# Noah's offense



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

It's almost entirely dismissed by everyone who posts about him. Much like Tyrus last year, the consensus was he'd have no offensive game to speak of in year one. But TT had something.


Now, Noah has good hands. I've seen him handle it on the break and finish. Already Tyson Chandler comparisons are falling left and right. He will catch a pass and dunk it. He wont have to hold on for dear life with two hands like Tyson.

Second, with his athleticism alone, he's going to be able to get to the foul line...kind of like Tyrus was doing in the playoffs. Noah also makes free throws, despite an awkward shooting style.



Let me propose this and get drilled for it: Noah will be a more productive offensive player than Hawes. That is not to say more skilled. But with...yes the tip-ins... and ability to draw fouls.... he will impact games offensively in ways that Hawes can't. 

Meanwhile, I can see Hawes being unable to get off an NBA bench because he's slow and gets his shot blocked by leapers. I know the "Big Country" comparison is flawed, but Reeves once had all the same expectations. I just have to go with the already-existing parallels in the NBA, and unathletic low post centers do not fill it up offensively. 


OK, Kill me!!!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> It's almost entirely dismissed by everyone who posts about him. Much like Tyrus last year, the consensus was he'd have no offensive game to speak of in year one. But TT had something.
> 
> 
> Now, Noah has good hands. I've seen him handle it on the break and finish. Already Tyson Chandler comparisons are falling left and right. He will catch a pass and dunk it. He wont have to hold on for dear life with two hands like Tyson.
> ...


He'll be anderson Verajao and nothing more.

He'll get bullied by the bigger better centers in the league, and he won't have the offensive game to offset that.

So he can dunk. Big whoop. When did that become such a premium talent for a *7 footer*. He SHOULD be able to dunk. His jumper is garbage, and he cannot get his own shot. He's a garbage man, period.

I'm so glad he didn't come out last year or else we would have taken him, and I pray, pray, PRAY that we don't get the opportunity to take him this year.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Noah has better handles and passing than AV. He will not be a superstar but I will not be surprised if he will have an all-star appearance or two. He is a bigger, more athletic Battier - and that's not a bad thing at all.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> It's almost entirely dismissed by everyone who posts about him. Much like Tyrus last year, the consensus was he'd have no offensive game to speak of in year one. But TT had something.
> 
> 
> Now, Noah has good hands. I've seen him handle it on the break and finish. Already Tyson Chandler comparisons are falling left and right. He will catch a pass and dunk it. He wont have to hold on for dear life with two hands like Tyson.
> ...


I'm OK with your Noah analysis. The kid's a 7-foot athletic gamer with great hands, feet and agility...he's just not offensively skilled in terms of, "let's run this for Noah."

You're very unfair to Hawes IMO. He's not so much slow and unathletic as he is not exceptionally quick and athletic. The "Big Country" reference is uncalled for, Senator. The kid's a player.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i won't be surprised if noah's game (particularly offensively) resembles one kevin mchale.

that's not to say he'll be as good or better, just that there may very well be hidden parts to his game the average fan cannot see while he blended his skills for the greater cause of winning florida basketball.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

transplant said:


> You're very unfair to Hawes IMO. He's not so much slow and unathletic as he is not exceptionally quick and athletic. The "Big Country" reference is uncalled for, Senator. The kid's a player.


The Big Country reference is uncalled for, regarding the athleticism level of each.... Reeves was a land monster by career's end.

but also... during college, Reeves was an offensive machine. he got to the pros, and was stifled by the fact that everyone around him was athletic. and big. 

he also was a slow big guy that got slower and bigger (around the waistline). i hate to say it about Hawes, but 7-foot slow guys have a tendency to get even slower - no? with a high pick, i want to draft a guy who can me 10 yrs of athleticism. 





again, i have to go by his NBA parallel. Best case: he's Zydrunas. but i dont want to think of what he'll be if he's closer to the pack (re: his bodytype)


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

I understand he's a scrapper, athletic, tall, and a hard worker but who cares? It doesn't fill our need at all. We have Tyrus already. WE NEED A LOW POST PLAYER THAT CAN PUT UP SOME POINTS! PJ Brown can at least hit a jumper and somewhat score. Imagine PJ Brown gone and our front line with Tyurs, Joakim, and Ben Wallace..........wow. The guards will have to work their butts off to put up points.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The reality of it is that Pax will take the BPA or a big that is close...to the best BPA. Pax has made some pretty good selections and I trust him to make the right call here. I still think our pick will probably end up going to LA in a Kobe deal anyway, making it all a moot point but I wouldn't be upset if pax takes Noah. Noah is awfully fast running the floor which should help with a lot of transition buckets. He can rebound the ball which was a weakness against Detroit. He may not be an offensive dynamo but he could be useful. Besides, who else is out there that will be available at #9 and is a good selection at 9 and has a solid post game? Hawes is about the only other option I see unless we want to take Jason Smith higher or play Julian Wright out of position or something. And Hawes may be gone at #7 unless Minny is trying to blackmail us. 

ACE


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

JonH818 said:


> I understand he's a scrapper, athletic, tall, and a hard worker but who cares? It doesn't fill our need at all. We have Tyrus already. WE NEED A LOW POST PLAYER THAT CAN PUT UP SOME POINTS!



Do you think Hawes will be a back-to-the-basket force in the NBA? like, big time force? semi-force? or a guy who will come in and play C as a 15 mpg offensive threat...?




honestly, i can see the value in having someone come in for 15 minutes per game and be active in the post.... and he'll free up Gordon some. 

but is that worth it to pass on a guy who can be an NBA starter at 6'11"...be your main rebounder after Wallace.... play above the rim.... have a stronger shelf life. 




guys who play above the rim stick. guys with Hawes' skills set tend not to. everyone gushes over the moves Hawes has.... well Sweetney has them. I have them. those low post moves are worth nothing when you can't get a shot off. 

every rookie talks about the speed of the NBA. the speed. it's always what shocks them. for unathletic guys, the shock wears off when they dont see the floor, then see NBDL. 

i hate to crush dreams here, but the same people clamoring for Hawes i'm sure have also laughed at other teams who passed up BPA to fill a need.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I would be alright with taking Noah...if...we sign a player with MLE that can give us some low post scoring in the short term. Bring Noah along slowly.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

also lets consider the changing NBA. Curry probably could have dominated in an earlier time in the NBA. 

but we all know that he was taken out of games early against the league's best defenders. against lesser defenders, he still fell away late in games, running out of steam. it's a very athletic NBA, and only the rare back-to-basket player can rise above. there's a reason we can barely name any.


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> Do you think Hawes will be a back-to-the-basket force in the NBA? like, big time force? semi-force? or a guy who will come in and play C as a 15 mpg offensive threat...?


I never even mentioned Hawes. I simply said we don't need Joakim.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> The Big Country reference is uncalled for, regarding the athleticism level of each....


What about Eric Montross then? Another big who was hyped but couldn't hang in the NBA.

Now I can't stand Noah, but Noah > "hee" Hawes


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

I'm a Noah advocate, but I think a lot of us are forgetting just how young Hawes is, and therefore how much more he's going to improve.

The primary concern in the Noah/Hawes debate seems to be skillset. However I think another concern revolves around age and championship window. Given that, I think the age of our roster should increase the value given to the ability to contribute now as opposed to needing 2 or 3 years before being able to make a difference. We can afford to give up on potential for experience because of how much potential our current guys still have and the expectations set for the team next year. When all is said and done, I don't see Hawes nor Noah becoming perennial all-stars. However, Noah can help us get to the finals next year while Hawes will struggle to get minutes.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I think people, in general, strongly undervalue Noah's offensive capabilities. No, he's not Tim Duncan, but he knows how to play. He uses his quickness well to either get to the basket, to the line or both. And he knows how play in the post. It may not look pretty, but he gets it done. With his quickness, he's going to be getting by most big men in the NBA, just like he did in college.

Also, I've heard enough of the Varejao comparisons. It's retarded, at best. Why, because they're 7 feet tall, have similar skin tones and crazy hair? Just like Hinrich was always compared to Stockton and Dunleavy (and every other slow, white wing player) was compared to Bird. Get past the exteriors, people.

Noah is much, much quicker and more skilled than Varejao already. They're not at all the same player. I think he'll have an immediate impact on whichever team drafts him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Big Country twice averaged 16 points and 8 boards a game in the NBA. The Big Country comparison could easily end up being unfair to Big Country.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Noah looks more like Camby to me. I've seen that argued before, and Camby was certainly a more offensively gifted player in college, but then again, I could see Noah scoring more if he hadn't been on a different team. I'm expecting Tyson Chandler with better hands. Which honestly, is a very high quality thing to have.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

It seems to me like most of the things Noah doesn't do well can be developed. Learning a go-to post move isn't the hardest thing to do for a guy that has shown a decent level of hand-eye coordination. He plays with fire and I think he loves the game... I see no reason why he couldn't become a decent offensive player.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Any guy who was the starting center on a team that won back-to-back NCAA national championships is good enough to play on my team. Add the fact that Noah was the apparent heart and soul of his team, is demonstrably a good defender and rebounder against top opponents, and you have to be obtuse to not draft him at #9. 

Now let's consider Hawes. Played for a third rate team that didn't even get into the tournament. Is reputed to be a lousy defender and a lousy rebounder. Has had a very short career stunted by injury and illness. Tested out lower than average on most tests of athleticism in the combine. Has not been seen in person or even on non-highlight real TV by most of those who are pushing him. Finally the guy is 19 years old.

Who knows? Maybe the 19 year-old will prove to be the better player, but probably not this year, next year or the year after that. On the other hand, of all the bigs talked about on this board, Hawes clearly has the best chance at becoming a bust. A bust because of recurrent health problems. A bust because he can't play defense in the pros. A bust because he has no hops and can't rebound, dunk or block shots. A bust because he's underweight and he can't run the floor or set an effective pic. A bust because he turns out to be a reincarnation of Dragan Tarlac or maybe Dan Gadzuric. The only way to be sure that he won't be a bust is to have the chance to see him play in person against quality opposition and have him examined by physicians. Thank goodness Paxson has had that opportunity.

If Paxson has the opportunity to choose between the two players in the #9 spot and chooses Hawes, it will be in part because he had the opportunity to see the two players compete against each other in a workout -- which is something we fans have not had. Still, I'd be nervous. Noah is a known quantity who will unquestionably do well in the NBA (barring injury). Hawes is at best a crap shoot.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

PC Load, good to see you around!

I shamefully admit, the Noah/Varejao comparison has crossed my mind a few times (though I don't think I've said it aloud...yet). Yeah, maybe it's the exterior. But surely it has something to do with how both guys make a living off floor burns, and occasionally run around like a chicken with its head cut off. In other words, I do see some parallels in their style of play. They're all about hustle and passion, and using their endless motor to outwork opponents. However, I do see Noah as the smarter player (Varejao is a real bonehead at times) and that could go a long way.

[Sidenote: My quack theory on the hair style similarity is that both guys are wild, high energy fellows who feel the need to express themselves through rather large masses of hair...but that's way beside the point ]


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Any guy who was the starting center on a team that won back-to-back NCAA national championships is good enough to play on my team. Add the fact that Noah was the apparent heart and soul of his team, is demonstrably a good defender and rebounder against top opponents, and you have to be obtuse to not draft him at #9.
> 
> Now let's consider Hawes. Played for a third rate team that didn't even get into the tournament. Is reputed to be a lousy defender and a lousy rebounder. Has had a very short career stunted by injury and illness. Tested out lower than average on most tests of athleticism in the combine. Has not been seen in person or even on non-highlight real TV by most of those who are pushing him. Finally the guy is 19 years old.
> 
> ...


woah there, I am no big Hawes fan, I am lukewarm about him at best but he certainly can dunk, rebound and set picks. I don't think he is all that underweight either, he weighs as much as Yao or Noah.

ACE


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> It's almost entirely dismissed by everyone who posts about him. Much like Tyrus last year, the consensus was he'd have no offensive game to speak of in year one. But TT had something.
> 
> 
> Now, Noah has good hands. I've seen him handle it on the break and finish. Already Tyson Chandler comparisons are falling left and right. He will catch a pass and dunk it. He wont have to hold on for dear life with two hands like Tyson.
> ...


This almost mirrors my thinking on Noah. I don't agree with being so down on Hawes, but I definitely prefer Noah to Hawes if both were available.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Any guy who was the starting center on a team that won back-to-back NCAA national championships is good enough to play on my team. Add the fact that Noah was the apparent heart and soul of his team, is demonstrably a good defender and rebounder against top opponents, and you have to be obtuse to not draft him at #9.
> 
> Now let's consider Hawes. Played for a third rate team that didn't even get into the tournament. Is reputed to be a lousy defender and a lousy rebounder. Has had a very short career stunted by injury and illness. Tested out lower than average on most tests of athleticism in the combine. Has not been seen in person or even on non-highlight real TV by most of those who are pushing him. Finally the guy is 19 years old.
> 
> ...


In defense of Hawes, the guy only missed 1 game this year (sprained ankle?) so he deserves some credit for playing through some health issues. You might even argue that it shows some toughness and grit on his part.

You could also argue that his young age is a bonus, considering he already did some really good things at the college level. I mean, what was Noah doing as a freshman at Florida? Nobody even knew who he was yet, with good reason.

If Hawes is averaging 15 & 6 as a freshman, normal growth trends suggest he could easily average 20 ppg as a sophomore, if he stayed in school. I would think that makes him a coveted prospect.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> woah there, I am no big Hawes fan, I am lukewarm about him at best but he certainly can dunk, rebound and set picks. I don't think he is all that underweight either, he weighs as much as Yao or Noah.
> 
> ACE


All I know is what I see in highlight films and read. I haven't seen him get his wrist about the rim. His rebounding stats speak for themselves, but his lousy standing vertical suggests his problem is more physical limitation than having an aggressive teammate. As to picks -- it's one thing to set a pick in the slower college game and it's another to do it in the pros. You have to be both quick and strong. Hawes doesn't appear to have either virtue. But again, I have to admit that the sources of my information are pitifully limited. 

If Hawes dominated Noah in the workouts, I would change my mind in an eye-blink.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kwame Brown famously dominated Tyson Chandler in a workout and got drafted #1 because of it


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Kwame Brown famously dominated Tyson Chandler in a workout and got drafted #1 because of it


High school player vs high school player. Ugh. Your first reaction would be to tell both of them to go to college and come back in four years. They'd both be better players (and better people) today if they had.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Kwame Brown famously dominated Tyson Chandler in a workout and got drafted #1 because of it


I bet Kwame could still dominate Chandler 1 on 1. I also wonder where he would be drafted if we had that one over again.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DengNabbit said:


> Meanwhile, I can see Hawes being unable to get off an NBA bench because he's slow and gets his shot blocked by leapers. I know the "Big Country" comparison is flawed, but Reeves once had all the same expectations. I just have to go with the already-existing parallels in the NBA, and unathletic low post centers do not fill it up offensively.


Everyone here makes it sound like Big Country Reeves wasn't a good player. He was a 16 ppg, 8 rpg, 1 bpg center who was consistent until he got hurt. If Hawes turns into a 16 ppg, 8 rpg, 1 bpg center for 10 years, I would be elated. Especially playing alongside Tyrus, Luol, Ben and Kirk.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

There's a lot of "Tyson Chandler with better hands" statements going about - didnt Chandler shoot 60% this year?

(just checking on nba.com)

yup, 624% on shots in 34 mpg (on roughly 6 or 7 attempts per game)

Noah is acknowledged as a better offensive player than Tyson, yes?
Sounds good to me..
A 7 footer with a 37" vertical and good hands who sounds better on offence than any big the Bulls have currently. The fact that he's a good rebounder defender and shotblocker, plus a Skiles-type player, maes me think that unless someone who's amazingly better (ie Brandan Wright) is available, Noah's the best pick to make at #9. 
Better than Hawes for sure, and Yi, well, is a jumpshooting 7footer really what the Bulls need? 
Forget all the "brilliant handles" etc crap, same was said about Bargnani.


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

another + in Noah's favor as a bull is that he seems to have a very high B-ball iq. The defensive system we run (same as spurs) requires very smart big men. I think one of the reasons some of the big guys like sweetney, and to a lesser degree Chandler have had higher foul rates here than at there other stops is we ask a lot more of our big men on D, and if they are not on the ball, they pick up fouls due to their slow rotation or rx.

Noah is not a player without flaws, but one would think he'd be solid on that part of the floor. If he can pass and do enough on the block to hold his man I'd take that.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Swan said:


> *another + in Noah's favor as a bull is* that he seems to have a very high B-ball iq. The defensive system we run (same as spurs) requires very smart big men. I think one of the reasons some of the big guys like sweetney, and to a lesser degree Chandler have had higher foul rates here than at there other stops is we ask a lot more of our big men on D, and if they are not on the ball, they pick up fouls due to their slow rotation or rx.
> 
> Noah is not a player without flaws, but one would think he'd be solid on that part of the floor. If he can pass and do enough on the block to hold his man I'd take that.


To add to that, we could get rid of Wallace's disgusting contract sooner than expected.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

noah and hawes are about 50/50 to me.
i think either one can succeed in our system.

the beauty of it is we're bringing in someone to be what the fourth or fifth scoring option?
if they can develop into the third option then brillant.

noah i can see coming off a pick and roll and being able to drive or pass.
hawes is just as good of a passer (if not better) and his mid range jumper makes him a two way threat in his own way.

all this talk about hawes being overwhelmed by the athleticism in the nba is a stretch imo.
he seemed to do pretty well against UCLA. 
no seven footers but lots of athletes on that roster.
no problem controlling the boards, no problem defending their guards in the paint.
maybe this was his only good game of the season. 
but when i saw it, i saw a big guy that did damage on the offensive end from the outside with his passing and jumper, and on the inside with an array of post moves.

S. Hawes 33 minutes, 6-12 fgs, 15 rebs, 3 assists, 5 blocks, 13 points
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/boxscore;_ylt=AqbijocO.hnRnCrMjeqOPssSvbYF?gid=200703030630


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Noah looks more like Camby to me. I've seen that argued before, and Camby was certainly a more offensively gifted player in college, but then again, I could see Noah scoring more if he hadn't been on a different team. I'm expecting Tyson Chandler with better hands. Which honestly, is a very high quality thing to have.


I can see some Camby in Noah's game, yeah. With his ability to run the floor and rebound and defend, I also see some Larry Nance...who was Camby before Camby, for those of you who aren't old enough to remember.

This does not constitute an endorsement of Noah in any way -- I personally find the kid unlikeable. But I don't think he's a bust waiting to happen, either.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Larry Nance was damn good -- and those Cav's teams back then were damn good.

There is a reason "The Shot" was "The Shot."

It was tough to get past Cleveland and nobody expected the Bulls to do it.


Here are some of Larry's finer moves, from dunk contests, etc.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMlU8ICH6lU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMlU8ICH6lU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> It's almost entirely dismissed by everyone who posts about him. Much like Tyrus last year, the consensus was he'd have no offensive game to speak of in year one. But TT had something.


The Tyrus comparison is interesting because their offensive numbers in the NCAA are actually pretty similar. I'm not sure I'm convinced that most players with Tyrus' statistical profile have the same offensive potential he showed as a rookie. The more I think of it, it seems somewhat surprising that he turned out to be such a solid offensive prospect. I can remember pegging his ceiling around 14 or 15 PPG at the beginning of the season and I now consider it to be much higher. Some of that may be a result of the way Tyrus was used in college. I recall him complaining that the offense didn't play to his strengths very well. Once the workouts started he was purportedly a very different looking offensive player, displaying ball handling and jump shooting skills. Supposedly Noah's jumper is also looking better right now - that probably happens with a lot of players - but I haven't heard stories of him shooting lots of threes the way that Tyrus supposedly did last year.



DengNabbit said:


> Now, Noah has good hands. I've seen him handle it on the break and finish. Already Tyson Chandler comparisons are falling left and right. He will catch a pass and dunk it. He wont have to hold on for dear life with two hands like Tyson.


I think Tyson comparisons are a bit inappropriate because he was a much better offensive prospect than either Tyrus or Noah when he was drafted (scored plenty in high school, was a good outside shooter, KG comparisons, etc.) he just inexplicably regressed offensively almost every season. He still hasn't matched the offensive production he showed as a 19 year old second year player.



DengNabbit said:


> Second, with his athleticism alone, he's going to be able to get to the foul line...kind of like Tyrus was doing in the playoffs. Noah also makes free throws, despite an awkward shooting style.


That's an interesting thought. He's athletic, tall, and got to the line plenty at Florida. I'm still a bit reluctant with the Tyrus' comparisons though.



DengNabbit said:


> Let me propose this and get drilled for it: Noah will be a more productive offensive player than Hawes. That is not to say more skilled. But with...yes the tip-ins... and ability to draw fouls.... he will impact games offensively in ways that Hawes can't.
> 
> Meanwhile, I can see Hawes being unable to get off an NBA bench because he's slow and gets his shot blocked by leapers. I know the "Big Country" comparison is flawed, but Reeves once had all the same expectations. I just have to go with the already-existing parallels in the NBA, and unathletic low post centers do not fill it up offensively.
> 
> OK, Kill me!!!


Of course Noah will impact in ways Hawes can't but the reverse is certainly also true. They're very different players. You won't be able to feed Noah in or near the paint and get a basket with a hook shot or turnaround jumper the way you will be able to with Hawes. The reason Hawes is generally preferred is that the ways he impacts the game fills a bigger need for the Bulls than the way Noah will impact the game. That seemingly holds true in light of your comparisons between Tyrus and Noah.

I don't think Hawes is slow. He performed pretty well on the lane agility test and in all the video I've seen he looks reasonably quick with his turnaround moves. He seems to have a good hook shot and those are difficult to block without a weak side defender roaming over, in which case his outstanding passing figures to come in handy. I also take issue with the term "unathletic." Chad Ford has done a good job distinguishing between a player who's unathletic (the example he gives is Hibbert) and a player like Hawes who is merely average athletically. You can probably count the athletic centers in the league on two hands (Duncan, Shaq, Amare, JO, Howard, Okafor, Curry, Wallace, Gasol and a few others on who you consider a center). Plenty of the starting centers that log major minutes and contribute to their teams aren't great athletes: Kristic, Miller (until recently at least), Pachulia, and Z to name a few.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Any guy who was the starting center on a team that won back-to-back NCAA national championships is good enough to play on my team.


Yikes. I'm not willing to place nearly that much emphasis on team success, especially in the NCAA. 



McBulls said:


> Add the fact that Noah was the apparent heart and soul of his team, is demonstrably a good defender and rebounder against top opponents, and you have to be obtuse to not draft him at #9.
> 
> Now let's consider Hawes. Played for a third rate team that didn't even get into the tournament.


The "heart and soul of his team"? Is that a chemistry or intangibles argument? Cause those are pretty low on my list of qualities when evaluating prospects. Two of his teammates are likely going to be drafted ahead of him and for good reason in my opinion. Hawes played in the PAC-10, not division three. Do you really think his numbers should be heavily discounted compared to Noah's because of they level of competition they faced? 



McBulls said:


> Is reputed to be a lousy defender and a lousy rebounder.


Reputed is the key word there. I don't expect him to be particularly strong at either but how much of a liability he'll be is still a bit up in the air. Noah is reputed to be lousy on offense.



McBulls said:


> Has had a very short career stunted by injury and illness.


Since when is it reckless to draft a player with "only" 31 college games under his belt? An inordinate amount of international players, high school players, and college freshman have been drafted in the last decade and a lot of them have been very successful.



McBulls said:


> Tested out lower than average on most tests of athleticism in the combine.


I guess that depends in what sense you mean average. He's considered average athletically and tested worse than players considered above average athletically for NBA centers so I'm not sure that necessarily means he's below average.



McBulls said:


> Has not been seen in person or even on non-highlight real TV by most of those who are pushing him.


I don't place much emphasis on my own scouting judgments because...I'm not a scout. The guys who are considered amongst the best in the world seem to have reached a consensus that Hawes is a lottery pick and presumably they've seen him play plenty. 



McBulls said:


> Finally the guy is 19 years old.


Again, you're really arguing that it's generally unwise to draft a college freshman? This is pretty shocking to me.



McBulls said:


> Who knows? Maybe the 19 year-old will prove to be the better player, but probably not this year, next year or the year after that. On the other hand, of all the bigs talked about on this board, Hawes clearly has the best chance at becoming a bust. A bust because of recurrent health problems. A bust because he can't play defense in the pros.


Maybe I missed something but what recurrent health problems has he had? Someone mentioned an ankle injury that led him to miss one game and as far as I know his illness was a one time thing that he's completely recovered from. 



McBulls said:


> A bust because he has no hops and can't rebound, dunk or block shots.


He's not a great all around player - neither is Noah - or a great athlete. He certainly wouldn't be the first to have a good NBA career despite those shortcomings. 



McBulls said:


> A bust because he's underweight


That usually applies to about 80% of prospects entering the draft. Durant is a twig, Brewer is working hard with a trainer to add weight, Yi is rail thin, and Noah is listed at the same weight as Hawes. You seem to be criticizing Hawes for being an NBA prospect that's not NBA ready and that strikes me as pretty strange. 

[/QUOTE]and he can't run the floor[/QUOTE]

He came within 4 hundredths of a second of Noah in the 3/4 quart sprint at the combine.

[/QUOTE]or set an effective pic.[/QUOTE]

I agree that this seems like a bit of a stretch.

[/QUOTE]A bust because he turns out to be a reincarnation of Dragan Tarlac or maybe Dan Gadzuric.[/QUOTE]

At least production wise, Gadzuric seems more like Noah: a good rebounding and defense player without much of an offensive game. Hawes' offensive production as a freshman trumps all four of Gadzuric's seasons at UCLA (career high 11.7 PPG). 

[/QUOTE]The only way to be sure that he won't be a bust is to have the chance to see him play in person against quality opposition and have him examined by physicians. Thank goodness Paxson has had that opportunity.

If Paxson has the opportunity to choose between the two players in the #9 spot and chooses Hawes, it will be in part because he had the opportunity to see the two players compete against each other in a workout -- which is something we fans have not had. Still, I'd be nervous. Noah is a known quantity who will unquestionably do well in the NBA (barring injury). Hawes is at best a crap shoot.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, in Pax we trust. I'm just not sure I agree with this guilty until proven innocent approach with Hawes. Scouts can get a pretty good read on a player after an entire season playing for a big D1 school and he's well liked. 



McBulls said:


> All I know is what I see in highlight films and read. I haven't seen him get his wrist about the rim.


It's not jaw dropping but his wrist appears to be above the rim in this one. 

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BrAIM1MFE-Y"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BrAIM1MFE-Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

* Thunder, I barely remember Larry Nance 
* Jeremy, I'm sorry, but except for his agility, which is good, Hawes was really bottom of the barrel. He was not fast down the court and he is a poor leaper compared to every decent center for which there's a measurement. I'd be willing to bet Krstic (maybe not after the ACL?) and Pachulia would beat him handily in both those categories.

* And that leads to the larger point. One thing that Pax does that I like, is he really does seem to consider the ability to play at a high tempo an important asset. We want smart players who can control the tempo, rebound and play defense. Noah fits the model perfectly. With the way the rules have evolved in the last couple of years, I think the Bulls are right to do that. Hawes, on the other hand, seems to be the prototype the Bulls and the league in general are moving away from.

* The major problem I see with Noah is that yeah, even if it's not as bad as speculated, it's not what anyone would call ideal either. If I were to pick a guy who I thought, other things being equal, was the last guy I wanted to pair with Ben Wallace, it'd be Noah. And unless Tyrus develops, I don't think he fits paticularly well with either of them, though obviously we have a lot riding on him shooting a jumper.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> * Thunder, I barely remember Larry Nance
> * Jeremy, I'm sorry, but except for his agility, which is good, Hawes was really bottom of the barrel. He was not fast down the court and he is a poor leaper compared to every decent center for which there's a measurement. I'd be willing to bet Krstic (maybe not after the ACL?) and Pachulia would beat him handily in both those categories.
> 
> * And that leads to the larger point. One thing that Pax does that I like, is he really does seem to consider the ability to play at a high tempo an important asset. We want smart players who can control the tempo, rebound and play defense. Noah fits the model perfectly. With the way the rules have evolved in the last couple of years, I think the Bulls are right to do that. Hawes, on the other hand, seems to be the prototype the Bulls and the league in general are moving away from.
> ...


Pachuila is definitly a player i would want to nab from the Hawks if possible. I wouldn't mind trying to nab either Pachuila or Williams from them if they go for another forward which they probably will.

Wallace, Pachuila, Tyrus, Noc and Hinrich would be fun to watch.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Noah's most outstanding offensive skill for a big man is his ball handling. The problem is, ball handling ranks about #36 on the list of useful big man skills.

On the other hand, he is severely stunted in the following areas: 

1. No low post moves.
2. Horrible jump shot mechanics.
3. No strength and no frame to add strength.
4. Short arms.

Those weaknesses combined with his advanced age for a prospect leave me wondering how on earth he could be considered to be a lottery-worthy prospect.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> The reality of it is that Pax will take the BPA or a big that is close...to the best BPA. Pax has made some pretty good selections and I trust him to make the right call here. I still think our pick will probably end up going to LA in a Kobe deal anyway, making it all a moot point but I wouldn't be upset if pax takes Noah. Noah is awfully fast running the floor which should help with a lot of transition buckets. He can rebound the ball which was a weakness against Detroit. He may not be an offensive dynamo but he could be useful. Besides, who else is out there that will be available at #9 and is a good selection at 9 and has a solid post game? Hawes is about the only other option I see unless we want to take Jason Smith higher or play Julian Wright out of position or something. And Hawes may be gone at #7 unless Minny is trying to blackmail us.
> 
> ACE


I agree with this. What people also overlook, is the NBA is about match ups. 
Wallace, TT and Noah give us alot of good match ups defensively.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> * Thunder, I barely remember Larry Nance
> * Jeremy, I'm sorry, but except for his agility, which is good, Hawes was really bottom of the barrel. He was not fast down the court and he is a poor leaper compared to every decent center for which there's a measurement. I'd be willing to bet Krstic (maybe not after the ACL?) and Pachulia would beat him handily in both those categories.


Ok. I think we can all agree he's not an above average athlete. The problem I'm having is with the terminology and terms like "unathletic" or "bottom of the barrel" have a pretty specific meaning to me: substantially below average. I don't really think there's a lot of support out there for such a strong assertion. Also, keep in mind that I'm not looking solely at performance on the tests because looking at the way some players (Deng, Durant, etc.) have performed at them in the past they're imperfect. Scouts attend games and watch a lot of footage and I'd bet most teams give scouts assessment of a player's athleticism as much credence as they do the combine tests.

Since we seem to be discussing the combine tests, let's actually look at the results. The first thing that popped up is the full results from last years combine at DraftExpress so that's what I'm looking at. Admittedly, when you look at the full results, there are some scrubs in there but in light of the fact that those scrubs have performed the best in the tests the last few years, I don't think it's worth drastically narrowing the sample size and leaving only two or three other centers to compare.

No step vertical: It's bad. By my count only 7 out of 81 did as poorly as Hawes did this season. I wouldn't say it's a death knell though because that includes Morrison and Marcus Williams (as well as Durant this season) while Aldridge only beat him by half an inch.

Maximum vertical jump: I don't want to take the time to parse through all the results for this. Glancing at them they look the same, maybe slightly worse. It makes good logical sense that if you can jump well from a standing position, you're not great at it from a running position either.

Bench press: 31 of the 81 players lifted the bar 9 of fewer times as Hawes did. There's an inclination to suspect that the players who performed worse than Hawes were all slight guards but the list includes Tyrus, Aldridge, Justin Williams, Saer Sene, and Balkman amongst others. We can call this below average I guess but I'd say that bottom of the barrel is too strong of a term and again, it certainly doesn't seem to be a death knell. 

Lane agility: You've conceded this so again I'm not going to take the time to parse through the results but the fact that a truly below average 7 footer (who is nonetheless good enough to play in the NBA) in Aaron Gray was eight tenths of a second slower speaks pretty strongly in my opinion. O'Bryant and Sene were also pretty poor by comparison. It seems that Hawes is above average in one of the four types of athleticism measured which makes it hard for me to conclude that he's significantly below average overall.

3/4 court sprint: Alright, I'm finding looking to specific players more useful so I'm just going to continue to do that. Hawes is over a tenth of a second faster than Gray and O'Bryant. He's .08 faster than Sheldon Williams. In contrast Aldridge is .08 faster, Sene is .13 faster, and Tyrus is eons faster. 

Anyways, after the analysis my point is the same. Players like Hibbert, Gray, O'Bryant, and Marc Gasol are "bottom of the barrel" or substantially below average athletically for NBA centers (yet good enough to play center in the NBA in some capacity). Hawes can't be "bottom of the barrel" too because he's much better than them. At the same time, there's no comparison between Hawes and an elite athlete like Oden. Obviously three tiers is a oversimplified way of looking at it but the talk that his athleticism is unusually poor is simply wrong when a guy performed considerably worse than him last year at the combine and was drafted 9th. 

Arguments that the Bulls are better as an up tempo team, that someone doesn't personally care for more traditional centers, or that the league is moving away from the traditional center are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. I just have a problem with this notion that Hawes is as bad of an athlete as you'll find at the center position when plenty are demonstrably worse.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Maybe he is BPA but I don't think he has near the potential that TT has on O and he will disappoint in comparison to what Chandler is going to be doing for the Hornets. I'd look to see if someone offer something interesting and trade down if I wasn't confident in the other bigs. Noah is not the guy I want to compliment Wallace and TT.



BULLHITTER said:


> i won't be surprised if noah's game (particularly offensively) resembles one kevin mchale.
> 
> that's not to say he'll be as good or better, just that there may very well be hidden parts to his game the average fan cannot see while he blended his skills for the greater cause of winning florida basketball.


:lol: I guess the scouts can't see it either or he wouldn't be a possiblity at #9.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Arguments that the Bulls are better as an up tempo team, that someone doesn't personally care for more traditional centers, or that the league is moving away from the traditional center are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. I just have a problem with this notion that Hawes is as bad of an athlete as you'll find at the center position when plenty are demonstrably worse.


They are indeed reasonable, but they are wrong. The teams winning championships have players who can play in the post. In fact, those teams have won the last 17 championships (Yes I'm counting Jordan, since his post game was a defensively debilitating as shaq's or Olajuwons). If we don't get such a player, we won't be winning a championship any time soon.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> They are indeed reasonable, but they are wrong. The teams winning championships have players who can play in the post. In fact, those teams have won the last 17 championships (Yes I'm counting Jordan, since his post game was a defensively debilitating as shaq's or Olajuwons). If we don't get such a player, we won't be winning a championship any time soon.


Right, but the definite trend is toward who can play have some post game, yes, but who seem maybe better classified as highly mobile guys with a strong face the basket game (Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, MJ) rather than the slow, pure low post guy (Shaq being the obvious one).

Obviously they lost, but if I'm Cavs, for example, I'd consider Drew Gooden, an athletic 6'11" guy who can score all over the place and rebound as a little more helpful in the finals against the Spurs than Ilgauskas, who's a more skilled low-post threat but was fairly plodding and easy to take out of the game.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Right, but the definite trend is toward who can play have some post game, yes, but who seem maybe better classified as highly mobile guys with a strong face the basket game (Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, MJ) rather than the slow, pure low post guy (Shaq being the obvious one).
> 
> Obviously they lost, but if I'm Cavs, for example, I'd consider Drew Gooden, an athletic 6'11" guy who can score all over the place and rebound as a little more helpful in the finals against the Spurs than Ilgauskas, who's a more skilled low-post threat but was fairly plodding and easy to take out of the game.


That's a good point. But I find it VERY hard to believe that Hawes is as Immobile as Z, and that Duncan is this super mobile freak. I DID watch that series very closely, and Duncan seemed more crafty than athletic. Z is indeed a statue, but I just have a hard time reconciling a 19 year old kid as being that completely unathletic.


Back to Noah. I think the question Pax should ask himself is this: If Noah is the last of the big 3 bigs that we are targeting left on the board, how much difference is there between him and Smith? If the gap is not that high, then we might want to think about trading down.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> That's a good point. But I find it VERY hard to believe that Hawes is as Immobile as Z, and that Duncan is this super mobile freak. I DID watch that series very closely, and Duncan seemed more crafty than athletic. Z is indeed a statue, but I just have a hard time reconciling a 19 year old kid as being that completely unathletic.
> 
> 
> Back to Noah. I think the question Pax should ask himself is this: If Noah is the last of the big 3 bigs that we are targeting left on the board, how much difference is there between him and Smith? If the gap is not that high, then we might want to think about trading down.


With who and for what? We'd most likely have to draft Noah, and then work out a deal with someone who wants him and has a pick available to draft Smith. Take someone else and Smith goes to an unexpected team, and we might be left without a big man at all.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> how much difference is there between him and Smith? If the gap is not that high, then we might want to think about trading down.


my guess is that we won't see a trade down, only because there's a belief in comparable value in this draft from slots 3 to 10. not to say your thinking is wrong, but i'm guessing GMs with those 3-10 picks still all feel at least capable of selecting a future all-star in those slots.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Maybe he is BPA but I don't think he has near the potential that TT has on O and he will disappoint in comparison to what Chandler is going to be doing for the Hornets. I'd look to see if someone offer something interesting and trade down if I wasn't confident in the other bigs. Noah is not the guy I want to compliment Wallace and TT.


Everyone is talking about how Noah with Wallace spells disaster, and how we'll be playing 3 on 5 basketball (not johnston797, on that point)


to this (and i probably go against my past rationale for trading Tyson here).... i say we have consider a future without Wallace in this pick. history tells us to expect he could decline in production at age 34 or 33. to be at that point, and then think "oh, we had a chance in 2007 to draft his replacement...an athletic defensive center"... would be a not so good feeling.

obviously, if Hawes is pouring in 16 and 10 at that point, i'm less crushed. but it's my gut instinct that Hawes will always be a guy off the bench to provide some scoring punch. Sweetnification.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DengNabbit said:


> Everyone is talking about how Noah with Wallace spells disaster, and how we'll be playing 3 on 5 basketball (not johnston797, on that point)
> 
> 
> to this (and i probably go against my past rationale for trading Tyson here).... i say we have consider a future without Wallace in this pick. history tells us to expect he could decline in production at age 34 or 33. to be at that point, and then think "oh, we had a chance in 2007 to draft his replacement...an athletic defensive center"... would be a not so good feeling.
> ...


I agree. The point is that whoever we draft will probably play about the same number of minutes as Tyrus Thomas did last year (about 10 mpg). He wouldn't be expected to take over a starting position until his fourth year (if ever). That timetable pretty much coincides with Wallace's contract.

So the question is not how the center we draft will play with Wallace, but how he will play with Tyrus Thomas. I for one, think TT will improve offensively as time goes on and the idea that the Bulls are playing 3 on 5 will fade with his improvement. Noah may not be the second coming of Kareem Jabbar, but i doubt that he will be as bad a shooter as Wallace in the NBA. 

It's nice to have a center who scores 20 ppg, but 10 ppg will do -- that's what the Bulls centers scored in their championship years.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Of course having Jordan and Pippen to score 50 points per game made that a slightly more realistic option (though if you DID get Bryant... lol)


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Even without Kobe, i can see Deng and BG getting us about 40-45 points per night in the near future. In fact it's already a bonus to me if we can execute the 9th pick for a big guy that contributes 12-15ppg.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Nu_Omega said:


> Even without Kobe, i can see Deng and BG getting us about 40-45 points per night in the near future. In fact it's already a bonus to me if we can execute the 9th pick for a big guy that contributes 12-15ppg.


Deng and Gordon scored 40.5 ppg last season. There's no reason to think they won't score even more next season. 45 ppg is a modest expectation. I expect the power forward position to be more productive offensively next year as well with a healthy Nocioni and an improved Tyrus Thomas. BTW the championship Bulls featured Dennis Rodman at power forward for three years -- a player with comparable skills to Wallace. Hinrich is a better player than Paxson was.

All in all, it will be difficult for any team, including San Antonio, Phoenix or Dallas, to be as good as the dynasty Bulls. But that doesn't mean the current Bulls can't win a championship with or without Kobe Bryant. Although the current Bulls clearly don't have the reincarnation of MJ, they do have a very good young core of players who are several years away from their prime and a better bench. They'll contend strongly for the eastern conference title next year even if they resign Nocioni, sign PJ Brown or his replacement and draft a decent big man to play a few minutes off the bench.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

It's always interesting to compare our Bulls to the Jordan era Bulls. I can't help but think that a big man rotation featuring Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, and Ben Wallace absolutely dwarfs whatever Jordan's Bulls trotted out there. Horace Grant was, IMO, the most talented big man Jordan had during the championship seasons; and both Tyrus and Noah have AT LEAST that much potential. Wallace is icing on the cake.

Of course, Jordan/Pippen/whoever dwarfs Gordon/Deng/Hinrich but we're also in an era where you don't need 2 hall of famers to win a championship. I'm thinking 60 ppg combined from those three, plus defensive/rebounding dominance from our frontcourt, and maybe 20-25 ppg from our bench, goes a long way. Like McBulls said, other than Wallace these guys really haven't reached their ceiling yet.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Deng and Gordon scored 40.5 ppg last season. There's no reason to think they won't score even more next season. 45 ppg is a modest expectation. I expect the power forward position to be more productive offensively next year as well with a healthy Nocioni and an improved Tyrus Thomas. BTW the championship Bulls featured Dennis Rodman at power forward for three years -- a player with comparable skills to Wallace. <b>Hinrich is a better player than Paxson was.</b>
> 
> All in all, it will be difficult for any team, including San Antonio, Phoenix or Dallas, to be as good as the dynasty Bulls. But that doesn't mean the current Bulls can't win a championship with or without Kobe Bryant. Although the current Bulls clearly don't have the reincarnation of MJ, they do have a very good young core of players who are several years away from their prime and a better bench. They'll contend strongly for the eastern conference title next year even if they resign Nocioni, sign PJ Brown or his replacement and draft a decent big man to play a few minutes off the bench.


I don't know about the bold part. Personally I will take Paxon over Hinrich any day of the week as a PG for my team. Everything is pretty equal but Paxon's jumper is much more deadly. Paxon's stat isn't comparable to Hinrich but Paxon didn't need to score to be effective other than timely jumper back then. With current Bulls roster, Hinrich needs to be a scorer to win the game. 

I am biased of course since Paxon has been my favorite among recent Bulls guards not named Michael.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I don't know about the bold part. Personally I will take Paxon over Hinrich any day of the week as a PG for my team. Everything is pretty equal but Paxon's jumper is much more deadly. My Paxon's stat isn't comparable to Hinrich but Paxon didn't need to score to be effective other than timely jumper back then. With current Bulls roster, Hinrich needs to be a scorer to win the game.


running with jordan, paxson never had true pg responsibilities. both he and armstrong had 2 responsibilities at best; guard somebody and hit the open shot when scottie or mj looked for you. further, it only took steve kerr to take his spot the second his knees began to betray him.

hinrich is a better player than paxson EVER was; i'd hazard that paxson didn't score like kirk over the course of his entire career. jordan was that good, he made average players like pax look better. don't get me wrong paxson was a quality player, but kirk's better in every category.
when it's all said and done, kirk (unless he's moved) will likely be the best pg in bulls history; maybe that's not saying much in light of past pg's, but paxson won't be in the same stratosphere.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

different_13 said:


> Of course having Jordan and Pippen to score 50 points per game made that a slightly more realistic option (though if you DID get Bryant... lol)


Funny how that part always gets left out.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Deng and Gordon scored 40.5 ppg last season. There's no reason to think they won't score even more next season. 45 ppg is a modest expectation. I expect the power forward position to be more productive offensively next year as well with a healthy Nocioni and an improved Tyrus Thomas. BTW the championship Bulls featured Dennis Rodman at power forward for three years -- a player with comparable skills to Wallace. Hinrich is a better player than Paxson was.
> 
> All in all, it will be difficult for any team, including San Antonio, Phoenix or Dallas, to be as good as the dynasty Bulls. But that doesn't mean the current Bulls can't win a championship with or without Kobe Bryant. Although the current Bulls clearly don't have the reincarnation of MJ, they do have a very good young core of players who are several years away from their prime and a better bench. They'll contend strongly for the eastern conference title next year even if they resign Nocioni, sign PJ Brown or his replacement and draft a decent big man to play a few minutes off the
> bench.


This line of thinking conveniently ignores that we don't have anyone at any position who can get into the post and demand a double team. Again, I say look at the last 17 championships and show me a team that DID NOT have such a player (Besides the one hit wonder Detroit pistons). *We didn't need a big post man, because JORDAN WAS OUR POST MAN. We don't have that as currently constructed.*

Screaming "we don't need a post player" over and over again does not make it any more true, than it was last week or last year. The fact is, if we are going to win championships, we need a player who can get doubled in the post. Unless Deng or Tyrus develop a post game (a reasonable enough expectation, though I don't agree with it), we'll need to look OUTSIDE of what we have to get it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> don't get me wrong paxson was a quality player, but kirk's better in every category.


How can we take the rest seriously, when Paxson was (and probably still is) a FAR FAR Superior SHOOTER than Hinrich.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

yodurk said:


> we're also in an era where *you don't need 2 hall of famers to win a championship*.


No, but you need at least one. I'm not counting the 04 Pistons (I loved em, but let's face, they're the excpetion thusfar)
Lakers had both Shaq and Kobe, plus a decent supporting cast.
Spurs had Duncan, 2 strong allstars in Parker and Ginobili, and a decent supporting cast.
Miami had Shaq and Wade (noone start about the refs, that's not what this post is about).

And the Bulls don't have type of player.
But I can see them contending for the Eastern finals next year perhaps, depending on what the team's like by the trade-deadline.
Though with Cleveland improving and Detroit being Detroit (if Chauncey stays, I still pick them to win the East barring anything major), there's a good chance they won't win.

Btw, does Chicago get to swap picks with NY next year as well? (for the last time? or were there 3 swaps?) 
If so, I think it would once again be a high-mid lottery pick, aroun 6-10 ish. I can imagine Roy Hibbert being available in that range, maybe.
If not, I think a lot of teams can use pieces from next year's lottery - so the pick becomes a valuable trade asset.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

no comparing Hinrich and Paxson!

PG! SG!


Pax = no handle. Hinrich = not Nash, but some.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> running with jordan, paxson never had true pg responsibilities. both he and armstrong had 2 responsibilities at best; guard somebody and hit the open shot when scottie or mj looked for you. further, it only took steve kerr to take his spot the second his knees began to betray him.
> 
> hinrich is a better player than paxson EVER was; i'd hazard that paxson didn't score like kirk over the course of his entire career. jordan was that good, he made average players like pax look better. don't get me wrong paxson was a quality player, but kirk's better in every category.
> when it's all said and done, kirk (unless he's moved) will likely be the best pg in bulls history; maybe that's not saying much in light of past pg's, but paxson won't be in the same stratosphere.


Nice post. Agree that the role of the PG during the dynasty years was a hybrid, not a true PG. Then again, Hinrich's a bit of a hybrid himself.

As for the best Bulls PG ever, the tradition over the past 25 or so years is less than rich. However, in the Bulls first season, Guy Rodgers put up a decent stat line - 18ppg, 11apg and 4rpg. Something for Kirk to shoot at. Of course, Guy didn't play much defense.

Beyond one season, Van Lier's the best Bulls PG ever. In 7 seasons with the Bulls, Van Lier was 12ppg, 7apg and 5rpg. In those 7 Bulls seasons, he was first-team all-defense 3 times and second team the other 4. Kirk's the more prolific scorer, but otherwise, he's got some work to do. Still, I agree that if Hinrich stays with the Bulls, he'll be recognized as the best Bulls PG ever.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> to this (and i probably go against my past rationale for trading Tyson here).... i say we have consider a future without Wallace in this pick. history tells us to expect he could decline in production at age 34 or 33. to be at that point, and then think "oh, we had a chance in 2007 to draft his replacement...an athletic defensive center"... would be a not so good feeling.


The big question there is how well the presumed current starting front court of Tyrus and Wallace works out. Some people see a lot of duplication in that pairing and would probably feel that perpetuating that type of combo is not something we should be striving to do. 

Personally, if that's the logic behind the pick I'd be more open to it because I do think that Tyrus will be a solid offensive player. However, a second question that then arises is how essential is _back to the basket scoring_. The argument some have advanced for a long time now is that we need a player with a back to the basket game who draws a double team to create spacing for our guards. I'm reasonably confident that Tyrus can eventually become a good (15+ PPG scorer) but I'm less confident that a large part of that will be back to the basket post moves.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> How can we take the rest seriously, when Paxson was (and probably still is) a FAR FAR Superior SHOOTER than Hinrich.


look up the stats, and see for yourself. i will contend though that pax was a throwaway by SA when the bulls picked him up for some pocket lint when jordan was still evolving. paxson was blessed to have played with the GOAT. i could concede steve kerr as a better shooter, but paxson? paxson was just average at *everything*.

hinrich was a lottery pick for a BAD team and organization, who; 1. took the starting job from the incumbent in his *first* year, 2) led the team to the playoffs the following season; 3) made the olympic team (team usa or whatever it's being called now) 4)made all nba defense;
and has been instrumental in the team making the playoffs since he's been a part of the organization.

paxson's claim to fame was playing next to jordan; hitting some shots in the 4th quarter against LA in the championship; and hitting a winning 3 against phoenix. he never had the ppg or the asg that hinrich's got now, nor did he EVER guard the opposing team's best player. now, if the stats show he had a better FG%, fine; that *might* be the only advantage paxson would hold.

hinrich is a superior player to paxson and always will be; go back and watch tape on paxson and compare the two. don't get me wrong, paxson *was *a quality player, but he's not (nor was he ever) the athlete or basketball player hinrich is. 

is that serious enough for you?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

BULLHITTER said:


> look up the stats, and see for yourself. i will contend though that pax was a throwaway by SA when the bulls picked him up for some pocket lint when jordan was still evolving. paxson was blessed to have played with the GOAT. i could concede steve kerr as a better shooter, but paxson? paxson was just average at *everything*.
> 
> hinrich was a lottery pick for a BAD team and organization, who; 1. took the starting job from the incumbent in his *first* year, 2) led the team to the playoffs the following season; 3) made the olympic team (team usa or whatever it's being called now) 4)made all nba defense;
> and has been instrumental in the team making the playoffs since he's been a part of the organization.
> ...


Sorry to highjack the thread but let me put it this way about Hinrich's shooting regardless of what stat says in my totally subjective view

When Paxon shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
When BJ shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
When Kerr shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
When Gordon shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.

When Hinrich shot, I thought it wouldn't go in until it did.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> When Paxon shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
> When BJ shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
> When Kerr shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
> When Gordon shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
> ...


welcome to haiku by hinrich.......:yay:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> This line of thinking conveniently ignores that we don't have anyone at any position who can get into the post and demand a double team. Again, I say look at the last 17 championships and show me a team that DID NOT have such a player (Besides the one hit wonder Detroit pistons). *We didn't need a big post man, because JORDAN WAS OUR POST MAN. We don't have that as currently constructed.*
> 
> Screaming "we don't need a post player" over and over again does not make it any more true, than it was last week or last year. The fact is, if we are going to win championships, we need a player who can get doubled in the post. Unless Deng or Tyrus develop a post game (a reasonable enough expectation, though I don't agree with it), we'll need to look OUTSIDE of what we have to get it.


Sorry for the repetition, but I don't think inside-out basketball is so overwhelmingly essential to winning that you sacrifice inside defense to get it. As far as inside scoring goes, of course it's important. But to emphasis the importance of dunks, jump hooks and fall-away inside shots while denigrating the value of floaters, layups, drive and kick plays and reliable jump shots is silly. The current Bulls do plenty of inside scoring. You just don't like the STYLE they use to do it. I admit that a back to the basket player and a slower inside-out game might be valuable to have on occasion, but not at the price of sacrificing the Bulls current outstanding defense.

Guys like Zach Randolph or Eddie Curry are not major assets if the 20 points they score and the numerous fouls they draw are canceled by selfish team play and lackadaisical defense. It's no accident that neither of these two outstanding post players have failed to lift their teams to winning records. Sweetney also would have been capable of scoring a lot of points, but Skiles simply wasn't willing to sacrifice defense to get them. If you bring in a Randolph or Curry-like player you'd better fire Skiles and hire Zeke to coach the team.

I'm afraid we might get some of the same with Hawes. if we draft him, I hope I'm wrong. One thing that is good is that he is reputed to be a good passer, which I think is an essential skill for a low post player to have. It does no good to have a player who draws double teams if he can't or won't pass out of them. 

Which brings us back on topic to Noah. He seems to have a nice offensive game around the rim -- which counts as inside for me (compared say to Wallace or Chandler who are not terribly good at the rim). He can finish a pick and roll, if not the pick and pop. He's a very good team player and passer. There's at least as good a chance that Noah will learn to shoot a 10 ft jump hook or a 15 foot fall-away jumper as there is that Hawes will learn to play decent man defense and to rebound.

If I've got to choose, I rather try teach a player who has outstanding physical skills and a passion for defense and team play how to shoot than hope that a less physically gifted player will learn to become a first rate defensive player in the NBA.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Noah has a horrible shot, admits it and in a draft express interview stated he wasn't gonna change it because it wasn't the best thing to do. Afterall, he cited Marion's crappy mechanics as working.

Honestly, We already have one guy who can't do anything but Dunk (Tyrus), another who runs away from the ball (Wallace) and then......................Ugggh, no one else.

If Noah is all that's left, I'd rather revisit trading for Randolph. If you're gonna say that their limited offensive games are off-set by their defense, then I'd venture that one guy not being awesome defensively can be covered by four, especially if he scoring.

Oh wait, That's Gordon's role.

Noah is not gonna make me forget about the GLARING need for a post presence.

The reason we need one, is that in close games, you can't rely on jumpshooters. They don't draw fouls or get easy baskets. You need someone to pound the ball inside to, pick and rool, short shot, foul called, ..........Shooting another long range 3 isn't my first choice unless we are down by three or Kobe Bryant is taking that shot.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Noah is 22 years old and still isn't even a polished offensive player. The guy will be nothing more than mediocre. Maybe he can evolve into the Shane Battier of role playing bigs, but even then he lacks the basic fundamentals of offensive basketball and then doesn't have good strength that he's going to end up being a 7th man.

The funny thing is, I remember him playing in the Roundball Classic three years ago and watching Dwight Howard and Josh Smith beast all over him. All I could think was, man this guy sucks.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

It we cant get a low post scorer then Id be happy if we went for a guy like green instead of Noah just because I'd prefer to get a better player rather just go for any guy over 6'10". Noah is blatant replication IMO. I worry about starting Thomas and Wallace because of their lack of low post play and lack of jump shots. If Noah had a jump shot Id be of a completely different opinion but he has niether as well.

Id have no problem going for players like green or wright. Then we'd have guys fighting for minutes and then eventually use one of our assets in a trade for a guy with a skill set we are in need of.

Basically if there isnt a guy there that fills the scoring big man role that we need, I'd go for best player available.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> If Noah is all that's left, I'd rather revisit trading for Randolph. If you're gonna say that their limited offensive games are off-set by their defense, then I'd venture that one guy not being awesome defensively can be covered by four, especially if he scoring.


The problem is that while you may only need 2 or 3 scorers on a team, you need all five players to be good defenders if you want a good defensive team. If the poor defender is the center, you can kiss your defense goodbye unless you want to play a zone continuously. Park the big lunk in the lane under the basket in a 2-3 zone.



> Noah is not gonna make me forget about the GLARING need for a post presence.
> 
> The reason we need one, is that in close games, you can't rely on jumpshooters. They don't draw fouls or get easy baskets. You need someone to pound the ball inside to, pick and rool, short shot, foul called, ..........Shooting another long range 3 isn't my first choice unless we are down by three or Kobe Bryant is taking that shot.


I think the Bulls mediocre offense last year had less to do with a lack of post scoring than the lack of experience playing together. The front line was nearly entirely new (Brown, Wallace, Thomas), and back-court took most of the year learning to work with them. They'll be better next year even without a "post presence". If they bring in Zach Randolph they will be worse both offensively and defensively.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Sorry to highjack the thread but let me put it this way about Hinrich's shooting regardless of what stat says in my totally subjective view
> 
> When Paxon shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
> When BJ shot, I thought it would go in until it didn't.
> ...


Bingo...............


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Sorry for the repetition, but I don't think inside-out basketball is so overwhelmingly essential to winning that you sacrifice inside defense to get it. As far as inside scoring goes, of course it's important. But to emphasis the importance of dunks, jump hooks and fall-away inside shots while denigrating the value of floaters, layups, drive and kick plays and reliable jump shots is silly. The current Bulls do plenty of inside scoring. You just don't like the STYLE they use to do it. I admit that a back to the basket player and a slower inside-out game might be valuable to have on occasion, but not at the price of sacrificing the Bulls current outstanding defense.


You are creating a false dichotomy. A vote against Noah, or any player that lacks a post game is not tantamout to a vote against defense, toughness, and rebounding. Its just a vote against NOT having a post game. No matter how much the NBA is evolving--and we've been throwing that phrase around for a few years now--the teams with guys that can score in the post KEEP WINNING THE TITLE. There's no way around it, and there's no way to dispute it.



> Guys like Zach Randolph or Eddie Curry are not major assets if the 20 points they score and the numerous fouls they draw are canceled by selfish team play and lackadaisical defense. It's no accident that neither of these two outstanding post players have failed to lift their teams to winning records. Sweetney also would have been capable of scoring a lot of points, but Skiles simply wasn't willing to sacrifice defense to get them. If you bring in a Randolph or Curry-like player you'd better fire Skiles and hire Zeke to coach the team.


I agree. But again, this is a false dichotomy. A vote AGAINST a player like Noah is NOT a vote FOR a player like Curry or Randolph. I happen to think that there are other players out there that may provide more immediate help for what we need on BOTH ends, though they cost more (nene, Darko).



> I'm afraid we might get some of the same with Hawes. if we draft him, I hope I'm wrong. One thing that is good is that he is reputed to be a good passer, which I think is an essential skill for a low post player to have. It does no good to have a player who draws double teams if he can't or won't pass out of them. [/qutoe]
> 
> I totally agree.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

mgolding said:


> It we cant get a low post scorer then Id be happy if we went for a guy like green instead of Noah just because I'd prefer to get a better player rather just go for any guy over 6'10". Noah is blatant replication IMO. I worry about starting Thomas and Wallace because of their lack of low post play and lack of jump shots. If Noah had a jump shot Id be of a completely different opinion but he has niether as well.
> 
> Id have no problem going for players like green or wright. Then we'd have guys fighting for minutes and then eventually use one of our assets in a trade for a guy with a skill set we are in need of.
> 
> Basically if there isnt a guy there that fills the scoring big man role that we need, I'd go for best player available.


If we were to draft Noah, we'd DEFINITELY have to go after Darko. He didn't do much behind Dwight Howard, but he's not a defensive liability, and after watching clips of him today, I can safely conclude that his post game is LIGHTYEARS ahead of Noah. Add to that, he's only a few months older, having turned 22 today. He's due for a breakout season, mark my words.

We simply cannot rely on jumpshots to bring home a championship. It hasn't happened since before I was born, and that 30 years ago.



> I think the Bulls mediocre offense last year had less to do with a lack of post scoring than the lack of experience playing together. The front line was nearly entirely new (Brown, Wallace, Thomas), and back-court took most of the year learning to work with them. They'll be better next year even without a "post presence". If they bring in Zach Randolph they will be worse both offensively and defensively.


Where's the scoring going to come from? Noah won't be much better, if at all, than PJ brown, who could at least hit the J. Ben wallace MIGHT be even WORSE offensively, as his body ages. Tyrus will improve, but how much? I hope you aren't expecting him to be a 15 and 10 player next year.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Whilst Darko would be good, I don't think giving up the #9 is a great idea (at least, not for just Darko..)
Though Orlando would probably love to get into the draft where they can get a decent player to fill the glaring holes in their roster (SG, PF).

Imagine if Chicago had managed to sign Nene instead of Wallace. Then you could draft Noah no problem (hell, another bigman wouldn't be as big a need, you could draft Conley or Green, and get rid of Nocioni and Duhon a lot more easily)


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Sorry for the repetition, but I don't think inside-out basketball is so overwhelmingly essential to winning that you sacrifice inside defense to get it.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you bring in a Randolph or Curry-like player you'd better fire Skiles and hire Zeke to coach the team.


I'm still somewhat open to the idea that a back to the basket player is not essential to NBA success, the idea has just been beaten into me so much by the press, fans, and the GM that I've more or less accepted it. The argument that every team that wins a Championship - with a few clear exceptions - has a dominant back to the basket scorer is somewhat unpersuasive to me because the reality is that most teams in the playoffs have a good back to the basket scorer. Look at the West where the top five teams were Dallas (Dirk), Phoenix (Amare), San Antonio (Duncan), Utah (Boozer), and Houston (Yao). In that sense the Bulls have already beat the odds by being a successful team without a big post presence and that shouldn't be disregarded. If only 2 of the top 10 teams in the playoffs lack a dominant post scorer and neither wins the Finals, well (assuming all the teams were equal in ability) there was already an 80% they weren't going to win so I don't see it as massively convincing evidence. Most elite teams have a dominant post player because that makes it much easier to win but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that elite teams without a dominant big man consistently fall short of expectations.

Wasn't our D still #1 in FG% when Curry was aboard?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

JeremyB0001
Wasn't our D still #1 in FG% when Curry was aboard?[/QUOTE said:


> Yeah that Bulls team had a great interior defense thanks to Antonio Davis and Tyson Chandler. When Curry was in the game alone things often turned into layup drills for the opposition if their coach was alert, which is why Curry almost never was allowed to play in the fourth quarter. Curry's real value was his knack for getting opponent bigs in foul trouble in the first and third quarters. In that regard he was a valuable defender.
> 
> The proof of the value of AD playing beside Curry came when they were both traded to NY. Even though AD was rapidly declining, the Knicks defense was somewhat respectable until they traded him to Toronto for Rose. Once he was gone, the Knicks defense degenerated into one of the worst in the NBA. Last year Lee helped, and I think Curry actually began playing a bit better on the defensive end, but he still has a very long way to go.
> 
> So I guess the idea of "covering" for a no-D postup player with teammates like Ben Wallace and TT has some merit, but it would be better if that were not necessary.


----------

