# I am NOW sold on Tyrus Thomas



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

Watching that ESPN Draft special opened my eyes about him. Everyone expects him to be a great player. I had questions about his offense but after watching him nail 17 ft jumpers comfortably and watching him excel around the basketball enlightened me. He is no Chandler as I've never seen TC make jumpshots in any game. This dude is gonna be a good one and Paxson now has my support for taking him. :clap:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

r1terrell23 said:


> Watching that ESPN Draft special opened my eyes about him. Everyone expects him to be a great player. I had questions about his offense but after watching him nail 17 ft jumpers comfortably and watching him excel around the basketball enlightened me. He is no Chandler as I've never seen TC make jumpshots in any game. This dude is gonna be a good one and Paxson now has my support for taking him. :clap:


Thanks to great editing, you'll never see me miss a shot in my highlight reel.

But seriously. I think TT's ceiling is Kirilenko: an athleitc, skinny, banging three. Yes, this does mean that you have to play alongside another power forward. 

Where's our power forward? Who can post up and score on this team? Sweetney?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> Where's our power forward? Who can post up and score on this team? Sweetney?


If you are looking for that in the draft you will not find that with any player (besides Sheldon Williams).


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I hope those small clips on espn showed that he can do more than dunk and block...

His jumper from about 18 ft looks incredibly easy for him...they say he's not comfortable with it yet but it didn't look like that to me...he nailed one easily over two defenders....he has a nice HIGH arc too...


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

Everything I've read about the offeseason makes we worry about a Sweetney/Chandler 4-5 connection again next year. That would make me a sad panda.

Anyways, Thomas looks like a 3-4 hybrid, not a pure 4 and obviously not a 5. Yes, I know of the talk about the 'new NBA' which is faster with more emphasis on speed and athleticism, but you need some muscle and 215 lbs is not enough for a PF. And we certainly don't need another SF.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Does anyone know what Rodman playing weight was?
I don't think anyones thinking the draft prospects are finished products.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Did you watch the 2001 NBA draft? They had highlights of Tyson Chandler running the break and draining pull up three pointers. It's amazing how smooth he looked in those highlight clips, but five years later I cringe whenever he attempts a simple layup.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

I can't believe you can watch a 20 second highlight clip and then make this decision.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I'm not sold on Tyrus, watch this video, and tell me your still sold on Tyrus.

http://rapidshare.de/files/24329178/tyrus_thomas.wmv.html


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

sloth said:


> I'm not sold on Tyrus, watch this video, and tell me your still sold on Tyrus.
> 
> http://rapidshare.de/files/24329178/tyrus_thomas.wmv.html


I'm sorry but that was the biggest waste of 2 minutes I've had in a long time :angel:


----------



## Thankszeke (May 24, 2006)

SALO said:


> Did you watch the 2001 NBA draft? They had highlights of Tyson Chandler running the break and draining pull up three pointers. It's amazing how smooth he looked in those highlight clips, but five years later I cringe whenever he attempts a simple layup.



That's what jumping onto a chair and landing on your back will do to an offensive game. Tyson was not always this bad, in fact he was a pretty good scorer in his second year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Thankszeke said:


> That's what jumping onto a chair and landing on your back will do to an offensive game. Tyson was not always this bad, in fact he was a pretty good scorer in his second year.


That really is the truth, he looked better offensively than Eddy coming out of the gate. He seemed to recover from the chair....but I don't know exactly what happened. He stopped improving whatsoever, and then regressed into the offensive player he is today....or the lack there of. Its quite sad, I think its more of a lack of dedication and practice on his game, because he looked like he could easily be a 20-15-3 freak EASILY. 

He took 201 more shots his sophomore season than this season. He was a freak, those superstar ideas were legit. Don't know what happened, yeah, last season he wasn't a beast on offense, but he was on defense, this year, he sucked on offense and defense. Hopefully this was just an off year, maybe we can hold out hope that Tyson can start playing 35 minutes a night, and get the 17 ppg 14 rpg HE SHOULD BE GETTING.


----------



## Anten (Jun 25, 2006)

Forget the 20 second highlight clip. Thomas has the upside to become a big time impact player. No one in this draft has the desire and intensity for the game this guy has. You can go with the safe garbage and take Roy but I believe Thomas is the kind of player that can be great. No one else in this draft has that type of upside, IMO. He has a tremendous attitude, a great work ethic, plays with an intensity level that is second to none, and is very coachable. Now combine that with a motor and athletic ability that rivals the best of them....He is a no brainer with our #2.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

There are two very neccessary things to have up side. 1. A player has to have the skill; and 2. A player has to have the desire to put in the hard work neccessary to raise the level of his game.

Chandler dicks around all off season and as a result comes back with nothing every year. Thomas on the other hand real does appear to have that edge that pushes a player to really work hard at it. That is what moves him ahead of Aldridge in my mind.

I also think he is a combo of Shawn Kemp and Amare. I know he is only 6'8" but his reach gives hima couple of more inches and his quickness and how quickly he gets off the floor will make him a defensive animal his first year and my guess is he gets 3 or 4 baskets a game on fast breaks and put backs. I say he averages 10 pts and 9 rebounds his first year. Think about the pick and roll with BG and KH with Thomas. If you rush out at them the Thomas (boom) for the roll and the dunk.

david


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I have been sold on Thomas all along. He is second on my list.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I saw his 4Qtrs interview and some of the draft special . . . I'm not sold on the kid for our team. I know he's gonna be a good player in the L and I think he can be a really nice 3/4 for someone. I think the Bulls need someone who is a bit more polished on offense than he is now. However, I'm not gonna join the "Fire Pax Club" if we get him . . . Pax has been mostly right so far, so I'm gonna trust him.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I have been sold on Thomas all along. He is second on my list.


FWIW, I agree.

If you say Bargnani is #1 on your list, then I really, really, really, agree with you.

Otherwise, I just agree with you. Don't dissapoint me.


:cheers:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The scouting report on Chandler in HS was that he had a fine jumper, too.

http://nbadraft.rivals.com/bviewplayer.asp?Sport=2&SID=1167&MockOrLive=0&Player=47208&type=scoutingreport

*Strengths:* In terms of physical attributes, few players in the NBA right now can match Thomas� combination of length and athletic ability. Not only does he have more than a 40-inch vertical leap, run the floor like a guard and explode off the hardwood, he uses that athleticism to the fullest extent. Thomas� strengths are defense and rebounding, along with the occasional havoc he can create on the offensive end. Thomas can truly change a game with his shot-blocking. He is also a terrific rebounder despite his lack of bulk. Offensively, Thomas is dynamite in the open court. Against weaker opponents he has shown some signs of raw footwork in the post, along with a mid-range jump-shot and a little jump-hook. It would not be a stretch to say he has a higher ceiling than any other player in this draft considering his physical attributes and how long he�s been playing basketball. His intangibles lead you to believe that he also has what it takes to realize that potential. 

*Weaknesses:* Thomas is a late-bloomer in every sense of the word - he began playing organized basketball in his junior year of high school. Like many players who have late growth spurts (he was still growing as of last summer), he has yet to develop into his frame and probably lacks the strength to play a huge role in the NBA until he can add some weight. Offensively, Thomas is fairly limited and gets most of his points from offensive rebounds and in transition. His size also isn�t exactly ideal for an NBA power forward, although his athleticism helps him out greatly in this area. 

*Outlook:* Thomas� incredible length and athletic ability alone made him a solid NCAA player, but it was his work ethic that took him from being considered a borderline top-100 player to a top-5 pick in only two years. Players with his upside are almost always drafted early, but there is something about his attitude that makes you believe he�ll realize his excellent potential, too. It will take some patience on the part of the team that drafts him, though. 

*Comparison:* Tyson Chandler 


_DraftExpress covers the NBA Draft for Rivals.com. Their work can also be found at www.draftexpress.com, where they offer a free NBA Draft scouting service.


_


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

Chandler was playing against highschool kids, while Tyrus was doing it in the midst of a final four run. That is a bit of a difference to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

r1terrell23 said:


> Chandler was playing against highschool kids, while Tyrus was doing it in the midst of a final four run. That is a bit of a difference to me.


That's the sum total of his hype to be #2 pick in the draft - a couple/three good games in the tourney. You might chalk his good performances up to the fact that he didn't show up on the video tape that opponents watched and they focused on everyone else.

The guy is really 6'7" without shoes and incredibly raw. He's no NBA PF, so he'll have to learn to be a SF. He has ERob II written all over him.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

2, Deng, Chandler for Garnett

Pull it pax


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't know about everyone else but I feel a lot better that the 20 second highlight clip of watching Tyrus play has brought r1terrell23 around to finally liking the guy, just imagine how much more he would like him if he actually watched him play in the tourney! Now Paxson can finally draft the guy with a clear conscience.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> 2, Deng, Chandler for Garnett
> 
> Pull it pax



why? Garnett is 30 freaking years old man, if we wanted to trade for him we needed to do it 2 years ago, give it up already.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> That's the sum total of his hype to be #2 pick in the draft - a couple/three good games in the tourney. You might chalk his good performances up to the fact that he didn't show up on the video tape that opponents watched and they focused on everyone else.
> 
> The guy is really 6'7" without shoes and incredibly raw. He's no NBA PF, so he'll have to learn to be a SF. He has ERob II written all over him.


Well, when they begin to play without shoes, then we'll worry about it.

Or when they don't let Thomas play with shoes, and everyone else can....its a problem. He is 6'8.25" 

He has a very long standing reach, very long arms, good vertical.... that makes up for an inch or two.

Again, is he was 6'9" with all those measurables, would you be complaining? 3/4 of an inch makes that much of a difference? Especially with long arms, long standing reach, and a good vertical? Yes, he is raw....yes, he is a gamble....but there really isn't a "for sure" superstar in this draft.

I guess a better question to ask is, "Who do you want in this draft?"

And if Paxson thinks he can be a PF, I would tend to agree with him. Granted, he has only scouted him and been a GM for awhile....which isn't quite as good as the hours of scouting, private workouts, and arm chair GM'ing you have done....

But if Paxson likes him, call me crazy, but I may side with him over you.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Vintage, who is the lovely lady in your avatar?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Vintage, who is the lovely lady in your avatar?


The one and only Ana Beatriz Barros.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

One potential concern with Thomas seems to be getting pushed under the rug as people gush over highlight reels--the injury concerns. People keep saying his drive and work ethic will ensure he becomes all of the player he can be, but what if injuries prevent that from happening?

I know you can say that about any player, but I feel it's more of a concern with Tyrus than anyone else in this draft. The laundry list is relatively long for a player with only one college season under his belt. Consider:

He missed his freshman year with a neck injury.
He missed his conference tournament with an inury (I'm not sure what it was)
Hamstring strain in the NCAA championship game, though he did return to the game
Groin pull during NBA workouts

Playing as an undersized power forward in the NBA is only going to increase his risk for injury.

Then you've got the injury riddled careers of guys most often mentioned when people throw out comparisons for Thomas: KMart, Stoudemire, Swift, McDyess. That type of body and game just seems more prone to injury than others. Shawn Marion is the only comparison that has escaped the injury bug to date. I jest, but can a town that fosters Kerry Wood and Mark Prior really hope to have any luck with regards to injury?

I realize you shouldn't necessarily pass on a guy simply because he _may_ get hurt in the future, but I feel the warning lights are flashing brighter with TT moreso than any other guy in the draft. What good is that work ethic if you're physically unable to perform? And for a guy that relies on athleticism to overcome his physical and skill shortcomings, what happens if some of that athleticism is stripped away?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The scouting report on Chandler in HS was that he had a fine jumper, too.


So let me ask you a question. If that scouting report turned out to be bunk (which it clearly did), why are you worried about about the scouting report on Thomas that compares him to Chandler? Isn't that just as likely to be wrong?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Well, when they begin to play without shoes, then we'll worry about it.
> 
> Or when they don't let Thomas play with shoes, and everyone else can....its a problem. He is 6'8.25"
> 
> ...


ERob is 6'8", 210 lbs. Almost identical in size and athleticism to Thomas. With shoes, LOL.

Call ME crazy if I think a PF build is 6'10" and 245 lbs.

You ask who I want in this draft? If we go by need, it has to be Roy. If it's BPA, it has to be Gay or Morrison.

I'd rather Paxson swing for the fence and miss on a guy who should step in and play quality hoops from day 1 than swing for the fence and miss on a guy who won't.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Qwerty123 said:


> One potential concern with Thomas seems to be getting pushed under the rug as people gush over highlight reels--the injury concerns. People keep saying his drive and work ethic will ensure he becomes all of the player he can be, but what if injuries prevent that from happening?
> 
> I know you can say that about any player, but I feel it's more of a concern with Tyrus than anyone else in this draft. The laundry list is relatively long for a player with only one college season under his belt. Consider:
> 
> ...


Yup, this is pretty much what I see too. I think the way it's going to have to work is that Thomas plays defensively against 3s and smaller 4s and (gulp) Noc, Deng, and whatever bigs we have draw the bigger guys.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> So let me ask you a question. If that scouting report turned out to be bunk (which it clearly did), why are you worried about about the scouting report on Thomas that compares him to Chandler? Isn't that just as likely to be wrong?


It could be very wrong, but it seems to me that it's very conservative to say "Thomas will be the next Chandler" vs. "Chandler will be the next Garnett."


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> ERob is 6'8", 210 lbs. Almost identical in size and athleticism to Thomas. With shoes, LOL.
> 
> Call ME crazy if I think a PF build is 6'10" and 245 lbs.
> 
> ...


Garnett is a 4.

He weighs 220.

Is it implausible to think Thomas could add 10 pounds to his frame? Again, Thomas' length and vertical make up for any "short" comings.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Garnett is a 4.
> 
> He weighs 220.
> 
> Is it implausible to think Thomas could add 10 pounds to his frame? Again, Thomas' length and vertical make up for any "short" comings.


Garnett is a 3.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Garnett is a 4.
> 
> He weighs 220.
> 
> Is it implausible to think Thomas could add 10 pounds to his frame? Again, Thomas' length and vertical make up for any "short" comings.


Not to split hairs, but I'd be willing to bet that Garnett's 220 lbs is a little out of date. He's noticeably meatier looking these days and pretty much 95% of his body is pure muscle (he's the strongest string bean I've probably ever seen). My guess is that he's somewhere in the 230-240 range. For comparison sake, LaMarcus Aldridge has an identical frame to KG and he weighed in at 235.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It could be very wrong, but it seems to me that it's very conservative to say "Thomas will be the next Chandler" vs. "Chandler will be the next Garnett."


I don't know if Thomas will turn out, but to me he looks more like Garnett now than I've ever seen Chandler look.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> *I don't know if Thomas will turn out*, but to me he looks more like Garnett now than I've ever seen Chandler look.


The key words in bold. You'd think that with the #2 pick in the entire draft, you'd have expectations that the guy would "turn out"


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The key words in bold. You'd think that with the #2 pick in the entire draft, you'd have expectations that the guy would "turn out"


You could say that about anyone in the draft.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

Electric Slim said:


> Thanks to great editing, you'll never see me miss a shot in my highlight reel.
> 
> But seriously. I think TT's ceiling is Kirilenko: an athleitc, skinny, banging three. Yes, this does mean that you have to play alongside another power forward.
> 
> Where's our power forward? Who can post up and score on this team? Sweetney?


Tyrus Thomas is bigger than Dennis Rodman was when drafted, with an equal engine. If Tyrus gains ten pounds, he will be the biggest Dennis ever was. You absolutely DONT need another starting four if you draft Tyrus.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

UMfan83 said:


> Everything I've read about the offeseason makes we worry about a Sweetney/Chandler 4-5 connection again next year. That would make me a sad panda.
> 
> Anyways, Thomas looks like a 3-4 hybrid, not a pure 4 and obviously not a 5. Yes, I know of the talk about the 'new NBA' which is faster with more emphasis on speed and athleticism, but you need some muscle and 215 lbs is not enough for a PF. And we certainly don't need another SF.


1. We can sign another big in free agency. It is an option. I know the misconception is that we draft Thomas and we're going to war with what we had in the frontcourt last year and Thomas. Drafting Thomas and signing Nazr would give us much more muscle.

2. I'd say you are right that he's a 3-4 hybrid, and like Rodman was, he's also probably a 3 that will transition into a four. Just cause Chandler and Harvey Grant didn't put any weight on doesn't mean this kid won't. In fact with his engine he should be an absolute beast in the weightroom.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

darlets said:


> Does anyone know what Rodman playing weight was?
> I don't think anyones thinking the draft prospects are finished products.


Dennis Rodman was drafted at age 25 at 6'7" 210. Dennis Rodman was never bigger than 6'7" 228. So think about it. Tyrus, with his engine and explosiveness, has 6 years to weigh 8 pounds less than he does now lol.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Why do people keep saying Thomas is being hyped just because of a few games in March? Everyone knew he was a top 5 pick in December or January at the latest. 

GAME LOG 


He had some monster games including:

14 pts, 11 reb, 5 blks, 4 stls at Ohio St.
15 pts, 13 reb, 7 blks at UCONN
17 pts, 9 reb, 9 blks vs Tennessee
14 pts, 10 reb, 6 blks at Miss St. 

He shot over 60%. He had 99 blocks vs. 82 fouls. For comparison Chandler had 104 blocks vs. 298 fouls. His shooting form is excellent for a big man. 

All anyone talked about all year was how the Bulls had no athletes. Tyrus is the best athlete by far in this draft according to Paxson, which is why I'd be surprised if he's not a Bull tomorrow.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> You could say that about anyone in the draft.


Absolutely. I think this draft is extremely weak. We all knew it all along. There's just a lot of hype these days because it's all there is in the NBA to talk about.

Thing is, though, you can still look at the concensus top 6 picks and see that you have higher expectations for some than for others. Expectations for Thomas (immediately) are lower than for the others, and the best scenario seems to be "he'll turn out pretty good in 3 years."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The key words in bold. You'd think that with the #2 pick in the entire draft, you'd have expectations that the guy would "turn out"



This is clearly untrue, though. You expect him in one sense to pan out, because he's your guy. But realistically, everyone knows a high % of lottery players never pan out. I'm sure if we looked at the #2 picks for the last 30 years, many of them didn't have all-star careers. I think everyone knows that there is risk involved in the NBA and players not panning out is a regularly occurring event. If it was easy to know who was going to be a good player, then 5 years down the line you wouldn't look at the draft and think it was out of whack. However, that is often the case.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The key words in bold. You'd think that with the #2 pick in the entire draft, you'd have expectations that the guy would "turn out"


I do have expectations that he'll turn out. They're just more variant than for other guys. We can make a game of it:

I'd say something like this:
Thomas 40% All star, 20% ok, 40% bust
Morrison 25% All star, 60% ok, 15% bust
Aldridge 10% All star, 70% ok, 20% bust

Then how much value do we put on a guy being a star, ok, or bust? Suppose a 100 (MJ) to 0 (Yink Dare) index. Maybe an all star is 80, an ok player is 50 and a bust is 10.

Do we care about the maximum expected value? Or do we go with the maximum likelihood of getting a star? Or do we want the least likely to be a bust?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is clearly untrue, though. You expect him in one sense to pan out, because he's your guy. But realistically, everyone knows a high % of lottery players never pan out. I'm sure if we looked at the #2 picks for the last 30 years, many of them didn't have all-star careers. I think everyone knows that there is risk involved in the NBA and players not panning out is a regularly occurring event. If it was easy to know who was going to be a good player, then 5 years down the line you wouldn't look at the draft and think it was out of whack. However, that is often the case.


Last 30 #1 picks:
Bogut, Howard, James, Ming, Brown, Martin, Brand, Olowokandi, Duncan, Iverson, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson, Webber, Shaq, Grandmama, Derrick Coleman, Ellison, Manning, David Robinson, Daugherty, Ewing, Olajuwon, Sampson, Worthy, Aguirre, Joe Barry Carroll, Magic, Mychal Thompson, Kent Benson, John Lucas

Very few flops in that list.

Last 30 #2 picks:
Marvin Williams, Okafor, Darko, JWill, Chandler, Swift, Francis, Bibby, Van Horn, Camby, McDyess, Kidd, Bradley, Mourning, Kenny Anderson, Gary Payton, Ferry, Smits, Gilliam, Bias, Tisdale, Bowie, Stipanovich, Cummings, Isaiah Thomas, Darrell Griffith, Greenwood, Phil Ford, Birdsong, Scott May (the real one  )

Amusing that the Bulls #2 picks (JWill, Chandler, Greenwood, and May) all failed to meet expectations.

Something that stands out is that other than Stipanovich, the outright busts were all bigs: Darko (didn't work out for Detroit), Swift, Bradley, Gilliam, Tisdale, Bowie...


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I do have expectations that he'll turn out. They're just more variant than for other guys. We can make a game of it:
> 
> I'd say something like this:
> Thomas 40% All star, 20% ok, 40% bust
> ...


I think it might make sense to add a variable for team rank somehow. 

It's one thing to add a high risk, high reward player to a solid core with a well-defined team identity, two straight playoff appearances and a boatload of cap space with which to add veteran talent. The pick isn't expected to be the face of the franchise and make an immediate all-world impact.

It's quite another to add this type of a pick to a 23 win team in need of a major contribution to turn itself around. We've seen this film and its sequel before.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I do have expectations that he'll turn out. They're just more variant than for other guys. We can make a game of it:
> 
> I'd say something like this:
> Thomas 40% All star, 20% ok, 40% bust
> ...


Morrison 40% all-star, 40% ok, 20% bust
Aldridge 10% all-star, 70% ok, 20% bust
Thomas 10% all-star, 45% ok, 45% bust


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Morrison 40% all-star, 40% ok, 20% bust
> Aldridge 10% all-star, 70% ok, 20% bust
> Thomas 10% all-star, 45% ok, 45% bust


So, Thomas is a low reward, high risk pick?

:raised_ey I guess it's all subjective.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

badfish said:


> I think it might make sense to add a variable for team rank somehow.
> 
> It's one thing to add a high risk, high reward player to a solid core with a well-defined team identity, two straight playoff appearances and a boatload of cap space with which to add veteran talent. The pick isn't expected to be the face of the franchise and make an immediate all-world impact.
> 
> It's quite another to add this type of a pick to a 23 win team in need of a major contribution to turn itself around. We've seen this film and its sequel before.


The rest of the story is:
47 wins -> 41 wins
3rd seed -> 7th seed
easily made playoffs -> furious late surge to make the playoffs at all

On paper, the team is going in the wrong direction. The positive spin is "take one step back to go two forward."

However you see it, it is my position that we need a player who can contribute in a big way right away. He doesn't have to be a star, but it sure would be nice if he could contend for being our best player.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So you'd want us to take shelden williams #2 then?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

badfish said:


> So, Thomas is a low reward, high risk pick?
> 
> :raised_ey I guess it's all subjective.


EXACTLY.

Do you think Thomas is outright better than anyone we have (our core players)?

None of our core players are all-stars.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I think Thomas could help push Chandler to improve.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> So you'd want us to take shelden williams #2 then?


The advantages of #2:
1) You get your pick of anyone you want, except for the #1 pick
2) You can trade down to a worse pick and maybe still get the guy you want

So...

Williams does look quite good for our needs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> EXACTLY.
> 
> Do you think Thomas is outright better than anyone we have (our core players)?
> 
> None of our core players are all-stars.


So you'd take Morrison?

How do you see him fitting on the Bulls?


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Do you think Thomas is outright better than anyone we have (our core players)?



No one in this draft is, at least not next year. 

Noc, Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng would all be the #1 pick in this draft. LOL but I'm serious.

EDIT: I mean if it was based solely on next year's production...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> So you'd take Morrison?
> 
> How do you see him fitting on the Bulls?


He'd lead the team in scoring. He'd be our starting SF. Deng would be expendable, which probably isn't as bad as some will make it out to be (he's just not that good - yet). He'd open the floor for Gordon and Hinrich to score more.

My expectations are that he's going to be a big consideration for ROY, no matter who he plays for.

However, I didn't say I'd take Morrison. I'd take Gay. All of the above is true for Gay as well, AND he's likely to be a better defender.

*superdave! *has made some outstanding posts the past couple of days that pretty much sums up my view. Same physical traits as Thomas, but has an actual proven skillset. 

To question Gay's ethic is fine, but it's also a slap at Skiles if you don't think he can motivate the guy (that IS the coach's job, eh?)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

madox said:


> No one in this draft is, at least not next year.
> 
> Noc, Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng would all be the #1 pick in this draft. LOL but I'm serious.
> 
> EDIT: I mean if it was based solely on next year's production...


Agreed. This is why I think Thomas' chance to be an all-star is so low.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> He'd lead the team in scoring. He'd be our starting SF. Deng would be expendable, which probably isn't as bad as some will make it out to be (he's just not that good - yet). He'd open the floor for Gordon and Hinrich to score more.
> 
> My expectations are that he's going to be a big consideration for ROY, no matter who he plays for.
> 
> ...



The difference between Thomas and Gay, for anyone who is listening, is that Thomas is going to play the 4, Gay, is going to play the 3 and maybe some 2. I'm surprised that anyone could dismiss shipping Deng off like it was nothing, this kid is young and developing and looks really good out there, he could be the next Grant Hill minus the injuries if we give him time to develop. Why do we want to ship him off again? Gay may be the next great thing. Of course I have been hearing since he was a soph in HS how much potential he has. He is either gonna be the next McGrady or the next Dermarr Johnson, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but I definitley don't think it is a surefire thing that he winds up better than Deng.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Morrison 40% all-star, 40% ok, 20% bust
> Aldridge 10% all-star, 70% ok, 20% bust
> Thomas 10% all-star, 45% ok, 45% bust


I agree that there is a larger chance than average for Thomas to be a bust. 

When it comes to players whose main attraction is their "athleticism", you have to worry about the effect any injury to the legs or back on their effectiveness. Inside players who jump high for a business seem particularly prone to injury. 

On the other hand, there are examples of athletic players who have had long, productive careers (Dr J, MJ, AI, etc). When that happens the reward is disproportionate to the risk.

Your comparison of TT to Erob is fair, but incomplete. Eddie Robinson was the most recent Bull with off-the-charts athleticism. But his injuries, both real and imagined, cut his effectiveness to zero. Leave out the injuries and the lack of jib and he had the tools to be a first rate NBA player. 

I can only presume that if TT showed any of the personality traits that Erob had, that both Paxson and Skiles would not have given him the time of day. TT has obviously impressed them not only with his athleticism and skills, but also with his work ethic and desire to play basketball. Those qualities are ones the we fans have little insight into other than listening to the comments of his coach at LSU.

The inexactitude of personality assessment from interviews combined the the inherent risks involved in his style of play make Tyrus Thomas a relatively high risk prospect. But I'm not inclined to entirely dismiss the possibility that he may be the BPA in this draft because of that.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> EXACTLY.
> 
> Do you think Thomas is outright better than anyone we have (our core players)?
> 
> None of our core players are all-stars.



No. I don't. But, I do think he fills a need for length and athleticism, something we have in short supply. While his offensive skills are raw, he is an excellent shot-blocker, rebounder AND finisher. His big game performances tells me he that he fearless. As raw as he is, we're not talking about workout wonder who came from nowhere. This guy was electric during the tournament, and didn't have a shabby regular season also.

IMO, Morrison should have just as high a bust probability as Thomas, for different reasons.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I think Tyrus could give the Bulls 25 minutes a game next year. 

10 pts, 8 reb, 2 blks. 

After another offseason of strength and conditioning and so on he could then be the starter at 4 and put up 15 pts, 11 reb, 3 blks. 

I don't think that's unrealistic at all. Maybe useless speculation, but my opinion nonetheless.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Yup, this is pretty much what I see too. I think the way it's going to have to work is that Thomas plays defensively against 3s and smaller 4s and (gulp) Noc, Deng, and whatever bigs we have draw the bigger guys.


That wouldn't be a good idea. You're not taking advantage of Thomas' rebounding and shot blocking ability if he's force to guard 3s on the perimeter.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> *superdave! *has made some outstanding posts the past couple of days that pretty much sums up my view. Same physical traits as Thomas, but has an actual proven skillset.
> 
> To question Gay's ethic is fine, but it's also a slap at Skiles if you don't think he can motivate the guy (that IS the coach's job, eh?)


I don't question Gay's work ethic. I question his fire and competitiveness. In the defining moments of the game, I want Bulls players that seize the moment, not cower from it. I'm not sure how much any coach can do in this area. 

I think Gay will be a fine player, but I'd rather have Luol and Noc.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I agree that there is a larger chance than average for Thomas to be a bust.
> 
> When it comes to players whose main attraction is their "athleticism", you have to worry about the effect any injury to the legs or back on their effectiveness. Inside players who jump high for a business seem particularly prone to injury.
> 
> ...


My comparison to ERob is both physical and the fact that ERob's NBA stock rose to stupidly high levels (see his FA contract) because of a short run good performance during the playoffs (vs. Thomas' in the tourney).

No matter who Pax takes, if he gets injured, I can't blame that on him. You can't predict injuries to players who've never had them before.

I don't think you should use the #2 pick on a "potential" player. You end up with guys like Darko and Bradley (see my list of #2's earlier). 

The thing about Thomas is... His likely range is something between Chandler and ERob. His upside is a slim chance at being something better. The thing about Gay is his likely range is something between Erob and Dominique Wilkins, and probably closer to Wilkins than ERob in the end.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

badfish said:


> I don't question Gay's work ethic. I question his fire and competitiveness. In the defining moments of the game, I want Bulls players that seize the moment, not cower from it. I'm not sure how much any coach can do in this area.
> 
> I think Gay will be a fine player, but I'd rather have Luol and Noc.


Deng disappeared in the playoffs, no? 61 points in 6 games (~10/game), 29 rebounds (~5/game), 42.9 shooting, just 3 assists.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Deng disappeared in the playoffs, no? 61 points in 6 games (~10/game), 29 rebounds (~5/game), 42.9 shooting, just 3 assists.


Didn't he say Deng AND Nocioni?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Didn't he say Deng AND Nocioni?


Nocioni played PF for us. Deng was solely our SF for 30 minutes a game, every game.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

So what do we do with Deng then?

Make him a 4? Can he be a 4?

Gay at the 2, Deng at the 3, Noc at the 4, Chandler at the 5?
Or Gordon at the 2, Gay at the 3, Noc at the 4, Chandler at the 5?

Where does that leave Deng/Gordon? Do we move him? Or do we move Deng for a post player? And if so, who?

That would leave us with Hinrich at the 1, Gay at the 2, Noc at the 3, Deng trade at the 4, Chandler at the 5....


All I am doing is confusing myself more and more. I just want to watch the draft. But first, I have to get my chipped tooth fixed.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

madox said:


> Why do people keep saying Thomas is being hyped just because of a few games in March? Everyone knew he was a top 5 pick in December or January at the latest.
> 
> GAME LOG
> 
> ...


But he's just potential man, not production. We want hungry kids who play the right way from winning programs. Why would we want a kid who put those numbers up against those teams and then did what he did while leading a team to the final four. If this kid went to Duke the hype would be unreal. Wher are all the people who couldnt' wait to tell you that Lamarcus Aldridge may not have scored against LSU but he had rebounds and blocks. Looks like Thomas was good for boards, blocks and points. 7 blocks against UConn? 9 block against Tennessee? Jesus Christ. Where are all the people that lose their load when Tyson Chandler gets 3 blocks?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> So what do we do with Deng then?
> 
> Make him a 4? Can he be a 4?
> 
> ...


I think you look to move Deng for a big guard or a post player. Gay is going to be the SF for a long time to come. If Nocioni brings more in return in trade, and we fill the PF position in the process, then he's who I'd be dealing.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think you look to move Deng for a big guard or a post player. Gay is going to be the SF for a long time to come. If Nocioni brings more in return in trade, and we fill the PF position in the process, then he's who I'd be dealing.



Such as who?

Bec. we would currently have a log jam with Gay, Noce, and Deng.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Absolutely. I think this draft is extremely weak. We all knew it all along. There's just a lot of hype these days because it's all there is in the NBA to talk about.
> 
> Thing is, though, you can still look at the concensus top 6 picks and see that you have higher expectations for some than for others. Expectations for Thomas (immediately) are lower than for the others, and the best scenario seems to be "he'll turn out pretty good in 3 years."


No that's not the best scenario. The best scenario is that he'll not only turn out pretty good in 2-3 years, but he'll give us a major boost of athleticism now. Remember, we're not a team that plays with the style of relying on two guys like Miami. We have about 5-6 guys who are all pretty close to each other. The depth is there. We don't try to get two guys scores, the Bulls play to come at you from all angles. Nobody is expecting Tyrus to be the second best player on this team next year. If we were like Charlotte and needed that where we had say Okafor and everyone else you may want Gay or somebody. But Noce, Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Chandler and Duhon are a lot closer to each other than Okafor is to Felton or Bosh to Peterson. 

Thomas will be like Rodman. He was not pretty good as a starter until the early 90s but he was probably their third best player pretty early on just by giving them the boost, athleticism, energy, defense and ability to run the floor. Thomas can be pretty good at those things right away because we have guys that handle the load already. We probably have too many. We need athletes who will also buy in and play effectively within our system. In that capacity Thomas can be pretty good now. If we were Charlotte I wouldn't be so confident.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chris Washburn said:


> But he's just potential man, not production. We want hungry kids who play the right way from winning programs. Why would we want a kid who put those numbers up against those teams and then did what he did while leading a team to the final four. If this kid went to Duke the hype would be unreal. Wher are all the people who couldnt' wait to tell you that Lamarcus Aldridge may not have scored against LSU but he had rebounds and blocks. Looks like Thomas was good for boards, blocks and points. 7 blocks against UConn? 9 block against Tennessee? Jesus Christ. Where are all the people that lose their load when Tyson Chandler gets 3 blocks?


The guy is unreal. Consistent.

8 points 3 rebounds vs virginia
4 points 7 rebounds vs northern iowa
8 points 7 rebounds vs ole' miss
4 points 8 rebounds vs alabama
7 points 3 rebounds vs texas a&m

TOP competition.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i'm not so sure if there's an actual jam or not. 

looking at it from this angle you have

gay.....a 3, and sometime 2 (the big 2 most are frothy-mouthed about)

nocioni....a 3, and sometime 4

deng...... a 3, a 2 and in the near future a possible 4

noc and deng are good rebounders already and depending on matchups this trio could offset the lack of height in the backcourt. whether the bull is thinking along these lines will be apparent if gay is the pick.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Such as who?
> 
> Bec. we would currently have a log jam with Gay, Noce, and Deng.


I don't know exactly who. I don't call the other GMs and ask them if they're interested in Deng or Noc or who that'd offer


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i'm not so sure if there's an actual jam or not.
> 
> looking at it from this angle you have
> 
> ...


You make a terrific point.

The Bulls have notoriously played a 3 guard offense a lot in the past. There's no rule that says they can't play a 3 forward offense at times, too.

Cheers


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

to everyone who's still anti-Tyrus: it's about time we get someone who can just jump over people and dunk a ball down. 

even if at 10 minutes a game next year, he could be someone who comes in and opens things up for our perimeter guys because of his athleticism.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The thing about Thomas is... His likely range is something between Chandler and ERob. His upside is a slim chance at being something better.


here's a wild thought: we dont know what he'll be.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> He'd lead the team in scoring. He'd be our starting SF. Deng would be expendable, which probably isn't as bad as some will make it out to be (he's just not that good - yet). He'd open the floor for Gordon and Hinrich to score more.
> 
> My expectations are that he's going to be a big consideration for ROY, no matter who he plays for.
> 
> ...


You want Morrisson to start over Noce and Deng? Click


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

the reason Morrison doesnt fit here is not necessarily just that we have lots of SFs. the bigger reason.... we dont need what he brings, in a general way.

this team actually does not need tons more scoring. last year we had a very respectable ppg... and it was coming largely from perimeter scorers.



if we improve our defense, mainly our frontcourt defense......then we can win with a 97 ppg scoring team. 

adding Morrison weakens our defense. and i dont know that he comes out and averages more per game than what Deng and Nocioni do with the same minutes. even if you find a way to play him alongside one of those SFs, that does even MORE to weaken our defense, in comparison to last year.


Morrison is a bad fit in a multitude of ways, which will override any and all strong desires Pax will have to take him.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

McBulls said:


> I agree that there is a larger chance than average for Thomas to be a bust.
> 
> When it comes to players whose main attraction is their "athleticism", you have to worry about the effect any injury to the legs or back on their effectiveness. Inside players who jump high for a business seem particularly prone to injury.
> 
> ...


I disagree! Thomas won't need to be what other teams will need their guy to be. If Charlotte drafts Okafor and Gay, they are going for the two star look. We have six guys who can be our best player on a given night. We're more like the 89 Pistons than the 06 Heat. Think of the player Stackhouse could have been if the onus wasn't on him to take over and be an "all star" as mike says. Rodman wasn't a starter until the early 90s. He was able to come into a team with a lot of good players and players who already had the lead roles and just fill in the holes with his energy, athleticism, rebounding and defense. We don't need Thomas to be a star we don't need him to be a numbers guy. With Thomas and say Brewer and Carney added to the number of GOOD young athletic players on this team we are going to be able to beat a lot of teams we didnt' do well against last year by running them off the floor. Think of the pressure that two athletes like that will take off the legs of Hinrich. Imagine the disruption of Noce and Thomas next to each other. Imagine THIS lineup:

Chandler
Thomas
Noce
Brewer
Hinrich

LOCK DOWN. That's a pretty nice defensive-transition (Avery Johnson, disrupt, create turnovers, run the floor) lineup.

We don't need Thomas to be what Aldridge will need to be in Toronto or Gay in Charlotte. That's the pressure that kills a lot of players. WHY? Because they go away from their strengths to try to be what they think they're supposed to be. Pretty soon they're not doing the things that made them a top pick anymore. We can afford to let Thomas be Thomas because of the depth we have. We can let him be Rodman instead of asking him to be Danny Manning for example. Who had more talent (pre-knee injury)? Whose game was morphed into something ugly trying to live up to being a "Star"?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> this team actually does not need tons more scoring. last year we had a very respectable ppg... and it was coming largely from perimeter scorers.
> 
> if we improve our defense, mainly our frontcourt defense......then we can win with a 97 ppg scoring team.


I don't want the 'stache, either, but I disagree completely with your take here.

The Bulls have finished back-to-back seasons #1 in the NBA in FG%. Adjusted for our high pace, we're also among the league leaders in points yielded. This is while giving big chunks of playing time to mediocre-to-bad individual defenders like Ben Gordon, "Sweets," and Eddy Curry.

Throw in the fact that the league is trending toward offense, and I see improving the defense as being almost a practical impossibility.

I think we need a way to score more easily, and in particular from our front court. All of our scoring comes from 1-3. We need a 4-5 who can put the ball in the basket.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> My comparison to ERob is both physical and the fact that ERob's NBA stock rose to stupidly high levels (see his FA contract) because of a short run good performance during the playoffs (vs. Thomas' in the tourney).
> 
> No matter who Pax takes, if he gets injured, I can't blame that on him. You can't predict injuries to players who've never had them before.
> 
> ...


I don't know how you get this. First of all anyone comparing Tyrus to Erob or Chandler with hopes of desperately playing the potential card, well....is exercising poor judgment. Tyson dunked on 6'3" white guys in high school and Erob was the sixth man on a mid-road playoff team. Tyrus led a team to the final four. Chandler and Erob may jump as high or higher, but the quickness (and willingness to use it) isn't there. The energy despite Chandler's mean faces is not there. The explosiveness from both an athletic AND power standpoint is not there. 

Tyrus is not just potential. He's production. I don't know how you can look at his team and his numbers against big competition and come to any other conclusion without extreme prejudice.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

so as not to disclose my "prediction", i'll play devil advocate with respect to morrison with the bull and why pax *could* make him the pick. 

just as in a previous post, picking a third "3" while is outside conventional logic, could work to the bull advantage with morrison because of his obvious scoring ability. morrison would most likely be a 3 all of the time while deng and noc, because of their versatility can alternate between 2 and 4 again, depending on matchups. further, if the "big guard" is acquired (harping, wells, hassell) he might also be paired with morrison to hide some of his defensive liablities, whatever they expose themselves to be.

further, in a point that was brought up by (i beleive) one of the analysts on the espn preview show, most of the 3's in the league are as unaccustomed to playing consistently good d as is morrison, so his deficiencies may not be as bad as advertised. throw in the fact he's a "minority" who'll have big time marketing capabilities, AND has a very high work ethic and its fairly easy to see why IF pax drafts him he'll be a successful pro; he'd also be huge off the bench for at least the next 2-3 years AND be immediately ready to produce the thing he's best at; making shots.

the same could be said about thomas; with an acquisition of quality FA's (wilcox, nene?), thomas' impact doesn't HAVE to be off the charts in his first year. remember, the bull is already a playoff team. they can let thomas do what he does, hustle, play d, get boards, and intangibles as a huge upgrade from othella, songalia, and allen. if looked at objectively that's one guy with the talent (not even based on potential) that can do the things of 3 lesser talents. now, one could retort "big deal"; but the money for those 3 could be better spent on a higher level FA, could it not? thomas will suck up the minutes of the aforementioned without blinking and without being incorporated into any offensive scheme or somesuch.

then, after a year or two (depending on thomas' rate of progress) a few pounds gained along with the confidence that comes with nba success, thomas' skills catch up with his athlecticism and the rest is history. or at least that's what i think pax will think IF he takes TT.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> The guy is unreal. Consistent.
> 
> 8 points 3 rebounds vs virginia
> 4 points 7 rebounds vs northern iowa
> ...


First did they win? Bad numbers get worse when you lose and good numbers get better when you win. You're really reaching.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> That's the sum total of his hype to be #2 pick in the draft - a couple/three good games in the tourney. You might chalk his good performances up to the fact that he didn't show up on the video tape that opponents watched and they focused on everyone else.
> 
> The guy is really 6'7" without shoes and incredibly raw. He's no NBA PF, so he'll have to learn to be a SF. He has ERob II written all over him.


This is totally innaccurate. Thomas was being talked about as a lottery pick in NBADraft.net's stock watch page as early as January. He was hardly Athena springing from the head of Zeus during March madness. The idea that opponents were surprised by Thomas during the NCAA's is just nuts. He was the SEC's defensive player of the year and you obviously had to gameplan for him.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> the reason Morrison doesnt fit here is not necessarily just that we have lots of SFs. the bigger reason.... we dont need what he brings, in a general way.
> 
> this team actually does not need tons more scoring. last year we had a very respectable ppg... and it was coming largely from perimeter scorers.
> 
> ...


We had a sever lack of scoring at times, and I'm sure that Morrison would be a big upgrade over those 2 as far as scoring goes. He'd be a big asset if we got him. Thomas on the other hand is more of a slasher, but doesn't bring much else to the 3 position that Deng or Nocioni don't already do. We won't get a big 4 or 5 out of this draft with the #2, so we'll have to settle for a guy who can be a star at a position we don't really need. We will not get a key post player at #2, so it's irrelevant what the guy we get brings for the most part.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't want the 'stache, either, but I disagree completely with your take here.
> 
> The Bulls have finished back-to-back seasons #1 in the NBA in FG%. Adjusted for our high pace, we're also among the league leaders in points yielded. This is while giving big chunks of playing time to mediocre-to-bad individual defenders like Ben Gordon, "Sweets," and Eddy Curry.
> 
> ...


I agree, but let me also add that scoring from the 4/5 does not necessarily equate "low-post scoring". The two terms get jumbled together all the time (mostly by journalists). I tend to think that low-post scoring is not a necessity to win in the NBA; however, I think having a big man who can put some points up _is_ pretty necessary. It's all about efficient scoring and having someone who can establish a solid ratio of shots taken per points scored. Traditionally this is best done in the low-post but there are plenty of guys capable of doing this with a perimeter based and/or slashing game as well.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> He'd lead the team in scoring. He'd be our starting SF. Deng would be expendable, which probably isn't as bad as some will make it out to be (he's just not that good - yet). He'd open the floor for Gordon and Hinrich to score more.
> 
> My expectations are that he's going to be a big consideration for ROY, no matter who he plays for.
> 
> ...


No, questions about Gay's work ethic aren't shots at Skiles.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I don't want the 'stache, either, but I disagree completely with your take here.
> 
> The Bulls have finished back-to-back seasons #1 in the NBA in FG%. Adjusted for our high pace, we're also among the league leaders in points yielded. This is while giving big chunks of playing time to mediocre-to-bad individual defenders like Ben Gordon, "Sweets," and Eddy Curry.
> 
> ...



your last sentence can mean one of two things: you want a superstar who does that, or you mainly need someone who can catch the ball even.

i agree that we need a 4-5 that can catch a ball and dunk it. we dont even have that. but i'm not like most people here that get so fixated on this, that they see no other way that we can win. 

i mean, hopefully your point is not that we have to be a 100+ ppg team to win.... because getting a 4 or 5 that just takes over on offense....it's very unlikely we're getting a guy like that in the near future.


when i see this team, as assembled, and i consider the least circuitous path to becoming an East title winner....... it's by becoming a shutdown defensive team. that's the way we're made up.

if you add scoring and take away from that, you kind of have a replay of the Bulls 05-06 team, mostly from the first 3/4 of the season.


i'm all for adding Shaq Jr. But usually when you add a big man, you add a guy who is good on one side of the court and a liability on the other end of it. look around the league.


maybe this will seem like nonsense to people, but at least realize that not every team can have everything. Detroit had it flaws in 04 just like Miami did in 06. If your team plays in a way that best minimizes those flaws, you win a whole hell of a lot of games.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> your last sentence can mean one of two things: you want a superstar who does that, or you mainly need someone who can catch the ball even.
> 
> i agree that we need a 4-5 that can catch a ball and dunk it. we dont even have that. but i'm not like most people here that get so fixated on this, that they see no other way that we can win.
> 
> ...


I don't see how we'd need to take away anything if we added a primarily one-way player -- that was my whole point with regards to Sweetney/Curry/Gordon. We've managed to be arguably the best defensive team in the league for two years running with those guys playing a ton of minutes. 

Obviously we don't want to add a frontcourt player who is a complete defensive liability. But I think our defensive system and principles are strong enough to withstand a non-lockdown defender whose main focus is offense. Sadly, the guy Toronto is taking would have been an asset on BOTH ends, imo.

When all's said and done, yes, I guess I'm saying the Bulls need to land a star frontcourt player to be a genuine title contender. Or at least a frontcourt player who can conceivably average 20+ ppg during a playoff run. I like Thomas's motor and mindset, and I like the other things he brings to the table, but it is impossible for me to imagine him ever scoring that many points. And I think the days of "shutting down" your way to a title are over. For now.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Deng disappeared in the playoffs, no? 61 points in 6 games (~10/game), 29 rebounds (~5/game), 42.9 shooting, just 3 assists.



Yeah, Deng was a bit disappointing. Considering Deng came up pretty big in his own NCAA tourney run and Rudy Gay didn't, I don't exactly have high hopes that Gay will turn into this indomitable force when he gets his first chance. 

As far as this draft goes, I want a player that has a track record in making a meaningful impact in big games. Right now, as I see it, Thomas, Morrison and Bargnani are the best at that. Of these three, I see Thomas and Bargs as being the best fits for the Bulls, hence my board sits Bargs 1a and Thomas 1b.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> And I think the days of "shutting down" your way to a title are over. For now.


I wouldn't say they're completely over, but I do agree that there has been a philosophical shift. Even with the new offense friendly rules, shot-blocking, altering shots and defensive rebounds are still tantamount to success. I think even D'Antoni would agree with that.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I think we do need a gifted offensive player. I have more faith in Skiles getting Bargnani, Adam Morrison or JJ Redick playing great team defense, than I do in him getting a player like Tyrus Thomas to play great offense. 

Don't get me wrong though, I want no part of Redick or Morrison, mainly because I don't think they're anything special in the NBA, and we have players on our team already that do what they do, and do it better. 

For our team though, offensively gifted players are a must. Look at Ben Gordon vs. Chris Duhon, for example. Skiles has made a lot more progress in getting Gordon to play hardnose defense, than he has to get Duhon to be the offensive player that Gordon is. You can't teach that kind of offense, but defense is a lot of effort and Skiles is a good teacher of defense.

This isn't just for our team either. I think it's a general consensus around the league. Bring in guys who can score and play offense, and emphasize defense. As long as guys have good ethic and are willing to work hard, it works best that way.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

badfish said:


> I wouldn't say they're completely over, but I do agree that there has been a philosophical shift. Even with the new offense friendly rules, shot-blocking, altering shots and defensive rebounds are still tantamount to success. I think even D'Antoni would agree with that.


I don't disagree. But even without Tyrus Thomas and with slugs like Eddy Curry and Michael Sweetney manning the post, we're already one of the best teams out there in terms of rebounding and altering shots. 

It's simple law of diminishing returns -- whatever we invest in bolstering the defense is not going to have anything close to a proportional effect on our point differential, imo.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't disagree. But even without Tyrus Thomas and with slugs like Eddy Curry and Michael Sweetney manning the post, we're already one of the best teams out there in terms of rebounding and altering shots.
> 
> It's simple law of diminishing returns -- whatever we invest in bolstering the defense is not going to have anything close to a proportional effect on our point differential, imo.


it could have an effect on our ft differential. a slasher is still needed obviously. but the other way to address the problem is to get some shotblockers and better help defenders. guys like othella, songo, sweets get killed on pick and rolls. and with tyson having an off year people had a license to drive at will on us. we lost a lot of close games a tthe ft line and if we could've turned a few of those fta's into low percentage jumpshots that could have significant impact on wins/losses.

aldridge and thomas could help in their own ways, but i think both need some patience. i'm actually interested to see what sheldon's playing weight is going to be. duke guys are usually bulky in college, but after seeing brand and boozer lose some extra wieght they end up more explosive but still plenty strong.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> I don't disagree. But even without Tyrus Thomas and with slugs like Eddy Curry and Michael Sweetney manning the post, we're already one of the best teams out there in terms of rebounding and altering shots.
> 
> It's simple law of diminishing returns -- whatever we invest in bolstering the defense is not going to have anything close to a proportional effect on our point differential, imo.


Nobody agrees with you like I do, but Thomas does provide offensive explosion and next year is the big man draft.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I don't see how we'd need to take away anything if we added a primarily one-way player -- that was my whole point with regards to Sweetney/Curry/Gordon. We've managed to be arguably the best defensive team in the league for two years running with those guys playing a ton of minutes.


i think it's pretty easy to see it. Gordon can play big minutes out there and not cost you too much on defense, because you can stick him on a point guard. him you can get away with. but we've already seen why the Skiles system doesnt work at full capacity with an all-offense big.

Sweetney has not been a big minutes guy. Curry sat during crunch time. this is the reason. you cant go with these guys that much.


now already with Gordon and Sweetney, you want to add ANOTHER one-way player? these moves TAKE AWAY the defensive efficiency of Hinrich and Chandler, stretching them thinner and making them do more than lord knows they already do.



am i the only one who would want to see Chandler/Ben Wallace on the blocks, and let our perimeter attack go to work next year? Noc and Deng got better at slashing to the hoop. maybe get a 4 who can hit a jumper, put him in the rotation... a legit big, unlike Songaila, Allen. he doesnt have to be a beast down low.

i want to see that team. it would be better than the team nearly took the eventual champs to a Game 7 last year.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> It's simple law of diminishing returns -- whatever we invest in bolstering the defense is not going to have anything close to a proportional effect on our point differential, imo.



you're exactly backwards here. what you are drawing up is the first part of last year, when we sacrificed defense for offense. our ppg went up and our opponents ppg went up. 

at the end of last year, we got better defensively and won at a higher pct., against good teams in a playoff race.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> i think it's pretty easy to see it. Gordon can play big minutes out there and not cost you too much on defense, because you can stick him on a point guard. him you can get away with. but we've already seen why the Skiles system doesnt work at full capacity with an all-offense big.
> 
> Sweetney has not been a big minutes guy. *Curry sat during crunch time.* this is the reason. you cant go with these guys that much.
> 
> ...


Misconception. And any way you want to crunch it he played 24 mins a game and we won 47 games. I'd say that's better but that just might be me.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

For the longest time I was against the Bulls taking Tyrus Thomas, but after watching him on tape and seeing some of his performances I've been converted into a Thomas supporter. He put up incredible numbers for a freshman and had great performances in huge games. Here are the ones that stood out to me:

Arkansas: 13 points and 14 rebounds
Tennessee: 17 points, 9 rebounds, and 9 blocks
UConn: 15 points, 13 rebounds, and 7 blocks
Duke: 9 points, 13 rebounds, and 5 blocks
Texas: 21 points, 13 rebounds, and 3 blocks

Those stats are absolutely amazing. The numbers against UConn are especially impressive considering how big, how athletic, and how physical their front-line was. All three of their front-court players will likely be first round picks in the draft this year. So to sum it up I've concluded that this guy is for real. It's uncertain how his body will turn out, but he's a huge talent and has unbelievable upside potential.


----------

