and that a player like Nene or another physically strong big could help them. The center doesn't have to be tall if he has strength. Antonio Davis from last season shows the Bulls could be successful defensively if they had someone to muscle an opposing center and allow Tyson to do what Tyson does.


I agree. Even though I would like to see Thomas with the Bulls, I don't see him and Tyson meshing together very well.



> I think Aldridge is somewhere in the Chris Bosh-Jermaine O'Neal-Rasheed Wallace-Channing Frye level of athleticism. Probably not as good as Bosh, but better than Frye. In comparison to Thomas, while he doesn't jump as high, Aldridge does have a bigger wingspan, is taller, and weighs more. He should be a fine athlete at the next level.
> 
> I've read numerous opinions pointing out Al Harrington as being an undersized PF at 6'9", 245. If you're of that opinion (and I believe you personally are, Mike), then you should be traumatized by a 6'9, 210 PF in Thomas.


First of all, I think it's interesting that you bring up Frye. He's comparable to Aldridge because both are (were) somewhat soft centers in college with a very nice shooting touch and good post moves. Frye was labeled soft coming out and Aldridge is beginning to develop that label. Aldridge is more athletic and longer and I feel he's a better overall prospect. Frye, although reputedly soft and a bit on the skinny side (like Aldridge), has succeeded with the Knicks. Both have basketball skills that many bigs don't, and on a general scale, I would rank Aldridge as a better prospect before the draft than Frye.

Also, in reply to the size of Harrington and Thomas, I would like to note that Thomas plays bigger than his size (and I do believe he is taller than 6'9"). Harrington does not. In Indiana, Harrington had a label as a strong defender. There, he was utilized as a power 3. I believe the 3 is still his best position, not the 4, where he struggles defensively and on the boards. Thomas, with his outstanding hops, wingspan, and aggression, plays bigger than his thin frame and I have on problem with him playing the 4 in the NBA.



> I think he will..
> 
> Remember, folks trashed Charlie Villueava last year with the same claims...now he's dropping 48pts playing SF LOL
> 
> Noah's a beast, I think he'd adjust just fine...


Actually, Villaneuva had different knocks on his game than Noah will. Charlie V was a soft underachiever who didn't play hard, but had basically all the skills. Noah plays with tremendous energy but some questions surrounding his game remain. I'm not really sold on Noah. I think he'll make a solid hustle role player at the worst, but I'm not sure he can become a star on the pro level. I like his teammate, Al Horford, better as a prospect. Better body, very physical, nice post moves, outside touch, also hustles, great rebounder, but his shotblocking probably won't translate as well to the pros.

BTW, mods, it should be Joakim Noah in the title.


----------



## Hustle

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

Deng, Tyrus, and Tyson. Oh wait Tyrus and Tyson, well that's a name combo you just can't pass up, it even almost follows the Detriot model of Wallace and Wallace. :yes:


----------



## Frankensteiner

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

Well, since this is appearantly the all purpose college big man thread, I'll get some weight off my chest and just list the guys I would like in order of preference:

Aldridge
McRoberts (if he declares)
Thomas
O'Bryant
Shelden Williams
Noah
Armstrong
Boone
Augustine

I don't disagree with the opinion that Thomas might turn out better than Aldridge. But taking our needs into account, I think we'd be better off taking the more skilled player. 

Thomas is a good player, and he'll make an impact on games with his defense and athleticism even if he doesn't develop some more polished scoring moves. With that said, Tyson Chandler and Kenyon Martin also have an impact on games. Adding KMart or another Chandler probably wouldn't help this team as much as adding a Channing Frye (the low end projection for Aldridge). 

Regardless, it's my opinion that the Bulls are fairly close to being a good, contending team. We should go for the safer guy.


----------



## Hustle

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



Frankensteiner said:


> Well, since this is appearantly the all purpose college big man thread, I'll get some weight off my chest and just list the guys I would like in order of preference:
> 
> Aldridge
> McRoberts (if he declares)
> Thomas
> O'Bryant
> Shelden Williams
> Noah
> Armstrong
> Boone
> Augustine


*My List*

Aldridge
Thomas
McRoberts
Noah
Obryant
Sheldon
Horford
Armstrong
Hibbert


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



rosenthall said:


> Pippy, I'm a little confused by this. You state that Tyrus would fill AD's role, and then later state that we need size and an anchor to allow Tyrus to be more active. I thought AD WAS our anchor in our frontcourt last year. Was there a typo, or am I missing something??


Meant it in a different context. AD anchored our frontcourt as far as bringing cohesion with Curry and Chandler. Being a guiding force. But while Tyrus fits the body type and athletic makeup of an AD (moreso than Curry or Chandler) and would play the same four spot etc., he doesn't bring veteran stability and whatnot. So when I said anchor in terms of Nazr or O'Bryant, I was speaking purely in the sense of "a player with a lot of size/weight," like an anchor lol.


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,can He Go Number#1?*



chifaninca said:


> OK everyone, let me just say I'd be very happy to grab Thomas.
> 
> But a couple of points of reality please:
> 
> 1 - It's TWO GAMES! If he had played this way all year he'd be the #1 guy without any discussions (which would make for a boring message boars -LOL). Still, the reason for discussion is you can't go on a few games. If that's the case - Thomas, Morrison, Carney, Roy, Aldridge and all others have been non-NBA guys for a week, then future HOF'ers for a week.


He has actually been a beast for almost all of the season. He was named SEC freshman of the year because he was a constant threat on the defensive end and he found ways to score as well. The world just didn't hear much about Tyrus Thomas until this past weekend, because like the entire SEC conference, Thomas and LSU were under the radar all season long.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



L.O.B said:


> I am not sure Thomas and Tyson would be a good match. I believe that Thomas and Tyson are very similar and that a player like Nene or another physically strong big could help them. The center doesn't have to be tall if he has strength. Antonio Davis from last season shows the Bulls could be successful defensively if they had someone to muscle an opposing center and allow Tyson to do what Tyson does.


These two can't start together. You need a true center. Someone 7'0" 250+ to start and then you start Tyson or Tyrus at the four and bring the other off the bench. From the last two games, and last season, like I've been saying ALL year, I think Tyson can be the one to close games out, just like Ben. Get Ben and Tyson their 30 minutes next year, but have 24 of that be the second and fourth quarter. Tyrus seems to me the type to get you off to more of a quick start.


----------



## jworth

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

lol, the man in my avatar feels disrespected after reading over this thread. He feels like he'll shock the league with double-double ability, and come through with Zach Randolph-like skills (plus a heart and brain).


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Babble-On said:


> I think this is an unfair expectation of the draft pick. It'd be great if you could get a guy who could be that guy with the pick, but I don't think that is the standard by which you should judge whether or not getting the pick was worthwhile, just because we didn't give up and alpha dog to get the pick. There are a couple of levels of quality in a player between the player(s) we gave up and the alpha dog level. The thing we should be looking at is whether or not what we get makes the team better than what it would've been otherwise.
> 
> I don't disagree with your doubts about Aldridge, though. I think he'll be a good player, but he does seem to lack toughness, or fire in his belly, or something.


I think once you identify one guy who could be that though, and IMO Thomas could, it puts that guy head and shoulders above the rest, all other things being equal. Thomas has that swagger that "Marciano"-esque quality. Aldridge's swagger/lackthereof I would liken to Rodney McCray


----------



## jordanwasprettygood

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Thomas has that swagger that "Marciano"-esque quality. Aldridge's swagger/lackthereof I would liken to Rodney McCray


This is what struck me the most about Tyrus. He plays with such passion and desire. And just like Big Baby feeds off of Thomas' demonstrative and ebuillient nature, I think Tyson and co. would do the same...

hah can you imagine them on the floor at the same time, and one of them makes a monster block? They would probably celebrate so forcefully that they would injure each other


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



T.Shock said:


> Call me crazy but I like Horford better than Noah. Noah looks very awkward out there and a lot of those points came when Nova had to start following. If Horford stayed another year at Florida, I think he could go top 5 with his combination of size and skill. If he came out this year, I'd consider drafting Morrison (who can only help) and then take Horford with our pick.


I don't understand why u guys like to go AGAINST the grain...

It's pretty clear Noah is the most skilled out of the two.....you'd probably be alone with that idea...

as far as other posts are concerned..

how you could put ANY other big in all of college basketball BESIDES aldridge OVER thomas is BEYOND me....NOBODY is better than that kid....PERIOD...

as far as skill is concerned...alridge does have more offensive SKILL than Thomas but that's where it STOPS...overall, Thomas is better by far....Defensively, athletically & leadership wise...and he's still pretty RAW himself...

The bulls don't NEED a finesse forward...we need a athletic beast who plays hard nosed defense and can score in the paint...


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*

I liked what I saw from Joakim Noah today. First time I've seen him play, but my impressions:

Strengths:

-Really smooth, as in he did not try to force anything. 
-The dude boxes out pretty well and got his rebounds like that. He doesn't need super athleticism to function in this capacity
-Decent mobility --- he was running pretty fast for that lay-up
-Very good at finding the open man, and passing the ball. I think this would do wonders for Tyson and his all-dunking game
-Has a decent shot

Weaknesses:
-Got blocks because of his length, I didn't really see anything outstanding as a shot-blocker, but somehow he did have 5.
-Needs to gain weight so maybe he can be a little more intimidating and actually prevent second chance points
-Jack of all trades, master of none


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The ROY said:


> I don't understand why u guys like to go AGAINST the grain...
> 
> It's pretty clear Noah is the most skilled out of the two.....you'd probably be alone with that idea...
> 
> as far as other posts are concerned..
> 
> how you could put ANY other big in all of college basketball BESIDES aldridge OVER thomas is BEYOND me....NOBODY is better than that kid....PERIOD...
> 
> as far as skill is concerned...alridge does have more offensive SKILL than Thomas but that's where it STOPS...overall, Thomas is better by far....Defensively, athletically & leadership wise...and he's still pretty RAW himself...
> 
> The bulls don't NEED a finesse forward...we need a athletic beast who plays hard nosed defense and can score in the paint...


To play Devil's advocate here, Horford is the only one of the four prospects that has a strong NBA body already, plus he looks like a great athlete. And he's considered a blue chip prospect too. Draftexpress has him at #7 for their 2007 mock right now, and he's been up in that range for a while.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Weaknesses:
> -Got blocks because of his length, I didn't really see anything outstanding as a shot-blocker, but somehow he did have 5.


maybe u have't watched his other games..he has incredible blocking instincts, he times his jumps just right.....

he averages 5blocks per game since the tournament started....


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> To play Devil's advocate here, Horford is the only one of the four prospects that has a strong NBA body already, plus he looks like a great athlete. And he's considered a blue chip prospect too. Draftexpress has him at #7 for their 2007 mock right now, and he's been up in that range for a while.


nbadraft.net has him at #18...

who's site is better? that's the problem...who's better with the scouting reports and whatnot...


----------



## TripleDouble

I think Noah gets by on advantages (length and athleticism) that he wouldn't enjoy nearly as much in the NBA and hides flaws (strength) he wouldn't be able to hide in the NBA. Plus, his shoulders are very narrow. I don't think he's got the frame to add alot of weight. 

Harford, as DMD says, has a very good NBA body, is a very good (not great) athlete, and shows me more moves that look to be NBA worthy. He's got a nice little across the lane hook and a pretty quick first step off the perimeter.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



TripleDouble said:


> I think Noah gets by on advantages (length and athleticism) that he wouldn't enjoy nearly as much in the NBA and hides flaws (strength) he wouldn't be able to hide in the NBA. Plus, his shoulders are very narrow. I don't think he's got the frame to add alot of weight.
> 
> .


IMO, this arguement is TIRED. No offense towards you at all.

Every single year I hear the same knocks on college kids about what they "get away with in college" that they won't be able to do in the league and guess what? They DO IT IN THE LEAGUE.

MICHAEL REDD
BEN GORDON
CHARLIE VILLUEVA
KYLE KORVER
CHRIS BOSH
CHANNING FRYE
JAMEER NELSON

these are just a few names I've heard in the last couple of years that had major knocks on them coming out of college and they're doing the same things they did in college, in the pro's and they're all successful. Just let them GET to the pro's cuz all we know about their games is what they've DONE in college and if they've done it GREAT in college, I see no reason to comment on what they won't be able to do in the nba until they GET in the nba.


----------



## TripleDouble

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The ROY said:


> IMO, this arguement is TIRED. No offense towards you at all.
> 
> Every single year I hear the same knocks on college kids about what they "get away with in college" that they won't be able to do in the league and guess what? They DO IT IN THE LEAGUE.
> 
> MICHAEL REDD
> BEN GORDON
> CHARLIE VILLUEVA
> KYLE KORVER
> CHRIS BOSH
> CHANNING FRYE
> JAMEER NELSON
> 
> these are just a few names I've heard in the last couple of years that had major knocks on them coming out of college and they're doing the same things they did in college, in the pro's and they're all successful. Just let them GET to the pro's cuz all we know about their games is what they've DONE in college and if they've done it GREAT in college, I see no reason to comment on what they won't be able to do in the nba until they GET in the nba.



I don't quite understand what your arguement is here. Are you claiming that all college players can do what they did in college in the pros? Is there really no difference between the caliber and style of ball in the two leagues?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



TripleDouble said:


> I think Noah gets by on advantages (length and athleticism) that he wouldn't enjoy nearly as much in the NBA and hides flaws (strength) he wouldn't be able to hide in the NBA. Plus, his shoulders are very narrow. I don't think he's got the frame to add alot of weight.
> 
> Harford, as DMD says, has a very good NBA body, is a very good (not great) athlete, and shows me more moves that look to be NBA worthy. He's got a nice little across the lane hook and a pretty quick first step off the perimeter.


It's not like he relied on his athleticism to overpower anyone. He used it as he saw fit. He used it to get out on the fast break, he used it to challenge shots. I notice that he also didn't use it that much during rebounding. 

Unlike Tyson, he did not appear to be wasting energy and that's what impressed me most.

Harford looks like any other power forward. I wasn't that impressed with him. He was strong and he does look like a decent player, but all I remember him doing were a few good dunks and stealing a defensive rebound from Noah.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



TripleDouble said:


> I don't quite understand what your arguement is here. Are you claiming that all college players can do what they did in college in the pros? Is there really no difference between the caliber and style of ball in the two leagues?


i'm not arguing...

all i'm saying is, the whole "oh well he can do this in college, but probably won't in the nba" arguement is TIRED...we'll never know what they're capable of doing in the nba until they get there....after ncaa season ends, you go thru summer league's, vigorous training with the nba's top trainers and training camp to prepare you for the league.....sometimes the rooks get drastically better quick, others take years to develop....i just don't think it's fair that someone can limit their game because of what they DON'T see them doing in the nba....i used to say the same crap....until every year some guard or big man had me eating my words....but it is the nature of sports fans and i can't change that...so oh well lol


----------



## TripleDouble

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The ROY said:


> i'm not arguing...
> 
> all i'm saying is, the whole "oh well he can do this in college, but probably won't in the nba" arguement is TIRED...we'll never know what they're capable of doing in the nba until they get there....after ncaa season ends, you go thru summer league's, vigorous training with the nba's top trainers and training camp to prepare you for the league.....sometimes the rooks get drastically better quick, others take years to develop....i just don't think it's fair that someone can limit their game because of what they DON'T see them doing in the nba....i used to say the same crap....until every year some guard or big man had me eating my words....but it is the nature of sports fans and i can't change that...so oh well lol


It seems that you are saying that good college players are always good pros. That's simply not true.


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Harford looks like any other power forward. I wasn't that impressed with him. He was strong and he does look like a decent player, but all I remember him doing were a few good dunks and stealing a defensive rebound from Noah.


that's what i'm saying....he reminds me of a young vin baker at times....

there's a reason scouts and gm's are going nuttz over noah now and are barely talking about horford...i think he'll be good in the pro's (horford), no doubt, but right now noah's just, special...kid's like that don't come around VERY often...


----------



## The ROY

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



TripleDouble said:


> It seems that you are saying that good college players are always good pros. That's simply not true.


I'm not saying that at ALL......

that's not even my point.....


----------



## jbulls

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



The ROY said:


> IMO, this arguement is TIRED. No offense towards you at all.
> 
> Every single year I hear the same knocks on college kids about what they "get away with in college" that they won't be able to do in the league and guess what? They DO IT IN THE LEAGUE.
> 
> MICHAEL REDD
> BEN GORDON
> CHARLIE VILLUEVA
> KYLE KORVER
> CHRIS BOSH
> CHANNING FRYE
> JAMEER NELSON
> 
> these are just a few names I've heard in the last couple of years that had major knocks on them coming out of college and they're doing the same things they did in college, in the pro's and they're all successful. Just let them GET to the pro's cuz all we know about their games is what they've DONE in college and if they've done it GREAT in college, I see no reason to comment on what they won't be able to do in the nba until they GET in the nba.


The list of guys you have here all had different knocks coming out of college. Redd and Korver were thought to be one dimensional. Villanueva was supposedly lazy. Gordon and Nelson were too small. Bosh was underdeveloped. And Frye was soft. I mean, Nelson and Bosh are at complete opposite ends of the player evaluation spectrum - Nelson was a four year guy who supposedly didn't have the physical tools, and Bosh was a physical specimen who came out as a freshman and supposedly didn't have the game. Past that, FOUR of these seven players were lottery picks. They might've had detractors but they went high in the draft.

There are, of course, players who prove the knocks on them aren't valid. But there are guys who never do. When small quarterbacks enter the NFL draft there are always guys saying stuff like "look at Steve Young". For every Steve Young there are five Cade McNown's. Let's not get carried away here...


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I think once you identify one guy who could be that though, and IMO Thomas could, it puts that guy head and shoulders above the rest, all other things being equal. Thomas has that swagger that "Marciano"-esque quality. Aldridge's swagger/lackthereof I would liken to Rodney McCray


I agree with that. I'd never advocate not taking a guy who _reasonably_ *could* be expected to be "the guy". My thing was just, I didn't think the expectation that we get "the guy" using "the pick" would be fair, considering the fact that the primary player that was sent away for the pick wasn't that type of player.

Maybe Thomas could be that, I don't know. I missed the Texas game, unfortunately. I've not seen a great deal of him, due to the fact that the networks are in love with the ACC and big East. Physically, I see it in him, and I do see that swagger. I just have to wonder after goin through the dissapointment that was the twin toddlers experiment what level of dedication he has. Will he work to get better, or will he be content to coast of his physical skills like Chandler and Curry? His comments about how poeple thought that he was nothin' are good signs, indicating that he has the hunger to be better than the next man. Theres also the fact that he was almost a walk-on, which maybe shows that he has had to work harder for it than the 2 C's, who were pampered all through high school. But, I haven't seen heard or read enough to say how I feel about him as a prospect yet. Aldridge, though I doubt his swagger, I at least have heard and read about how he studies game tape and works on his game and has added a decent amount of muscle to his body in the last year, in addition to the skill that he has shown at times on the court.


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Babble-On said:


> I think this is an unfair expectation of the draft pick. It'd be great if you could get a guy who could be that guy with the pick, but I don't think that is the standard by which you should judge whether or not getting the pick was worthwhile, just because we didn't give up and alpha dog to get the pick. There are a couple of levels of quality in a player between the player(s) we gave up and the alpha dog level. The thing we should be looking at is whether or not what we get makes the team better than what it would've been otherwise.
> 
> I don't disagree with your doubts about Aldridge, though. I think he'll be a good player, but he does seem to lack toughness, or fire in his belly, or something.


And to further that point, can anyone name ANY PLAYER NOT NAMED RASHEED WALLACE (who isn't currently the alpha dog on his team), on the pistons, who was an alpha dog early on in their careers??

The position of "alpha dog" is usually grown into. Only the really big Superstars came into the league with that label. Just to name a few who DIDN'T have it coming in and have it now:

Steve Nash
Dirk Nowitski
Tracy McGrady
Jermaine O'neil
Gilbert Arenas
Chauncy Billups
Ben Wallace


----------



## The ROY

and as far as this crazy "horford's better than noah" crap..

is horford a rebounding MONSTER? no, noah is

is horford a shot-blocking MONSTER? no, noah is

what about averaging a couple steals and assists per game? noah does this

can horford run coast to coast on a fastbreak and FINISH? no, but noah can

is horford a better man-to-man defender? nope

is horford a better HELP defender? nope

is he a better scorer? sure

I think we have a CLEAR cut winner here....

guys 6"11 aren't supposed to do the things Noah can do, that's what makes him special...

I agree that he didn't have as pretty a game as he usually does but he's EFFECIVE, period

he only made 4 fg's today but he hit 13-15 from the line, give that kid some CREDIT


----------



## The ROY

draftexpress's stockup/stockdown :

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1241

UPDATED


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Babble-On said:


> I agree with that. I'd never advocate not taking a guy who _reasonably_ *could* be expected to be "the guy". My thing was just, I didn't think the expectation that we get "the guy" using "the pick" would be fair, considering the fact that the primary player that was sent away for the pick wasn't that type of player.


He wasn't. But he did one thing that made it as if he was. He took the ball down by the basket, drew extra attention RIGHT by the basket (causing a vacuum effect), and still shot 53% despite the double teams. Now it is luck for Eddy Curry that the rules of the game of basketball set up to make this one skill of his so valuable, but nevertheless they do. The ability to do that really makes a whole team better, maybe moreso than any one subskill to a players game. Especially when you consider that we have a bunch of guys who don't excel at creating their own shot (though Luol may be on his way, BUT will he take charge with it. That provided that space. Now you can give me a guy who also scores 14 PPG, or 20 PPG, and if he's not doing it that way (he's facing up, hitting jumpers, driving, etc.), it is not the same. Physical play can take that away or limit it. I don't know how physical play does anything to a 285 pounder and that's the point. But the genius was Skiles because he figured out a way to make it work (taking advantage of Eddy's offense, while getting enough defense and rebounding on the floor for us to not suffer and still win). Eddy's strength was once nothing too special, but coaches on lower levels have tried to get a quick fix by going away from the post game and trying to gimmick it with quickness on the block. Inevitably though, teams that get the inside scores find that everything else gets easier come playoff time.

So no, individually EC was nothing special. BUT we did win 47 games. AND this may be beat into the basement, but when you do that with the third youngest roster in the league, you have to believe that 55-60 win teams can't be OUT OF THE QUESTION if you keep things together and continue building from within.

So I do think you need a difference maker, unless you get a guy like O'Bryant if Pax decides that he can bring what EC brought on the low block. Then you artificially create that difference maker so to speak. IF you're not gonna get that, go for the difference maker, because when you control for all factors we're probably going to need one to get back to that win total. 

Aldridge to me is Will Perdue all over again. I was watching the LSU Texas game again today and that's what hit me. And not San Antonio Will Perdue, but Chicago Bulls Will Perdue. And no, that doesn't mean I'm saying they weigh the same and do all the same things. But he's the closest I see. 




> Maybe Thomas could be that, I don't know. I missed the Texas game, unfortunately. I've not seen a great deal of him, due to the fact that the networks are in love with the ACC and big East. Physically, I see it in him, and I do see that swagger. I just have to wonder after goin through the dissapointment that was the twin toddlers experiment what level of dedication he has. Will he work to get better, or will he be content to coast of his physical skills like Chandler and Curry? His comments about how poeple thought that he was nothin' are good signs, indicating that he has the hunger to be better than the next man. Theres also the fact that he was almost a walk-on, which maybe shows that he has had to work harder for it than the 2 C's, who were pampered all through high school. But, I haven't seen heard or read enough to say how I feel about him as a prospect yet. Aldridge, though I doubt his swagger, I at least have heard and read about how he studies game tape and works on his game and has added a decent amount of muscle to his body in the last year, in addition to the skill that he has shown at times on the court.


Ummm you should watch the game. Aldridge was made to look like a little girl and Tyrus was flat dominant. I was never a Tyrus guy, but he's won me over with his last 2 games. And people can say "it's 3 games." Well Aldridge has played two games all year against firt round prospects. This isn't 1975 when elite players stayed 4 years so you had double digit matchups over the course of your career against first round prospects. Now we're happy to see a first round prospect get 5 matchups against other first round prospects in his college career. So each one is magnified. 

And I think Chandler and Curry did ok. Remember, for being 22, they're still pretty decent players. Are they the next Garnett and Shaq? No. But I don't remember THEM pulling a Kobe Bryant and ever asking for people to call them that. I don't know what people want. Their first three years in the league all people did was talk out of both sides of their mouth in the organization. "Chandler and Curry are the future." "Well they're the distant future cause Jalen is our leader." "We need these guys to step up, but I, the coach, Tim Floyd/Bill Cartwright also can't work with them because they aren't perfect veterans of 15 years like Corie Blount, who craps diamonds." And on and on and on. Nobody associated with this organization, including SCOTTIE PIPPEN, looked any good in Chandler and Curry's first 3 years in the league. And when others looked good, last year, so did Ty and Ed. I really feel that Tyson and Eddy came to play at least enough to be pretty good and they played for an organization that was just awful the first 3 years. EVERYONE who touched this team was awful. Fizer, college player of the year. Stunk. Jay Williams, next Isiah, all-time greatest can't miss prospect. Stunk. Jalen Rose, former 2nd place in the vote for an NBA Finals MVP, stunk. 

Thomas is a different player on a different team with a different coach. *I just don't get how he produces, he shows up. Tyrus Thomas is on his way to being Tourney MVP, and HE's the one that gets the potential label, HE's the one who gets the Chandler and Curry comparisons. Meantime, Lamarcus Aldridge, who has lived his whole life off of the early branding that Chandler and Curry also got that he was "special," has shown me that he is soft, and had 4 points on 2-14 FG yesterday, and he's going to be WATCHING the rest of the tourney. But Tyrus is the one that gets the potential talk and the Chandler and Curry talk. It baffles me. If anyone in this situation is like Chandler and Curry it's LAMARCUS Aldridge.*

Watch Texas v. LSU and you'll see for yourself.


----------



## TripleDouble

Every player has a bad game. Willie Burton put up a ton of points on MJ one game. Billups didn't score until the forth quarter tonight against Kidd. Good players have bad games. 

I think it's a bit ridiculous to base ones opinions on who the Bulls should take on one game.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> And to further that point, can anyone name ANY PLAYER NOT NAMED RASHEED WALLACE (who isn't currently the alpha dog on his team), on the pistons, who was an alpha dog early on in their careers??
> 
> The position of "alpha dog" is usually grown into. Only the really big Superstars came into the league with that label. Just to name a few who DIDN'T have it coming in and have it now:
> 
> Steve Nash
> Dirk Nowitski
> Tracy McGrady
> Jermaine O'neil
> Gilbert Arenas
> Chauncy Billups
> Ben Wallace


I'd just say that I don't think anyone is saying that Tyrus IS one, but just what you said. He has the swagger to grow into one. He has the behaviors where you feel that it is only a matter of time.

You saw Steve Nash at Santa Clara playing much bigger than himself or his school and taking a game over in the tournament. He and Nowitzki probably would have emerged earlier if they didn't have to spend 5 years resurrecting a team that hadn't been decent since Rolando Blackmon. 

Ditto with Billups at Colorado. And furthermore I'd note that he got put in some bad situations early in his career.

McGrady to me isn't an alpha dog. People can call him what they want, and it is just my opinion, but to me he's just a super talented wuss. He's never led anyone to anything despite his media-created 75% of Jordan personna. 

When I saw Jermaine guarding Shaq in 2000 and hanging in there, I looked at my brother and it was my opinion that he had it too. He's got that swagger no doubt. 

Arenas is another guy. He was taking games over as a freshman, and he just has that thing that Tyrus has. That chip, combined with that attitude of "you can knock me down and even kick me and I'm coming right back at you 200%. And I'm not gonna stop coming." Don't get me wrong, you also have to have talent and have to be able to play, otherwise you're just Tom Coverdale. But Thomas can. And then I look at Aldridge, who played the whole tournament, and really every game I've ever seen him play with the general attitude of "here PJ, here's the hot potato Mr. Tucker, take it from me!! Oh I have to shoot it!?! Oh god." OFF BALANCE FADEAWAY. 

Also Legler talked about how wowed everyone on Washington was the first time Ben Wallace joined their practice pick up games. Wallace and Charles Oakley are two examples of how you can go to a place like Virginia Union and still have "it."


----------



## Pippenatorade

TripleDouble said:



> Every player has a bad game. Willie Burton put up a ton of points on MJ one game. Billups didn't score until the forth quarter tonight against Kidd. Good players have bad games.
> 
> I think it's a bit ridiculous to base ones opinions on who the Bulls should take on one game.


Not so. Not at all actually. When you have TWO games against first round competition all year, one game is 50%!! And it wasn't one BAD game. It was a TERRIBLE awful disgusting game. Four points on *2-14* FG. He couldn't DO anything. It wasn't like he was getting off good shots and they weren't falling. Everything was tentative, out of control and with his momentum going the wrong way.

I've had this guy forcefed down my esophagus for six months and as I watched Texas LSU I actually felt violated.


----------



## The ROY

I'm personally not against taking aldridge...I just think we need to grab whatever big makes us stronger in the long run and I think that's Thomas....They just bring two different things to the table...while neither is bad, one has more qualities I feel this team needs....Skiles already made a statement earlier this year saying he wish his big men weren't so soft...While LaMarcus is a + on scoring, an intimidator or enforcer he is not...I've never seen him just DUNK on somebody with force, hell i don't think i've ever seen him dunk, he's finesse, which is fine for some teams.

We need POWER in the inside, if you're gonna lose a player like Curry who sometimes was brute FORCE in the middle, atleast replace that with the closest thing possible....I don't see how a 6"10 big who specializes in turnaround jumpers all day really benefits us, we already have one of those guys in Othella Harrington LOL. I'm also not saying he won't add that part of his game, but somethings just can't be taught....Thomas already has that killer instinct, drive to win, he doesn't dissapear, he gets a ton of easy baskets, he's gradually showing us new moves in his arsenal every game...We've litterally seen him growing through the tournament....

If he declares, and he's availible with the pick, there is NO way Paxson can pass that kid up.


----------



## TripleDouble

Pippenatorade said:


> Not so. Not at all actually. When you have TWO games against first round competition all year, one game is 50%!! And it wasn't one BAD game. It was a TERRIBLE awful disgusting game. Four points on *2-14* FG. He couldn't DO anything. It wasn't like he was getting off good shots and they weren't falling. Everything was tentative, out of control and with his momentum going the wrong way.
> 
> I've had this guy forcefed down my esophagus for six months and as I watched Texas LSU I actually felt violated.


He put 21 points on Shelden Williams and put 15 and 26 points on Pittsnogle (those are the only three games other than against LSU against teams who have NBA caliber size that I can think of). 

How many times have you seen him play?


----------



## chifaninca

OK, reality check part two:

(and please, have a guy you champion but don't get into name calling, gender calling, or whatever to make your point. Guy didn't play tot he hype is all that's really needed).


We end up with the number 3 pick in the draft: (Thomas goes one, Aldridge goes Two): Pip and Roy, I'm worried for your health if this happens. 

Curious who you would like then. How about maybe ranking guys 1 thru 16. I think it would be interesting. We know a top 5 is assured. We're likely to also have a 12-16.


----------



## FanOfAll8472

The ROY said:


> and as far as this crazy "horford's better than noah" crap..
> 
> is horford a rebounding MONSTER? no, noah is
> 
> is horford a shot-blocking MONSTER? no, noah is
> 
> what about averaging a couple steals and assists per game? noah does this
> 
> can horford run coast to coast on a fastbreak and FINISH? no, but noah can
> 
> is horford a better man-to-man defender? nope
> 
> is horford a better HELP defender? nope
> 
> is he a better scorer? sure
> 
> I think we have a CLEAR cut winner here....
> 
> guys 6"11 aren't supposed to do the things Noah can do, that's what makes him special...
> 
> I agree that he didn't have as pretty a game as he usually does but he's EFFECIVE, period
> 
> he only made 4 fg's today but he hit 13-15 from the line, give that kid some CREDIT


I think you are inaccurate on several counts. Horford is the better rebounder and will be in the pros, thanks to his superior strength. Noah is no slouch, but Horford has consistently been a better rebounder than Noah, though not by much. Noah is the better shot blocker, that's for sure. 

Did you see Horford run half the court today, split a couple Nova defenders, then pass it to Noah for the dunk? From all the well-deserved talk Noah has received, you would imagine that it'd be the Noah running the floor and deftly avoiding defender to make the pass, but it wasn't. Noah is more agile and has more guard skills, but Horford is no slouch.

Why is Noah the better man defender? I'd take Horford, especially in the NBA. He's stronger and has done an excellent job the entire year on opposing bigs, including Sheridan today. Noah is the better help defender though.

We don't have a clear cut winner here. We have two different players. One is better suited for the NBA, IMO, and the other is tremendously skilled (and somewhat unorthodox for a big man) in many, but not all departments. Noah is the better player now, there's no doubt about that, but I'll take Horford in the pros.



> Harford looks like any other power forward. I wasn't that impressed with him. He was strong and he does look like a decent player, but all I remember him doing were a few good dunks and stealing a defensive rebound from Noah.


He has shown some nice post work, such as the very first play of the game (I believe, or one of the first couple plays). Nice drop step. From previous games, he has a nice hook too. Considering his athletic ability (which includes the threat of driving by his man) and NBA body, Horford has the potential to be a solid post threat. He already has some nice moves.



> We end up with the number 3 pick in the draft: (Thomas goes one, Aldridge goes Two): Pip and Roy, I'm worried for your health if this happens.


:laugh: But the answer really depends on who comes out.


----------



## The ROY

Horford isn't nothing special..he's a good player...but some of this talk i'm hearing is crazy.....NONE of you know who'll be better than the pro's...unless ya'll can see into the future...kill that nonsense....

you tell me why scouts are going absolutely nuttz over noah and not horford then?? why is noah on the cover of last weeks sports illustrated and horford is barely even mentioned? i know they both are equal to the success of florida but it's quite clear who the LEADER of that team is and who 29 out 30 gm's would draft if they had the chance...

horford's a quiet bigman with good skills and a great body...high b ball iq...i'll give him that..but a SPECIAL player he is NOT....if noah had 20 more pounds on his body...NOBODY on this site would knock him PERIOD


----------



## smARTmouf

Horford > Noah.

Why is Noah always mentioned...And on the cover of SI?

For the same reason Tyrus Thomas wasn't recruited AT ALL.

Some people just don't know no better.

I think Noah is successful BECAUSE of Horford.

In the league...
Noah = A poor mans Jared Jefferies.


----------



## Pippenatorade

TripleDouble said:


> He put 21 points on Shelden Williams and put 15 and 26 points on Pittsnogle (those are the only three games other than against LSU against teams who have NBA caliber size that I can think of).
> 
> How many times have you seen him play?


Pittsnogle to me does one thing on an NBA level for a big. Shoot jumpers. IF he is in the first round it certainly won't be for anything else.


----------



## Pippenatorade

chifaninca said:


> OK, reality check part two:
> 
> (and please, have a guy you champion but don't get into name calling, gender calling, or whatever to make your point. Guy didn't play tot he hype is all that's really needed).
> 
> 
> We end up with the number 3 pick in the draft: (Thomas goes one, Aldridge goes Two): Pip and Roy, I'm worried for your health if this happens.
> 
> Curious who you would like then. How about maybe ranking guys 1 thru 16. I think it would be interesting. We know a top 5 is assured. We're likely to also have a 12-16.


1. Sorry about the little girl comment. I know, I know. I'll keep it clean. I know the posts can fly out like sandpaper shot out of a pistol, but if you think of Paulie from the Sopranos while you read, you'll laugh.

2. I don't want Aldridge AT ALL. I see him as the next Will Perdue. IMO if we get him, we're just gonna end up having to move him anyway. 

My list goes like this:

1. Thomas
1. O'Bryant
3. Carney
4. Roy
5. Brewer

I hope Pax gets in Nazr's head before the draft behind the scenes. That way we can get Thomas and the best SG and call it a day. If Thomas and O'Bryant are both gone then I want the best SG first, THEN with our pick I want Joakim Noah, whom we can groom to take over for Tyson. But then we not only have to get a Nazr in FA, but also a Reggie Evans type. Nazr, Evans, Chandler and Noah would be ok with me. But I think we will get either Thomas or O'Bryant, so I'm not concerned.

I say no completely to Aldridge. IMO it's a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## smARTmouf

Yeah...a big with fluid post moves is definatly a waste of time....DEFINATLY.

They need to make a fantasy GM league or something which include drafts and FA signings and what not...I would love to see some guys opinions crash and burn right before there eyes...that would be quite gratifying.


----------



## L.O.B

Do Thomas, Aldridge or Noah really compliment Tyson's game as much as the duplicate it? None of the 3 really bring much size to play the NBA's big bodies any more effectively than Tyson already does.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

L.O.B said:


> Do Thomas, Aldridge or Noah really compliment Tyson's game as much as the duplicate it? None of the 3 really bring much size to play the NBA's big bodies any more effectively than Tyson already does.


LOB, Aldridge has a good jumper and some post moves. He would definitely compliment Tyson. With the other two, we're at duplication right now.


----------



## L.O.B

Darius Miles Davis said:


> LOB, Aldridge has a good jumper and some post moves. He would definitely compliment Tyson. With the other two, we're at duplication right now.


I was thinking prior to the match up with Davis that Aldidge was the best option but afterward I am not so sure. I wish a could see what kind of game Splitter has, his scouting report looks like he would be a better fit than any of these 6'9"-6'10" 4's that were discussing. I am not sure any of them make us any better than having Allen, Songalia and Harrington, they certainly don't bring anymore muscle.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

L.O.B said:


> I was thinking prior to the match up with Davis that Aldidge was the best option but afterward I am not so sure. I wish a could see what kind of game Splitter has, his scouting report looks like he would be a better fit than any of these 6'9"-6'10" 4's that were discussing. I am not sure any of them make us any better than having Allen, Songalia and Harrington, they certainly don't bring anymore muscle.


Don't make the mistake of reading too much into that one game. Aldridge was inconsistent this year, but people forget he too is only a sophomore, and he was injured much of last year. He had great games against Sheldon Williams, Taj Gray, Kevin Pittsnogle, and Sasha Kaun this year.

Somehow, people see Noah as having a bunch of upside, but everyone thinks LaMarcus has little upside. I think LaMarcus has the best hands, skill, and size of any of the American college big men we may be considering. He's still at the top of my draft board, and right behind him is Brandon Roy.


----------



## Rhyder

*Re: Tyrus Thomas,Lamarcus Aldridge, Joachim Noah Combo thread*



Frankensteiner said:


> Well, since this is appearantly the all purpose college big man thread, I'll get some weight off my chest and just list the guys I would like in order of preference:
> 
> Aldridge
> McRoberts (if he declares)
> Thomas
> O'Bryant
> Shelden Williams
> Noah
> Armstrong
> Boone
> Augustine
> 
> I don't disagree with the opinion that Thomas might turn out better than Aldridge. But taking our needs into account, I think we'd be better off taking the more skilled player.
> 
> Thomas is a good player, and he'll make an impact on games with his defense and athleticism even if he doesn't develop some more polished scoring moves. With that said, Tyson Chandler and Kenyon Martin also have an impact on games. Adding KMart or another Chandler probably wouldn't help this team as much as adding a Channing Frye (the low end projection for Aldridge).
> 
> Regardless, it's my opinion that the Bulls are fairly close to being a good, contending team. We should go for the safer guy.



My big man rankings (from a Bulls perspective) are listed below. Splitter, Thomas, and O'Bryant are all in a relative tie in my eyes. I'd have to watch more of each of them before I can make up my mind about one definatively ahead of another. I think Noah is only slightly ahead of these three, but I can definately say I like him betterl. There is a significant gap between O'Bryant and Armstrong.


Looking at groupings of players, it shakes down like:

Aldridge
Bargnani -- from scouting reports (i.e. going to have to trust the scout's judgement)

Noah

Splitter
Thomas
O'Bryant

Armstrong
Glen Davis
Williams
Horford
McRoberts


----------



## L.O.B

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Don't make the mistake of reading too much into that one game. Aldridge was inconsistent this year, but people forget he too is only a sophomore, and he was injured much of last year. He had great games against Sheldon Williams, Taj Gray, Kevin Pittsnogle, and Sasha Kaun this year.
> 
> Somehow, people see Noah as having a bunch of upside, but everyone thinks LaMarcus has little upside. I think LaMarcus has the best hands, skill, and size of any of the American college big men we may be considering. He's still at the top of my draft board, and right behind him is Brandon Roy.


Don't get me wrong out of the NCAA's big men I think Aldridge is the closest thing to the safest pick for the Bulls. Damn I want to see some footage of Splitter, I love the scouting report from draftexpress
http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=25


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

L.O.B said:


> Don't get me wrong out of the NCAA's big men I think Aldridge is the closest thing to the safest pick for the Bulls. Damn I want to see some footage of Splitter, I love the scouting report from draftexpress
> http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=25


Splitter's buyout issues are a big concern. 

Yeah, I just havent' seen enough of Bargnani or Splitter to know one way or another. That's always a problem. I can't say I'd be disappointed in drafting one of them from what I've read.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> He wasn't. But he did one thing that made it as if he was. ETC ETC


Again, I'm gonna state that I'm not gonna risk going off topic and get into that discussion again. I've stated time and again that I don't consider Curry's impact to be that of a "the guy", so if you wanna read me go into detail, maybe I'll use the search function, and I can copy and paste some ****.



Pippenatorade said:


> Ummm you should watch the game. Aldridge was made to look like a little girl and Tyrus was flat dominant. I was never a Tyrus guy, but he's won me over with his last 2 games. And people can say "it's 3 games." Well Aldridge has played two games all year against firt round prospects. This isn't 1975 when elite players stayed 4 years so you had double digit matchups over the course of your career against first round prospects. Now we're happy to see a first round prospect get 5 matchups against other first round prospects in his college career. So each one is magnified.
> 
> And I think Chandler and Curry did ok. Remember, for being 22, they're still pretty decent players. Are they the next Garnett and Shaq? No. But I don't remember THEM pulling a Kobe Bryant and ever asking for people to call them that. I don't know what people want. Their first three years in the league all people did was talk out of both sides of their mouth in the organization. "Chandler and Curry are the future." "Well they're the distant future cause Jalen is our leader." "We need these guys to step up, but I, the coach, Tim Floyd/Bill Cartwright also can't work with them because they aren't perfect veterans of 15 years like Corie Blount, who craps diamonds." And on and on and on. Nobody associated with this organization, including SCOTTIE PIPPEN, looked any good in Chandler and Curry's first 3 years in the league. And when others looked good, last year, so did Ty and Ed. I really feel that Tyson and Eddy came to play at least enough to be pretty good and they played for an organization that was just awful the first 3 years. EVERYONE who touched this team was awful. Fizer, college player of the year. Stunk. Jay Williams, next Isiah, all-time greatest can't miss prospect. Stunk. Jalen Rose, former 2nd place in the vote for an NBA Finals MVP, stunk.
> 
> Thomas is a different player on a different team with a different coach. *I just don't get how he produces, he shows up. Tyrus Thomas is on his way to being Tourney MVP, and HE's the one that gets the potential label, HE's the one who gets the Chandler and Curry comparisons. Meantime, Lamarcus Aldridge, who has lived his whole life off of the early branding that Chandler and Curry also got that he was "special," has shown me that he is soft, and had 4 points on 2-14 FG yesterday, and he's going to be WATCHING the rest of the tourney. But Tyrus is the one that gets the potential talk and the Chandler and Curry talk. It baffles me. If anyone in this situation is like Chandler and Curry it's LAMARCUS Aldridge.*
> 
> Watch Texas v. LSU and you'll see for yourself.


Again, I can't comment too much on the Tx-LSU game, seeing as how I unfortunately missed it. Maybe if I had, I'd be closer to sold on Tyrus. I've really only seen him against Duke, and in that game, he was kinda Tysonesque, as he din't show a lot of ball skills and the big plays he made were through the use of his athleticism. Hopefully he can continue to step up in the final four, and then when we hear more about his personal makeup, we find that he has his head screwed on relatively str8. As of right now, I have to use the potential label. I hope Tyrus can prove himself to be that cat, and looking at his game logs, I'm more impressed than I previously was. He 15 points, 13 rebounds, and 7 blocks against UConn. Thats crazy. 

I use it(the potential label) on Aldridge as well. I don't know if you're right or not about him being branded as special early on,as I really only have heard about him this year. The only difference is that I've seen more of Aldridge, and though he does have some red flags, I've also seen that he actually has a solid jumper and a couple of post moves, and I've read and heard that he is a guy who has his head screwed on well enough that he has a commitment to improving his game, and has actually improved both his skillset and his physique. So even though I don't think he has that fire that will make him be the guy, I think he has enough of a combination of talent and dedication that he will be a good piece for his team, in spite of the fact that he had a terrible offensive game. The fact that he managed to get double digit boards and 4 blocks in spite of that terrible offensive performance is also a silver lining for me, as after dealing with 2 one dimensional guys, I'd like to have a big guy who can be a stand out performer in more than one area.

And in terms of Chandler and Curry, yeah they were dealt a bad hand being drafted here, but I still don't think there's an excuse for the extent to which they've not developed. Tyson in 5 years has no post moves or other offensive game, and hasn't managed to build hadly any strength. Neither in 5 years has managed to eclipse the 30 minutes a game mark. Both still get into foul trouble stupidly. Eddy, if he added anything to his repertoire, would be able to avoid a lot of his foul trouble, but he's managed not to. Their contract years were the only years they both took the time to actually come into camp in shape enough to put together something close to a complete season. Their rooie years I'll give them a pass for. However, Eddy followed his big 03' finish, which was preceded by a crappy first half of the season similar to what tyson has done this year, with another crappy first half of the season similar to what Tyson has done this year. Tyson followed up the 03' season by actually coming in ready to play, and he put up some monster games, before getting injured most likely because he didn't do enough to strengthen himself against injury. Both guys should've been better.


----------



## Pippenatorade

smARTmouf said:


> Yeah...a big with fluid post moves is definatly a waste of time....DEFINATLY.
> 
> They need to make a fantasy GM league or something which include drafts and FA signings and what not...I would love to see some guys opinions crash and burn right before there eyes...that would be quite gratifying.


Yeah he looked real fluid when it counted. 2-14 FG on a bunch of falling, flailing dung. You can buy the hype. I honestly believe that this kid could shoot 1-30 against that high school kid with autism and you'd still hear "fluid" "I know he'll be a very good pro" 

As more physical play is allowed, his game will go away.


----------



## Pippenatorade

L.O.B said:


> Do Thomas, Aldridge or Noah really compliment Tyson's game as much as the duplicate it? None of the 3 really bring much size to play the NBA's big bodies any more effectively than Tyson already does.


We're going to need to bring in a bigger center regardless of which big we draft. Tyson's game is gonna be off the bench, so I'm not worried about it.


----------



## The ROY

Aldridge Leans Towards Returning To Austin
27th March, 2006 - 3:00 am
Express-News - Lamarcus Aldridge, UT's 6-foot-11 sophomore center, has been pegged as a potential top-3 pick in the NBA should he elect to skip his junior year.

"Far as I know," Aldridge said, "I'm coming back."

Aldridge says he has not made a final decision and doesn't have a timetable to do so.


----------



## step

I doubt he'll stay, the money will be too enticing, that and he's pretty much garaunteed to go high. If we don't choose him, Atlanta will jump on him in a heartbeat.


----------



## The ROY

step said:


> I doubt he'll stay, the money will be too enticing, that and he's pretty much garaunteed to go high. If we don't choose him, Atlanta will jump on him in a heartbeat.


indeed they will


----------



## jnrjr79

Pippenatorade said:


> We're going to need to bring in a bigger center regardless of which big we draft. Tyson's game is gonna be off the bench, so I'm not worried about it.



I agree. While I _hope_ Tyson will blossom into the starter he should be, I don't think it's wise to count on it at this point. He looked great yesterday, but he has yet to sustain that type of play for a full season (or even the majority of a season). I think you have to hope for the best but plan for the worst at this point. I want to draft the best big we can get and sign one of the Pryz/Nazr/etc. types as well.


----------



## step

> I agree. While I hope Tyson will blossom into the starter he should be, I don't think it's wise to count on it at this point. He looked great yesterday, but he has yet to sustain that type of play for a full season (or even the majority of a season). I think you have to hope for the best but plan for the worst at this point. I want to draft the best big we can get and sign one of the Pryz/Nazr/etc. types as well.


Seconded. I'd be looking at Nazr Mohammed moreso than Pryz, as I feel the former would take alot less to sign. Far as I know he's after a 5 year contract, something the Spurs weren't willing to entertain.


----------



## The ROY

jnrjr79 said:


> I agree. While I _hope_ Tyson will blossom into the starter he should be, I don't think it's wise to count on it at this point. He looked great yesterday, but he has yet to sustain that type of play for a full season (or even the majority of a season). I think you have to hope for the best but plan for the worst at this point. I want to draft the best big we can get and sign one of the Pryz/Nazr/etc. types as well.


C Nene / Mohammed
F Thomas / Chandler / Songalia

That looks about right to me!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

The ROY said:


> C Nene / Mohammed
> F Thomas / Chandler / Songalia
> 
> That looks about right to me!


Great. Five bigs, no consistent scorers in the bunch.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Babble-On said:


> Again, I'm gonna state that I'm not gonna risk going off topic and get into that discussion again. I've stated time and again that I don't consider Curry's impact to be that of a "the guy", so if you wanna read me go into detail, maybe I'll use the search function, and I can copy and paste some ****.


And that's fine. But it's inevitably about results. We played last year like we had "the guy" on our team. Especially considering our youth. You don't think it's Curry? Fine, I don't either. That's the point. But we were able to artificially create that feel, and it's not gonna happen with a fadeaway 6'11" softie or a powerful 219 pounder who brings a lot of SF/Artest/Rodman explosiveness. So whoever we get with that first pick better be special. Or, like O'Bryant, they better be able to collapse the defense and create space. 



> Again, I can't comment too much on the Tx-LSU game, seeing as how I unfortunately missed it. Maybe if I had, I'd be closer to sold on Tyrus. I've really only seen him against Duke, and in that game, he was kinda Tysonesque, as he din't show a lot of ball skills and the big plays he made were through the use of his athleticism. Hopefully he can continue to step up in the final four, and then when we hear more about his personal makeup, we find that he has his head screwed on relatively str8. As of right now, I have to use the potential label. I hope Tyrus can prove himself to be that cat, and looking at his game logs, I'm more impressed than I previously was. He 15 points, 13 rebounds, and 7 blocks against UConn. Thats crazy.


First I'd say Thomas is not Tysonesque. Thomas is what people THOUGHT Tyson was. Thomas is, every minute on the floor, what Tyson can show for a game or two here and there and people try to act like that's Tyson all the time. Tyrus shows the energy 100% of the time, from what I've seen, that people THINK Tyson brings, but that he really only brings like 20% of the time. But then we know that Chandler makes mean faces and swats his arms around, so it's easy to buy into that lol.

"I hope Tyrus can prove himself"

Tyrus has proven himself. Aldridge hasn't. 



> I use it(the potential label) on Aldridge as well. I don't know if you're right or not about him being branded as special early on,as I really only have heard about him this year. The only difference is that I've seen more of Aldridge, and though he does have some red flags, I've also seen that he actually has a solid jumper and a couple of post moves, and I've read and heard that he is a guy who has his head screwed on well enough that he has a commitment to improving his game, and has actually improved both his skillset and his physique. So even though I don't think he has that fire that will make him be the guy, I think he has enough of a combination of talent and dedication that he will be a good piece for his team, in spite of the fact that he had a terrible offensive game. The fact that he managed to get double digit boards and 4 blocks in spite of that terrible offensive performance is also a silver lining for me, as after dealing with 2 one dimensional guys, I'd like to have a big guy who can be a stand out performer in more than one area.


I don't know how having your "head screwed" on in interviews or in fluff pieces makes you committed. That to me is just more of this whole boy scout schtick. I could be wrong, but that's how I really see it. Hope you don't want me to lie to you :biggrin: I see commitment when I watch a game and see a kid who looks like he's ALREADY been committed. When I see Tyrus Thomas, of whom my inital instinct was to shoot him down as a Bulls pick, I see commitment. I don't see "oh give him a couple years with Skiles and everything will be okee dokey." I see, give him his rookie year and he'll be a guy who will probably be significantly better in April than he is in October.

Also, when I think of a post player... jumper and nice moves are bonuses to me. I want power. For a pure four, Tyrus Thomas has power. Does he have weight? No. Is his strength, speed and twitch explosion nothing short of powerful? Yes. First a post player should be overwhelming at the point of attack and everything else should be a bonus. Guys who move their heads around and move the ball in a circle and shoot cute jumpers. THEY GO AWAY in the playoffs. They always have. Even as beliefs like the ones that many hold on this board (I call them european beliefs) have infultrated coaching to the point that coaches have this dillusion that players like Dirk and Gasol (cheating the strength game in the post by trying to gimmick out of it with quickness) are the players that bring it home, its still the teams that use power and back em down post games that are taking home the titles. 

Think about it. That Michael Jordan was the only guard that could go down to the post with his tomahawk style and overpower entire frontcourts is the most special thing about his game. He also artificially created that feeling of post power that a player like Shaq or Hakeem or Abdul-Jabbar gives you. 



> And in terms of Chandler and Curry, yeah they were dealt a bad hand being drafted here, but I still don't think there's an excuse for the extent to which they've not developed. Tyson in 5 years has no post moves or other offensive game, and hasn't managed to build hadly any strength. Neither in 5 years has managed to eclipse the 30 minutes a game mark. Both still get into foul trouble stupidly. Eddy, if he added anything to his repertoire, would be able to avoid a lot of his foul trouble, but he's managed not to. Their contract years were the only years they both took the time to actually come into camp in shape enough to put together something close to a complete season. Their rooie years I'll give them a pass for. However, Eddy followed his big 03' finish, which was preceded by a crappy first half of the season similar to what tyson has done this year, with another crappy first half of the season similar to what Tyson has done this year. Tyson followed up the 03' season by actually coming in ready to play, and he put up some monster games, before getting injured most likely because he didn't do enough to strengthen himself against injury. Both guys should've been better.


I don't see it that way. They were dealt the worst hand. The team was already the worst in the NBA for THREE years before they got here. They were built up to be the next great thing by hypesters when they just WERENT. And then I saw them make better strides than Jay Williams and Jalen Rose, who actually regressed when they were here. There was no accountability for veterans, and Curry and Chandler became a product of that. When the general attitude of the organization was "Charles Oakley and Jalen Rose don't have to DO anything, because they are veterans, and any mistakes they make are okay" I expect Curry and Chandler to be a product of that. 

You can say that it was their payday that lit that fire under them. To me, that's not the case AT ALL. It was Skiles. EVEN when Paxson was here with Cartwright, that bleeping bleep Cartwright had an attitude that I hated, as much as I HATE him as a coach. His attitude was that that slimey bleep Jalen could do whatever he wanted, throw up any weak jumper he wanted to throw up, make any mistakes he wanted, and at the end of the day it was the young guys fault. Everything was. There was no incentive to improve. Why improve?! At the end of the day you can get 10 points and 6 rebounds in the first quarter like Eddy did against Dallas, and then Bill will bench you for Corie Blount until the third quarter, Jalen will throw up whack jumpers and play o-lay defense for two quarters, and when you come back midway in the third, instead of being up 10, we'll be down 20. AND THEN at the end of the game, everything will be your fault. And it wasn't just Eddy. Fizer, Jay Williams, Tyson Chandler ALL suffered at the expense of Jalen and BC's marriage. When Skiles got here it was different. I genuinely believe they were gonna still keep Jalen on the condition that he agreed to Skiles regiment. Skiles then sat him down and said "no special treatment, you have to do exactly what the other guys do and will be held to the same standards. Your 'veteran status' doesn't buy you anything with me. So are you in and out." And then, like the slimy selfish cancer that Jalen is, he ran for the hills faster than a prisoner released from a Turkish prison. 

Skiles was tough last year and he was fair. To me, he HAS always done things the right way. I'm anti-Pax, but I've always been pro-Skiles. Instead of saying "waaa, I, Tim Floyd, wanted veterans and now since Jerry drafted YOU, I'm gonna pout like a four year old and play Charles Oakley," Skiles had Eddy work with him before and after practice every day in 2003-04. AND he rewarded EC in 2004-05. When things were the right way, Tyson and Eddy flourished. Now Skiles doesn't have the horses, but I'm confident that if he gets them, we'll be more than fine. Because Scott is tough, but he is fair. 

So yes, Eddy and Tyson could have done more. Tyson especially since I think if you look at both of their games, EC has made more improvement (as a rookie he really wasn't an OFFENSIVE threat either). But I honestly think you could have had many prospects who have taken off, fail in Chicago under Cartwright and Floyd. That is NOT gonna do anyone much good in their first three years in the league. Those crybabies felt they should be handed teams loaded with veterans and all stars.


----------



## Pippenatorade

The ROY said:


> Aldridge Leans Towards Returning To Austin
> 27th March, 2006 - 3:00 am
> Express-News - Lamarcus Aldridge, UT's 6-foot-11 sophomore center, has been pegged as a potential top-3 pick in the NBA should he elect to skip his junior year.
> 
> "Far as I know," Aldridge said, "I'm coming back."
> 
> Aldridge says he has not made a final decision and doesn't have a timetable to do so.


He should go back to school, gain ten more pounds of muscle, do some SERIOUS plyometrics training, take boxing, work on gaining some anger, and he'll be ok. College is the place to do this as we saw with Curry and Chandler, not the NBA. Players with the engine and anger like Thomas, Amare, Artest.... they gain more from the NBA than college.


----------



## The ROY

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Great. Five bigs, no consistent scorers in the bunch.


replace Thomas with Aldridge then if u wish....

Thomas will put up atleast 18PPG sooner or later...

Nene giving u 12 per game starting and Thomas giving you 12 per game starting is ALOT better production than what we're getting now....

5pts from our center and what? 5 from malik allen?

on top of that Songalia and Mohammed both give u 8-10ppg off the bench...

that evens out with the production from the guards IMO....


----------



## Pippenatorade

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Great. Five bigs, no consistent scorers in the bunch.


I'll die if we sign Nene AND Mohammed. My rotation would be:

Mohammed/O'Bryant, Chandler
Thomas, Antonio Davis/Reggie Evans, Songaila


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

The ROY said:


> Thomas will put up atleast 18PPG sooner or later...


I can't believe that people can be so sure about this from what they've seen in the tournament. This kid is 6' 9", maybe 215 lbs with no post moves. He's not much bulkier than another great athlete like Hakim Warrick. How can you be so sure that Thomas will score?


----------



## Guest

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I can't believe that people can be so sure about this from what they've seen in the tournament.


Why are you so surpised?

People get hung up believing so-and-so is going to be a superstar based on seeing them a couple of times on ESPNews. People get convinced they've found the franchise savior by reading about a guy in a European scouting report they found on nbadraft.net. Etc.

Every year there are some March Madness darlings. Sometimes they pan out to be superstars. Sometimes they are Christian Laettner.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

Spud said:


> Why are you so surpised?
> 
> People get hung up believing so-and-so is going to be a superstar based on seeing them a couple of times on ESPNews. People get convinced they've found the franchise savior by reading about a guy in a European scouting report they found on nbadraft.net. Etc.
> 
> Every year there are some March Madness darlings. Sometimes they pan out to be superstars. Sometimes they are Christian Laettner.


Yes, but I really respect the people's opinions on the Bulls board here. I'm surprised with all they see in this kid.


----------



## Rhyder

step said:


> I doubt he'll stay, the money will be too enticing, that and he's pretty much garaunteed to go high. If we don't choose him, Atlanta will jump on him in a heartbeat.


I agree with this as well unless he values the education a lot more than most people would in the same situation.

I'm about 90% positive that he will declare, unless his plan is to stay until his senior year. I doubt he declares next year with Oden pretty much having the #1 pick locked up even now.


----------



## chifaninca

That's why it's called March Madness - College fans go nuts with the hope and jubilation. NBA fans go overboard drooling over guys who put together superb tourneys. 

That's why I think we'll see more reality once workouts start to happen. Guys will rise and fall then as well.

If you miss the playoffs, this is the only good time of year for you.


----------



## Babble-On

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> First I'd say Thomas is not Tysonesque. Thomas is what people THOUGHT Tyson was. Thomas is, every minute on the floor, what Tyson can show for a game or two here and there and people try to act like that's Tyson all the time. Tyrus shows the energy 100% of the time, from what I've seen, that people THINK Tyson brings, but that he really only brings like 20% of the time. But then we know that Chandler makes mean faces and swats his arms around, so it's easy to buy into that lol.
> 
> "I hope Tyrus can prove himself"
> 
> Tyrus has proven himself. Aldridge hasn't.


Or, it might be a flash in the pan. Neither of us has seen enough to know yet.



Pippenatorade said:


> I don't know how having your "head screwed" on in interviews or in fluff pieces makes you committed. That to me is just more of this whole boy scout schtick. I could be wrong, but that's how I really see it. Hope you don't want me to lie to you :biggrin: I see commitment when I watch a game and see a kid who looks like he's ALREADY been committed. When I see Tyrus Thomas, of whom my inital instinct was to shoot him down as a Bulls pick, I see commitment. I don't see "oh give him a couple years with Skiles and everything will be okee dokey." I see, give him his rookie year and he'll be a guy who will probably be significantly better in April than he is in October.


Me saying I see commitment from Aldridge has nothing to do with interviews or puff peices. It has to do with reading and hearing that he puts a great deal of time into improving his game, and that he has put on 20 pounds since last year, that he probably has did more to improve. Thomas? Who knows what if anything her has done to improve his game. Unless you have some kind of proof to the contrary, I don't know how you can dispute that.



Pippenatorade said:


> Also, when I think of a post player... jumper and nice moves are bonuses to me. I want power. For a pure four, Tyrus Thomas has power. Does he have weight? No. Is his strength, speed and twitch explosion nothing short of powerful? Yes. First a post player should be overwhelming at the point of attack and everything else should be a bonus. Guys who move their heads around and move the ball in a circle and shoot cute jumpers. THEY GO AWAY in the playoffs. They always have. Even as beliefs like the ones that many hold on this board (I call them european beliefs) have infultrated coaching to the point that coaches have this dillusion that players like Dirk and Gasol (cheating the strength game in the post by trying to gimmick out of it with quickness) are the players that bring it home, its still the teams that use power and back em down post games that are taking home the titles.
> 
> Think about it. That Michael Jordan was the only guard that could go down to the post with his tomahawk style and overpower entire frontcourts is the most special thing about his game. He also artificially created that feeling of post power that a player like Shaq or Hakeem or Abdul-Jabbar gives you.



Other than in the cases of Shaq and to a lesser extent Amare, post moves and a jumper are far from bonuses. Hakeem, for example, Shaq made a famous comment about how he had an arsenal of 20 moves. Kareem, another guy you mentioned, is most famous for the skyhook, which was far from a power move. The best big in the business today is Duncan, who uses his post moves and jumper far more than he does raw power. Also, Nowitzki's problem isn't at the offensive end and never has been. He puts up just as much points or more in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. Same with KG and Gasol. In Dirk's case, the problem has always been that he and his team have never slugged it out and gotten stops when they needed to. With KG and Gasol, it has pretty much always been that they were going against teams that were better than their own. If Tyrus doesn't develop or have some post moves or a jumper, to go with additional weight, he most likely isn't gonna be a legit scorer in the NBA.



Pippenatorade said:


> I don't see it that way. They were dealt the worst hand. The team was already the worst in the NBA for THREE years before they got here. They were built up to be the next great thing by hypesters when they just WERENT. And then I saw them make better strides than Jay Williams and Jalen Rose, who actually regressed when they were here. There was no accountability for veterans, and Curry and Chandler became a product of that. When the general attitude of the organization was "Charles Oakley and Jalen Rose don't have to DO anything, because they are veterans, and any mistakes they make are okay" I expect Curry and Chandler to be a product of that.
> 
> You can say that it was their payday that lit that fire under them. To me, that's not the case AT ALL. It was Skiles. EVEN when Paxson was here with Cartwright, that bleeping bleep Cartwright had an attitude that I hated, as much as I HATE him as a coach. His attitude was that that slimey bleep Jalen could do whatever he wanted, throw up any weak jumper he wanted to throw up, make any mistakes he wanted, and at the end of the day it was the young guys fault. Everything was. There was no incentive to improve. Why improve?! At the end of the day you can get 10 points and 6 rebounds in the first quarter like Eddy did against Dallas, and then Bill will bench you for Corie Blount until the third quarter, Jalen will throw up whack jumpers and play o-lay defense for two quarters, and when you come back midway in the third, instead of being up 10, we'll be down 20. AND THEN at the end of the game, everything will be your fault. And it wasn't just Eddy. Fizer, Jay Williams, Tyson Chandler ALL suffered at the expense of Jalen and BC's marriage. When Skiles got here it was different. I genuinely believe they were gonna still keep Jalen on the condition that he agreed to Skiles regiment. Skiles then sat him down and said "no special treatment, you have to do exactly what the other guys do and will be held to the same standards. Your 'veteran status' doesn't buy you anything with me. So are you in and out." And then, like the slimy selfish cancer that Jalen is, he ran for the hills faster than a prisoner released from a Turkish prison.
> 
> Skiles was tough last year and he was fair. To me, he HAS always done things the right way. I'm anti-Pax, but I've always been pro-Skiles. Instead of saying "waaa, I, Tim Floyd, wanted veterans and now since Jerry drafted YOU, I'm gonna pout like a four year old and play Charles Oakley," Skiles had Eddy work with him before and after practice every day in 2003-04. AND he rewarded EC in 2004-05. When things were the right way, Tyson and Eddy flourished. Now Skiles doesn't have the horses, but I'm confident that if he gets them, we'll be more than fine. Because Scott is tough, but he is fair.
> 
> So yes, Eddy and Tyson could have done more. Tyson especially since I think if you look at both of their games, EC has made more improvement (as a rookie he really wasn't an OFFENSIVE threat either). But I honestly think you could have had many prospects who have taken off, fail in Chicago under Cartwright and Floyd. That is NOT gonna do anyone much good in their first three years in the league. Those crybabies felt they should be handed teams loaded with veterans and all stars.


My thing is, even when Eddy and Tyson "flourished", they still left a great deal be desired. I'll not say that is Eddy is flourishing until he scores 20+ a game for a season, and is a top guy at what he does. I'll not say Tyson is flourishing until he goes from just being 9th in the league in rebounding for a season, but cracks the top 5, and breaks into the top 5 in blocks, to go with awkward but somehow solid scoring. Both those guys have shown the abilty to do those things, and still haven't done them with any consistency.


----------



## The ROY

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I can't believe that people can be so sure about this from what they've seen in the tournament. This kid is 6' 9", maybe 215 lbs with no post moves. He's not much bulkier than another great athlete like Hakim Warrick. How can you be so sure that Thomas will score?


How can u be so sure that he won't?

It's really all about potential...none of us knows what's going to happen....

He'll get 8-10 points easy every game just off putbacks and alley oops...

add the fact that he has shown the ability to consistently hit the 15footer...I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to score atleast 18PPG in his career...not his rookie season...but in his career, yea...


----------



## chifaninca

The ROY said:


> How can u be so sure that he won't?
> 
> It's really all about potential...none of us knows what's going to happen....
> 
> He'll get 8-10 points easy every game just off putbacks and alley oops...
> 
> add the fact that he has shown the ability to consistently hit the 15footer...I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to score atleast 18PPG in his career...not his rookie season...but in his career, yea...




Wow, you just described Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Stromile Swift................................Let's Hope Tyrus really does produce those numbers if we get him. 


Which, as I look at things looks very possible:

Charlotte (#1) - Adam Morrison
Chi (Via NY) - Tyrus Thomas
Atlanta #3 - LaMarcus Aldridge


I can see that happening.

Even in the worst case - We end up picking 4th - we'd still get Bargnani who I would be happy with as well.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Babble-On said:


> Or, it might be a flash in the pan. Neither of us has seen enough to know yet.


But that's just it you see. Aldridge fans KNOW. They knew before this weekend and they still know. Read the thread. They "know Aldridge will be a very good pro." You can come back and say "we don't know with Thomas." Well guess what, if anyone knows, it's someone backing Thomas. If you want to say neither of us knows, ok fine. But who has less evidence? I'm taking success in the tournament, actual success, big numbers and big leadership in a big game, from a guy who has the physical attributes. Anyone backing Aldridge has far less than that. So if neither of us knows fine. But if one does know, my stance is that it's someone backing Thomas. 





> Me saying I see commitment from Aldridge has nothing to do with interviews or puff peices. It has to do with reading and hearing that he puts a great deal of time into improving his game, and that he has put on 20 pounds since last year, that he probably has did more to improve. Thomas? Who knows what if anything her has done to improve his game. Unless you have some kind of proof to the contrary, I don't know how you can dispute that.


And where do you read stuff like that? From objective analyses of his game? Or from Sports Illustrated articles about him? What do you mean when you say interviews or puff pieces? If he's interviewed, what are you going to hear? Negatives? If someone close to him is interviewed what are you going to hear? Which is more reliable? What you read and hear from Justin Young or WHOEVER, or what you SEE? 

Ok and that's the thing. You've done it again. YOU know that Aldridge has commitment, but I need proof. Why? I'll tell you what I know about Thomas. He was once a guy who didn't get much attention outside of Baton Rouge and then I saw what he did against frontcourts manned by Williams, McRoberts AND Aldridge and Buckman. That to me is commitment. Aldridge has been hyped since the beginning of his senior year of high school. Even back then you had to pay to see his profile on NBAdraft.net. He got the full Tyson Chandler hype job in high school, with all the engines behind him. From then until now what I have seen has been rather uninspiring. 



> Other than in the cases of Shaq and to a lesser extent Amare, post moves and a jumper are far from bonuses. Hakeem, for example, Shaq made a famous comment about how he had an arsenal of 20 moves. Kareem, another guy you mentioned, is most famous for the skyhook, which was far from a power move. The best big in the business today is Duncan, who uses his post moves and jumper far more than he does raw power. Also, Nowitzki's problem isn't at the offensive end and never has been. He puts up just as much points or more in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. Same with KG and Gasol. In Dirk's case, the problem has always been that he and his team have never slugged it out and gotten stops when they needed to. With KG and Gasol, it has pretty much always been that they were going against teams that were better than their own. If Tyrus doesn't develop or have some post moves or a jumper, to go with additional weight, he most likely isn't gonna be a legit scorer in the NBA.


What you are doing is taking what I said and kind of twisting it. Reasonable since I could have been more specific. Does saying that Kareem is a backdown type mean that he can't hit an 18 foot hookshot? NO. When I say that someone can back someone else down, it doesn't mean that that is their best, most used or most effective weapon. It just means that whenever they have to or want to, they can put their back on someone from 6 feet out, back them down to about 3-4 feet out, turn around and put something up that is going to be high percentage. Duncan can do this despite his shooting 57%. Aldridge, even in college, against anyone who is a first round prospect for something other than their jumper (i.e. not Pittsnogle), cannot. So when someone has "post moves" and also, like Hakeem, is 255+ and can back someone down and play their post moves off of that, that's fine. That's even better. But when someone's post moves lack the pretense of the player with the moves being able to muscle someone, then they are the "post moves" I talked about with Aldridge. 

So IMO you or anyone can talk all day long about how good Duncan or Olajuwon's jumper or finesse moves are, or how much more often they use them and it only aids my point of view. If they are based around the real threat that "hey, you better respect this or I can just pound the ball down low" or "sure, jump out on my jumper, I'll catch you off balance, spin back you off of me and get a clear pass to the lane" THAT is Duncan and Olajuwon. That is just icing on a very well made cake. 

KG and Dirk may put up points in the playoffs. But when the possessions get crucial and the refs swallow the whistles, what happens then? KG got his points against the Lakers two years ago, but when it came down to it and Karl Malone really got up in his grill, he disappeared in crucial stretches. To me KG getting off to a hot start and dying at the end. KG's FG% goes down 3.5% from regular season to playoffs. THIS despite the fact that most of his series have been FIRST ROUND series, when the physical play is just starting to escalate. Olajuwon's actually went up 1.4%, Jordan's down only 1% and Shaq's down only 1%, despite a much higher percentage of those three's series being second round, CF and NBA Finals. Dirk's goes down 2.4%. Same there. 

If you don't think that finesse scoring disappears at a greater rate than power scoring in crucial playoff situations, we just can't have this conversation lol. Because disagreement on such a fundamental level renders it so. 



> My thing is, even when Eddy and Tyson "flourished", they still left a great deal be desired. I'll not say that is Eddy is flourishing until he scores 20+ a game for a season, and is a top guy at what he does. I'll not say Tyson is flourishing until he goes from just being 9th in the league in rebounding for a season, but cracks the top 5, and breaks into the top 5 in blocks, to go with awkward but somehow solid scoring. Both those guys have shown the abilty to do those things, and still haven't done them with any consistency.


There you go. Throwing numbers around. Curry was never on a team that only had 2 or 3 guys with the potential to score 15+ PPG. If you take Scottie Pippen off the Bulls and put Curry with Jordan, he probably does get 20 PPG. Why? Because that team had 9 guys who were never going to come close to threatening that mark. When you put a guy on a team with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Noce etc. it is not fair to ask a guy to score 20 PPG. Any guy. Hinrich too. Gordon too. Same when he had Rose, Marshall, Crawford and Williams (and Fizer for most of the season) with him. Same now in New York. Numbers are relative to the situation. On a team like Utah I'd expect 22 PPG from Curry. On our team I was fine with 14. 

I'll take Chandler's back too on this one, even though I hate him so you know I'm not being biased. When you put him on a team with Noce and Davis, is he really going to rebound as much as if he's maybe on this year's Knicks team? No. I've had all these numbers guys on this board laugh when you compare Gordon to Ainge. "Ainge only averaged this his first 6 years." And they're serious. And you confront them with the fact that he played with BIRD, MCHALE, PARRISH, JOHNSON and WALTON and you never hear another peep on the subissue. Numbers have to be taken into the context of the situation. Unless you are a lead guy of lead guys, an ace of aces, like Jordan, O'Neal, Bryant, Duncan, Olajuwon, K. Malone, etc., numbers depend on who you're playing with and how your team is playing. 

*I've already admitted that they COULD do better*, but look at the realities. Jay Williams was the can't miss prospect of all time and what did he do in that situation? Fizer? Same #4 pick. College player of the year. What did he do? My point is it was a bad situation all the way around.

I'll also add this. Perhaps Skiles greatest gift, and the reason that BC can coach until he is 80 and will never be the coach Skiles is now, is that he stopped saying "Why can't you be this Ben" "Why can't you do this Tyson" "Why can't you recalibrate your game Eddy" and he sat down and figured out, "OK, if I accept you three for WHO YOU ARE, how can *I take advantage of that*. Ok, Eddy can't rebound. Make sure he's in the game with Noce and AD a lot. Having Eddy on the floor with Gordon and Harrington probably wasn't the best idea. Skiles, instead of crying like a four year old girl (i.e. Cartwright, Floyd, a lot of guys back in 2003 on the fantasy board), he said "HOW CAN I make this work." And he DID make it work. Funny thing was, to hear Floyd and Cartwright tell the story, there just must not have been a way to incorporate Eddy and Tyson's talents into a winning concept, because golly jee, they sure were trying, and it was impossible. But Skiles did it. Maybe they just sucked and he rules.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I can't believe that people can be so sure about this from what they've seen in the tournament. This kid is 6' 9", maybe 215 lbs with no post moves. He's not much bulkier than another great athlete like Hakim Warrick. How can you be so sure that Thomas will score?


But that's just it. We can't be sure about Thomas from him dominating in the tournament, but Aldridge fans just KNOW what he's gonna be from a bunch of games against the redheaded stepchildren of the Big 12 and his NBAdraft.net scouting report? He is dominating and Aldridge looked like a fool. In an era where the NCAA is diluted from early entry and you don't get to see a guy play 15 games against first round caliber players, every game does count. You can try to create a straw man that Thomas is this and that to destract people from remembering how Aldridge looked like a big ball of hype this weekend all you want. Thomas PRODUCED. He is not potential, he is a player with all the physical gifts who is translating that into big numbers, big leadership and big wins on the NCAA's biggest stage. Aldridge is a guy who IS potential, is hype, and produced nothing when he wasn't facing Sasha Danilovic Pittnogle or Shelden "I just became a second rounder" Williams. Maybe no one can be sure, but if anyone can, it's someone saying good things about Thomas.

Warrick's offensive game was nonexistent as a junior, Thomas is a redshirt freshman. 

Aldridge = hype and potential
Thomas = Improvement, Production, Leadership

Did Thomas stand there and let Temple lead LSU like Aldridge defers to PJ Tucker like Tucker is his Mom? No. Thomas, the FRESHMAN, is the leader of that team. A team I see winning the NCAA Championship.


----------



## ndistops

> Texas center LaMarcus Aldridge, projected by some NBA scouts as a top-three pick if he enters the draft this year, said, "As far as I know, I'm coming back." Two other starters, junior P.J. Tucker and sophomore Daniel Gibson, said they will return next season rather than enter the draft. Both are on the NBA radar screen with the opportunity to elevate their draft status next season if they do, indeed, return to college.
> 
> -- Austin American-Statesman


Did anyone else see this and think, like I did, that naturally we'd get the top pick in a year where there's not even CLOSE to a can't-miss guy in the bunch? I don't think Aldridge is the savior or anything but he had the best tools to succeed IMO and it doesn't seem like he'll declare.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

ndistops said:


> Did anyone else see this and think, like I did, that naturally we'd get the top pick in a year where there's not even CLOSE to a can't-miss guy in the bunch? I don't think Aldridge is the savior or anything but he had the best tools to succeed IMO and it doesn't seem like he'll declare.


Well, we have the right to swap picks with NY next year too, and they're not showing many signs of being more competitive next year at the moment. And next year is supposed to be a good draft headed up by Oden, so we could get someone really good then. 

that, and after this tournament, I think there are a lot of guys in this year's draft that will help us, even if the star power is lacking.

I just don't want to kick the can down the road. I want us to be winners, if not contenders, next year.


----------



## step

> Did anyone else see this and think, like I did, that naturally we'd get the top pick in a year where there's not even CLOSE to a can't-miss guy in the bunch? I don't think Aldridge is the savior or anything but he had the best tools to succeed IMO and it doesn't seem like he'll declare.


Many of us have commented on this about 20 posts back.


----------



## Ron Cey

Pippenatorade said:


> Thomas, the FRESHMAN, is the leader of that team.


No he's not. But he is definitely an interesting prospect and a refreshing addition to the mix of possibilities if he declares.


----------



## Rhyder

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yes, but I really respect the people's opinions on the Bulls board here. I'm surprised with all they see in this kid.


Part of human nature, and especially on a message board is "proving" to others that you were right or wrong. It's competition in every sense of the word.

In the draft, people get their favorites and bust predictions. Those that are right more often then they are wrong gain recognition. However, to gain recognition you have to claim a stance. Some are just more wild about their stances than others. Call it knee-jerk or overstating one's opinion just to make sure your voice is heard.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

Did anyone tape the Texas/LSU game, or do they know the answer to this question offhand?

Did Aldridge receive a single post entry pass during the overtime? I don't think he took a shot in the OT, but was that his fault?

Just wondering.


----------



## Ron Cey

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Did anyone tape the Texas/LSU game, or do they know the answer to this question offhand?
> 
> Did Aldridge receive a single post entry pass during the overtime? I don't think he took a shot in the OT, but was that his fault?
> 
> Just wondering.


No, he didn't. Not one single touch that wasn't a rebound. 

He didn't have a good game shooting, that much is certain. But I think the characterization that he "disappeared" at the end of the game is unfair. He didn't disappear - he was made invisible. There is a difference.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Ron Cey said:


> No, he didn't. Not one single touch that wasn't a rebound.
> 
> He didn't have a good game shooting, that much is certain. But I think the characterization that he "disappeared" at the end of the game is unfair. He didn't disappear - he was made invisible. There is a difference.


I dunno...I got the impression that he didn't want the ball in the 2nd half and OT. He seemed to drift away from the ball.

I do think that Pip is drastically overstating his case about Aldridge being a little girl or whatever (he's been wanting to rail on Lamarcus for weeks and got his chance from this game, I guess), but that game did send up some red flags. I basically don't think Aldridge has the capacity to be a team leader type, and I wonder about whether he can be more than a 2nd or 3rd option after seeing him shy away from the challenge on offense. No one on Texas had it going, so he should have kept at it, IMO.

I don't agree with the assessment that he was exposed as a weakling because Davis was able to push him under the basket a few times. That guy is enormous - bigger and more mobile than Sweetney and weighing about what Curry weighs with a much lower center of gravity. There's hardly anyone who could stand his ground against Davis on every possession. Maybe he needs more lower body weight work, but so do most players entering the NBA. LaMarcus still has a lot going for him that I think would help the Bulls. I just don't know if he's the guy I prefer anymore.


----------



## Frankensteiner

ViciousFlogging said:


> That guy is enormous - bigger and more mobile than Sweetney and weighing about what Curry weighs with a much lower center of gravity. There's hardly anyone who could stand his ground against Davis on every possession.


See, that's what I thought, too, but we're both appearantly wrong. I was told the league is full of dozens of NBA players that are bigger and stronger than Davis.


----------



## Ron Cey

ViciousFlogging said:


> I dunno...I got the impression that he didn't want the ball in the 2nd half and OT. He seemed to drift away from the ball.


Our memories diverge. I recall him fighting for - and getting - position multiple times in OT, but everyone just kept jacking 3s. Including Buckman. 

I don't really remember the latter portion of the second half, but I distinctly recall wondering to myself why no one was willing to make an entry pass to him in OT. My exact thought was agreement with the countless posts I've read this year (by people who follow college ball and the Big 12 more than I do) saying that Texas' guard play sucked in that they never got the ball to Aldridge and that his numbers were "in spite of" horridly selfish teammates.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Ron Cey said:


> Our memories diverge. I recall him fighting for - and getting - position multiple times in OT, but everyone just kept jacking 3s. Including Buckman.
> 
> I don't really remember the latter portion of the second half, but I distinctly recall wondering to myself why no one was willing to make an entry pass to him in OT. My exact thought was agreement with the countless posts I've read this year (by people who follow college ball and the Big 12 more than I do) saying that Texas' guard play sucked in that they never got the ball to Aldridge and that his numbers were "in spite of" horridly selfish teammates.


I could be wrong. Maybe the plays where he wasn't aggressive carry more weight in my recollection of the game. I do agree that they weren't looking inside much in OT, though. I just didn't notice LaMarcus fighting for post position that much.

I was definitely one of those who saw earlier Texas games where Aldridge could be by himself under the basket and not get a pass from Paulino or Gibson. The idea that his guards didn't look for him enough, generally speaking, was no myth.


----------



## ViciousFlogging

Frankensteiner said:


> See, that's what I thought, too, but we're both appearantly wrong. I was told the league is full of dozens of NBA players that are bigger and stronger than Davis.


Oh. Well, I stand corrected then. :angel:


----------



## L.O.B

Frankensteiner said:


> See, that's what I thought, too, but we're both appearantly wrong. I was told the league is full of dozens of NBA players that are bigger and stronger than Davis.


So why isn't there more love for Davis then? Other than Shaq, I am not sure there is a player that would be stronger than Glen in the NBA. What would a 310 pound brute be able to do with the Shaq circle under the basket? I wouldn't want to be a court side camera man


----------



## The ROY

From Insider :;

"While it's clear that big, physical players such as Glen Davis of LSU are going to push him further away from the basket, there's no reason to believe that on a better day, Aldridge can hit those shots he took. Besides, how many 310-pound power forwards is he going to have to face in the NBA? Clearly Aldridge needs to get stronger, but scouts believe that the rest of the package is there. He's holding onto our No. 1 spot on the big board by a thread. But truth is, scouts are split in two over whether Aldridge or Thomas is the best power forward in the draft."


----------



## ViciousFlogging

The ROY said:


> From Insider :;


that seems fair. I think I put Thomas over Aldridge now, but I don't think that one game makes Aldridge a total waste of space or even drastically hurt his stock.


----------



## The ROY

ViciousFlogging said:


> that seems fair. I think I put Thomas over Aldridge now, but I don't think that one game makes Aldridge a total waste of space or even drastically hurt his stock.


me either...I still think he'll be a good player...one game isn't gonna change that


----------



## darlets

I was reading Tyrus Thomas scouting report at draft express. It well worth the read. 

The points the struck me were:
His a late grower and really had to work hard to make the basketball team. (Similar to Pippens and Rodmans stories)
He hasn't played much organised ball but still has a high bball IQ
He could still be growing

The missing ingredients seems to some time in the weight room and maybe some post moves (it's a bit hard to tell as his the fourth option on the team)

I was mentioned on the draftexpress forum that he played guard in highschool? Does anyone know if this is true?


----------



## Pippenatorade

ViciousFlogging said:


> I dunno...I got the impression that he didn't want the ball in the 2nd half and OT. He seemed to drift away from the ball.


Yep.



> I do think that Pip is drastically overstating his case about Aldridge being a little girl or whatever (he's been wanting to rail on Lamarcus for weeks and got his chance from this game, I guess), but that game did send up some red flags. I basically don't think Aldridge has the capacity to be a team leader type, and I wonder about whether he can be more than a 2nd or 3rd option after seeing him shy away from the challenge on offense. No one on Texas had it going, so he should have kept at it, IMO.


My style is almost always going to be to overstate my point of view. It's just fun to me lol. But you're right. I saw this coming, I had this guy shoved down my esophagus for months, and he's hype. the truth is usually always somewhere between. 



> I don't agree with the assessment that he was exposed as a weakling because Davis was able to push him under the basket a few times. That guy is enormous - bigger and more mobile than Sweetney and weighing about what Curry weighs with a much lower center of gravity. There's hardly anyone who could stand his ground against Davis on every possession. Maybe he needs more lower body weight work, but so do most players entering the NBA. LaMarcus still has a lot going for him that I think would help the Bulls. I just don't know if he's the guy I prefer anymore.


But here's what I saw that I felt completely fulfilled my low expectations of Aldridge. He stopped fighting. It wasn't like Hilton Armstrong who knew that Jai Lewis was a load when Lewis was trying to get position. Lewis is just a load when he gets his back to the basket and Armstrong had his shoulder in Lewis' back pushing like he was trying to push a car off of a baby. You could almost see veins popping out of Armstrong's head. Aldridge on the other hand just didn't fight IMO. He'd try for position and when Big Baby pushed him, it wasn't like he tried to punch Davis in the mouth (figuratively speaking). He just kinda took it.


----------



## Pippenatorade

The ROY said:


> From Insider :;
> 
> "While it's clear that big, physical players such as Glen Davis of LSU are going to push him further away from the basket, there's no reason to believe that on a better day, Aldridge can hit those shots he took. Besides, how many 310-pound power forwards is he going to have to face in the NBA? Clearly Aldridge needs to get stronger, but scouts believe that the rest of the package is there. He's holding onto our No. 1 spot on the big board by a thread. But truth is, scouts are split in two over whether Aldridge or Thomas is the best power forward in the draft."


But, Davis is probably 275 if you take the fat off. AND if Davis is so heavy, 75 lbs. heavier than Aldridge, where was the quickness advantage in Aldridge's favor? He couldn't have a decided quickness advantage over a guy who weighs 75 lbs. more than him?? It's one or the other. And while he won't face a guy as big as Davis, there are plenty of guys who have a better total combination of quickness and strength than Davis in the pros.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Frankensteiner said:


> See, that's what I thought, too, but we're both appearantly wrong. I was told the league is full of dozens of NBA players that are bigger and stronger than Davis.


That's not what Mr. May said. He said a better combination of strength and quickness. Aldridge fans crack me up. He got undressed and now Big Baby Davis would be an awesome NBA defender or something.


----------



## johnston797

Pippenatorade said:


> That's not what Mr. May said. He said a better combination of strength and quickness. Aldridge fans crack me up. He got undressed and now Big Baby Davis would be an awesome NBA defender or something.


Dude, you are wasting so much time here. Chris Ford of ESPN Insider still has Aldridge #1. He is probably under the mistaken impression that a basketball player can had one bad game. You really should move your campaign. Your vision is wasted here. Go where you can make a real difference. Go after Ford.


----------



## johnston797

How did Michael Jordan look in his final college game against Dan Dakich?


----------



## Pippenatorade

johnston797 said:


> Dude, you are wasting so much time here. Chris Ford of ESPN Insider still has Aldridge #1. He is probably under the mistaken impression that a basketball player can had one bad game. You really should move your campaign. Your vision is wasted here. Go where you can make a real difference. Go after Ford.


Bad game or AWFUL game? Like I said on "bad games." Bad games used to be when you played four years and faced 15 first rounders in your career and had 3 bad games. When you face two guys who are first rounders for something other than their jumper, and one of the games is horrendous, it's 50%.


----------



## Pippenatorade

johnston797 said:


> How did Michael Jordan look in his final college game against Dan Dakich?


Again, you are skewing things and using false logic. How many great games did Jordan have when the college game was not diluted by early entry? Did I miss something? Did Aldridge hit a Championship winning shot? Was he named college player of the year twice? 

And for the record Jordan was not 2-14 against Dakich for 4 points on 0 free throws.


----------



## johnston797

Pippenatorade said:


> Bad game or AWFUL game? Like I said on "bad games." Bad games used to be when you played four years and faced 15 first rounders in your career and had 3 bad games. When you face two guys who are first rounders for something other than their jumper, and one of the games is horrendous, it's 50%.


The post stands with the same logic, bad or aweful. Steve Nash was 0-5 tonight. Suns got pounded by 40.


----------



## johnston797

Pippenatorade said:


> Again, you are skewing things and using false logic.


No, I am illustrating the type of logic that is being used in this thread. Let's take one and only one basketball game and pretend it's more important than a complete body of work. 



Pippenatorade said:


> And for the record Jordan was not 2-14 against Dakich for 4 points on 0 free throws.


What was he?


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Also, when I think of a post player... jumper and nice moves are bonuses to me. I want power. For a pure four, Tyrus Thomas has power. Does he have weight? No. Is his strength, speed and twitch explosion nothing short of powerful? Yes. First a post player should be overwhelming at the point of attack and everything else should be a bonus. Guys who move their heads around and move the ball in a circle and shoot cute jumpers. THEY GO AWAY in the playoffs. They always have.


Karl Malone and Kevin McHale would disagree with that.



> Even as beliefs like the ones that many hold on this board (I call them european beliefs) have infultrated coaching to the point that coaches have this dillusion that players like Dirk and Gasol (cheating the strength game in the post by trying to gimmick out of it with quickness) are the players that bring it home, its still the teams that use power and back em down post games that are taking home the titles.
> 
> Think about it. That Michael Jordan was the only guard that could go down to the post with his tomahawk style and overpower entire frontcourts is the most special thing about his game. He also artificially created that feeling of post power that a player like Shaq or Hakeem or Abdul-Jabbar gives you.


And what back to the basket post game does Tyrus Thomas really have?


----------



## Pippenatorade

johnston797 said:


> No, I am illustrating the type of logic that is being used in this thread. Let's take one and only one basketball game and pretend it's more important than a complete body of work.


Ok the body of work. One LOUSY terrible game where he showed me NOTHING and didn't take the initiative. One very good game against Shelden Williams (who also disappointed in the tourney). One very good game against a jumpshooter, and a bunch of games against guys who won't sniff the first round of this year's draft. It's either 33% or 50% of his game against first round competition, and Pittsnogle is not getting that pub for his all around game. 

Again, if this WAS 1984, this would have been one game out of maybe 15 against future first round comp, so then the body of work is different. 



> What was he?


Not quite sure, but I know it wasn't that bad. MJ had 16 points or so and I wanna say on about 40% FG. But again, that was 1984.


----------



## johnston797

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok the body of work. One LOUSY terrible game where he showed me NOTHING and didn't take the initiative. One very good game against Shelden Williams (who also disappointed in the tourney). One very good game against a jumpshooter, and a bunch of games against guys who won't sniff the first round of this year's draft. It's either 33% or 50% of his game against first round competition, and Pittsnogle is not getting that pub for his all around game.


This is an artificial criteria. Or it's an ok criteria but should be one of several. And it's far from clear that you are applying it correctly. The kid's played about 50 NCAA games and summer leagues and all-star games and high-school and etc. And somehome, you have deemed only 1 or 2 or 4 should count.

I'm done here on this point. But jeez.... I am not even sure what you are trying to prove. You can argue all day, but assuming they all come out this year, Aldridge is going to go ahead of guys like O'Bryant no matter how many words you type in this and similar threads on this board.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> Karl Malone and Kevin McHale would disagree with that.


Karl Malone and Kevin McHale couldn't back someone down and get a high percentage shot whenever they wanted? McHale's career FG% was ridiculous. Did he use power primarily? No. Was he strong enough to back a guy down a couple steps before using the best post moves in history? Yes. Kevin McHale could back someone down a hell of a lot better than Dirk or Pau. Malone's whole game was power. He could back someone down and get that fallaway so close to the basket, that he'd get a high percentage. And then you take the dunks off the pick and role, WHICH AGAIN is a bonus if you have the power to back people down. Malone never did win a ring though.



> And what back to the basket post game does Tyrus Thomas really have?


I've already addressed this. Aldridge has to show some center skills. He's simply not athletic enough to have a great matchup against a four on most nights. Sometimes he'll have to rely on a center game. Thomas does not have to pretend to do this. He can be dangerous for us, but we'll still need a guy like Nazr or O'Bryant to go with him. Thomas' athletic makeup fits more along the lines of a Dennis Rodman or slightly smaller Amare Stoudemire. We'll still need a guy who can do that. Thomas is a pure four, and I almost never want to see my back to the basket post offense coming from the four. But Aldridge, part of his appeal has to be as a player who shows capability to play the five. A player of his size is not gonna allow us to have Chandler and then get a Mohammed/Bradley type too on one roster. Thomas does allow for that.


----------



## Pippenatorade

johnston797 said:


> This is an artificial criteria. Or it's an ok criteria but should be one of several. And it's far from clear that you are applying it correctly. The kid's played about 50 NCAA games and summer leagues and all-star games and high-school and etc. And somehome, you have deemed only 1 or 2 or 4 should count.
> 
> I'm done here on this point. But jeez.... I am not even sure what you are trying to prove. You can argue all day, but assuming they all come out this year, Aldridge is going to go ahead of guys like O'Bryant no matter how many words you type in this and similar threads on this board.


You tell me who else he's played of significance and what he did. Can you produce more games against first round competition? I admit I haven't examined his freshman year. Did he blow it up against someone like Bogut or whoever? 

You aren't sure what I'm trying to prove? I thought I explained it rather clearly. You came with the one game angle, and then what I did you see, was I explained to you that one game is more important now that it used to be. What.. don't you get?


----------



## Pippenatorade

johnston797 said:


> The post stands with the same logic, bad or aweful. Steve Nash was 0-5 tonight. Suns got pounded by 40.


And that would be great if he only had 1 or 2 GOOD games in his whole career. Do you get the concept? The numbers game? If a guy has only 1 or 2 good games against NBA comp in college, then 1 awful one is a lot more of a deal than if he has 14 good games.


----------



## johnston797

Pippenatorade said:


> You came with the one game angle, and then what I did you see, was I explained to you that one game is more important now that it used to be.


It's still one game. Bottom line: Spin it any way you want - One game is far too random to base all judgement. 



Pippenatorade said:


> What.. don't you get?


The point of all your posts is very simple. I don't get the 100s of posts on it. Do you think you can change opinion or are you just looking for a good fight?


----------



## The Krakken

Pippenatorade said:


> But, Davis is probably 275 if you take the fat off.


Don't know much about human anatomy do you?

50 pounds of pure fat is alot.


----------



## Pippenatorade

The Krakken said:


> Don't know much about human anatomy do you?
> 
> 50 pounds of pure fat is alot.


Ok so on CBS he's 310, and then he's 320 according to some here, now he's 325?


----------



## Pippenatorade

..


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> I've already addressed this. Aldridge has to show some center skills. He's simply not athletic enough to have a great matchup against a four on most nights. Sometimes he'll have to rely on a center game.


What center have you been watching? Aldridge gets good position on offense. He boxes out on both ends. He knows how to seal his man off. He rebounds well. He defends well.

In fact, the only thing he DIDN'T do well in the tournament was SCORE CONSISTENTLY. Of all the problems he has, that is probably the easiest one to fix, given his VERY VERY SOLID fundamental game.


----------



## The Krakken

Truth is nobody know, but either way, he isn't all THAT fat, no matter what he weighs. And no matter what he weighs, its ALOT more (around 25-30% MORE) than L.A. 

Can you imagine having to defend someone on the block, who had a *30%* Weight advantage on you??


----------



## johnston797

Pippenatorade said:


> Nobody seems to have a problem with it but you.


Welcome to ignore. And I'm not the first to grant you that status this week. So I guess I ain't alone.


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



The Krakken said:


> What center have you been watching? Aldridge gets good position on offense. He boxes out on both ends. He knows how to seal his man off. He rebounds well. He defends well.
> 
> In fact, the only thing he DIDN'T do well in the tournament was SCORE CONSISTENTLY. Of all the problems he has, that is probably the easiest one to fix, given his VERY VERY SOLID fundamental game.


Like Tyson huh? You either have scoring explosiveness or you don't. There seems to be this paradigm here that "scoring is just scoring, now assists, rebounds and the like, they REALLY matter." We have players already who bring an all around game. We need explosion and/or an offensive punch. Will Perdue also did all the other things besides score pretty well. He'd get in there and rebound for you, pass the ball well. 

I differ in opinion on everything involving Alridge with you. I VERY MUCH disagree that lack of scoring ability is easy to fix.


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> Like Tyson huh?


No no...not really. Tyson has more in common with Tyrus than L.A. Tyson rarely gets good offensive positon and its even MORE rare for him to hold it. I've rarely seen him box out, and even now, he relies on his ridicuolous athleticism to make plays for him where simple fundamentals will do.

That was a poor comparison. By most ANY account you want to take, Aldridge is ALREADY a better offensive NBA big man than Tyson.



> You either have scoring explosiveness or you don't. There seems to be this paradigm here that "scoring is just scoring, now assists, rebounds and the like, they REALLY matter." We have players already who bring an all around game. We need explosion and/or an offensive punch. Will Perdue also did all the other things besides score pretty well. He'd get in there and rebound for you, pass the ball well.


1) We don't have ANY big men who have a good all around offensive game.

2) My point was not to MAGNIFY the other categories, but to keep them from being MINIMIZED in the face of "scoring". Its the reason why AK47 is one of the top SF's in the league. His game agrees with me. Not everyone needs to be Lebron James or Carmelo Anthony (neither of which, coincidentally have learned how to stay in front of their men yet at this level). 



> I differ in opinion on everything involving Alridge with you. I VERY MUCH disagree that lack of scoring ability is easy to fix.


I see that. You are entitled to that. I'll be warming up the crow, come this time next year. :laugh:


----------



## Pippenatorade

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



> I see that. You are entitled to that. I'll be warming up the crow, come this time next year. :laugh:


When you won't eat any now?

None of the three of us is changing our mind. Why don't we all just move on in the interest of all of us having passionate discussion without fight allegations (of which I know you made none). You know my feelings on your posting ability. None of this should be construed as me not liking you or wanting to fight you. We are just both passionate on different sides of this issue. Good talk?


----------



## The Krakken

*Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha*



Pippenatorade said:


> When you won't eat any now?
> 
> None of the three of us is changing our mind. Why don't we all just move on in the interest of all of us having passionate discussion without fight allegations (of which I know you made none). You know my feelings on your posting ability. None of this should be construed as me not liking you or wanting to fight you. We are just both passionate on different sides of this issue. Good talk?


Indeed. Though there's no crow for me to eat now.

We're good.


----------



## chifaninca

I feel like I should lock this thread so it ends on a positive note.

Great debate, sometimes more bating than de'ing. However, thanks for keeping it civil at the crossroads.


I will throw this out one more time:

Being married to one guy as your pick is a recipe for heartache. If we end up with the 3rd or later, we probably miss out on both and Bargnani might be the only option. Or Noah I guess. In any case. It's great to extoll the attributes of one guy, but why does everyone else have to suck and not be even worth drafting?

I am expecting alot of you to join the darkside with me and sign up for the Fire Pax club. It's ok.


Oh wait, this is the off-season I may decide to jump ship from the fire Pax club since it is our defining off-season for the next 5 years.


----------



## The Krakken

chifaninca said:


> I feel like I hsould lock this thread so it ends on a positive note.
> 
> Great debate, sometimes more bating than de'ing. However, thanks for keeping it civil at the crossroads.
> 
> 
> I will throw this out one mroe time:
> 
> Being married to one guy as your pick is a recipe for heartache. If we end up with the 3rd or later, we probably miss out on both and Bargnani might be the only option. Or Noah Iguess. In any case. It's great to extoll the attributes of one guy, but why does everyone else have to suck and not be even worth drafting?
> 
> I am expecting alot of you to join the darkside with me and sign up for the Fire Pax club. It's ok.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, this is the off-season I may decide to jump ship since it is our defining off-season for the next 5 years.


I'm in agreement. I'm not against picking ANY of the players talked about in this thread, except ANY GUARD/FORWARD NOT NAMED CARNEY, ROY OR BREWER.

I spent the second half of this thread, mostly playing devils advocate.


----------



## BenDengGo

johnston797 said:


> What was he?


jordan had 13 points (6/14) 1 assist 1 rebound and fouled out. indiana hoosiers won 72-68 against the tarheels


----------



## johnston797

BenDengGo said:


> jordan had 13 points (6/14) 1 assist 1 rebound and fouled out. indiana hoosiers won 72-68 against the tarheels


Thanks. I googled for awhile and couldn't find it myself.


----------



## Ron Cey

Pippenatorade said:


> You tell me who else he's played of significance and what he did.


You know, for a guy who is all about O'Bryant and Armstrong, I don't understand how you can use this argument. Indeed, the argument can be used against literally every single big man in college basketball - because there aren't many. 

The reality is that the stud bigs have largely been going pro recently, turning college basketball into a guard's game. The good bigs that do go to college, will rarely be matched up against other bigs of "significance". 

Armstrong has been a career underacheiver and just now began to "bust out" with 9 and 6. 3 bad YEARS and one marginal season and you are starting threads about how he can give us what Eddy Curry did.

Same with O'Bryant. I mean, I can't imagine you've actually seen him play more than a few times, he has one excellent game against Gray and then he's your guy. But he only scored 4 points in the first round of the tourney. What about that game? 

Your criteria is illogical. LaMarcus Aldridge is a terrific prospect. So is Thomas and it appears Noah as well. Hell, Noah might be the best of the lot. I don't see why any of these guys should be getting bagged on. I'd take any one of them.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> You know, for a guy who is all about O'Bryant and Armstrong, I don't understand how you can use this argument. Indeed, the argument can be used against literally every single big man in college basketball - because there aren't many.
> 
> The reality is that the stud bigs have largely been going pro recently, turning college basketball into a guard's game. The good bigs that do go to college, will rarely be matched up against other bigs of "significance".
> 
> Armstrong has been a career underacheiver and just now began to "bust out" with 9 and 6. 3 bad YEARS and one marginal season and you are starting threads about how he can give us what Eddy Curry did.
> 
> Same with O'Bryant. I mean, I can't imagine you've actually seen him play more than a few times, he has one excellent game against Gray and then he's your guy. But he only scored 4 points in the first round of the tourney. What about that game?
> 
> Your criteria is illogical. LaMarcus Aldridge is a terrific prospect. So is Thomas and it appears Noah as well. Hell, Noah might be the best of the lot. I don't see why any of these guys should be getting bagged on. I'd take any one of them.


I was very briefly excited about Armstrong, no more. I recall saying that I saw a guy who MAY be able to give us what EC did. THAT THREAD quickly satisfied me that he could not, not even close. I do recall admitting that I'd seen very little of him. But, I admit, it is flattering that you're doing a research paper on me :biggrin:. 

You are mistaking my argument. I'm not saying "Lamarcus Aldridge never played anyone."

It went like this:

Me: He had a terrible game, in the biggest game of his life
J: It's ONE game
Me: When he's only played ONE other game against a future NBA first rounder who isn't thought highly of mostly for his jumper ONE game is 50%
J: Well he's played 50 college games, high school games
Me: Ok, then tell me of another good game he's had against a future NBA first rounder (because if you can, one game goes from 50% to 33%)

I'm not faulting Aldridge for not playing anyone. In fact, THIS:

The reality is that the stud bigs have largely been going pro recently, turning college basketball into a guard's game. The good bigs that do go to college, will rarely be matched up against other bigs of "significance". 

*is exactly my point!!*

When you are rarely matched up against other bigs of significance "one game" is a bigger deal than it was in 1984, when you had maybe 15 games in your career against other bigs of significance, AND many times they were upperclassmen, which is rare now. 

When Elvin Hayes got the best of Lew Alcindor, yes it was one game. And one game then was worlds different than one game now. And that's all I was saying.


----------



## Pippenatorade

chifaninca said:


> I feel like I should lock this thread so it ends on a positive note.
> 
> Great debate, sometimes more bating than de'ing. However, thanks for keeping it civil at the crossroads.
> 
> 
> I will throw this out one more time:
> 
> Being married to one guy as your pick is a recipe for heartache. If we end up with the 3rd or later, we probably miss out on both and Bargnani might be the only option. Or Noah I guess. In any case. It's great to extoll the attributes of one guy, but why does everyone else have to suck and not be even worth drafting?
> 
> I am expecting alot of you to join the darkside with me and sign up for the Fire Pax club. It's ok.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, this is the off-season I may decide to jump ship from the fire Pax club since it is our defining off-season for the next 5 years.


You needn't worry about me taking the bate, or fighting, it's not gonna happen. I really am enjoying this thread.

I also think it's wise to have a few guys you're looking for. I think we should be able to get a very good player down to the 5th pick. It's not that everyone else sucks. I'd be very happy with not only Thomas, but O'Bryant, Carney, Roy, Noah and Brewer out of this draft. I just don't want Paxson drafting Will Perdue Jr. 

If I'm not already in the fire Pax club (too lazy to check) sign me up.


----------



## Ron Cey

> But, I admit, it is flattering that you're doing a research paper on me :biggrin:.


Don't bait me like that. A "research paper" about the many incarnations of LBMatrix the internet message board poster would not be very flattering. 

I am simply recalling positive positions you took with respect to other bigs in threads created by you for that purpose. Those positions are in stark contrast to your opinion of Lamarcus Aldridge, but the criteria has not been applied evenly.



> When you are rarely matched up against other bigs of significance "one game" is a bigger deal than it was in 1984, when you had maybe 15 games in your career against other bigs of significance, AND many times they were upperclassmen, which is rare now.


No its not. The sample size remains woefully small. Who is the NBA calibur center that held Patrick O'Bryant to 8 points in the Memphis game - the biggest game of his life? 

At various times this season, O'Bryant was held to:

4 points by Drake
5 points by Southern Illinois
9 points by Wichita State
4 points by Creighton
6 points by Missouri State
9 points by Drake
6 points by Creighton
8 points by Kansas

Yes, Aldridge had bad games this season (a 2 point stinker against Baylor, for example). Yes, he only scored 4 points in a big game. He shot the ball poorly. But he also had 10 boards, 5 blocks, 2 steals and 2 assists in that game. Far too much is being made of it.


----------



## The Krakken

Ron Cey said:


> Yes, Aldridge had bad games this season (a 2 point stinker against Baylor, for example). Yes, he only scored 4 points in a big game. He shot the ball poorly. But he also had 10 boards, 5 blocks, 2 steals and 2 assists in that game. *Far too much is being made of it.*


This has been my point in this entire debate.

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## smARTmouf

Ron Cey said:


> You know, for a guy who is all about O'Bryant and Armstrong, I don't understand how you can use this argument. Indeed, the argument can be used against literally every single big man in college basketball - because there aren't many.
> 
> The reality is that the stud bigs have largely been going pro recently, turning college basketball into a guard's game. The good bigs that do go to college, will rarely be matched up against other bigs of "significance".
> 
> Armstrong has been a career underacheiver and just now began to "bust out" with 9 and 6. 3 bad YEARS and one marginal season and you are starting threads about how he can give us what Eddy Curry did.
> 
> Same with O'Bryant. I mean, I can't imagine you've actually seen him play more than a few times, he has one excellent game against Gray and then he's your guy. But he only scored 4 points in the first round of the tourney. What about that game?
> 
> Your criteria is illogical. LaMarcus Aldridge is a terrific prospect. So is Thomas and it appears Noah as well. Hell, Noah might be the best of the lot. I don't see why any of these guys should be getting bagged on. I'd take any one of them.



Ether.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> Don't bait me like that. A "research paper" about the many incarnations of LBMatrix the internet message board poster would not be very flattering.
> 
> I am simply recalling positive positions you took with respect to other bigs in threads created by you for that purpose. Those positions are in stark contrast to your opinion of Lamarcus Aldridge, but the criteria has not been applied evenly.


I found it very odd that you'd bring up one thread that I wrote months ago and attempt to impeach me with it. As if to say that "you made a poor call on one guy, so surely nothing you say here can be very true, correct?" I did not make any definitive claim in favor of Armstrong. AND as always, any player always has the opportunity to switch the presumption by negative or positive play. This is true of all college players, all Bulls players, and all management personnel. I can identify something about O'Bryant or Redick today, and if they come out and show me something entirely different in the months to come, I will be the first to say "I was wrong," which is the real root of this whole thing. People JUST KNEW that Aldridge was gonna blow up the tourney and show everyone that didn't "believe" how it really is. And when he came out and stunk the joint up against the second NBA caliber post player (And Davis would not be in the lottery despite the fact that Aldridge's fans have apparenlty donned him Superman Jr.) there wasn't an inkling of "maybe I was wrong." His fans came out even more certain. Forget that he had a bad game. It would have been one thing if he was average against LSU. But he was supposed to blow it up and show the world. 

As for baiting you, I thought the big grin face kind of showed you that my intent was not to be very serious about that comment. I don't want a fight. Not nearly as much as a few people who just won't let it go DESPERATELY seek for me to start one. 



> No its not. The sample size remains woefully small. Who is the NBA calibur center that held Patrick O'Bryant to 8 points in the Memphis game - the biggest game of his life?
> 
> At various times this season, O'Bryant was held to:
> 
> 4 points by Drake
> 5 points by Southern Illinois
> 9 points by Wichita State
> 4 points by Creighton
> 6 points by Missouri State
> 9 points by Drake
> 6 points by Creighton
> 8 points by Kansas
> 
> Yes, Aldridge had bad games this season (a 2 point stinker against Baylor, for example). Yes, he only scored 4 points in a big game. He shot the ball poorly. But he also had 10 boards, 5 blocks, 2 steals and 2 assists in that game. Far too much is being made of it.


Again, I've already addressed this too. Memphis has at least 8 players who would be the second best player on Bradley. I saw O'Bryant still getting pretty decent position, but the guards couldn't even get the ball in because they were completely denied the post and smothered. 

And, I'm not worried about what O'Bryant DOESN'T do against lowly competition. I'm worried about what he DOES do against good competition. The same is true of Aldridge. I'm not too worried about disappearing acts he pulled during the season against guys who will never play in the NBA. Like Johnston said, Dakich shut down Jordan. So I'm not too worried about Aldridge's shortcomings or O'Bryant's or Thomas' or Redick's against guys who will never play in the NBA.


----------



## Pippenatorade

The Krakken said:


> This has been my point in this entire debate.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.


I don't see it that way at all. This is not to restart stuff from yesterday. That horse was beat to death.

I'm looking for more than a decent all around game from someone who has no power scoring. We already have plenty of all-around players on this team. We have guys who won't win their individual scoring matchups on a given night but get you blocks, assists and rebounds. We need maybe an all-around type like AD down low. A workhorse with a V-12 engine that doesn't know what slow down means. We also need a scoring specialist down low. A guy who can win his matchups and bring other teams defenses BACK to our frontcourt, as opposed to closing down the perimeter like they do this year. We don't need an all around type of guy who will disappear offensively but has pretty moves (without power) and a cute jumper. 

But then, that's just my opinion. You're certainly entitled to fundamentally disagree.

EDIT: I guess a good way to put it is that we already have a guy in Tyson where we cop out by saying "Oh it's ok that Tyson didn't score, he got us other stuff like rebounds and blocks tonight. We don't ask him to be an offensive player." IMO we can't afford a guy with this pick or with big free agent dollars (see Pryzbilla) who we also say that "oh it's ok that he hasn't been scoring the ball effectively lately, he does so many other things for us." We already have "other things." That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Ron Cey

Pippenatorade said:


> And, I'm not worried about what O'Bryant DOESN'T do against lowly competition. I'm worried about what he DOES do against good competition. The same is true of Aldridge. I'm not too worried about disappearing acts he pulled during the season against guys who will never play in the NBA. Like Johnston said, Dakich shut down Jordan. So I'm not too worried about Aldridge's shortcomings or O'Bryant's or Thomas' or Redick's against guys who will never play in the NBA.


Thats an interesting way of looking at it. 

Shooting poorly, but playing an otherwise very good game against an NBA calibur post player = bad and troublesome.

Playing poorly and getting shut down twice each by Creighton and Drake = nothing to worry about.


----------



## Ron Cey

Pippenatorade said:


> EDIT: I guess a good way to put it is that we already have a guy in Tyson where we cop out by saying "Oh it's ok that Tyson didn't score, he got us other stuff like rebounds and blocks tonight. We don't ask him to be an offensive player." IMO we can't afford a guy with this pick or with big free agent dollars (see Pryzbilla) who we also say that "oh it's ok that he hasn't been scoring the ball effectively lately, he does so many other things for us." We already have "other things." That's all I'm saying.


But the guy you are blasting is the best scorer of the lot both in volume (16 ppg) and efficiency (66% fg). I know you claim he isn't a "power" scorer, but neither are any of the other guys. That is what doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> Thats an interesting way of looking at it.
> 
> Shooting poorly, but playing an otherwise very good game against an NBA calibur post player = bad and troublesome.
> 
> Playing poorly and getting shut down twice each by Creighton and Drake = nothing to worry about.


Big Baby Davis is NBA caliber? Really? I think I've been generous to call him a top 15 prospect at this point. He certainly will be a lotto pick if he comes out after next year, but not now.

And honestly, what does playing poorly against Creighton or Drake say when he demolished Aaron Gray and held his own against Kansas and Memphis when the talent of the other four players on his team was drastically below the talent of the other four players on KU and Memphis? Just like Aldridge. I'll judge him more for his play against Duke than I will for his disappearing act against Texas A&M.

AND, I realize that Aldridge may have lit Kansas up (didn't look), but the difference lies in the fact this his team is more talented 1-5 than Kansas, whereas O'Bryant's is not. If you watched his play against Memphis you'll realize that he more than held his own, his whole team was just out of whack because Memphis was more talented across the board. 

Also, by your logic, we should care about the fact that George Mason lost twice to Hofstra. Does what they didn't do against a crap team like Hofstra matter? Or does what they DID do against 4 NCAA tourney teams matter? I think only the latter matters. And, that applies to every team and prospect. I'm not going to fault any prospect for what they didn't do against a guy that will never play a game in the NBA.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> But the guy you are blasting is the best scorer of the lot both in volume (16 ppg) and efficiency (66% fg). I know you claim he isn't a "power" scorer, but neither are any of the other guys. That is what doesn't make sense to me.


But to me Thomas doesn't have to pretend to be one. He's a pure four and I don't want power scoring from a pure four. Besides, with a power scorer like Big Baby Davis, how much is ANYONE playing next to Davis going to be asked to do that. O'Bryant to me is a better power scorer. O'Bryant also can be doubled way more easily than Aldridge because he is far more talented than the other players on his team. How much extra attention can you throw at Aldridge with players like Tucker, Gibson and Buckman out there with him? 

Aldridge's offense may have been higher on the whole, but, that's the point. When it came down to it, his offense went away when the game got physical. And it had nothing to do with something like O'Bryant's case where they just completely took the entry to Patrick away from Bradley because they had enough talent to deny and to get back on extra attention. The game got physical and he withered. 

Not to make this about you, but why don't you just say "I like Aldridge, end of story." Can you really deny to me that if Aldridge had blown it up to the tune of 35 and 25, he wouldn't be getting a lot more pub for "one game" than he probably should? It's one game according to his fans. But had it been one Great game where he completely destroyed Davis, we'd be hearing a LOT from Aldridge fans. Way more than they want to hear from anyone else now that he was exposed.

Just my theory.


----------



## TripleDouble

Pippenatorade said:


> Also, by your logic, we should care about the fact that George Mason lost twice to Hofstra. Does what they didn't do against a crap team like Hofstra matter? Or does what they DID do against 4 NCAA tourney teams matter? I think only the latter matters. And, that applies to every team and prospect. I'm not going to fault any prospect for what they didn't do against a guy that will never play a game in the NBA.


Is George Mason declaring this year?

:clown:


----------



## Ron Cey

> Big Baby Davis is NBA caliber? Really? I think I've been generous to call him a top 15 prospect at this point. He certainly will be a lotto pick if he comes out after next year, but not now.


Actually, in the thread about Davis I said he was a "slightly better" Lonny Baxter. He doesn't really do it for me. I thought you were saying that Davis is the only guy Aldridge played in the Tourney who was comparable to NBA level. I must have misunderstood.



> And honestly, what does playing poorly against Creighton or Drake say when he demolished Aaron Gray and held his own against Kansas and Memphis when the talent of the other four players on his team was drastically below the talent of the other four players on KU and Memphis?


It says he is inconsistent and capable of getting shut down by lesser talent. It also says he can be damn good. 



> AND, I realize that Aldridge may have lit Kansas up (didn't look), but the difference lies in the fact this his team is more talented 1-5 than Kansas, whereas O'Bryant's is not. If you watched his play against Memphis you'll realize that he more than held his own, his whole team was just out of whack because Memphis was more talented across the board.


Wally Sczerbiak's Miami of Ohio team sucked and he absolutely lit up the NCAA tournament. Talent is talent. 



> Also, by your logic, we should care about the fact that George Mason lost twice to Hofstra. Does what they didn't do against a crap team like Hofstra matter? Or does what they DID do against 4 NCAA tourney teams matter? I think only the latter matters. And, that applies to every team and prospect. I'm not going to fault any prospect for what they didn't do against a guy that will never play a game in the NBA.


Team does not = player. The Bulls aren't drafting teams, they are drafting individuals. And I think you are completely missing my point. I don't care that O'Bryant had these bad games. I still consider him a solid prospect. Just like I don't care that Aldridge had a bad shooting game against LSU. The occassional bad game - and I don't think Aldridge even had a "bad" game against LSU - does not phase me. It happens to almost every collegiate player.

But to say you won't fault a guy for sucking against inferior competition, but will hold it against him if he's off against a higher calibur of competition doesn't make any sense.

Its worse for Carl Lewis to lose a race to my mom than it is for him to lose a race to Ben Johnson. Losing the race to the latter means he can still be damn good. Losing to the former means he's slow.


----------



## smARTmouf

Aldridge > O'Bryant


EASILY


----------



## Ron Cey

> But to me Thomas doesn't have to pretend to be one. He's a pure four and I don't want power scoring from a pure four. Besides, with a power scorer like Big Baby Davis, how much is ANYONE playing next to Davis going to be asked to do that. O'Bryant to me is a better power scorer. O'Bryant also can be doubled way more easily than Aldridge because he is far more talented than the other players on his team. How much extra attention can you throw at Aldridge with players like Tucker, Gibson and Buckman out there with him?


This is all just an irrelevent red herring. Aldridge gets doubled all the time. 

How many times have you actually seen Bradley even play basketball? I'm serious. I want to know the answer to that question. Because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you don't have any idea how often O'Bryant gets doubled compared to Aldridge or how he handles it.



> Aldridge's offense may have been higher on the whole, but, that's the point. When it came down to it, his offense went away when the game got physical. And it had nothing to do with something like O'Bryant's case where they just completely took the entry to Patrick away from Bradley because they had enough talent to deny and to get back on extra attention. The game got physical and he withered.


This is a gross overstatement of his performance. He didn't "wither". He had a poor shooting game. One game. He also had 10 boards, 2 steals, 2 assists, and 5 blocks. Those are terrific numbers. Those are not the numbers of a player who "withered".

The bottom line is he's a 66% field goal shooter. 



> Not to make this about you, but why don't you just say "I like Aldridge, end of story."


Um, because I don't have inflexible "end of story" opinions? I do like him, though, along with Thomas and Noah. Those are the 3 bigs that I like at the very top of the draft. I'd be happy with any of them. I've never seen Bargnani.



> Can you really deny to me that if Aldridge had blown it up to the tune of 35 and 25, he wouldn't be getting a lot more pub for "one game" than he probably should?


Sure he would have. Just like Thomas is getting too much for his games. 



> It's one game according to his fans.


No. Its "one game" according to space, time, matter and the reality of human existence. Its an undeniable truth. 



> But had it been one Great game where he completely destroyed Davis, we'd be hearing a LOT from Aldridge fans. Way more than they want to hear from anyone else now that he was exposed.


I agree with all of that except for the "exposed" part. But how is fan over-reaction, negative or positive, conceivably relevant to whether or not he's a good draft prospect? Its not.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> It says he is inconsistent and capable of getting shut down by lesser talent. It also says he can be damn good.


Aldridge disappeared many times this year as well. With players like Tucker, Gibson and Buckman on his team, it equals out 



> Wally Sczerbiak's Miami of Ohio team sucked and he absolutely lit up the NCAA tournament. Talent is talent.


So you want O'Bryant to pass the ball to O'Bryant in the post. 



> Team does not = player. The Bulls aren't drafting teams, they are drafting individuals. And I think you are completely missing my point. I don't care that O'Bryant had these bad games. I still consider him a solid prospect. Just like I don't care that Aldridge had a bad shooting game against LSU. The occassional bad game - and I don't think Aldridge even had a "bad" game against LSU - does not phase me. It happens to almost every collegiate player.
> 
> But to say you won't fault a guy for sucking against inferior competition, but will hold it against him if he's off against a higher calibur of competition doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Its worse for Carl Lewis to lose a race to my mom than it is for him to lose a race to Ben Johnson. Losing the race to the latter means he can still be damn good. Losing to the former means he's slow.


2-14 is beyond bad.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> This is all just an irrelevent red herring. Aldridge gets doubled all the time.
> 
> How many times have you actually seen Bradley even play basketball? I'm serious. I want to know the answer to that question. Because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you don't have any idea how often O'Bryant gets doubled compared to Aldridge or how he handles it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a gross overstatement of his performance. He didn't "wither". He had a poor shooting game. One game. He also had 10 boards, 2 steals, 2 assists, and 5 blocks. Those are terrific numbers. Those are not the numbers of a player who "withered".
> 
> The bottom line is he's a 66% field goal shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, because I don't have inflexible "end of story" opinions? I do like him, though, along with Thomas and Noah. Those are the 3 bigs that I like at the very top of the draft. I'd be happy with any of them. I've never seen Bargnani.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he would have. Just like Thomas is getting too much for his games.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Its "one game" according to space, time, matter and the reality of human existence. Its an undeniable truth.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of that except for the "exposed" part. But how is fan over-reaction, negative or positive, conceivably relevant to whether or not he's a good draft prospect? Its not.


Ron we'll never agree. You have your opinions, I have mine, neither one of us is changing our minds. Besides, I'm sick of having my opinions called things like irrelevant knowing I can't fire back. So let's just let it go. If you have anything else to say to me on this topic, you can PM me.


----------



## The Krakken

Pippenatorade said:


> I don't see it that way at all. This is not to restart stuff from yesterday. That horse was beat to death.
> 
> I'm looking for more than a decent all around game from someone who has no power scoring. We already have plenty of all-around players on this team. We have guys who won't win their individual scoring matchups on a given night but get you blocks, assists and rebounds. We need maybe an all-around type like AD down low. A workhorse with a V-12 engine that doesn't know what slow down means. We also need a scoring specialist down low. A guy who can win his matchups and bring other teams defenses BACK to our frontcourt, as opposed to closing down the perimeter like they do this year. We don't need an all around type of guy who will disappear offensively but has pretty moves (without power) and a cute jumper.
> 
> But then, that's just my opinion. You're certainly entitled to fundamentally disagree.
> 
> EDIT: I guess a good way to put it is that we already have a guy in Tyson where we cop out by saying "Oh it's ok that Tyson didn't score, he got us other stuff like rebounds and blocks tonight. We don't ask him to be an offensive player." IMO we can't afford a guy with this pick or with big free agent dollars (see Pryzbilla) who we also say that "oh it's ok that he hasn't been scoring the ball effectively lately, he does so many other things for us." We already have "other things." That's all I'm saying.


And that's fair. But you should at least be able to admit that Aldridge is already on another planet compared to Tyson offensively. I understand your point. Its just incongrous.....


----------



## chifaninca

The Krakken said:


> And that's fair. But you should at least be able to admit that Aldridge is already on another planet compared to Tyson offensively. I understand your point. Its just incongrous.....



Krakken

Let this be a warning to you and others. If I have to reach for a dictionary or Theasaurus....I'm closing threads.....LOL.

INCONGROUS - Damn, there's a word I'm gonna use playing scrabble. LOL.

Back to the thread:

I think it's folly to worry about how Chandler fits in the equation. Until he consistently proves otherwise, he is a defensive specialist that is good for 20-24 minutes of playing time and probably best suited at Center position.

Chandler better work harder this off-season than he has ever worked or he is trade bait next trade deadline.


----------



## The Krakken

chifaninca said:


> Krakken
> 
> Let this be a warning to you and others. If I have to reach for a dictionary or Theasaurus....I'm closing threads.....LOL.
> 
> INCONGROUS - Damn, there's a word I'm gonna use playing scrabble. LOL.
> 
> Back to the thread:
> 
> I think it's folly to worry about how Chandler fits in the equation. Until he consistently proves otherwise, he is a defensive specialist that is good for 20-24 minutes of playing time and probably best suited at Center position.
> 
> Chandler better work harder this off-season than he has ever worked or he is trade bait next trade deadline.


**** man, I thought I was in trouble. :biggrin:


----------



## Pippenatorade

The Krakken said:


> **** man, I thought I was in trouble. :biggrin:


:biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey

Pippenatorade said:


> Ron we'll never agree. You have your opinions, I have mine, neither one of us is changing our minds. Besides, I'm sick of having my opinions called things like irrelevant knowing I can't fire back. So let's just let it go. If you have anything else to say to me on this topic, you can PM me.


Come on, man. Saying a point is "irrelevant" in the scope of a debate is hardly the type of thing you should need to "fire back" at to continue an intelligent discussion.

For example, you can explain the relevance of the point. I'm not going to PM you basketball discussion that belongs on the board because you feel you can't hold your temper long enough to carry on a discussion with someone who is disagreeing with you. 

For example, I asked you a pointed and simple question about Bradley. It should be simple to answer that question without needing to "fire back".


----------



## Electric Slim

I like to argue.

I like to win.

I like basketball.

I like message boards.

I like to argue on basketball message boards until I win.


----------



## El Chapu

Electric Slim said:


> I like to argue.
> 
> I like to win.
> 
> I like basketball.
> 
> I like message boards.
> 
> I like to argue on basketball message boards until I win.


So you must drink pippenatorade!


----------



## smARTmouf

I can't pronounce pippenatorade for the life of me...

I end up with spit all over the place.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2006/03/29/a9c_ufnotes_0329.html



> GAINESVILLE — The last NBA game Joakim Noah saw in person could be his last one for some time.
> 
> The Florida Gators 6-foot-11 sophomore star said Tuesday he plans to return to Gainesville next season, despite his rapid ascension up NBA Draft boards.
> 
> A trip to the Final Four to face George Mason this weekend, coupled with a visit to Madison Square Garden last season to see the Knicks and New Jersey Nets, make the decision a no-brainer for Noah.
> 
> "I left in the middle of the game; it was boring," Noah recalled of the Knicks-Nets game. "It's a joke almost. Everything is slowed down — they play 85 or 82 games or whatever.
> 
> "College is just so fun."
> 
> Noah, 21, is in no rush to leave the college game behind, even if he could be drafted among the top five picks and lock up a guaranteed two-year contract worth more than $5 million.
> 
> Noah isn't alone.
> 
> Fellow sophomores Al Horford and Corey Brewer have been projected to be top-20 picks. But Horford, a 6-foot-9 center, said he expects all three to return for another run at the Final Four in 2007.
> 
> "The chances are great," said Horford, who shares an apartment with Noah, Brewer and sophomore point guard Taurean Green. "We love it here."
> 
> If history is any indication, those feelings can change.
> 
> Each player will have a decision to make during the next month. The deadline to declare early entry for the draft is April 29.
> 
> If he doesn't retain an agent, a player can withdraw his name up to 10 days before the June 28 draft.
> 
> "Don't be surprised if Florida wins the national championship and that one of them says, 'I came to Florida to win a national championship. I can't top that,'" said an NBA source who requested anonymity. "It depends on what's inside the individual."
> 
> Financial concerns also can drive a decision.
> 
> Noah is financially secure. His father, Hall of Famer Yannick Noah, earned millions playing tennis and now fills stadiums in Europe as a reggae pop star.
> 
> Horford's and Brewer's financial situations are less clear.
> 
> But all three are focused on one thing — a national championship.
> 
> "Next year's next year," Horford said. "After the season, we'll talk about what we have to talk about. Right now we're seizing the moment."
> 
> No one seems to be embracing it quite like Noah.
> 
> The idea of earning millions of dollars to play against the best players in the world pales in comparison to a Final Four.
> 
> "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," he said. "I'm not going to let what people are saying about me being a lottery pick or whatever affect what we've done this year."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Ron Cey said:


> It should be simple to answer that question without needing to "fire back".


That really sums it up nicely. We are striving here for conversation. Not shot/fire back.


----------



## mizenkay

*If you were the Bulls GM this summer whom would you choose with the first of the two picks in the first round: Texas' LaMarcus Aldridge, LSU's Tyrus Thomas, UConn's Rudy Gay, Gonzaga's Adam Morrison or someone else? After watching the NCAA tournament I would pick Thomas, who seems to be a perfect athletic PF/SF for the Bulls. --Justin DuBois, River Falls, Wis.*



_Here's the problem. Thomas probably is only about 6-8. Aldridge is much taller, and let's remember first we're not sure either is coming out. Thomas reminds scouts more of a Shawn Marion type athlete who can block shots, though not quite the power player of an Amare Stoudemire. The Bulls would like to have size along with Tyson Chandler and Aldridge fits that. *My guess, in the end, if they have the No. 1 pick is they go for Florida's Joakim Noah, who has size, intangibles and the work ethic they admire.* I don't see a great star in this draft, especially among the big men, so take a guy who can help right away and for a long time and who fits what you are trying to do._



http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## such sweet thunder

TripleDouble said:


> Is George Mason declaring this year?
> 
> :clown:



"Show me the money."


----------



## Ron Cey

such sweet thunder said:


> "Show me the money."


Toronto better not try and draft him. He'd pull a Steve Francis on 'em. George ain't real fond of Tories.


----------



## Ron Cey

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2006/03/29/a9c_ufnotes_0329.html


Blast. He's my favorite of the lot.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Ron Cey said:


> Blast. He's my favorite of the lot.


Don't count him out yet. He may think Gainesville is fun, but you can have a pretty good time spending a rookie contract and getting to know the NBA groupies. All he has to do is get himself conditioned to play an "85 game" regular season.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

2nd Impressions of Joakim Noah

Strengths:
-Blocked a lot of shots today; I guess it was more than just great length
-While his shot wasn't on, the offense was still moving with him in there. Maintained an aggressiveness towards the hoop.
-Passing and ball-handling is definitely above average; really I think this would make a big difference for Tyson. A little thing like a great post passer. 

Weaknesses:
-Even though he had know how, he looked really sloppy with the ball today; bad perimeter shots, getting called for travelling
-Didn't see him pull down many rebounds over anyone today
-Let the little guards drive in; while he can block a lot of shots and alter, he's still not intimidating ?


----------



## Frankensteiner

Well, guess we can scratch Thomas off our list. Afterall, playing the biggest game of his life, he compiled only 5 points and 6 rebounds. Mbah a Moute made Thomas into his little girl. This was the only game that counted, I don't care what he did earlier in the season. 

Bottom line: when the going got tough, Thomas folded like a tent. Didn't look like a leader at all out there; let's avoid him.


----------



## TripleDouble

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, guess we can scratch Thomas off our list. Afterall, playing the biggest game of his life, he compiled only 5 points and 6 rebounds. Mbah a Moute made Thomas into his little girl. This was the only game that counted, I don't care what he did earlier in the season.
> 
> Bottom line: when the going got tough, Thomas folded like a tent. Didn't look like a leader at all out there; let's avoid him.


His poor performance didn't count because it wasn't against sure-fire lottery talent.


----------



## TwinkieTowers

TripleDouble said:


> His poor performance didn't count because it wasn't against sure-fire lottery talent.


...but it was against what is arguably the closest to an NBA defense as there is.


----------



## Babble-On

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, guess we can scratch Thomas off our list. Afterall, playing the biggest game of his life, he compiled only 5 points and 6 rebounds. Mbah a Moute made Thomas into his little girl. This was the only game that counted, I don't care what he did earlier in the season.
> 
> Bottom line: when the going got tough, Thomas folded like a tent. Didn't look like a leader at all out there; let's avoid him.


I agree with the point you are making with this sarcastic post, however, I don't think this is the way to do it. You are initiating the exchange in a way that will result in things being needlessly contentious, which is a recipe for disaster, especially when dealing with someone who has a history of making things needlessly contentious.


----------



## johnston797

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> 2nd Impressions of Joakim Noah
> 
> Strengths:
> -Blocked a lot of shots today; I guess it was more than just great length
> -While his shot wasn't on, the offense was still moving with him in there. Maintained an aggressiveness towards the hoop.
> -Passing and ball-handling is definitely above average; really I think this would make a big difference for Tyson. A little thing like a great post passer.
> 
> Weaknesses:
> -Even though he had know how, he looked really sloppy with the ball today; bad perimeter shots, getting called for travelling
> -Didn't see him pull down many rebounds over anyone today
> -Let the little guards drive in; while he can block a lot of shots and alter, he's still not intimidating ?



That's what I saw, too. Only thing I would add is his 15 foot jump shot looked raw.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

Again, I don't think we should make too much of a bad game. Even for Thomas.

But I will restate what I said about Tyrus after he shelled Texas. I just don't think he's got a refined enough offensive game to help the Bulls. Aldridge has more size and more post scoring ability, and those are the two things we lack. As prospects, maybe they have equal upsides -- I'm not sure. But if they're in the ballpark, I want the player who's a better fit for us.

Give me Aldridge (or Roy, of course).


----------



## Frankensteiner

Babble-On said:


> I agree with the point you are making with this sarcastic post, however, I don't think this is the way to do it. You are initiating the exchange in a way that will result in things being needlessly contentious, which is a recipe for disaster, especially when dealing with someone who has a history of making things needlessly contentious.


You are probably right. But, given the level of arguments used against Aldridge in this thread, well... it's easy to forget your manners.


----------



## Ron Cey

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Again, I don't think we should make too much of a bad game. Even for Thomas.
> 
> But I will restate what I said about Tyrus after he shelled Texas. I just don't think he's got a refined enough offensive game to help the Bulls. Aldridge has more size and more post scoring ability, and those are the two things we lack. As prospects, maybe they have equal upsides -- I'm not sure. But if they're in the ballpark, I want the player who's a better fit for us.
> 
> Give me Aldridge (or Roy, of course).


My order remains Noah, Aldridge and then Thomas. If the other two aren't there, then I think Thomas would be a fine pick. But I agree with you about his offensive game. Its putbacks and open court scoring. He may develop an all around offensive game, but he doesn't have one now.

Plus, he showed poor decision making last night, I thought. Though he is young in a pressure cooker game and UCLA's defense is remarkable. Still a very good potential draft pick.


----------



## TripleDouble

Ron Cey said:


> My order remains Noah, Aldridge and then Thomas. If the other two aren't there, then I think Thomas would be a fine pick. But I agree with you about his offensive game. Its putbacks and open court scoring. He may develop an all around offensive game, but he doesn't have one now.
> 
> Plus, he showed poor decision making last night, I thought. Though he is young in a pressure cooker game and UCLA's defense is remarkable. Still a very good potential draft pick.


What all around offensive game does Noah have? He's got a lousy J and doesn't have the strength play much back-to-the-basket. Defenders aren't going to play him tight at 15 feet if he doesn't hit that J and so his driving game may be neutralized.


----------



## Ron Cey

TripleDouble said:


> What all around offensive game does Noah have? He's got a lousy J and doesn't have the strength play much back-to-the-basket. Defenders aren't going to play him tight at 15 feet if he doesn't hit that J and so his driving game may be neutralized.


I didn't say Noah had an all around offensive game. I said that Thomas doesn't have one. Aldridge is the one who has the complete array on offense.

But Noah's is more polished than Thomas' game at this point. Plus, he's a better passer. Defensively and shot-blocking wise they are both excellent, though again I'd give the edge to Noah. My only other concern with Thomas is that some of his antics bother me to the point I worry a little about his attitude. But thats a totally subjective, unreliable aspect of the analysis. I don't let it affect how I rate them, but it is in the back of my mind.

Basically, Aldridge is the most ready. Then Noah, then Thomas. But balancing upside with impact, I like Noah the best. I've repeatedly said that I'd like any of the 3. In my "ranking", very little space separates them. I just hope they all declare.


----------



## ATLien

I have seen Jakim Noah compared to Pau Gasol, and I don't think that's a bad comparison. I don't know if Noah can be that go-to scorer on a playoff team, but he does many things very well. I don't know how smart it would be for him to stay, which looks like that is what he's going to do. That is, assuming, he doesn't fall victim to UCLA's defense like Tryus and Big Baby did. 

Yikes.


----------



## johnston797

TheATLien said:


> I have seen Jakim Noah compared to Pau Gasol, and I don't think that's a bad comparison. I don't know if Noah can be that go-to scorer on a playoff team, but he does many things very well.


A more athletic Gasol is what you would hope for. It's a good projection for what he could become. Not sure it helps much gauge how close he is not b/c we don't have Gasol's stats in college and didn't see him play. Gasol did shoot 3's in Europe, though, right?

Noah is a bit shorter and less weight\strenght at this point in time (this will almost certainly improve, but Gasol had the better frame). With no guarentee that Noah's jumper is going to be close to automatic.

edit: gasol shot 32% from 3 in Europe. http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/paugasol.htm

p.p.s. NBAdraft.net profile for Chandler gave him a "9" for shooting and a "7" for rebounding. Whoops!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis

johnston797 said:


> A more athletic Gasol is what you would hope for. It's a good projection for what he could become. Not sure it helps much gauge how close he is not b/c we don't have Gasol's stats in college and didn't see him play. Gasol did shoot 3's in Europe, though, right?
> 
> Noah is a bit shorter and less weight\strenght at this point in time (this will almost certainly improve, but Gasol had the better frame). With no guarentee that Noah's jumper is going to be close to automatic.
> 
> edit: gasol shot 32% from 3 in Europe. http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/paugasol.htm
> 
> p.p.s. NBAdraft.net profile for Chandler gave him a "9" for shooting and a "7" for rebounding. Whoops!


Yeah, Gasol is much more offensively skilled than Noah. I don't think you could expect anywhere near that degree of offensive production, at any point in his career, from Noah.

Just my opinion.


----------



## MikeDC

If we drafted Noah or Thomas, I'd want a trade lined up for Chandler. I think both of those guys basically replicate his skills and add a couple additional ones (the most obvious being the ability to catch the freaking ball).


----------



## El Chapu

Watched both games yesterday, did Tyrus Thomas play?


----------



## Frankensteiner

Mikedc said:


> If we drafted Noah or Thomas, I'd want a trade lined up for Chandler. I think both of those guys basically replicate his skills and add a couple additional ones (the most obvious being the ability to catch the freaking ball).


I don't know, Mike. It seems like Deng or Noc would be the one to go if we drafted Thomas. He's only 6-9 and 210. If a certain 6-9, 245 free agent target is described as only a SF, then that's what Thomas is as well.


----------



## Frankensteiner

El Chapu said:


> Watched both games yesterday, did Tyrus Thomas play?


He was playing the bench, as they say.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, guess we can scratch Thomas off our list. Afterall, playing the biggest game of his life, he compiled only 5 points and 6 rebounds. Mbah a Moute made Thomas into his little girl. This was the only game that counted, I don't care what he did earlier in the season.
> 
> Bottom line: when the going got tough, Thomas folded like a tent. Didn't look like a leader at all out there; let's avoid him.


Tyrus Thomas:

v. Ohio State: 14 points 11 rebounds 5 blocks
v. UConn: 15 points 13 rebounds 7 blocks
v. Florida: 2 points 4 rebounds 0 blocks
v. Duke: 9 points 13 rebounds 5 blocks
v. *Texas*: 21 points 13 rebounds 3 blocks
v. UCLA: 5 points 6 rebounds 3 blocks

Now that's 2 bad games out of 6 games that I'd term games against frontcourts with future NBA talent (talent that is not being considered primarily for their jumpshot - Pittsnogle). 

So that's a "bad game." When you can point to four other good ones. His stats in these games combine to be as follows:

11.1 PPG 9.5 RPG 3.8 BPG

Now Aldridge in games against Duke and LSU (Thomas' team)

v. Duke 21 points 6 rebounds 0 blocks
v. LSU 4 points 10 rebounds 5 blocks

12.5 PPG 8 RPB 2.5 BPG 10-27 FG (or just over 40%)

Forget Pittsnogle, who projects as a Darius Songaila type. I'm not interested in what these guys do against guys whose game is gonna be to take centers out to 3 point distance. He'd be lucky to make the NBDL if he had an average NBA-level jumper.

So that's my point. One game, AGAINST THOMAS' TEAM, is huge when all you can point to is one other game against some serious frontcourt competition. And from that ONE OTHER GAME (Duke) people have all these certainties about Aldridge. Aldridge is this, he's that, "I'm sure he'll be a good pro," Thomas is all about potential. That was my issue. 

Thomas didn't show up in the biggest game of HIS life. However, Aldridge didn't show up against THOMAS, and has a worse ratio of not showing up.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Babble-On said:


> I agree with the point you are making with this sarcastic post, however, I don't think this is the way to do it. You are initiating the exchange in a way that will result in things being needlessly contentious, which is a recipe for disaster, especially when dealing with someone who has a history of making things needlessly contentious.


They won't get that way, as they have not. The man deserves to make his point that way if he wants to. But, think, was that post you just posted more about the topic or a poster?


----------



## Pippenatorade

On Noah, the knock on him has been his frame. His shoulders are very narrow and he may not be well suited to gaining much more weight. So if you draft him, you're looking at a guy who may never be more than 235. If you're good with that, that's cool. I'd rather have Noah than Chandler in most of Chandler's years in the league so far. 

I was more impressed with Horford in some ways. Hard to tell.


----------



## Babble-On

Pippenatorade said:


> They won't get that way, as they have not. The man deserves to make his point that way if he wants to. But, think, was that post you just posted more about the topic or a poster?


Of course it was about the poster, or more specifically the fact that he made a post that could result in an unproductive exchange, especially, when aimed at you, who expressed the need to "fire back" in response to a far less inflammatory post and who has a certain track record.

Just trying to help keep the peace and avoid having a good discussion derailed.


----------



## L.O.B

*duplication indeed*



Mikedc said:


> If we drafted Noah or Thomas, I'd want a trade lined up for Chandler. I think both of those guys basically replicate his skills and add a couple additional ones (the most obvious being the ability to catch the freaking ball).


Just to expand on that thought

If we drafted Noah or Thomas, I'd want a trade lined up for Chandler. I think both of those guys basically replicate his skills and add a couple additional ones (the most obvious being the ability to catch the freaking ball).


----------



## Pippenatorade

Babble-On said:


> Of course it was about the poster, or more specifically the fact that he made a post that could result in an unproductive exchange, especially, when aimed at you, who expressed the need to "fire back" in response to a far less inflammatory post and who has a certain track record.
> 
> Just trying to help keep the peace and avoid having a good discussion derailed.


Always appreciated. Points coming your way for that. Don't spend them all in one place there Sonny :biggrin:


----------



## johnston797

Mikedc said:


> If we drafted Noah or Thomas, I'd want a trade lined up for Chandler. I think both of those guys basically replicate his skills and add a couple additional ones (the most obvious being the ability to catch the freaking ball).


I don't know. First, let me say that Chandler is the only thing we have close to giving us as starter quarlity minutes in the Front court. Certainly, this is true if he can get back to last year's form. 

So, this year, we only get about 24-30 of starter "big" minutes. And the rest is true "role player" minutes. Noah and Thomas are going to have lots of nights when they struggle. Why not keep Chandler around? Worst case is we have 48+ minutes of "good" Chandler-like time. And if its good, maybe you could use up to 60 minutes of it. 

This works IMHO even if you also get a guy like Gooden or Nene.

p.s. I do agree the fit isn't perfect so I am back to Aldridge as my guy unless the draft workouts provide something we don't expect.


----------



## Pippenatorade

johnston797 said:


> I don't know. First, let me say that Chandler is the only thing we have close to giving us as starter quarlity minutes in the Front court. Certainly, this is true if he can get back to last year's form.
> 
> So, this year, we only get about 24-30 of starter "big" minutes. And the rest is true "role player" minutes. Noah and Thomas are going to have lots of nights when they struggle. Why not keep Chandler around? Worst case is we have 48+ minutes of "good" Chandler-like time. And if its good, maybe you could use up to 60 minutes of it.
> 
> This works IMHO even if you also get a guy like Gooden or Nene.
> 
> p.s. I do agree the fit isn't perfect so I am back to Aldridge as my guy unless the draft workouts provide something we don't expect.


I'm half and half. I agree with you in regards to Thomas, but I agree with Mike when it comes to Noah. Noah and Tyson are too identical in build to have both coexist. But Thomas is built much more like AD. If Thomas is drafted I'd like to see Tyson stay at least for another year.


----------



## McBulls

It appears to me that all three of the players being discussed in this thread would greatly benefit from another year of college ball. I don't see any of them as implact players next year in the NBA.

If Paxson feels forced to choose one of them with the NY choice (assuming they are all available) he will be essentially guessing what kind of players they might be when they grow up in a couple of years. In this regard, Aldridge's future is perhaps the most easily envisioned of the three and is thus the safest bet. But the chances of making a mistake are large. There are no Dwight Howards or Emeka Okafors in this draft.


----------



## The Krakken

McBulls said:


> It appears to me that all three of the players being discussed in this thread would greatly benefit from another year of college ball. I don't see any of them as implact players next year in the NBA.
> 
> If Paxson feels forced to choose one of them with the NY choice (assuming they are all available) he will be essentially guessing what kind of players they might be when they grow up in a couple of years. In this regard, Aldridge's future is perhaps the most easily envisioned of the three and is thus the safest bet. But the chances of making a mistake are large. There are no Dwight Howards or Emeka Okafors in this draft.


If this is true, then might as well gamble and take a chance on Bargani.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Rharlie Rosen Scouting the Final Four for NBA Potential



> *Joakim Noah*, Florida, 6-11, 227, Soph.
> Can do: Run and jump. Take full advantage of his length, his quick hops and good timing to be a big-time shot-blocker when coming from the weak side. Handle, but not as good as he thinks. Secure the ball with his good hands. Show excellent lateral movement.
> 
> Can't do: Play with power. Shoot consistently, mainly because he releases the ball on his way up. Play with quickness on offense from a standstill. Go to his left hand.
> 
> Must do: Get stronger without losing any quickness. Improve his handle in the attack zone. Develop more offensive options: a drop step, counter moves, duck-under, turnaround-jumpers, fadeaway-jumpers, etc.
> 
> Prognosis: Needs to spend long hours in the weight room and vary every aspect of his offense. Has the length and the athleticism to have a good NBA career. *Needs at least one more year in school. Has the potential to be a Ty Chandler-type of player — only better.*





> *Tyrus Thomas*, LSU 6-9, 215, Fresh.
> Can do: Show a higher degree of sheer athleticism than any other player in the Final Four. That means he can run, jump, rebound, block shots, play with admirable aggressiveness, double-team guards above the 3-point line, bang inside, handle well enough to drive the baseline and release his free throws in fine fashion.
> 
> Can't do: Stroke the ball from mid-range. Quiet his twitchy feet on defense and thereby avoid biting on every other head fake. Play adequate defense away from the basket. Play with discipline.
> 
> Must do: Plan on staying in school for at least another two years and follow his coach's every instruction. Study the tapes of all of his games. Play in the summers against the best competition available.
> 
> Prognosis: There's every expectation that TT will grow another inch or two. *If he can work hard on his deficiencies and learn his trade, he could easily wind up being a lottery pick by the time he's a junior.*


----------



## jbulls

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Rharlie Rosen Scouting the Final Four for NBA Potential


Is Charley Rosen serious? Thomas isn't polished - but a lottery pick in two years time? He's obviously a lottery pick already, and probably a very high one.


----------



## Ron Cey

Charlie Rosen is an idiot. Just wanted to get that out there as a general statement.

After watching Noah last night, I'm even more convinced that he should be the draft target if he comes out. He's special.

And I'm not just talking about his incredible shot blocking ability and instincts. But his passing both from the post and in the open court are uncanny for a player his size. For crying out loud, he was rebounding the ball *in traffic* and then dribbling out of the congested paint like he was shot out of a cannon *to lead the fast break*. 

I've seen a couple of Florida regular season games and every tournament game. He's awesome. And not just "looks good in a weak draft" type of awesome either. I mean "uniquely gifted and fiery" type of awesome. 

I see two deficiencies mentioned that are fair and accurate - questionable jumper and frame. I don't care about either. His frame is meaningless. He plays strong. The jumper will or won't get better. But considering how absurdly rare the rest of his talents are for a 20 year old big man, it doesn't matter.


----------



## laso

I agree. Noah should be our target. I see him as a more polished version of Dikembe Mutombo. he will be that good of a defender. A game changer. Imagine how good our defense could be if in stretches we play him and Tyson. (Although I'm not sure i would want Tyson trying to catch those post passes by Noah). I just love the defensive fire that Noah brings to the table. The only thing I worry about is attitude. Some of his antics are a bit brattish.


----------



## PC Load Letter

Ron Cey said:


> Charlie Rosen is an idiot. Just wanted to get that out there as a general statement.
> 
> After watching Noah last night, I'm even more convinced that he should be the draft target if he comes out. He's special.
> 
> And I'm not just talking about his incredible shot blocking ability and instincts. But his passing both from the post and in the open court are uncanny for a player his size. For crying out loud, he was rebounding the ball *in traffic* and then dribbling out of the congested paint like he was shot out of a cannon *to lead the fast break*.
> 
> I've seen a couple of Florida regular season games and every tournament game. He's awesome. And not just "looks good in a weak draft" type of awesome either. I mean "uniquely gifted and fiery" type of awesome.
> 
> I see two deficiencies mentioned that are fair and accurate - questionable jumper and frame. I don't care about either. His frame is meaningless. He plays strong. The jumper will or won't get better. But considering how absurdly rare the rest of his talents are for a 20 year old big man, it doesn't matter.


You sound as excited as I was after watching him last night. I hadn't really seen more than a few minutes of any Florida game all year, so I didn't really know just how skilled he is. The kid is GOOD. I don't worry about his frame at all; he's young and he'll put on weight. Besides, like you said, he plays big and strong. I love how he slashes to the basket and goes hard all the way to the rim, something none of our players seem to know how/care to do. It's refreshing to see a young player who plays so tough. And he's got the athletic ability on top of that, which is just awesome.

His shot is questionable, partly because his form just doesn't look good, but with his quickness, I don't see him having much trouble scoring on other big guys because of his quickness. In time, his jumper will improve and his range will expand.

This guy may be able to fill our two biggest needs right now; a scoring big man _and_ a slasher who gets to the line. I want him.


----------



## johnston797

Ron Cey said:


> For crying out loud, he was rebounding the ball *in traffic* and then dribbling out of the congested paint like he was shot out of a cannon *to lead the fast break*


Skiles would break him of dribbling pretty quickly. Did you see how many time he walked or almost walked in the semi-finals. Too many TOs even at the college. For Skiles. :clown:


----------



## PC Load Letter

Ron Cey said:


> Charlie Rosen is an idiot. Just wanted to get that out there as a general statement.


I couldn't agree more, by the way. He's bad on a ridiculous level. Did anyone else notice how many times he said a player must "get taller?"

Also, he said one of the players needs to "improve his skills." Oh, really, Mr. Wizard? Thanks for the insight!


----------



## fl_flash

Noah looked damn impressive throughout the tourney. I like the guys attitude (to an extent). I know that about a week ago he stated that he was returning to Gainsville for another year and that the NBA was "boring", but what do you folks think he'll do now? He's in a position much like Carmello a couple years back. He's won the NCAA title - what more is there for him to do at the collegiate level? He's going to college to get ready to play pro ball. He's possibly played himself up to the #1 pick... Does he pass that up to experience another year of college? If he stays, Florida will obviously be a top ranked team and they'll be a helluva lot more pressure on him and his team to perform. Does a young man, who really doesn't need the money (dads' loaded!) still pass up guaranteed millions to stay in school another year just to be able to party with sorority chicks? I don't know. It sure would make sense for him to come out now while his stock can't get any higher. Next year he's going to be part of a rather strong group of bigs - just another face in the crowd as it were.

So which is it? Does he declare or does he stay? I say he declares.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1

Flash, I agree. As much as I generally like to see kids stay in school and develop, right now he was a leader on an NCAA championship team and is definitely a lottery pick, almost certainly a top 5 pick, probably a top 3 pick and could be the #1 overall. He has nowhere to go but down if he stays at Florida another year.


----------



## Ron Cey

Logically, he declares. But he's in a rather unique sitation since he's already rich. 

But I guess the bottom line is what else is there for him? He won the national championship, won the MOP for the Final Four, and became a star in the process.


----------



## truebluefan

We could do worse than Joakim Noah. I would not be upset if we drafted him.


----------



## johnston797

truebluefan said:


> We could do worse than Joakim Noah. I would not be upset if we drafted him.


I wouldn't be heartbroken if we got any of Thomas, Noah and Aldridge. And Splitter and Bargani are interesting, too. This may be like the Kwame, Chandler, Gasol, Curry draft. The first one to go is in no way guarenteed to be the best.

What would even be better is if we get the first or second pick and Pax gets his favorite.


----------



## Pippenatorade

Ron Cey said:


> Logically, he declares. But he's in a rather unique sitation since he's already rich.
> 
> But I guess the bottom line is what else is there for him? He won the national championship, won the MOP for the Final Four, and became a star in the process.


Noah gets it. The only thing that gives the NBA an advantage over a big school like Florida is money. If you already have money you can't beat the college experience. The girls at Florida are just as hot as the groupies who are trying to trap a pro player by getting pregnant.


----------



## Ron Cey

Pippenatorade said:


> Noah gets it. The only thing that gives the NBA an advantage over a big school like Florida is money. If you already have money you can't beat the college experience. *The girls at Florida are just as hot as the groupies who are trying to trap a pro player by getting pregnant.*


But are they as slutty?


----------



## TripleDouble

Also, Florida is warm so girls are donned in skimmpy attire all year long. The same can not be said about many cities, including Chicago.


----------



## fl_flash

Ron Cey said:


> But are they as slutty?


Give me inibriated (sp?), small-nosed sorority chicks (bonus points for the literary reference) over NBA groupies anyday!


----------



## superdave

Heh, Noah was blowing kisses at the UCLA cheerleaders during one inbounds play. He seems like he's having a good time with things, so IMO he doesn't declare.


----------



## smARTmouf

Ron Cey said:


> But are they as slutty?



LOL.

i assure you...they are definatly slutty.


i have my sources... :angel:


----------



## Rhyder

Noah's stock is unlikely to be higher than it is right now in 07 and 08. Admittedly, I haven't even peeked at the 08 draft class, but Joakim will definately be behind at least Oden in the 07 class. I know he doesn't need the money, but it all depends on his family situation. If Noah returns to Florida and then has a career-ending injury, is his dad going to contribute $500k + per year to the "I'm sorry son" foundation? No one knows. I did think it was interesting that the Championship game was only the fourth of Joakim's that he has seen.

If Horford declares, I think it's a decent bet that Noah will declare also. Horford's stock has risen to pretty much guarantee going in the late lottery to about pick 22. If he wants the money now, it's probably a safe time for him to declare. If he's confident he can improve his stock, then he may stay, which would probably make Noah more likely to stay as well.


----------



## Pippenatorade

fl_flash said:


> Give me inibriated (sp?), small-nosed sorority chicks (bonus points for the literary reference) over NBA groupies anyday!


Yep yep


----------



## mizenkay

i think noah will declare.

there really are no "matt leinarts" in college bball (are there? and we all know how that turned out for mr. USC).

no place really to go but pro for the kid (daddy's tennis money and sorority sluts aside)...i think he'll be in the NBA next year.

oh, and charlie rosen is a _bitter hack_. just wanted to get that out there.


----------



## windy_bull

now I have finally seen some footage of Mr. Noah junior and I am pretty impressed ! 

I know that many people are talking about his skinny frame but I dare to disagree. Regarding his enourmous growth spurt lately I am more than convinced that he is goin' to fill this body to a level that is aedequate to the nba standard.

what I have seen while watching the finals was a tall guy with great passing skills, who is able to rebound in traffic and shows his ability to finish with both hands around the basket. his timing for blocks looks close to perfect for me as well and if he is only half the warrior that his father was ... then we are looking at a great nba prospect. he might need 2-3 years to reach his full potential but for me there is no doubt that he *will* reach it.


----------



## LegoHat

windy_bull said:


> now I have finally seen some footage of Mr. Noah junior and I am pretty impressed !
> 
> *I know that many people are talking about his skinny frame but I dare to disagree. Regarding his enourmous growth spurt lately I am more than convinced that he is goin' to fill this body to a level that is aedequate to the nba standard.*
> 
> what I have seen while watching the finals was a tall guy with great passing skills, who is able to rebound in traffic and shows his ability to finish with both hands around the basket. his timing for blocks looks close to perfect for me as well and if he is only half the warrior that his father was ... then we are looking at a great nba prospect. he might need 2-3 years to reach his full potential but for me there is no doubt that he *will* reach it.


My only worry with Noah's physique is that he has very narrow shoulders, he doesn't seem like a guy who can put on a lot more weight.


----------



## McBulls

You gotta like Noah's enthusiasm. He really seemed to be enjoying himself at the big game.

He seems to be a kid who is really enjoying college right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed right where he is for another year or two.


----------



## DaBullz

What if none of these guys declare for the draft? Has anyone considered it?


----------



## Ron Cey

DaBullz said:


> What if none of these guys declare for the draft? Has anyone considered it?


I suspect we've all considered it since the three bigs this thread is based on are sophomores in college.

But we have to discuss them as prospects. Otherwise these threads would be about James Augustine.


----------



## WookiesOnRitalin

DaBullz said:


> What if none of these guys declare for the draft? Has anyone considered it?


I have. 

If the doomsday scenario occurs and NONE of these bigs declare then it's Best Player Available. 

Who is that?

Brandon Roy. 

I have to figure atleast ONE of them will declare though. It's just statistically unlikely that all of them will stay in college. Somebody will come out.


----------



## windy_bull

DaBullz said:


> What if none of these guys declare for the draft? Has anyone considered it?


we take brandon roy with our first pick ... the best available player with the second ... and we'll get our quality BigMan with NYs lottery pick next year ... come on da_bullz ... stay positive :angel: 

we will have a strong and balanced team soon ...




I hope ;-)​


----------



## ViciousFlogging

DaBullz said:


> What if none of these guys declare for the draft? Has anyone considered it?


It's possible, but highly unlikely. Noah, Thomas, and Aldridge are all likely to go in the top 5, even if they all declare this year. I can see one of them staying in school, but I think at least 2 of them will declare. Recent history has more examples of guys declaring than staying in school when they're likely to go that high. It's mostly guys who are tabbed to go late 1st or below that stay and try to improve their chances.

If they do all stay in school, on the bright side, we could very well have our choice of one of them (or Oden) next year when the Knicks deliver us another high pick :clap:


----------



## yodurk

McBulls said:


> You gotta like Noah's enthusiasm. He really seemed to be enjoying himself at the big game.
> 
> He seems to be a kid who is really enjoying college right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed right where he is for another year or two.


Mike Wilbon from PTI wrote an article in the Washington Post today (need to register to read it). He thinks Joakim Noah is the no-brainer #1 pick in the draft. He even says that the Knicks will cry themselves to sleep if Noah is there and the Bulls snatch him with their pick from the Curry trade. Undoubtedly, Noah has vaulted himself into top 3 consideration. So has Tyrus Thomas. Funny that neither of these guys were being talked about before the season started. Regardless, it's a MUST that the Bulls get 1 of these guys.


----------



## Ron Cey

yodurk said:


> Mike Wilbon from PTI wrote an article in the Washington Post today (need to register to read it). He thinks Joakim Noah is the no-brainer #1 pick in the draft. He even says that the Knicks will cry themselves to sleep if Noah is there and the Bulls snatch him with their pick from the Curry trade. Undoubtedly, Noah has vaulted himself into top 3 consideration. So has Tyrus Thomas. Funny that neither of these guys were being talked about before the season started. Regardless, it's a MUST that the Bulls get 1 of these guys.


I agree with Wilbon. I've been writing for awhile now in this thread that my order of preference is:

(1) Noah
(2) Aldridge
(3) Thomas

Last night solidified it - Noah is the "no brainer" for the Bulls in my book. Now all that needs to happen is that we get the #1 pick and he declares for the draft. :laugh:


----------



## Rhyder

Ron Cey said:


> I agree with Wilbon. I've been writing for awhile now in this thread that my order of preference is:
> 
> (1) Noah
> (2) Aldridge
> (3) Thomas
> 
> Last night solidified it - Noah is the "no brainer" for the Bulls in my book. Now all that needs to happen is that we get the #1 pick and he declares for the draft. :laugh:


So we have roughly a 1/8 chance of landing him (50% chance he'll declare * 25% chance of winning the lotto)?

I guess a bit more considering you'd have to add back in the chances that we don't land the top pick and he falls to us anyways. How does 1/6 sound?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

Well, that was ****ing horrible.

I love and hate Noah. I don't really feel like doing my "3rd impressions" because all I know is that we got smacked.

We were absolutely shook, the story of 2005 - 2006 UCLA men's basketball and football, the biggest let-down teams I've ever watched.


----------



## mizenkay

LaMarcus Aldridge is looking for an agent 




> Texas sophomore center LaMarcus Aldridge has spoken with coach Rick Barnes about entering the NBA Draft, and as a result of their conversation, *Aldridge is making inquiries about agents.*
> 
> Aldridge has not formally entered his name into the NBA Draft pool, and even if he does, he could return to school if he maintains his eligibility. However, signing with an agent would be an irreversible move into professional basketball.


----------



## step

> Aldridge is making inquiries about agents.


$$$ Show me the money $$$


----------



## Rhyder

mizenkay said:


> LaMarcus Aldridge is looking for an agent


 :clap:


----------



## Ron Cey

step said:


> $$$ Show me the money $$$


Greed . . . . for lack of a better word . . . . is good. Greed works.


----------



## The_Franchise

Here's the difference between guys like Wade and Noah, who saw their stock blow up during the NCAA tourney. Wade had the athleticism to succeed at the NBA level, the explosive first step and could match up with opponents even though so many dubbed him as a combo guard. Noah's offensive skills don't translate to the NBA, his frame prohibits him from adding the necessary bulk to play the 4 (without being athletic) and it's going to take a while before he can do much defensively besides weakside shot blocking. With all these shortcomings and big money already going to Chandler, I think Chicago is much better off going with an Aldridge or Thomas.


----------



## rosenthall

After watching Noah a little bit, I think I've come to the conclusion that he'll most likely be someone in the mold of Andrei Kirilenko or Kevin Garnett.....tall, athletic, lanky, do-it-all frontcourt guys who don't exactly have a position. This isn't bad, but it has a few interesting consequences:

1). I don't think he'll turn into a beefy, score on the blocks kinda guy. I think he'll always be a guy who plays best by just roaming the court and using his size and feel for the game to make plays. I think by trying to make him add a whole bunch of weight and forcing him to be a bruiser would be taking away the essence of his game. 

And on this note, when I watched him, I started to wonder if Noah was what Darko looked like while he was in Europe when everyone fell in love with him. And similarly, I think trying to do to Noah what Larry Brown did to Darko could have similar (but probably less dramatic) effects.

2). If we add Noah, I think we'll most likely get a jibby, high impact guy right off the bat..........but he won't solve any of our team's structural deficiencies, so we'll still need frontcourt beef and a slashing wing just as much as we did before. 

And while he won't solve any of our positional weaknesses, I could easily see him filling our team's leadership void.....as soon as next year. He seems to be a natural in that respect, and would actually have the talent to back it up.


----------



## McBulls

rosenthall said:


> And on this note, when I watched him, I started to wonder if Noah was what Darko looked like while he was in Europe when everyone fell in love with him. And similarly, I think trying to do to Noah what Larry Brown did to Darko could have similar (but probably less dramatic) effects.


If I were Noah's father I would advise him to stay in college for another year; in part for the education and in part because of the possiblity that he could get Darko'ed by some unimaginative, inflexible coach like Brown. An idle year or two on some teams bench would not be good for this bright-eyed, bushy-tailed young man. He needs to play, and play when it matters.


----------



## bruindre

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Well, that was ****ing horrible.
> 
> I love and hate Noah. I don't really feel like doing my "3rd impressions" because all I know is that we got smacked.
> 
> We were absolutely shook, the story of 2005 - 2006 UCLA men's basketball and football, the biggest let-down teams I've ever watched.


I know this is off topic, but w.t.f. are you talking about? That basketball team overachieved. There's no way a team that young and inexperienced should have been playing for a championship _this _ year.

That's all we need...another spoiled, ungreatful UCLA fan. You must be an alumnus.


----------



## yodurk

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Here's the difference between guys like Wade and Noah, who saw their stock blow up during the NCAA tourney. Wade had the athleticism to succeed at the NBA level, the explosive first step and could match up with opponents even though so many dubbed him as a combo guard. Noah's offensive skills don't translate to the NBA, his frame prohibits him from adding the necessary bulk to play the 4 (without being athletic) and it's going to take a while before he can do much defensively besides weakside shot blocking. With all these shortcomings and big money already going to Chandler, I think Chicago is much better off going with an Aldridge or Thomas.


1) Noah is 6'11 and super long...and despite being billed as "not super athletic", he seems to be all over the place. Seems athletic enough from what I've seen.

2) By the time Chandler's contract runs out in 2010, whomever we draft this year will just then be eligible for a contract extension. So I wouldn't worry about Chandler's money interfering with a potential extension for whoever we draft this summer.


----------



## The_Franchise

yodurk said:


> 1) Noah is 6'11 and super long...and despite being billed as "not super athletic", he seems to be all over the place. Seems athletic enough from what I've seen.
> 
> 2) By the time Chandler's contract runs out in 2010, whomever we draft this year will just then be eligible for a contract extension. So I wouldn't worry about Chandler's money interfering with a potential extension for whoever we draft this summer.


He hustles. I'll give him that. But he's going to have to work very hard on his set plays and positioning in the NBA. We'll get a better indication of how far along he is physically at the pre-draft camps and individual workouts. 

The conflict with Chandler is not so much of a contract issue as it is the player himself. With Noah being an *unathletic* tweener and Chandler having a non-existant offensive game, they don't complement each other well. You also run into a Crawford-Hinrich type situation where you don't know when to start players, play them alongside each other (one hell of a fragile frontcourt), give them time for development (both have ways to go)... unless Noah just bursts onto the scene which he isn't ready to do IMO. It's more ideal to have a player who has shown he has some back-to-the-basket skills like Aldridge or Thomas next to Chandler, where Chicago benefits from having *both *players on the floor.


----------



## TripleDouble

I think Noah is a bit overrated athletically (he doesn't appear to have great ups), but he's definately not unathletic. He's pretty damn fast for a 6'11" player.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle

bruindre said:


> I know this is off topic, but w.t.f. are you talking about? That basketball team overachieved. There's no way a team that young and inexperienced should have been playing for a championship _this _ year.
> 
> That's all we need...another spoiled, ungreatful UCLA fan. You must be an alumnus.


Were you in Westwood homey ? Did you see an inflated Gator inside the Bruin Bear statue's teeth ? Did you see the line to Pauley extending almost back to the residence halls ? Did you see that line being packed at 11 AM ? Did you see the police on Horses patrolling Westwood ? Did you have this wild pack of friends who brought out their friends and their cute friends just for this event ? Did you hear folks all collectively shout and express frustration all around the apartments and dorms for about 3 hours after the final buzzer ?

Maaaaaaaan. It'll take a while for my perspective to come back to me since I threw it out once we beat LSU. I prefer to revel in the misery for the time being anyway so if you're not too detached and "objective", come join. 

Not saying that they weren't great when we were on, cause damn did we make a run. But given how we had played up to that point combined with me and about 20,000 getting caught up in all the hype, it's just a haaaaaaard way to fall. 

We were all looking forward to a competition at the very least. But again, I just can't believe how shook this team was, particularly Afflalo (till that one mini-spurt in the 2nd half) and M'Bah a Moute. We did play our tough brand of defense, except on the other side of the floor, playing behind, everyone not named Jordan Farmar was hesitating to do anything.

Yeah, and to bring it back to topic: Noah had a lot to do with folks being scared to take it in: he stuffed Hollins, Mata, and anyone else who tried to bring it up to the paint.


----------



## laso

Noah will do just fine in the NBA. The Shaq era is coming to an end. While there arestillsome good big men after Shaq, there are few overpowering big guys in the game. I saw enough fire and toughness in Noah to know he'll be a force inside.

Also, while it;s true Noah's offense is limited right now, he still has a number of things that would be a great improvement over Chandler: He can catch the ball, can hold it in one hand while he's jumping for a dunk (without turning the ball over) and he does have some back to the basket game. Not a post up game per say, but I have seen him do a pretty decent job when he receives the ball on the right block turning around and hitting a bank shot.


----------



## dsouljah9

Well, you can scratch Joakim Noah off your list cause he's staying in school. So is Corey Brewer and Al Horford


----------



## TripleDouble

dsouljah9 said:


> Well, you can scratch Joakim Noah off your list cause he's staying in school. So is Corey Brewer and Al Hortford


Is this your opinion or do you have source?


----------



## dsouljah9

Saw it on ESPN NEWS.


----------



## mizenkay

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2401235




> Florida sophomores Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer and Al Horford told a partisan crowd at the national championship celebration Friday night in Gainesville that they would return for their junior season.
> 
> Florida sports information director Fred Demarest said the three sophomores announced to the fans that they would return, bringing the "O'Connell Center down."
> 
> Noah was the Final Four most outstanding player with an NCAA Tournament record 29 blocked shots in six games. The Gators beat UCLA on Monday night at the RCA Dome in Indianapolis for their first national title. The Gators were ESPN.com's preseason No. 1 team in the annual post-title game Top 25 released Wednesday.
> 
> Demarest said that Horford grabbed the microphone and asked the crowd "we've won two SEC [tournament] titles, an NCAA championship and we're not sure how much more we can accomplish." But Demarest then said Noah followed up with, "What do you people want us to do?" The crowd apparently chanted back, "two more years." *And then Noah said, "we're coming back."*


----------



## TripleDouble

dsouljah9 said:


> Saw it on ESPN NEWS.


Thanks. Well that sucks. Less talent left at the 16th pick


----------

