# "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite (merged)



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*"Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

They just said this about 10 min ago...

They showed a brief 5-6 minute segment on Thomas, Roy, Aldridge, Morrison & Gay...

All had nice sales pitches except Gay lol, didn't seem like he KNEW what he would bring to the Bulls

"Basically, I'm another Uconn guy" ughhhh, so?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.


Much needed excitement with Morrison ?
Hes a top player but not a player you associate pure excitement about.
Thomas will inject much needed athleticism and excitement for fans,
Ultra safe pick? I would of thought its totally the other way around and might be the biggest risk pick Pax has ever made!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I'd say that Morrison was pretty fun to watch, creative player, lots of moves. Just because someone isn't athletic doesn't mean they're boring to watch. I agree that Thomas is a riskier pick, whereas Morrison is one of the safest.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Top point guards (Kidd, Nash, and Lebron at times) are usually not considered freak athletes, yet they create tons of excitement with their excellent court vision and passing -- those "How did he find him?" type of plays.

Morrison will bring excitement, because people will be wondering how the heck he scores the way he scores. From an intangible level, Morrison would be the best fit. He may also be the most marketable player right away. The Bulls would possibly have three white players (including white Hispanic Nocioni) in their starting lineup.

On Thomas, I'm finally accepting the possibiliy of the Bulls selecting him. I think the Bulls' brand of small ball is as exciting to me as the Suns' brand of small ball. Thomas would be a great fit if Paxson and Skiles want to keep the same philosophy as last year's.


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Doubt it... Id say the 3 guys the Bulls are most interested in are Roy, Aldridge, and Bargani.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Morrison is a one man show, much like Gordon, we don't need 2 guys like this.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I'm just not sold on TT . . . I think Pax might be blowing smoke because he wants LaMarcus or even Roy. I beg to differ that this is a boring team. We certainly weren't boring in the Miami series, and I think Nocioni is a breakout guy this year. I also am not sold on us going to a PHX style small ball game. I think it would give Skiles a coronary on the sidelines.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.


Actually, my thinking is exactly the opposite. We've always thought of Paxson as someone who "plays it safe" all the time. If he indeed drafts Tyrus Thomas, then I seriously need to rethink that statement. Tyrus Thomas is a swing for the fences type of pick IMO; nothing safe about him. Alot of folks think he'll develop into nothing more than a bench player which would be a big fat bust in my book. It's risky for sure. He's not exactly the pick I want personally but I'm ready to give the kid a chance; there's no doubting his talent after all. 

Not sure why he wouldn't bring excitement...anyone who watched him in the NCAA tourney saw that his excitement level can be off the charts. This kid has "big play" written all over him, with ability to make the big block and slam it down players' throats. I just wonder if he can do everything else. 

By the way, ROY, did they actually verify 100% that "The Bulls are drafting Tyrus Thomas if he's there at #2?" It seems far too odd that Pax would just come out and say who he's drafting to the press. Perhaps he's just made the cut to their short list (i.e. top 2-3 players)?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Deng101 said:


> Doubt it... Id say the 3 guys the Bulls are most interested in are Roy, Aldridge, and Bargani.


Umm...

It's been reported WAYY before the draft lotto that Pax coveted Thomas...

What is there to doubt?

BTW, I want BARGNANI too


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



yodurk said:


> By the way, ROY, did they actually verify 100% that "The Bulls are drafting Tyrus Thomas if he's there at #2?" It seems far too odd that Pax would just come out and say who he's drafting to the press. Perhaps he's just made the cut to their short list (i.e. top 2-3 players)?


No, they didn't say it was "100%" going to happen

They just said that Thomas was "indeed the top bulls candidiate and will likely be their pick come wed"


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.


Your Pax bashing has reached new levels.

I can understand if you're not happy with the pick, but Thomas is ANYTHING BUT the "ultra safe...can't go wrong pick."

And I think this team is anything but a "boring team." Don't even hope for Morrison; with his defense, Skiles wouldn't even put him on the court.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I agree with everyone who's said Tyrus Thomas isn't the safest pick. There's not only his personal development to consider -- drafting Thomas almost guarantees we'll have to make additional major changes to bring in a frontcourt scorer, and at least early on I think Thomas is going to be more effective at the 3 than at the 4. So then the overload at that spot needs to be resolved.


----------



## FireCartwrightNow (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I for one hope we play it safe and go with the boring pick: Aldridge. Of course I like Bargnani too, but I doubt he will be available.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.



Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Thomas is probably the riskiest pick of the top 6, which, if history is a guide, is very likely to be a bust. On top of that, he's not a natural fit to the team. Still, Paxson apparently doesn't care much for the alternatives (other than Roy), and looks to use the pick on the player with the highest upside.

If Paxson drafts and keeps Thomas, the characterizations of him as unimaginative and conservative will have to be filed in the trash.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



McBulls said:


> If Paxson drafts and keeps Thomas, the characterizations of him as unimaginative and conservative will have to be filled in the trash.


Alternatively, he could fairly and accurately be characterized as an extremely conservative GM who made one risky draft pick, no? 

I don't think you classify a GM by his latest draft pick. It's better to examine his entire body of work.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I don't think Thomas is the safe pick either. I don't think he is perhaps quite as risky as a lot of you make it sound like either though. I think for Thomas you have a guy who could be a Jermaine O'neal type player in the best case scenario, sort of a cross between O'neal & Marion, and in the worst case scenario you have a guy who is more like ohh..Chris Wilcox, a guy who can give you 15 & 8 without blinking. Either way not such a bad thing to have.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I think TT is a completely safe pick.

Paxson can buy at least two years of deference from criticism of the pick with "We have to be patient. Everyone knew he was raw when we drafted him. We still think he has loads of p...p...p...you know."


----------



## FireCartwrightNow (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ace20004u said:


> I don't think Thomas is the safe pick either. I don't think he is perhaps quite as risky as a lot of you make it sound like either though. I think for Thomas you have a guy who could be a Jermaine O'neal type player in the best case scenario, sort of a cross between O'neal & Marion, and in the worst case scenario you have a guy who is more like ohh..Chris Wilcox, a guy who can give you 15 & 8 without blinking. Either way not such a bad thing to have.


Thomas could end up being MUCH worse than Chris Wilcox. Wilcox was a vastly superior offensive player, taller and had a better build compared to Thomas coming out of Maryland after only ONE yerar. You are saying 15/8 is a worse case scenario for Tyrus...that is absurd.


----------



## FireCartwrightNow (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think TT is a completely safe pick.
> 
> Paxson can buy at least two years of deference from criticism of the pick with "We have to be patient. Everyone knew he was raw when we drafted him. We still think he has loads of p...p...p...you know."


Do we really need a shorter Tyson? Tyson was said to have SF skills too.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

The thing I don't like about Thomas is that Chandler absolutely has to play center, and we have no bulk down low. Either that, or permanently bring him off the bench, which renders him an extremely overpaid bench player.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



FireCartwrightNow said:


> Thomas could end up being MUCH worse than Chris Wilcox. Wilcox was a vastly superior offensive player, taller and had a better build compared to Thomas coming out of Maryland after only ONE yerar. You are saying 15/8 is a worse case scenario for Tyrus...that is absurd.



Thats what I think, call it absurd if you like, if I cared anymore I still wouldn't care at all. :biggrin: 

Incidentally, in case you hadn't heard the Bulls did finally get rid of Cartwright thank God! :banana:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think TT is a completely safe pick.
> 
> Paxson can buy at least two years of deference from criticism of the pick with "We have to be patient. Everyone knew he was raw when we drafted him. We still think he has loads of p...p...p...you know."


That's not safe. Maybe, it's more safe than swinging for the fences to get -- Shawn Marion. But I don't think you can call drafting Thomas buying time. Drafting TC and EC was buying time. Drafting KH and BG and LD was building a foundation. Drafting TT is looking for a potential capstone. He can contribute now. But he has the possibility of developing and creating a whole new dimension to the Bulls' attack -- a speed and power game near the basket, instead of just on the perimeter. Comparing to football -- more Lovie Smith than Dick Jauron-style.

I don't know if he's THE guy for the Bulls, but I can see why Pax might. Wish I knew more about Bargnani.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



> Morrison is a one man show, much like Gordon, we don't need 2 guys like this.


this statement struck me as funny, in light of how wildly speculative these posts have become in the last week or two. what could paxson be thinking??? the bull couldn't possibly need 2 guys capable of scoring 20+ ppg.....(lol)

i haven't posted much because frankly, other than criticizing others' opinions, there's not much to offer constructively. however, in reading the responses re:thomas, i can say this: thomas is such an X factor kinda of product, that other than "opinion" there's virtually NO WAY anybody's going to know if this kid can actually play. measurables and workouts are fine and all, but until summer league starts, and there's actual competition in place, all this "pax played it safe" or not, is truly the most speculative BS i've read in recent memory.

personally, i haven't a clue who they'll go with. i'm reasonbly confident paxson will pick a player that *can* play ball. he's done fine with that aspect of things, draftwise. i'd also imagine that he's got a number of plans (a, b, c and/or d if necessary) depending on trade propositions, the first player picked etc, etc. i'll go out on a limb and speculate for the euro advocates (particularly the ones *who haven't seen him play!*.......since speculating is ever so popular on this board) that pax WON'T pick bargnani. he's not *my * pick either, but even if pax does select him i'll be ok with it because i'm cool with pax's eye for basketball talent. i'm not advocating morrison either, but there's no denying his "it" factor so if he ends up with the bull it's doubtful lebron will score 50 in one half on him, cause morrison won't draw the assignment.

at any rate, i'm as anxious as the rest for the draft, even if it's only to debate the merits of the player picked for the sake of discussing something other than ludicrous rumor and speculation.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ScottMay said:


> Alternatively, he could fairly and accurately be characterized as an extremely conservative GM who made one risky draft pick, no?
> 
> I don't think you classify a GM by his latest draft pick. It's better to examine his entire body of work.


I've never really heard your take on this... do you really consider picking Ben Gordon with Crawford and Hinrich on board to be "extremely conservative?"


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think TT is a completely safe pick.
> 
> Paxson can buy at least two years of deference from criticism of the pick with "We have to be patient. Everyone knew he was raw when we drafted him. We still think he has loads of p...p...p...you know."


So that means an unsafe pick for you is a four year college player with expectations?

Paxson would be gambling more if he took Shelden Williams than Tyrus Thomas?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.


Even though I'm not in favor of drafting Thomas with the #2, I think Thomas is hardly a "safe" pick. Morrison and Roy would be the only "safe" picks in my book.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think TT is a completely safe pick.
> 
> Paxson can buy at least two years of deference from criticism of the pick with "We have to be patient. Everyone knew he was raw when we drafted him. We still think he has loads of p...p...p...you know."


Do you think that's what Krause was doing?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Well Paxson said they haven't made their decision yet, so disregard this, and what the hell is sportsnite?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



sloth said:


> and what the hell is sportsnite?


????







????


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think that's what Krause was doing?


I guess it depends on what you mean.

There are certainly similarities between taking on a project like TT and projects like Chandler and Curry. 

Its tough to call taking a HS player and trading your best player for another HS player "safe" but with the Bulls playing so bad and the Twin Teens being so young and raw, it did give Krause the luxury of saying "have patience...wait and see."

We watched the kids struggle through most of their rookie contracts, with varying degrees of patience.

It was easier to have patience with them, because we were still digging ourself out of such a deep hole.

Now I see a team that is good, and can be quite a bit better, right away, with the right additions.

I have no patience for a long term project with the #2 pick under those circumstances.

But if we do take TT at #2, I certainly expect management to play the p...p...p..atience and p..p...p...otential card early and often.

If the fans do listen to that call for reason, he has indeed made a safe pick.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I guess it depends on what you mean.


I mean from a job preservation standpoint. Using the "wait and see" card.

Do you think Paxson would be choosing TT to buy himself time, or b/c he thinks he's the best player for the Chicago Bulls?




> There are certainly similarities between taking on a project like TT and projects like Chandler and Curry.
> 
> Its tough to call taking a HS player and trading your best player for another HS player "safe" but with the Bulls playing so bad and the Twin Teens being so young and raw, it did give Krause the luxury of saying "have patience...wait and see."
> 
> We watched the kids struggle through most of their rookie contracts, with varying degrees of patience.


I agree, I don't want to wait another 2-3 years for our pick to contribute.

Here's what I don't get though... and I understand that physically TT may not have a position in the NBA... or that his current skills may not transfer well to the NBA.... that's why I'm personally leery of picking the guy... but why are we not valuing TT's great NCAA tournament?

He went up against Texas w/ Aldridge and had a monster game.
He went up against a team of lotto picks in Duke and had a good game.
All on the largest stage with everything on the line.

He looked damn good... as good as Roy or Aldridge looked. He was a force against Texas.

Doesn't that count?

This isn't Skita or Chandler or Curry or even Crawford (1/2 season, not much trial by fire). There has been some vetting process with TT on the NCAA level... and he excelled.



> Now I see a team that is good, and can be quite a bit better, right away, with the right additions.
> 
> I have no patience for a long term project with the #2 pick under those circumstances.


If I could see another player in this draft that could make the Bulls quite a bit better right away, I’d love to pick him. 
In the absence of a sure thing star player, IMO, that will make the Bulls considerably better right away, I don’t mind the TT or Bargnani pick. At this point, I could live with Gay or Roy as well. Aldridge does not do much to excite me.

I think we’ll benefit a lot more from landing Ely/Gooden/Pryz than from any of these draft picks, especially early on.

If we draft a slightly above average player, the Bulls will be a slightly above average team. If we draft a total bust, the Bulls will be a slightly above average team.




> But if we do take TT at #2, I certainly expect management to play the p...p...p..atience and p..p...p...otential card early and often.
> 
> If the fans do listen to that call for reason, he has indeed made a safe pick.


I don't think Paxson is at the point yet where he's making picks to extend his job security.

He's not under fire. The city and organization seemingly love him.

A safe pick for Paxson is one that has the least chance of failure, IMO. Risk aversion.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



kukoc4ever said:


> ????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Damn, you beat me to it.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think TT is a completely safe pick.
> 
> Paxson can buy at least two years of deference from criticism of the pick with "We have to be patient. Everyone knew he was raw when we drafted him. We still think he has loads of p...p...p...you know."


Shades of k4e, Tom.  

I hardly doubt that Paxson's goal at this point is to buy himself two more years free of criticism. Still, it is true that we probably will need to be patient with TT. I expect flashes of brilliance in his first year with some consistent production in his second year. That doesn't change my expectations for the team as I wasn't pinning all my hopes on this draft pick. That would be silly.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



kukoc4ever said:


> I mean from a job preservation standpoint. Using the "wait and see" card.
> 
> Do you think Paxson would be choosing TT to buy himself time, or b/c he thinks he's the best player for the Chicago Bulls?
> 
> ...



Excellent post.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



kukoc4ever said:


> ...


Outside of the fact that I am not leery of taking Thomas, I agree 100% with everything you said in this post.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



kukoc4ever said:


> I mean from a job preservation standpoint. Using the "wait and see" card.
> 
> Do you think Paxson would be choosing TT to buy himself time, or b/c he thinks he's the best player for the Chicago Bulls?
> 
> ...



Holy...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Oh I don't think Pax is thinking of covering his *** to save his job. I don't think his job is in danger no matter who he picks this year, because overall I think he has done a great job.

I think all the obsessing over who is "safe" or not, in the end, is sort of silly, and my arguing that TT is a safe pick really is meant to highlight that.

The way I look at it, a guy like Thomas genuinely could come in to the league, thrive and go from where he is now to become elite. It is possible.

So could a guy like Roy.

Plus for Thomas, he is athletic.

Minus for Thomas, no real position and raw.

Plus for Roy, he doesn't have nearly as ar to go, skillwise, as a guy like Thomas

Minus for Roy, not a huge leaper.


I think all this "risk adverse" criticism is way overblown.

Yeah, the payoff of puting money on OO or "8 the hard way" is greater, but that doesn't make it a good bet.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Iam so dissapointed in Pax playing it ultra safe going with the cant go wrong pick in Tyrus Thomas, if hes a bust well its ok because he was developing for a playoff team if hes good Pax will look like a genious. Tyrus Thomas will not help the Bulls win an NBA championship anytime soon and will not contribute consistently for a few more years. Big waste of a pick, he should have taken a chance with Gay or Morrison either one would have injected some much needed exitement to this boring team.


"He's not drafting my guy."

Were Pervis Ellison (Aldridge) or Mario Elie (Roy) going to lead us? Don't forget the white anorexic Glen Rice (Morrison) and Lamar Odom Jr. a.k.a. NCAA tournament Houdini Rudy Gay.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I consider Tyrus Thomas as a safe pick because Pax knows that nobody is expecting Thomas to contribute right away he knows that the expectations for Tyrus Thomas are low for his first 2 seasons. Tyrus would come in as a high pick role player, Tyrus is not ready to play the 4 and I think most Bulls fans know that, Pax will be cut a ton of slack because the Bulls will sell the Tyrus pick as a "Work In progress pick". Bulls fans will eat it up because Bulls fans are still waiting for Tyson Chandler to fully develop. Pax will sell Tyrus's potential and hard work ethic and Bulls fans will just buy into it. The Same people who think Andres Nocioni will be a star are the same people who are going to sit patiently for Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> "He's not drafting my guy."
> 
> Were Pervis Ellison (Aldridge) or Mario Elie (Roy) going to lead us? Don't forget the white anorexic Glen Rice (Morrison) and Lamar Odom Jr. a.k.a. NCAA tournament Houdini Rudy Gay.


So we should take Baby Swift then?


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> I consider Tyrus Thomas as a safe pick because Pax knows that nobody is expecting Thomas to contribute right away he knows that the expectations for Tyrus Thomas are low for his first 2 seasons. Tyrus would come in as a high pick role player, Tyrus is not ready to play the 4 and I think most Bulls fans know that, Pax will be cut a ton of slack because the Bulls will sell the Tyrus pick as a "Work In progress pick". Bulls fans will eat it up because Bulls fans are still waiting for Tyson Chandler to fully develop. Pax will sell Tyrus's potential and hard work ethic and Bulls fans will just buy into it. The Same people who think Andres Nocioni will be a star are the same people who are going to sit patiently for Tyrus Thomas.


Not really. I mean you have to give Pax credit. Yeah he got lucky. Nobody thought NYK would be this bad, but now with Isiah's hiring, we're sure to be in the top 3 in the lottery of a megadraft next year. Pax has EARNED the right to make a safe pick if he wants to. And I was one of his harshest critics. I don't blame Paxson. Thomas is everything Paxson has always professed to want. Hustle, engine, energy, athleticism, competitiveness. All in a guy who can play pretty well and was a winner in college. If you've ever bought into Paxson and the "right way" I don't see how you could wonder why he'd be doing this or be against it. Aldridge goes completely contrary to Pax and Scott's way of doing things. He's a finesse guy period. We don't need a SF. Dirk showed that even seven years later he's the same Dirk when he gets hit, and Bargs is more like Darko anyway. Roy is Mario Elie, nothing more.

EDIT: I think even if Tyrus is the sixth man, he will give us a HUGE HUGE shot in the arm as a rookie. His energy, athleticism and competitiveness will change our game.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> So we should take Baby Swift then?


Stromile led a young team with inferior talent and no known commodities to the Final Four as a freshman? Didn't know that. People and their BS with Tyrus are startling. He DID the job in the NCAA. He led LSU to a final four, when the guy I think he compares to, Rodman, was a 25 year old senior in the NAIA and never averaged double digit rebounds till he was 30. Tyrus Thomas is eons ahead of Stromile in terms of not only quickness, footspeed and ability to run the floor, but desire and competitiveness as well. And he's actually a fairly better leaper too. He's a leader. Stromile has some size on him and that's it.


----------



## DaBullz4Sho (Oct 12, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Plus for Roy, he doesn't have nearly as ar to go, skillwise, as a guy like Thomas
> 
> Minus for Roy, not a huge leaper.


I might be mistaken , but didnt roy have one of the best verts. in this draft??


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Pax has EARNED the right to make a safe pick if he wants to. We don't need a SF.


Pax has an average basketball team on his hands who will not get past the first round of the NBA playoffs if he makes "safe" picks. Also, Tyrus Thomas is a SF. 



> Stromile led a young team with inferior talent and no known commodities to the Final Four as a freshman?


So Glen Davis's post presence and 19 ppg 10rbs and Darrell Mitchell's 17ppg and 4 ast had nothing to do with LSU's sucess? Wow Tyrus Thomas must have been a one man team.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Pax has an average basketball team on his hands who will not get past the first round of the NBA playoffs if he makes "safe" picks. Also, Tyrus Thomas is a SF.


Tyrus is a 3/4 hybrid like Rodman. Also, since when is the best athlete in the draft the "safe" pick. Stop pouting because Pax came to the same conclusions on "your guy" that all the naysayers of your guy came to. 





> So Glen Davis's post presence and 19 ppg 10rbs and Darrell Mitchell's 17ppg and 4 ast had nothing to do with LSU's sucess? Wow Tyrus Thomas must have been a one man team.


First, Tyrus was the best player on the team. Second, before the run, who was Glen Davis? Also, so people put up stats. There has to be stats to go around on a team. Did you think I said nobody on LSU put up good numbers? When Davis and Mitchell don't come close to being top 5 picks, come back and talk to me.


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

The Roy says..



> They just said this about 10 min ago...
> 
> They showed a brief 5-6 minute segment on Thomas, Roy, Aldridge, Morrison & Gay...
> 
> ...




Wow dude, do you work for the tabloids?. No one here knows what the bulls are doing, let alone dudes behind a desk who can't get rim. If Paxson isnt sold, how does the enron guys know whos indeed number UNO? 

And your comments on Gay arent accurate at all. He said hes another Uconn guy in response to Skiles being a tough coach, being used to hard nosed coaching. Those clips have been running for over a week.

Ohhh but thats right, your inlove with the big men. If you want to pick on gay's words, how about Tyrus Thomas talking like he cant even read, and Lamarcus Aldridge giving the same lame answers time after time.

Again, I could care less how a player interviews, but your not consistant. Just fighting fire with fire. :banana: 

Enjoy the Draft everyone!

In PAX I Trust!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Tyrus is a 3/4 hybrid like Rodman. Also, since when is the best athlete in the draft the "safe" pick. Stop pouting because Pax came to the same conclusions on "your guy" that all the naysayers of your guy came to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, Tyrus Thomas cant play PF this comming season, hes 218 pounds! Tyrus Thomas as "fiery" as people say he is, is just no where near as fiery as Dennis Rodman was not even close. I dont buy into the Dennis Rodman comparison, Rodman was build like a Bull. 

Tyrus was not the best player on LSU, common. BEFORE THE RUN WHO WAS TYRUS THOMAS?! If you would have taken out Glen Davis from LSU they would have lost an extra 7-10 games.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Tyrus is a 3/4 hybrid like Rodman. Also, since when is the best athlete in the draft the "safe" pick. Stop pouting because Pax came to the same conclusions on "your guy" that all the naysayers of your guy came to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you on Thomas, he will play the 4 and his atheletic ability, reach, wingspan, and all around motor will help him guard bigger players. But, on Glen Davis, the big baby has been a prospect for a long time, he was in the Mcdonalds All American game as a prep and is on everyones radar so to ask "before the run who was he" is a little disingenious since he has been in scouts minds for quite some time.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



> Wow dude, do you work for the tabloids?. No one here knows what the bulls are doing, let alone dudes behind a desk who can't get rim. If Paxson isnt sold, how does the enron guys know whos indeed number UNO?
> 
> And your comments on Gay arent accurate at all. He said hes another Uconn guy in response to Skiles being a tough coach, being used to hard nosed coaching. Those clips have been running for over a week.
> 
> ...


GOOD POST!! i thought i was the only one recognizing these maddeningly daily inconsistencies........


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> First, Tyrus Thomas cant play PF this comming season, hes 218 pounds! Tyrus Thomas as "fiery" as people say he is, is just no where near as fiery as Dennis Rodman was not even close. I dont buy into the Dennis Rodman comparison, Rodman was build like a Bull.
> 
> Tyrus was not the best player on LSU, common. BEFORE THE RUN WHO WAS TYRUS THOMAS?! If you would have taken out Glen Davis from LSU they would have lost an extra 7-10 games.


If you look at Tyrus SEASON with LSU, not even counting the NCAA's he had a very good year and posted 14 doube doubles. It's not like he just had the one run in the NCAA's and everybody started drooling over him. And Tyrus will be just fine playing the 4, he has amazing explosiveness, freaskish atheleticism, a ridiculous wingspan, and a motor that just won't quit. That makes up for being 10lbs light easily.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ace20004u said:


> If you look at Tyrus SEASON with LSU, not even counting the NCAA's he had a very good year and posted 14 doube doubles. It's not like he just had the one run in the NCAA's and everybody started drooling over him. And Tyrus will be just fine playing the 4, he has amazing explosiveness, freaskish atheleticism, a ridiculous wingspan, and a motor that just won't quit. That makes up for being 10lbs light easily.


How does he make up the other 30 pounds?

Also, exactly what does "freakish athleticism" really mean? We throw around that term all the time. However, other than really long arms, Tyrus' numbers from Orlando don't exactly jump off the page, compared to other prospects.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> How does he make up the other 30 pounds?
> 
> Also, exactly what does "freakish athleticism" really mean? We throw around that term all the time. However, other than really long arms, Tyrus' numbers from Orlando don't exactly jump off the page, compared to other prospects.



I don't think he needs 30lbs. There are plenty of successful NBA pfs that play at around 230-240lbs. Some of which we have talked about getting as free agents! His results in Orlando were just alright but they actually play the game on basketball courts and thats where his freakish atheleticsm exhibited itself. He did a lot of things that require freakish atheleticism in the NCAA tourney alone. Maybe stat crunchers would look at his camp #'s and yawn but scouts all seem to speak pretty glowingly about Thomas, you think that might be for a reason?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> How does he make up the other 30 pounds?
> 
> Also, exactly what does "freakish athleticism" really mean? We throw around that term all the time. However, other than really long arms, Tyrus' numbers from Orlando don't exactly jump off the page, compared to other prospects.


 :clap: 

I think the prodotipical size for a PF is 6'9 245 lbs, Tyrus is an inch short and about 30 pounds light. Alot of you guys are talking about Dwight Howard numbers from Tyrus Thomas, but you guys are forgeting that Dwight not only *IS* an athletic freak hes also *6'11 265 lbs*! Tyrus Thomas WAS not the best athleate from the Orlando Combines and he was far from being the best player in college last year. I just dont see how this guy is our #2 pick.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> :clap:
> 
> I think the prodotipical size for a PF is 6'9 245 lbs, Tyrus is an inch short and about 30 pounds light. Alot of you guys are talking about Dwight Howard numbers from Tyrus Thomas, but you guys are forgeting that Dwight not only *IS* an athletic freak hes also *6'11 265 lbs*! Tyrus Thomas WAS not the best athleate from the Orlando Combines and he was far from being the best player in college last year. I just dont see how this guy is our #2 pick.


Think Rodman with more offensive potential. Is that something that would work in today's league?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Reep said:


> Think Rodman with more offensive potential. Is that something that would work in today's league?


Dennis was great for a dominating team like the Pistons and other NBA championship caliber teams, but there is no way that Tyrus is going to do what Rodman did. Rodman arguably was the greatest rebounder of all time, I dont see Tyrus averaging 14-17 rebounds a game for a full season let alone 5-7 consecutive seasons. Rodman was skinny in his first few years in the NBA but he was build like a bull in his prime, he was strong enough to guard guys like Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Shaq, Perkins etc. Iam not sure if Tyrus can do the same against guys like Howard, Oneal, Brand, etc.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



The ROY said:


> man, stop crying........LOL
> 
> I'm not constant with what? I just reported what I SAW since obviously nobody else made comments on it...nobody was clowing Rudy..but he didn't know what to say...it's that simple
> 
> ...


Ahhh thats old Roy we all miss and love.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



The ROY said:


> man, stop crying........LOL
> 
> I'm not constant with what? I just reported what I SAW since obviously nobody else made comments on it...nobody was clowing Rudy..but he didn't know what to say...it's that simple
> 
> ...


Knock it off. Attack the post not the poster, personal attacks will NOT be tolerated here. This needs to end now.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ace20004u said:


> Knock it off. Attack the post not the poster, personal attacks will NOT be tolerated here. This needs to end now.


this goes for Plush too, just for the record.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> How does he make up the other 30 pounds?
> 
> Also, exactly what does "freakish athleticism" really mean? We throw around that term all the time. However, other than really long arms, Tyrus' numbers from Orlando don't exactly jump off the page, compared to other prospects.


http://nbadraft.net/2006campmeasurements002.asp

compared to the other options i think he holds his own.

thomas - 22 overall
roy -30
aldridge - 68
gay - 26
morrison - 59

but of course static measurements can paint the wrong picture. augustine was 16th overall. 

ronnie brewer was 2nd overall. :clap:


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Dennis was great for a dominating team like the Pistons and other NBA championship caliber teams, but there is no way that Tyrus is going to do what Rodman did. Rodman arguably was the greatest rebounder of all time, I dont see Tyrus averaging 14-17 rebounds a game for a full season let alone 5-7 consecutive seasons. Rodman was skinny in his first few years in the NBA but he was build like a bull in his prime, he was strong enough to guard guys like Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Shaq, Perkins etc. Iam not sure if Tyrus can do the same against guys like Howard, Oneal, Brand, etc.


Yes, but Thomas is about the same size as Dennis at that age, I believe. Thomas is a very good rebounder and shot blocker. Thomas will probably not be as good a rebounder, but likely will be a better shot blocker. Thomas also has a motor similar to Rodman's. I guess my point is that if you don't like the idea of another Dennis, you won't like Thomas. FWIW, Rodman was an inch shorter and 5 pounds lighter coming into the league.

Personally, I can't imagine taking Thomas with the #2, but all I've seen of him was the NCAAs. Even though he is listed as being taken at #2 on most mocks, I will still be surprised if it happens. There are too many other good players around that could help you guys more and sooner.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



RoRo said:


> http://nbadraft.net/2006campmeasurements002.asp
> 
> compared to the other options i think he holds his own.
> 
> ...


Does 22 overall really constitute "freakish?" I mean Roy, the guy knocked as "does everything well but nothing great" Hoosiers throwback type is only 8 slots back on the "Freak."

Look, I am not a numbers guy. I know there is a difference between what happens on the court and raw measurements off the court.

I just don't consider TT to really be a jaw dropping kind of guy, and point out the combine numbers to question exactly what does the cliche "freakishly athletic" really mean?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Does 22 overall really constitute "freakish?" I mean Roy, the guy knocked as "does everything well but nothing great" Hoosiers throwback type is only 8 slots back on the "Freak."
> 
> Look, I am not a numbers guy. I know there is a difference between what happens on the court and raw measurements off the court.
> 
> I just don't consider TT to really be a jaw dropping kind of guy, and point out the combine numbers to question exactly what does the cliche "freakishly athletic" really mean?



Did ya watch Tyrus in the NCAA's? THAT is freakishly atheletic. Having a 9'3" standing reach is freakish, his wingspan is freakish, his motor is freakish...


----------



## Wat (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Thomas is one of these new fangled hybrid players. Just a stunning athlete. Hopefully he pans out for the Bulls.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> First, Tyrus was the best player on the team. Second, before the run, who was Glen Davis?



Before the run Glen Davis was voted the best pro-prospect in the conference by his peers, for the record.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ace20004u said:


> Did ya watch Tyrus in the NCAA's? THAT is freakishly atheletic. Having a 9'3" standing reach is freakish, his wingspan is freakish, his motor is freakish...


Thomas has a 9'0" standing reach.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ace20004u said:


> Did ya watch Tyrus in the NCAA's? THAT is freakishly atheletic. Having a 9'3" standing reach is freakish, his wingspan is freakish, his motor is freakish...


Saw a kinda blah game against A&M, though I understand he had lingering ankle problems. He, and the LSU team, had a good game against an overrated and talent depleted Duke team, who never should have been a number 1 seed. He did have an outstanding game against a tough Longhorns team.

I also sat through the UCLA game.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TripleDouble said:


> Thomas has a 9'0" standing reach.



My bad your right, I think Aldridge is the 9'3", I just got em mixed up, still...pretty darn impressive for a 6'8" guy to have a standing reach almost as long as a 6'11" guy.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Saw a kinda blah game against A&M, though I understand he had lingering ankle problems. He, and the LSU team, had a good game against an overrated and talent depleted Duke team, who never should have been a number 1 seed. He did have an outstanding game against a tough Longhorns team.



Right but he displayed his atheleticism on a lot of those plays getting above the rim to hammer a dunk down or getting up high to block shots, he has great timing on his jump. I think his greatest assett is he has a certain explosiveness to his game.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



ace20004u said:


> My bad your right, I think Aldridge is the 9'3", I just got em mixed up, still...pretty darn impressive for a 6'8" guy to have a standing reach almost as long as a 6'11" guy.


Agreed. His height "issues" are overrated. I'm more concerned with his strength and bulk.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TripleDouble said:


> Agreed. His height "issues" are overrated. I'm more concerned with his strength and bulk.



yeah he didn't get many reps up thats true. I think Erick Helland will get him in the weightroom and turn him into an absolute beast.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

OK. He can jump real high and dunk "with authority."

Call Springfield, Ma. and have them start getting a statue ready.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Call Springfield, Ma. and have them start getting a statue ready.


They'll get to Thomas's statue after they're done making them for every Division I college coach in the country, and then for notables in the development of basketball abroad, and then for some Division I assistant coaches. After that, they might have time to squeeze in a few pro players.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> OK. He can jump real high and dunk "with authority."
> 
> Call Springfield, Ma. and have them start getting a statue ready.


 His statue will be in the "High Ceiling" wing of the BHOF.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> OK. He can jump real high and dunk "with authority."
> 
> Call Springfield, Ma. and have them start getting a statue ready.



your right, running fast, jumping high, timing blocks and rebounds, throwing the ball down with authority...all overrated, I mean this is BASKETBALL we are talking about. I really want to see how he can lay the ball in or shoot a granny free throw...now thats old school values right there....


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> First, Tyrus was the best player on the team. Second, before the run, who was Glen Davis? Also, so people put up stats. There has to be stats to go around on a team. Did you think I said nobody on LSU put up good numbers? When Davis and Mitchell don't come close to being top 5 picks, come back and talk to me.


You're are entitled to your own perspective, but I'm not sure Tyrus was better than big baby at any point in the season. That doesn't mean big baby is a better pro prospect, I'm just talking about their impact in college.

Check out their tournament for comparison: 

Glen Davis: 19.4p 8.4r 1.4b 1.6s .8a 43% fg 61% ft
Tyrus Thomas: 10.2p 8.6r 3.4b .6s 1a 68% fg 60% ft


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> First, Tyrus Thomas cant play PF this comming season, hes 218 pounds! Tyrus Thomas as "fiery" as people say he is, is just no where near as fiery as Dennis Rodman was not even close. I dont buy into the Dennis Rodman comparison, Rodman was build like a Bull.
> 
> Tyrus was not the best player on LSU, common. BEFORE THE RUN WHO WAS TYRUS THOMAS?! If you would have taken out Glen Davis from LSU they would have lost an extra 7-10 games.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rodmade01.html

Dennis Rodman 
Position: F
*Height: 6'7" Weight: 210 lbs.*
Born: May 13, 1961 in Trenton, NJ 
High School: South Oak Cliff in Dallas, TX
College: Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Dennis Rodman was 6'7" 210!!! NBA.com lists him at 6'7" 228. That's probably reflective of his weight later in his career. If you think Tyrus Thomas can't gain ten pounds before he turns 25 (Rodman's age as a rookie), you're nuts man! If Boris Diaw can use his size athleticism combo to be a four then Tyrus can definitely play it. He will have disadvantages like size, but he will present teams with challenges that no 245 lb. power forward can present.

And honestly, I don't see how you could knock Tyrus and want Adam Morrison or Rudy Gay. Morrison is skinny, lacks quickness, is pretty much Reggie Miller as a long range shooter (not off the pick) and has no defense. Gay had a much more loaded team than Tyrus and lost to George Mason. 

Tyrus wasn't the best player on LSU? Why didn't Glen Davis enter the draft then? It's looking better but still an average draft at best.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



such sweet thunder said:


> You're are entitled to your own perspective, but I'm not sure Tyrus was better than big baby at any point in the season. That doesn't mean big baby is a better pro prospect, I'm just talking about their impact in college.
> 
> Check out their tournament for comparison:
> 
> ...


You're strictly looking at numbers, which is what people like to do. First, I'll take a player who scores 10.2 PPG on 25% higher FG any day of the week. But second, you can't deny Thomas as the leader of that team, and certainly nobody nationally is doing so.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> How does he make up the other 30 pounds?
> 
> Also, exactly what does "freakish athleticism" really mean? We throw around that term all the time. However, other than really long arms, Tyrus' numbers from Orlando don't exactly jump off the page, compared to other prospects.


When I see a 6'9" guy catch an alley oop with his head at rim level that to me is freakish athleticism that Dominique would be proud of. Now that is not me saying that if a guy can do that he's all world. Tyrus presents the competitiveness, the engine, desire, effort, rebounding, defense (man and team), power and leadership, which is why his leaping is just icing on the cake. Tyrus is like jacking Harvey Grant up on angel dust and giving him footspeed that would be fast for a SG. 

Also, Tyrus is 2" taller and 8 pounds heavier than Dennis Rodman was as a 25 year old rookie.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Like i said in another thread, i really am hoping the Bulls select Tyrus Thomas, and recentley i really dont want anyone else but Thomas, and of course Brewer with 16.
I got a download for ya its behnd the scenes getten ready for the draft, u get to see what Tyrus is like, hes cocky but looks to be a whole lot of fun to be around, reminds me of a KG type personality.
Draft Tyrus Thomas
http://www.sendspace.com/file/6yn6yu


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Reep said:


> Think Rodman with more offensive potential. Is that something that would work in today's league?


But Rodman (6'7" 210 when drafted at age 25) was so much bigger than Thomas (6'9" 218). Also Dennis Rodman finally got to double digit rebounds at 30. Tyrus likely will never accomplish that.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Dennis was great for a dominating team like the Pistons and other NBA championship caliber teams, but there is no way that Tyrus is going to do what Rodman did. Rodman arguably was the greatest rebounder of all time, I dont see Tyrus averaging 14-17 rebounds a game for a full season let alone 5-7 consecutive seasons. Rodman was skinny in his first few years in the NBA but he was build like a bull in his prime, he was strong enough to guard guys like Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Shaq, Perkins etc. Iam not sure if Tyrus can do the same against guys like Howard, Oneal, Brand, etc.


Dennis never played heavier than 228. Also, he didn't really get bigger until he was older than 30. I think Tyrus can gain 10 pounds over the next ten years. How can you speak competently on Rodman comparisons when it's evident you have a murky and mythical perception of who he was that doesnt quite jive with who he actually was.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Does 22 overall really constitute "freakish?" I mean Roy, the guy knocked as "does everything well but nothing great" Hoosiers throwback type is only 8 slots back on the "Freak."
> 
> Look, I am not a numbers guy. I know there is a difference between what happens on the court and raw measurements off the court.
> 
> I just don't consider TT to really be a jaw dropping kind of guy, and point out the combine numbers to question exactly what does the cliche "freakishly athletic" really mean?


For a 3/4? 22nd is pretty freakish.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Dornado said:


> Before the run Glen Davis was voted the best pro-prospect in the conference by his peers, for the record.


Says a lot about their voting skills. He's not going very high at all unless he grows to 6'11"


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Dennis never played heavier than 228. Also, he didn't really get bigger until he was older than 30. I think Tyrus can gain 10 pounds over the next ten years. How can you speak competently on Rodman comparisons when it's evident you have a murky and mythical perception of who he was that doesnt quite jive with who he actually was.


Granted Dennis came into the league as a skinny guy, but he was still pretty buff, Its clear to me that Dennis as a Bull at 6'6 was just a physicall specimine. He was build like a bull and just as strong. 



































Tyrus has a long way to go to get as muscular as Dennis was, Dennis was just extreamly strong it was almost freakishly strong.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> For a 3/4? 22nd is pretty freakish.


Is 30 "freakish" for an off guard?


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> Granted Dennis came into the league as a skinny guy, but he was still pretty buff, Its clear to me that Dennis as a Bull at 6'6 was just a physicall specimine. He was build like a bull and just as strong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why don't you stick to pictures of Dennis as a PISTON?? He didn't join the Chicago Bulls until he was 35. I think in 15 years, Tyrus could put on 20 pounds of muscle and end up 238, which would be much bigger than Rodman was. I never said that Tyrus at 20 or 22 was gonna be Dennis as a Bull. If you watch his as a 28 year old PISTON, he's a 3/4 combo player who was very raw even at that age and more of a run jump player than a guy who fought for position. And when a guy has no fat like Tyrus, what does "built like a Bull" mean? You're either 228 with 8% body fat or you're not. You don't get two guys who are 228 with 8% and say "yeah, but see this one is just built like a Bull."

Dennis doesn't look bigger than Tyrus at all in that picture. He looks smaller.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is 30 "freakish" for an off guard?


Smaller players are supposed to be more athletic. Who runs faster at the NFL combine corners or defensive tackles? Boy oh boy. Jay Bilas just called him a freakish athlete on ESPN so I guess me and Ace are just part of this radical group that sees things others don't see.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Smaller players are supposed to be more athletic. Who runs faster at the NFL combine corners or defensive tackles? Boy oh boy. Jay Bilas just called him a freakish athlete on ESPN so I guess me and Ace are just part of this radical group that sees things others don't see.



Corners run faster but tackles can bench press a bus, long arms and all.

My point is "freakish athlete" is almost as trite a cliche as "he's a warrior." Its a meaningless phrase that gets trotted out for guys who have more muscles than skills.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Corners run faster but tackles can bench press a bus, long arms and all.
> 
> My point is "freakish athlete" is almost as trite a cliche as "he's a warrior." Its a meaningless phrase that gets trotted out for guys who have more muscles than skills.


Yeah but we're not talking about Eddie Robinson here. When the only thing you can say about a guy is freakish athlete that's not good. Tyrus is a winner. He was the leader of a final four team. He used his freakish athleticism to produce very good numbers and wins. John Paxson said he is the best athlete in this draft and Michael Jordan concurs. Add that to his numbers, his team's wins, and his engine, defense, rebounding and ability to run the floor, and the fact that most anyone would say this guy is anything but soft, and I'm pleased.


----------



## Simpleton (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Corners run faster but tackles can bench press a bus, long arms and all.
> 
> My point is "freakish athlete" is almost as trite a cliche as "he's a warrior." Its a meaningless phrase that gets trotted out for guys who have more muscles than skills.


Most DT's and NFL linemen in general have much larger chests than NBA players or corners or whatever so it's a little easier but your point about pointless cliches remains.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Simpleton said:


> Most DT's and NFL linemen in general have much larger chests than NBA players or corners or whatever so it's a little easier but your point about pointless cliches remains.


Thanks for supporting the trite cliche stance. 

I'm not the one comparing NFL linemen to basketball players. Just working with the material presented to me.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Wow, ty just had the one good run, Morrison was consistent througout, and if they dont take him, its gonna be portland taking bowie over MJ.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Yeah but we're not talking about Eddie Robinson here. When the only thing you can say about a guy is freakish athlete that's not good. Tyrus is a winner. He was the leader of a final four team. He used his freakish athleticism to produce very good numbers and wins. John Paxson said he is the best athlete in this draft and Michael Jordan concurs. Add that to his numbers, his team's wins, and his engine, defense, rebounding and ability to run the floor, and the fact that most anyone would say this guy is anything but soft, and I'm pleased.


He seems like a good kid, and I am honestly impressed with his performance in the tourney. On court, he's got the jibbidy jibbidy jib.

I just fear he is not the guy in a position to help the Bulls where they need help for at least 3-4 years.


If the Bulls take him, I hope to God I'm wrong, and he is a true Cinderella story.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

As far as I could tell in that interview, Thomas didn't sound too certain he would be a Bull, so don't know why we should be. I'm hoping he is NOT our choice. He didn't seem too damn bright at all in his interview, on top of me not being real thrilled about him as a prospect before.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



DaBabyBullz said:


> As far as I could tell in that interview, Thomas didn't sound too certain he would be a Bull, so don't know why we should be. I'm hoping he is NOT our choice. He didn't seem too damn bright at all in his interview, on top of me not being real thrilled about him as a prospect before.


I dont know about you, but everytime they show that clip of Tyrus backing down his opponent and then shooting a turnaround I cringe. Hes dribling the ball and its bouncing off his chest and he almost loses controll against a player not much bigger then he is and he hits a lucky turn around. Iam not impressed by him at all, his cocky attitute and his stubburness to listen to critisism just makes me think that hes not mature enough for a coach like Scott Skiles who will not baby him.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

From someone from Realgm, about who is pax trying to fool-
. Tyrus Thomas has only worked out for the Bulls 
2. Tyrus has cancelled out work out with Portland 
3. Tyrus has cancelled work out with the Bobcats 
4. Tyrus has not worked out for the Hawks 
5. Tyrus has not worked out for Minnesota 
6. Tyrus was supposed to schedule a work out with Toronto this week 
7. Tyrus mysteriously has a groin injury 
8. Lamarcus Aldridge working out for everyone since we worked him out 
9. Brandon Roy never got a commitment from the Bulls 
10.Tyrus' former coach thinks so 
11.Tyrus' agent says so to the Blazers 
12. McGraw who must have inside information has been saying so


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

ok PAX is to conservtive to pick TT... I think hed rather draft LA..
assuming he assumes LA goes to the raps, then TT is an OK pick.
I dont think another combo forward is what chicago needs though... better off drafting Gay, Bargnani, LA


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



OziBull said:


> From someone from Realgm, about who is pax trying to fool-
> . Tyrus Thomas has only worked out for the Bulls
> 2. Tyrus has cancelled out work out with Portland
> 3. Tyrus has cancelled work out with the Bobcats
> ...


ok disregard my post...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



OziBull said:


> From someone from Realgm, about who is pax trying to fool-
> . Tyrus Thomas has only worked out for the Bulls
> 2. Tyrus has cancelled out work out with Portland
> 3. Tyrus has cancelled work out with the Bobcats
> ...


That, and the grossly under-reported fact that Paxson got whacked in the head with a 2x4 two weeks ago and has been walking around since calling himself "Shelley Winters with a penis" and it is a certain lock.

Sucks to be us.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I just want a guy that can play with his back to the basket... is that too much to ask?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

The ESPN draft preview is on, and they just had a nice interview with Tyrus. My wife was impressed with his 3.0 GPA and the fact he seemed smart in the interview.

I was impressed that ESPN's highlight footage captured all 4 jumpshots he made at LSU.

(Actually his stroke looks pretty good)


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Dornado said:


> I just want a guy that can play with his back to the basket... is that too much to ask?



I'm trying to loosen the spinchter and accept Thomas as a Bull. The thing that bothers my now is gee, this dude looks funny. :raised_ey :eek8:


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> He seems like a good kid, and I am honestly impressed with his performance in the tourney. On court, he's got the jibbidy jibbidy jib.
> 
> I just fear he is not the guy in a position to help the Bulls where they need help for at least 3-4 years.
> 
> ...


Honestly my stance is that Paxson deserves to take whoever he wants. I was against the trade when it went down. Why? Because nobody knew the Knicks were going to be THAT bad. With Isiah's hiring all but guaranteeing that the Bulls will have the most lotto balls next year in a stacked draft Paxson is going to end up with a 2nd pick and a 1-4 pick out of this thing. That's about as good as you're gonna do on a draft pick trade. Pax hit the power ball. And just like you can blame him for not knowing something bad is gonna happen simply on a result basis, you can give him credit for gambling and coming up aces. 

So once you get past that you say "are the Bulls going to go to the NBA finals this year whomever they pick?" The answer is no. I'd bet that the Bulls are going to be a top 4 team in the East and that's it. And that's great but the point is the Bulls aren't gonna be the finished product this year. So, if they take Tyrus and say Brewer I'm fine with them picking up that big man next year. If Pax wants to inject athleticism and talent into this team I say that based on his track record and how this trade is appearing to turn out, he has that right. And I'll hold to that if somehow Isiah turns into Jesus Christ next year and the Knicks end up say 5th in the lottery lol. 

The team won 41 games without a center. I say that if you just add Thomas, Brewer and Nazr we're back to that 47 wins and coming up on at least a top ten pick in next year's draft.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



thebizkit69u said:


> I dont know about you, but everytime they show that clip of Tyrus backing down his opponent and then shooting a turnaround I cringe. Hes dribling the ball and its bouncing off his chest and he almost loses controll against a player not much bigger then he is and he hits a lucky turn around. Iam not impressed by him at all, his cocky attitute and his stubburness to listen to critisism just makes me think that hes not mature enough for a coach like Scott Skiles who will not baby him.


Scott Skiles did a good job with Eddy Curry and got pretty good results out of him for what I thought he could do hence Tyrus should be easy. Remember you're dealing with a coach who isn't afraid to throw fisticuffs with a player lol. 

You should just say you don't like Tyrus Thomas. I think that would summarize things rather well.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> Scott Skiles did a good job with Eddy Curry and got pretty good results out of him for what I thought he could do hence Tyrus should be easy. Remember you're dealing with a coach who isn't afraid to throw fisticuffs with a player lol.
> 
> You should just say you don't like Tyrus Thomas. I think that would summarize things rather well.


Similarly, you could say the opposite and save some effort.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



pmac34 said:


> ok PAX is to conservtive to pick TT... I think hed rather draft LA..
> assuming he assumes LA goes to the raps, then TT is an OK pick.
> I dont think another combo forward is what chicago needs though... better off drafting Gay, Bargnani, LA


I don't think Paxson wants Pervis Ellison Jr. He said it. The game is shifting away from a true center, grind it out, halfcourt game. So why pick Aldridge? If you're gonna go the finesse size rout you'd be better off keeping Eddy freakin Curry. But Pax doesn't like that style and I trust him.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TripleDouble said:


> Similarly, you could say the opposite and save some effort.


I don't remember saying anything that extreme about him in the positive direction. When I start talking about his interviews and how great they make him look maybe. I just think he's a good basketball player who hustles and the best you can hope for in this draft for what we need. He's gonna be a GOOD player. This isn't 2003 so I'll take it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



MikeDC said:


> The ESPN draft preview is on, and they just had a nice interview with Tyrus. My wife was impressed with his 3.0 GPA and the fact he seemed smart in the interview.
> 
> I was impressed that ESPN's highlight footage captured all 4 jumpshots he made at LSU.
> 
> (Actually his stroke looks pretty good)


Similarly, I thought it was uncanny that ESPN mined hours of footage and showed nothing but Aldridge's assisted baskets this year at Texas. From what I've read in the past couple months about Texas's shot-jacking guards, it must have taken their crack staff a long time to find them.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I will be disappointed if we draft thomas.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



DaFuture said:


> I will be disappointed if we draft thomas.


Any reason for your decision?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

The ESPN crew seems to unanimously think that Bargnani is going #1. Said that Toronto has been shopping the pick with no takers, and they're convinced Bargnani is their guy.

Guess that means Tyrus is going to Chicago, huh.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



OziBull said:


> Any reason for your decision?


I'll speak for him.

Cons:

-Lacks height and bulk for a PF
-Bulls need an offensive post player
-Project
-His attitude portrays, to me at least, like he'll take criticism too personally, despite what his tatoos say. Seems too self-involved. This bugging your eyes out thing and screaming thing doesn't necessarily mean you have more passion than the next guy, it's sometimes purely cosmetic. Kenyon Martin does that too when he feels like playing, and ultimately the guy has no love for the game.
-Potential bust

Pros:

-Athletic as hell
-Long arm may make up for height (we'll see)
-The kid may grow another inch or two 
-He may put on another 20 pounds (just like Crawford and Chandler did........................not)
-Attitude may translate well in the end. He could be a "I got your back" teammate. He could be a Skiles fave.
-Shooting mechanics, while not perfected, are promising


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I Trust In Pax, He Knows More Than Anyone On This Board!


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

Thomas is a high energy guy who has a great work ethic, is a great athelete, will bring excitement, definietly block shots and rebound, and will run the floor. OK, needs to grow into the 4 position and may be overmatched occasionally by heavier players. But Morrison or Gay? We already have 2 SF, and they are both solid. Thomas will need to bulk up and grow into the 4 position, but we would be drafting him to play 4. Morrison and Gay are 3's, and unless you are trading Deng forget it. Nocioni is developing into a very rare, special player who can absolutely do it all. He get's under opponents skins. He rebounds. Noc is incredibly tough and high energy. He plays great D. He can shoot the 3. He can play several positions. Tyrus compliments Nocioni very well. Some want to draft a player for Nocioni and Deng's position? Only if a blockbuster trade for a star power player is immenent. 

We need more energy. We need excitement. Nocioni showed he was effective guarding bigger players. Let Noc take the bigger player. Thomas and Noc can compliment each other. 

In a draft considered pretty much a crap shoot with no clear standouts, I think the 2 pick you need to take a chance. Actually, this draft is nothing but chances, no sure things. Thomas looks to me to have the highest potential upside. We need to go for a home run. Draft him.

For those worried about Chandler having to play center, I am betting Pax is going after Pryzbilla. He will lose the cap space if he doesn't use it. He will use it. Chandler will play back up C and back up power forward. Face it, Chandler is nothing but a back up, and at 7'1" he should be playing center. He better be in the gym and loading up on the pasta and steaks.

I like the thought of Nocioni, Thomas, Gordon, and Hinrich on the court at the same time. Fast players, good rebounders, one good shot blocker, several good shooters, several good defenders. If Chandler ever grows up and grows a brain, or we get and effective C to compliment, look out. And how strong would the bench be? Add to that the 16th pick and next years potential high pick. Things are looking great for the future.

Take Thomas. It will work.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Salvaged Ship said:


> Thomas is a high energy guy who has a great work ethic, is a great athelete, will bring excitement, definietly block shots and rebound, and will run the floor. OK, needs to grow into the 4 position and may be overmatched occasionally by heavier players. But Morrison or Gay? We already have 2 SF, and they are both solid. Thomas will need to bulk up and grow into the 4 position, but we would be drafting him to play 4. Morrison and Gay are 3's, and unless you are trading Deng forget it. Nocioni is developing into a very rare, special player who can absolutely do it all. He get's under opponents skins. He rebounds. Noc is incredibly tough and high energy. He plays great D. He can shoot the 3. He can play several positions. Tyrus compliments Nocioni very well. Some want to draft a player for Nocioni and Deng's position? Only if a blockbuster trade for a star power player is immenent.
> 
> We need more energy. We need excitement. Nocioni showed he was effective guarding bigger players. Let Noc take the bigger player. Thomas and Noc can compliment each other.
> 
> ...


Great post, but I use for your arguments to favor drafting Bargnani.

I'm actually think TT is very inguiging. He's my #1 pick if I'm a Raptors fan.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

I must admit his jumper looked better in those clips than I thought it was. His 3.0 GPA totally belied his seemingly unintelligent manner though. He just appears to me to be a raw, undersized, unintelligent guy. Definitely not my type of guy. BUT, that said, if Pax takes him, I'll support both Pax's decision and Thomas. Pax has earned the right to get the benefit of the doubt, and thus so do his picks. I'm hoping that whoever they take will turn out to prove me wrong if it's someone I don't agree with initially.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Electric Slim said:


> I'll speak for him.
> 
> Cons:
> 
> ...


I agree with this whole post. All in all, drafting TyThomas scares the heck out of me. As for growing another inch or two... hmmph considering both he and Rudy Gay are born on the exact same day can't the same be said for him too? Some of the 'pros' used to defend a Thomas pick really aren't much at all. I could care less if homeboy screams after a dunk or block, we've seen Tyson do that for 5 years and he still doesn't have one pet move in the post. Bleh.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Electric Slim said:


> I'll speak for him.
> 
> Cons:
> 
> ...



The kid's #1 PRO which a lot of people miss is ............... his motor.

Luckily, Pax has a better Motor gauge than most posters. D and Rebounding is more than 1/2 the game.


----------



## jordanwasprettygood (Feb 18, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

For some reason I keep getting the picture in my head of Tyrus and Tyson seriously injuring each other whilst engaging in a celebratory chest bump

I'm warming to Thomas slowly. It's funny because right after the tournament I was so excited about the thought of us getting him...and then I started vacillating between him, Aldridge, and Bargnani. Jay Bilas did have Thomas as his #1 prospect on the ESPN special tonight, fwiw.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



johnston797 said:


> D and Rebounding is more than 1/2 the game.



Really? Hmmm. Cause our D and rebounding was very good. We still got our heads handed to us in the playoffs.

I do agree, In Paxson WE MUST TRUST.

If he screws this up, we are in touble for the next 5 years. If he does it well, we are in the championship hunt. So, I'll give the guy his chance tog et it done. Lord knows, all you can do is pick the player and hope it works out.

Jay Williams wasn't a bad pick, but was the most useles #2 pick in maybe the history of the draft. He played sparingly in one season. then, due to injury and stupidty was out of the game and gone from the Bulls forever.

Bad pick? No. Bad Luck - Yes.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

ugh...

I don't think what he does with the #2 pick will make or BREAK us...

we'll get a player that can help (now or later) and a good pick at #16...

The Fa's we pick up, I presume, would eat up the most minutes anyway....


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



jordanwasprettygood said:


> For some reason I keep getting the picture in my head of Tyrus and Tyson seriously injuring each other whilst engaging in a celebratory chest bump
> 
> I'm warming to Thomas slowly. It's funny because right after the tournament I was so excited about the thought of us getting him...and then I started vacillating between him, Aldridge, and Bargnani. Jay Bilas did have Thomas as his #1 prospect on the ESPN special tonight, fwiw.



I'm right there with you. I was hoping we could grab him at around 10.

As for Bilas and other NCAA honks - does anyone think they would promote a Euro they haven't seen? A Euro that would require viewers to follow something other than what they cover? I don't. Everyone is self serving.

Hell, look a Vitale - The worst honk ever for NCAA and he nows does a 180 and says High School guys should be allowed to be in the NBA Draft????????? Please retire now Dick.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



jordanwasprettygood said:


> I'm warming to Thomas slowly. It's funny because right after the tournament I was so excited about the thought of us getting him...and then I started vacillating between him, Aldridge, and Bargnani. Jay Bilas did have Thomas as his #1 prospect on the ESPN special tonight, fwiw.


Bilas also said that Thomas needs to work on his decision making (and proceeded to show a clip of him throwing the ball away to a guard). Though nbadraft.net lists him as an 'excellent' passer.... a 1.3 assist to 1.8 turnover ratio doesn't quite have me convinced.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



The ROY said:


> ugh...
> 
> I don't think what he does with the #2 pick will make or BREAK us...
> 
> ...



I disagree, I think it dramatically impacts us. If we grab Thomas, the last thing we need is a PF in FA.

SO, our choices then become Pryz, Nazr and Nene (maybe). Instead of considering Gooden, Ely or other PF.

Oh yeah, that's right, we still have Chandler. The only worse than Chandler would be the latest incarnation of GS #9 and Troy Murphy for CHandler 2 & 16.

Also, Using the Darko argument - How much more powerful would the Pistons be if they had taken Carmelo? Wade? Chris Bosh?

We're talking about winning a Championship, not making the play offs each year.

SO, yes, this off-season (begginning with the draft) is make or break.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



chifaninca said:


> Really? Hmmm. Cause our D and rebounding was very good. We still got our heads handed to us in the playoffs.


I heard a rumor that we had 3 players average more than 20 ppg in the playoffs and had Sweetney, Harrington, Allen and Schenser collectively average more than 55 mins per game.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



chifaninca said:


> I disagree, I think it dramatically impacts us. If we grab Thomas, the last thing we need is a PF in FA.
> 
> SO, our choices then become Pryz, Nazr and Nene (maybe). Instead of considering Gooden, Ely or other PF.
> 
> ...


Thomas, Sweetney, Chandler, Allen and Nocioni are sufficient to man the 4 spot I think. 
No need to add an expensive free agent (maybe Songaila for $4 mil).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull28.html

There are those who believe NBA commissioner David Stern will have the Bulls' choice in hand for the second pick in the draft tonight as quickly as you can say, ''Tyrus Thomas.''

That includes a Bulls source, who is all but assured that general manager John Paxson will select the 6-8, 217-pound forward from LSU at No. 2. Paxson agreed last week that Thomas, 19, is the most athletic player available.

But another organization insider insists that, as of Monday, Paxson still was undecided on which prospect best fills the bill for the Bulls, who need more size in the post and at guard.

Or Paxson might decide to trade down in what is considered the most wide-open draft in years with no consensus No. 1 pick.

Most speculation has the Toronto Raptors choosing between a pair of 6-11 forwards -- Texas' LaMarcus Aldridge and Italy's Andrea Bargnani -- with the first pick. The Raptors were entertaining offers for the pick, but new general manager Bryan Colangelo told reporters in Toronto on Tuesday that he was likely to keep it.

If it's between Aldridge and Thomas, their head-to-head meeting in the NCAA tournament might be a factor. Thomas had 21 points and 13 rebounds in LSU's 70-60 victory, while Aldridge was held to four points on 2-for-14 shooting.

''We're different players, and we do different things,'' Aldridge said. ''I don't think they're going to base it off the game he had or I had. It's just going to be what we can do and the season we had.''

Thomas said he has little concern about being the top pick.

''I'm just [hoping] to go to the team where I'm best going to fit in,'' he said. ''I don't want to be No. 1 and then not have a great career. I'd rather go down to 2, 3 or 4 and go somewhere where I can shine and play well.''

Other candidates considered by the Bulls at No. 2 include:

*Brandon Roy, a 6-5 guard from Washington who was the Pac-10 player of the year.

*Adam Morrison, a 6-8 small forward from Gonzaga who led the NCAA in scoring (28 points per game).

*Rudy Gay, a 6-8 small forward from Connecticut whose stock has risen steadily the last few weeks.

Duke power forward Shelden Williams also is a possibility if the Bulls trade down.

The Bulls own another first-round pick (No. 16) but no second-rounders because of past trades. Among the prospects who should be available at 16 are Thabo Sefolosha, a 6-6 swingman from Switzerland who has played professionally in Europe, and Saer Sene, a 7-foot center from Senegal who plays in Belgium.

''At some point, you weigh the risk and reward of using that pick on a guy like that,'' Paxson said of Sene. ''We had him in, and he's a real intriguing kid. You do say to yourself that, in time, if he gains 20 or 30 pounds -- it's that old thing 'you don't teach height,' and he's got a standing reach of 9-5. He's a guy of interest in this draft.

''I have confidence in our staff that we have the ability to help players to become better. I like how our coaches work with players. I know in the three years I've been here, there hasn't been a kid who's walked through the doors that has the length that kid has. So you have to look at it.''

Paxson's previous draft picks since taking over as GM in April 2003 have been prospects from premier college programs: Kirk Hinrich (Kansas), Ben Gordon (Connecticut) and Chris Duhon (Duke), plus a draft-day trade for Luol Deng (Duke).

''Those guys have done it at a level that you have to have some confidence that it's going to translate to this level,'' Paxson said. ''What they've done in college is a pretty good sign they're going to have some success here.''


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







BULLS' DRAFT CARDS 
Here are three possible scenarios Brian Hanley foresees with the No. 2 pick tonight: 

BIG MOVES
Tyrus Thomas or LaMarcus Aldridge. Thomas, 19, is a 6-8 forward from LSU. He is said to be the most athletic player in the draft. Aldridge, 19, is a 6-11 forward from Texas who plays more of a traditional post game. 

ON GUARD
Brandon Roy, a 6-5 guard from Washington, is regarded as the most NBA-ready player in the draft and would make the Bulls' backcourt bigger. 

WILD CARDS
Rudy Gay, a 6-8 forward from Connecticut, or Shelden Williams, a 6-9 forward from Duke. Gay is a Luol Deng-type talent and is projected as a top-five pick. The only question is his passion for the game, which likely would be a major concern for the Bulls. Williams would be considered a reach with the second pick.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull28.html
> 
> If it's between Aldridge and Thomas, their head-to-head meeting in the NCAA tournament might be a factor. Thomas had 21 points and 13 rebounds in LSU's 70-60 victory, while Aldridge was held to four points on 2-for-14 shooting.


"LSU stud sophmore _______________ delivered 23 points, 10 rebounds and 3 blocks as LSU defeated Texas 72-67 in the NCAA West Regional. 'There's not a better story in college basketball this year than LSU,' Coach Brady said. 'Now, maybe nationally, people will recognize what we've been through and what these young people have done.'

Sophomore __________ was the biggest difference for LSU. He made a huge defensive play with 1:56 left, blocking __________'s dunk attempt that would have tied it at 62.

(Many considered Texas bigman ______________ to be the best bigman in the country previous to this game)....."

http://espn.go.com/ncb/2000/20000318/recap/tallav.html

Is this a bizarro parallel with Swift and Mihm? Swift made himself millions in that regional matchup v. Texas.... the same can be said for TyThomas as well.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



superdave said:


> "LSU stud sophmore _______________ delivered 23 points, 10 rebounds and 3 blocks as LSU defeated Texas 72-67 in the NCAA West Regional. 'There's not a better story in college basketball this year than LSU,' Coach Brady said. 'Now, maybe nationally, people will recognize what we've been through and what these young people have done.'
> 
> Sophomore __________ was the biggest difference for LSU. He made a huge defensive play with 1:56 left, blocking __________'s dunk attempt that would have tied it at 62.
> 
> ...


Wow, good find Ace! Not that this should be taken as a serious reason for judging Aldridge and/or Thomas (we're talking about completely different players afterall), but the parallels are pretty frightening.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



yodurk said:


> Wow, good find Ace! Not that this should be taken as a serious reason for judging Aldridge and/or Thomas (we're talking about completely different players afterall), but the parallels are pretty frightening.



Wasn't me that was Superdave! :banana:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



yodurk said:


> Wow, good find Ace! Not that this should be taken as a serious reason for judging Aldridge and/or Thomas (we're talking about completely different players afterall), but the parallels are pretty frightening.


Believe it or not, I'd be okay with the Bulls drafting TyThomas today (even after dumping on him for the past day and a half). I just hope that Pax has done his due diligence in the matter and really sees him fitting in with the direction this team is going.

This draft is taking on an almost Krausian feel to it. Thomas and some Euro dude named Thabo. Or maybe a side of Sene. Upside picks and swinging for the fences. Moment of silence for Roberto Duenas.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*





































Get it done Paxson.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



kukoc4ever said:


> Get it done Paxson.


Just so long as it's not a....










Because we will never hear the end of it. :biggrin:


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

*Tyrus Thomas Marcus Haislip comparison*

Doesn't marcus scouting report, sounds like the samething people say about Tyrus look at nbadraft.net scouting report on him
http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/marcushaislip.htm


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Tyrus Thomas Marcus Haislip comparison*

thanks. i am now going to merge this into one of THE OTHER active TT threads we have going on.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



superdave said:


> Believe it or not, I'd be okay with the Bulls drafting TyThomas today (even after dumping on him for the past day and a half). I just hope that Pax has done his due diligence in the matter and really sees him fitting in with the direction this team is going.
> 
> This draft is taking on an almost Krausian feel to it. Thomas and some Euro dude named Thabo. Or maybe a side of Sene. Upside picks and swinging for the fences. Moment of silence for Roberto Duenas.


No freaking kidding.

I'm largely basing my support of Thomas based on Pax's apparent enthusiasm for him. I hope, more than think he's going to work out. He seems like a total boom/bust guy.

I'd be happy with any of Gay/Roy/Morrison/Bargnani.

I'd be less happy with Aldridge.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



superdave said:


> Bilas also said that Thomas needs to work on his decision making (and proceeded to show a clip of him throwing the ball away to a guard). Though nbadraft.net lists him as an 'excellent' passer.... a 1.3 assist to 1.8 turnover ratio doesn't quite have me convinced.


When you get to players who CAN play the four or five or whose main role is the four or five assist to turnover ratios mean squat. We have TWO point guards who are top notch at handling the rock. Tyrus will be fine in this regard. I think people think we are going to NEED him to do things that we aren't.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



yodurk said:


> Wow, good find Ace! Not that this should be taken as a serious reason for judging Aldridge and/or Thomas (we're talking about completely different players afterall), but the parallels are pretty frightening.


Not really. Swift is a bigger Thomas without a heart or motor.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



MikeDC said:


> No freaking kidding.
> 
> I'm largely basing my support of Thomas based on Pax's apparent enthusiasm for him. I hope, more than think he's going to work out. He seems like a total boom/bust guy.
> 
> ...


I think Thomas' potential to bust is VERY small. Why? 

1. The system. Is there a better system for a guy with Thomas' engine, defense and rebounding than Scott Skiles? A system that focuses more on team play than two guys taking over. Maybe Dallas would be better for Thomas. That's about it. We're really the perfect team.

2. The expectations. A lot of guys bust because teams need them to be a star. Think about it. Look at Charlotte and us. Whoever Charlotte drafts, they need them to be a star, at the very least a second guy. We need Thomas to come in and be like Rodman, a guy who can fit his talents in to a team with a lot of GOOD young players. If we had Okafor and a bunch of guys who were nowhere near Okafor, lacked depth and needed Tyrus to be our Scottie Pippen I'd be running for the hills.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> When you get to players who CAN play the four or five or whose main role is the four or five assist to turnover ratios mean squat. We have TWO point guards who are top notch at handling the rock. Tyrus will be fine in this regard. I think people think we are going to NEED him to do things that we aren't.


We need Thomas to handle the rock and pass out of the post effectively. Heck, one or two pet moves in the post wouldn't hurt either. This isn't asking too much, especially having enduring 4 years of Eddy and 5 of the Chandelier. If Thomas is nothing more than a glorified garbage man on offense, the Bulls are in for some trouble.


----------



## Chris Washburn (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



superdave said:


> We need Thomas to handle the rock and pass out of the post effectively. Heck, one or two pet moves in the post wouldn't hurt either. This isn't asking too much, especially having enduring 4 years of Eddy and 5 of the Chandelier. If Thomas is nothing more than a glorified garbage man on offense, the Bulls are in for some trouble.


I dont' think we do. We don't need Thomas to be Kevin McHale. He's gonna inject energy into our team and make things a lot easier on our guys to score. We don't need him to post up with his back to the basket. If he's just a young Rodman with more offense we'll be great with this pick in this draft.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: "Thomas Is Indeed The Bulls #1 Candidate" - SportsNite*



Chris Washburn said:


> I dont' think we do. We don't need Thomas to be Kevin McHale. He's gonna inject energy into our team and make things a lot easier on our guys to score. We don't need him to post up with his back to the basket. If he's just a young Rodman with more offense we'll be great with this pick in this draft.


If Thomas is 1/2 the player Rodman was, then this pick can be defined as a success.

I am not seeing any of the high-end player comparisons (Rodman, Marion, Amare, did someone even mention KG?) here. We are assuming because a player is young, athletic, and reportedly has a good work ethic that somehow magically he is going to add all these skills to his repertoire in the near future to become an All-Star. This rarely happens, period.

If Thomas is only a garbage man on offense, or a glorified amped up Stro Swift, that scares the heck out of me....


----------

