# Would you be upset if the Bulls took Roy at #2?



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Simple question but I'm curious to see what the majority is. Would you be upset/Disappointed if the Bulls took Roy with the NUMBER TWO pick?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hmmm. We've so discussed this to death I could probably list 20 of our regulars and answer for them.

As for me, I will say again my first choice is to draft a big and use him to trade down for the rights to Roy + a vet.

If we do take him straight up, I'm good with that as long as we use our other options to address the pressing need for a center.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Sorry I dont have as much time to read the boards as I used to with 2 jobs and two three hour summer classes 5/7 days a week so I guess I just want to know quickly in number form what to expect from most the posters come draft day if this were to happen (I expect *****ing no matter the outcome but the intensity is what I was interested in). Only person I could answer for is DMD... 

sorry, delete it if you want


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

HAWK23 said:


> Sorry I dont have as much time to read the boards as I used to with 2 jobs and two three hour summer classes 5/7 days a week so I guess I just want to know quickly in number form what to expect from most the posters come draft day if this were to happen (I expect *****ing no matter the outcome but the intensity is what I was interested in). Only person I could answer for is DMD...
> 
> sorry, delete it if you want


No, I won't delete it. We'll see how things shake out overall with your poll.

And I agree with you...no matter what happens, there will be *****ing.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Actually, i think it's a hard question to answer because it depends on who else we get via the #16 pick, trade, or free agency. In short, no I would not be disappointed because Roy is a fine player. But I think it puts more pressure on Pax to deliver several good big guys, so if that turns out to be too difficult a task then Roy may not be a good pick in hindsight. Bottom line though, is that Roy is pretty much a sure thing to be a very good NBA player. Worst case scenario he becomes a Doug Christie clone, IMO, which isn't bad at all. Best case is probably the level of a Ray Allen.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Actually, i think it's a hard question to answer because it depends on who else we get via the #16 pick, trade, or free agency. In short, no I would not be disappointed because Roy is a fine player. But I think it puts more pressure on Pax to deliver several good big guys, so if that turns out to be too difficult a task then Roy may not be a good pick in hindsight. Bottom line though, is that Roy is pretty much a sure thing to be a very good NBA player. Worst case scenario he becomes a Doug Christie clone, IMO, which isn't bad at all. Best case is probably the level of a Ray Allen.


doug christie? @ #2? that's..

it's really hard to gauge exactly what type of player he is but he does same very jalen rose-ish


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The ROY said:


> doug christie? @ #2? that's..
> 
> it's really hard to gauge exactly what type of player he is but he does same very jalen rose-ish


WORST case scenario, ROY. 

There are plenty of #2 picks in the draft who have never amounted to anything Doug Christie did in his career. Honestly, I expect Brandon Roy will fall somewhere in between Chrisie and Ray Allen. So in other words, a very good player. Probably a top 10 SG in the NBA.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Actually, i think it's a hard question to answer because it depends on who else we get via the #16 pick, trade, or free agency. In short, no I would not be disappointed because Roy is a fine player. But I think it puts more pressure on Pax to deliver several good big guys, so if that turns out to be too difficult a task then Roy may not be a good pick in hindsight. Bottom line though, is that Roy is pretty much a sure thing to be a very good NBA player. Worst case scenario he becomes a Doug Christie clone, IMO, which isn't bad at all. Best case is probably the level of a Ray Allen.


That's exactly why I'd be disappointed if he takes Roy.

Because there's a very good chance Paxson doesn't get whoever "his guy" is in FA, and that means he's gonna have no choice but to trade the only go-to-guy, the only potential "star" the Bulls have (Gordon) for what will probably be a slightly above average big.

Anyone other than Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani is a major disappointment to me, unless of course he finds a way to ink Ben Wallace.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

yes if we are going to take Roy we need to trade down and then use want ever we get to trade up from 16 so as to get the best PF that doesnt go in the top 5. I say if we take Roy we should try real hard to get Williams who should still be around at 10 or 11.

david


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I think in some instances you'll have Roy and Gordon on the same court together, so I'm fine with it. I'm hoping we get Aldridge personally, but it's not liking he's wowing anyone thus far, he's just ability wise what the Bulls most lack. But Roy fits our team very well. We can hope that a Simmons or Sene, even Sheldon Williams drops to 16, and go balls out for Nazr, Nene, Wilcox, Gooden, Harrington, Pryzbilla, etc. Roy certainly won't be the end of the world, I'd just prefer to trade down for him.


----------



## animalthugism (Aug 23, 2005)

Sunday's article in the Chicago Suntimes suggests the same thing I was, in a post a few days ago... I won't be upset even though I'd hate to see one of the three bigs who'll be available turn into stars.. But if Roy pans out as well, then I won't complain.... I like what Roy said about being able to complement the Bulls' current smaller guards by taking on the duties of handling the likes of Wade and VC... 

The article I was referring to: http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull11.html

Don't be suprised, nor pissed off if Pax goes this route, especially if he feels a big will drop to #16... Besides, we'll get a body via free agency too....


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

giusd said:


> yes if we are going to take Roy we need to trade down and then use want ever we get to trade up from 16 so as to get the best PF that doesnt go in the top 5. I say if we take Roy we should try real hard to get Williams who should still be around at 10 or 11.
> 
> david


I agree about trading down. The only problem I see (which might very well happen) is that Toronto supposedly is shopping the #1 pick, and I think there's a good chance Morrison goes #1. If that happens, then I could easily see Roy going #3 to the Bobcats in which case we've missed our chance.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Roy draft scenario:

Bulls draft Morrison, Portland drafts Roy. Bulls trade rights to Morrison to Portland
for Roy & 2nd round pick (31st pick overall).

Houston picks Patrick O'Bryant (even if they keep him, they need developmental backup
for Yao, plus health insurance for Yao). Bulls pick Alexander Johnson or Cedric Simmons.
Bulls trade rights to Johnson or Simmons along with Chris Duhon and 31st pick (obtained
above) to Houston for rights to O'Bryant.

Bulls end up with large 2 - Roy and only true center in the draft O'Bryant (a project)
====================

I like the propsect of drafting Roy for several key reasons when taking Duhon's time
in a Bulls' three guard rotation

1. Roy in tandem with either Hinrich or BG can handled the defensive assignment on the opposing large two's in the league.

2. Roy in tandem with either Hinrich but especially BG can also handle some PG responsibilities. Roy has distribution skills. When paired with BG, on offense BG can be primarily the 2, but on D can switched back to guard the 1 and thus not be such a liability.

3. Roy in place of Duhon in 3 guard small ball sets, give the Bulls someone larger to match up in switches. How many times did the Bulls get caught in mismatches last year resulting in Duhon or Hinrich matching up against 6'7 to 6'9 players in the post? Too frequently in my opinion

4. Roy can slash and attack the rim. Not a high flyer like Gay, but when Wash played UConn, Roy was clearly the best player of the floor. It wasn't until ROy left the game with 6 minutes left that UConn was able to win the game. Bulls currently don't have a guard who really attacks the rim.

5. 4 year senior will be able to contribute immediately.
===================

Concerns about Tyrus Thomas :
1. Size at 6'9 220, not ideal for PF position. Great athleticism and skill set make people think of him as another Amare. But t 245, Amare is considerably larger.
2. Offensive skill set not much better currently than TC's

Concerns about Aldridge:
1. Long THIN inside finesse player whose game is predicated upon turnarounds rather than powering to the basket. Not a banger. Against LSU, he was especially dissappointing.

Don't think either of these two bigs will contribute very quickly. Like O'Bryant both are projects.
Bulls would be better off going after other teams RFA's who have already been projects
like Wilcox, Nene or Gooden

Not sure if either of these two will ultimately be any better than PF's drafted lower.
Individual workouts will be most revealing.

In free agency, Bulls should go after either Wilcox or Nene even if they have to overpay,
since unlike Przy, both can play either the 4 or 5, plus have more offensive skills. Im probably
in the minority, but I'd make Wilcox the top priority. A.Harrington doesn't make much sense to me
since Noc is essentially the same player.

Thus final roster

Guards- 3 man rotation or 3 guard small ball set- Hinrich, BG & Roy
SF- Deng/Noc
4- Wilcox/Chandler/Noc
5- Chandler/Wilcox/O'Bryant


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Additional thought regarding Roy.....

Roy may be what Jason Richardson was to 2001 draft
Young bigs with potential overshadowing more "sure thing" 2 guard


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

ztect said:


> Additional thought regarding Roy.....
> 
> Roy may be what Jason Richardson was to 2001 draft
> Young bigs with potential overshadowing more "sure thing" 2 guard



I doubt it roy is the shooting guard version of battier , dunleavy


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

mr.ankle20 said:


> I doubt it roy is the shooting guard version of battier , dunleavy


Don't just throw something like this out there. Defend it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I would be, depending on who is available at #2. If the guy I want, Bargs, is on the board and they take Roy, I'll be pissed as hell. If he's gone, then I don't really care who they take, I'd be happy with about 5 other guys. In a way, at 16, I'd almost like to see them take Reddick if he falls. We had a slower, but deadly shooting guard on both of our 3-peat teams, and I would say that Reddick is pretty dang close to being just like those guys. JJ Paxkerr anyone? lol Again though, part of what made them really good was having Jordan and Pippen slashing to the hoop and kicking it back out, and we currently don't have that kind of player on the team, so unless we get Gay or Thomas, I don't see one in the draft that can do that either, and Thomas's offense isn't very good yet.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

mr.ankle20 said:


> I doubt it roy is the shooting guard version of battier , dunleavy


He wasn't comparing their styles, just that in 2001 there were basically 3 big men who busted to some degree: Brown, Chandler, and Curry. All 3 were taken over Jason Richardson who has turned out better than all of them. 

Personally though, I don't see a whole lot of risk in taking Bargnani. And I see a whole lot of upside. Even though it isn't talked about much, Bargnani is very battle tested after the season he just had. He has a big role on a very good Euro team, which would probably be a championship contender in the NCAA's.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

No.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I would be disappointed based on my own expectation of Roy in the league. However, if Paxson saw that special something in him that I have not seen, then I would definately not be upset.

I did vote yes for disappointed for poll purposes.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I wouldnt be disappointed but my only problem is taking him too early. However, people are projecting Roy @ 4, so taking him 2 spots early isnt reaching too much. 

I really want Thomas and think he can help the BUlls win games, but as Rhyder says, if Pax sees something in him i wouldnt be too disappointed seeing as Pax's draft decisions have been spot on so far.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

A month ago I would have thought us crazy for passing on Aldridge, but Roy has really grown on me. They upside he brings with the size, defense, slashing ability would be huge for us. Couple that with the chance to take Johnson, Simmons, or even trade up for O'Bryant and FA as well, and this team looks amazing.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I voted "yes."


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

I would ber thrilled.

Roy or Morrison


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I would be, depending on who is available at #2. If the guy I want, Bargs, is on the board and they take Roy, I'll be pissed as hell. If he's gone, then I don't really care who they take, I'd be happy with about 5 other guys. In a way, at 16, I'd almost like to see them take Reddick if he falls. We had a slower, but deadly shooting guard on both of our 3-peat teams, and I would say that Reddick is pretty dang close to being just like those guys. *JJ Paxkerr anyone?* lol Again though, part of what made them really good was having Jordan and Pippen slashing to the hoop and kicking it back out, and we currently don't have that kind of player on the team, so unless we get Gay or Thomas, I don't see one in the draft that can do that either, and Thomas's offense isn't very good yet.


:rofl:


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

96 backcourt minutes per game

Hinrich-35
Gordon-30

leaving 31 for Duhon and Roy.


And Duhon's no pushover. People might not be upset on draftday but there will be plenty of upset fans if Roy goes #2 and is only playing 10 minutes a game because he can't beat out Duhon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

madox said:


> 96 backcourt minutes per game
> 
> Hinrich-35
> Gordon-30
> ...


Bulls play 3 guards a lot of the time.

You should look at it as 240 minutes.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

madox said:


> 96 backcourt minutes per game
> 
> Hinrich-35
> Gordon-30
> ...


If the Bulls draft Roy they would have to look to move Duhon. He is one of my favorite players, but I'm comfortable with his departure.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> If the Bulls draft Roy they would have to look to move Duhon. He is one of my favorite players, but I'm comfortable with his departure.


In that case the loss of Duhon is a cost that should be factored in when evaluating how much Roy is worth to the Bulls. 

Because if they start shopping Duhon after the draft they will not get anywhere near fair value for him for a number of reasons. 1st because they've made it known he's for sale. 2nd because he's a young PG on a small contract. 3rd because he isn't a stats guy or an exceptionally good shooter, just a winner. How are they gonna get fair value for Duhon in a world where Crawford's worth 55 million and he's only worth 8.5? 

So is Roy + whatever garbage gotten in Duhon trade > Aldridge/Bargnani/Thomas + Duhon???

I believe no. Especially since a tall productive backcourt player can be added with #16 pick, whereas a productive big most likely cannot.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I agree about trading down. The only problem I see (which might very well happen) is that Toronto supposedly is shopping the #1 pick, and I think there's a good chance Morrison goes #1. If that happens, then I could easily see Roy going #3 to the Bobcats in which case we've missed our chance.


I like a trade that sends Jarrett Jack , Travis Outlaw and Brian Skinner + #4 to Toronto 

And #1 and Kris Humphries to Portland 

Portland takes Morrison #1 

Chicago takes Roy #2 

Charlotte takes #Bargnani at #3 to team with Okafor 

Toronto takes O'Bryant at #4 to team with Bosh and Villanueva + they have the vet upfront in Skinner and a steady pure point in Jarrett Jack to team up with Calderon , James and Peterson in the backcourt . They also get to punt on an athletic flyer on the wing in Outlaw .


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

madox said:


> In that case the loss of Duhon is a cost that should be factored in when evaluating how much Roy is worth to the Bulls.
> 
> Because if they start shopping Duhon after the draft they will not get anywhere near fair value for him for a number of reasons. 1st because they've made it known he's for sale. 2nd because he's a young PG on a small contract. 3rd because he isn't a stats guy or an exceptionally good shooter, just a winner. How are they gonna get fair value for Duhon in a world where Crawford's worth 55 million and he's only worth 8.5?
> 
> ...


This is a good point 

I would still like to think that Duhon, Chandler and #16 could get us into Atlanta's 5th spot ...where Bargnani or Thomas could be available 

Bottom line is I would like Bargnani and Roy from this draft and would be prepared to lose Chandler, Duhon with our #2 and #16 to get them 

I really think Chandler and Duhon + someone like a Shannon Brown at 16 could be real plusses for the Hawks


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> This is a good point
> 
> I would still like to think that Duhon, Chandler and #16 could get us into Atlanta's 5th spot ...where Bargnani or Thomas could be available
> 
> Bottom line is I would like Bargnani and Roy from this draft and would be prepared to lose Chandler, Duhon with our #2 and #16 to get them



If the behind the scenes scuttlebutt convinces Paxson he can really land Ben Wallace in FA, I am so into this idea, I need a tissue.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> This is a good point
> 
> I would still like to think that Duhon, Chandler and #16 could get us into Atlanta's 5th spot ...where Bargnani or Thomas could be available
> 
> ...


I think Atlanta is far, far more likely just to keep their pick, grab Aldridge, O'Bryant, Bargnani, whomever, and save themselves a whole ****load of money.

Anyway, I didn't vote in this poll, because there wasn't a "it depends" option.

I will be upset: if Paxson drafts Roy and fails to address our desperate need for a good long-term scoring option at the 4 or 5. Even if we somehow sign Ben Wallace and Al Harrington, I will consider the off-season a failure. And the thought of another melodramatic season caused by positional imbalance and overlap makes me nauseous.

I won't be upset: if Paxson drafts Roy and does address the front-court scoring problem by trading for an established star player (there isn't such a player available via free agency). Pick who your backcourt lead dogs are going to be, and deal the others to get some balance on the team.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I think Atlanta is far, far more likely just to keep their pick, grab Aldridge, O'Bryant, Bargnani, whomever, and save themselves a whole ****load of money.
> 
> Anyway, I didn't vote in this poll, because there wasn't a "it depends" option.
> 
> ...


Neither Wilcox or Goodon are good enough scorers? I have a feeling Drew Gooden could have his best season next year out of the shadow of LeBron, and he put up 14/9 two years ago.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> This is a good point
> 
> I would still like to think that Duhon, Chandler and #16 could get us into Atlanta's 5th spot ...where Bargnani or Thomas could be available
> 
> ...


I think that I'd rather have Bargnani and Reddick and keep Chandler. Maybe give up Duhon to trade up a bit to ensure Reddick. I just think that we need an awesome 3 point shooter to play like Pax and Kerr used to, and no use giving up 2 good young guys plus a draft pick to move up to take a SG that already plays a position of strength on the team. I see why you'd want a taller SG, BUT he is only 2 inches taller than Gordon if I'm not mistaken...6'3 and 6'5 right? 2 inches isn't that much, unless he has a huge wingspan or something.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Neither Wilcox or Goodon are good enough scorers? I have a feeling Drew Gooden could have his best season next year out of the shadow of LeBron, and he put up 14/9 two years ago.


I like Gooden a lot, and I hope the Bulls pursue him this off-season regardless of what direction they choose to go in with the draft picks. However, he's always struck me as being more of an "energy" and opportunity guy than a player who can be relied on for consistent offense. It's hard for me to imagine Gooden averaging 22-24 ppg in a playoff series, e.g., which imo we need for those series/matchups where the guards are going to go through dry spells.

I've never liked Wilcox and I don't think he's a good fit for this team or for Skiles. 

And generally speaking, I think we need to massively hedge our bets when it comes to restricted FAs. I sincerely hope that Paxson's offseason plan doesn't rely at all on landing one. In the case of Gooden or Wilcox, I'm fairly confident the Cavs and Sonics (esp) will keep them unless there's a team out there willing to significantly overpay them.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

it's really too bad the NBA doesn't arrange their offseason like the NFL... free agency first then the draft so teams know what their needs are going into the next season...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

My opinion aside, Roy needs to turn out to be clearly better than the bigs we could have taken instead of him. Not just now, but three years from now. Given the general scarcity of bigs and our relatively greater need there, if there's any real debate about "who's better" and we've taken Roy, we seem to be the loser.

And when I look at Roy, I like him a lot, but I don't see what makes him standout as a head and shoulders better prospect than Aldridge or Bargnani or Thomas.

For our purposes, I'd certainly take Roy ahead of Brewer, but Brewer also offers good handling and defense, with somewhat better size (maybe allowing him to play the 3 more than Roy and freeing up backcourt minutes for the 3 good guards we have now) and at a lower price. Maybe we have to trade up to get him, but we don't miss out on the chance for a quality big.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> My opinion aside, Roy needs to turn out to be clearly better than the bigs we could have taken instead of him. Not just now, but three years from now. Given the general scarcity of bigs and our relatively greater need there, if there's any real debate about "who's better" and we've taken Roy, we seem to be the loser.
> 
> And when I look at Roy, I like him a lot, but I don't see what makes him standout as a head and shoulders better prospect than Aldridge or Bargnani or Thomas.
> 
> For our purposes, I'd certainly take Roy ahead of Brewer, but Brewer also offers good handling and defense, with somewhat better size (maybe allowing him to play the 3 more than Roy and freeing up backcourt minutes for the 3 good guards we have now) and at a lower price. Maybe we have to trade up to get him, but we don't miss out on the chance for a quality big.


I completely agree with all of this post. I just don't know if the Bulls have the ammo to trade up for Brewer, whose size, defense, ball handling and athletic ability seem to be perfect for the Bulls.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I think Atlanta is far, far more likely just to keep their pick, grab Aldridge, O'Bryant, Bargnani, whomever, and save themselves a whole ****load of money.


Its far , far really f'n far likely that your right 

Hawks are rackin and stackin and having showing ZaZa the love last summer and knowing they will suck for awhile I can't realistically seeing them taking on ( effectively ) Chandler for Harrington's cost

I expect they would covet Aldridge and hope like crazy he drops.

I hope he gets tabbed by Atlanta as well

Losers deserve each other's company


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> My opinion aside, Roy needs to turn out to be clearly better than the bigs we could have taken instead of him. Not just now, but three years from now. Given the general scarcity of bigs and our relatively greater need there, if there's any real debate about "who's better" and we've taken Roy, we seem to be the loser.
> 
> And when I look at Roy, I like him a lot, but I don't see what makes him standout as a head and shoulders better prospect than Aldridge or Bargnani or Thomas.
> 
> For our purposes, I'd certainly take Roy ahead of Brewer, but Brewer also offers good handling and defense, with somewhat better size (maybe allowing him to play the 3 more than Roy and freeing up backcourt minutes for the 3 good guards we have now) and at a lower price. Maybe we have to trade up to get him, but we don't miss out on the chance for a quality big.


I agree


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> My opinion aside, Roy needs to turn out to be clearly better than the bigs we could have taken instead of him. Not just now, but three years from now. Given the general scarcity of bigs and our relatively greater need there, if there's any real debate about "who's better" and we've taken Roy, we seem to be the loser.
> 
> And when I look at Roy, I like him a lot, but I don't see what makes him standout as a head and shoulders better prospect than Aldridge or Bargnani or Thomas.
> 
> For our purposes, I'd certainly take Roy ahead of Brewer, but Brewer also offers good handling and defense, with somewhat better size (maybe allowing him to play the 3 more than Roy and freeing up backcourt minutes for the 3 good guards we have now) and at a lower price. Maybe we have to trade up to get him, but we don't miss out on the chance for a quality big.


 I disagree Mike.

Who knows what our team is going to look like three years from now? If anything, we have a tendency to overestimate the stability of our roster. Looking back at the Bulls's recent history, there was time when we thought we needed to draft a small forward and a shooting guard because we were set at center (curry), power forward (ty), and the point guard (jc). Four years later, none of them have fulfilled the role that we envisioned. Thats not even taking into account injuries. 

I think its almost always better to take the best player available, and let things sort themselves out later. Players rarely duplicate each other, and if that were to happen, we could always make a trade. If ever we needed a reminder, how about Babcock's comment's today concerning the Araujo draft?

.
.
.
.
.
.
of course. . . after writing all of that, I suspect we may only disagree because I view Roy as a step above the rest of the other prospects in the draft, and you view him as only on-par with the available big men .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> of course. . . after writing all of that, I suspect we may only disagree because I view Roy as a step above the rest of the other prospects in the draft, and you view him as only on-par with the available big men .


I think you're right about that. But why exactly do you think Roy is a step above the rest?

I mean, I like what I see, but I also don't see a guy who's really set himself above them. How has he? He's had one really good season, and in it his team didn't do anything all that impressive. For a SG he doesn't seem to be that great of an athlete.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> My opinion aside, Roy needs to turn out to be clearly better than the bigs we could have taken instead of him. Not just now, but three years from now. Given the general scarcity of bigs and our relatively greater need there, if there's any real debate about "who's better" and we've taken Roy, we seem to be the loser.
> 
> And when I look at Roy, I like him a lot, but I don't see what makes him standout as a head and shoulders better prospect than Aldridge or Bargnani or Thomas.
> 
> For our purposes, I'd certainly take Roy ahead of Brewer, but Brewer also offers good handling and defense, with somewhat better size (maybe allowing him to play the 3 more than Roy and freeing up backcourt minutes for the 3 good guards we have now) and at a lower price. Maybe we have to trade up to get him, but we don't miss out on the chance for a quality big.


You hit the nail on the head Mike . . . I think Roy is a good player now and will be a solid NBA guy for 8-10 years. However, I don't see him as lightyears ahead of any of the avaliable bigs at #2. He's not an especially prolific scorer, he's doesn't have Redick's unlimited range, he's a good defender but not someone who is Bowen or Artest-like, and he's average sized for the SG spot to boot. If we could guarantee Pax signing a FA like B.Wallace, Nene, etc. then I would say trade down to 4 or 5 and get the kid. However, that's an extremely big crapshoot that personally I'm not willing to take at this point. Our need for a big (or three) overshadows taking Roy (who's skills are much easier to replicate) with the #2. 

Just my thoughst, and yes I voted "yes" on the poll.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I think you're right about that. But why exactly do you think Roy is a step above the rest?
> 
> I mean, I like what I see, but I also don't see a guy who's really set himself above them. How has he? He's had one really good season, and in it his team didn't do anything all that impressive. For a SG he doesn't seem to be that great of an athlete.


It's skill, Mike, pure and simple. Usually small guys have better skill than big guys, but Roy has a set of skills that is extremely rare for a 6' 6" guard, giving him the chance to be elite.

He is a gifted ball handler for a shooting guard (or a point guard). This allows him to penetrate the lane with great fluency. He is also particularly skillful at penetrating and kicking: Gordon, Roy, and Nocioni would be a terror on the court together. We'd get so many open looks. I acutally think Roy is better at penetrating, passing, and handling than anyone on the Bulls. 

Brandon is uniquely skillful with his left hand, both dribbling and finishing. This allows him a great variety of options as he penetrates. He's really skillful driving left, so you don't know which way he's going to go.

He's also a highly effective shooter, shooting 51% from the field, 40% from 3, and 81% from the line. In comparison, Ben Gordon never shot more than 44% from the field in his three years at UCONN. An injury hampered Roy's productivity as a junior, but in more limited minutes he shot 57% from the field. What guard does that?

Roy is a good athlete but certainly not a Rudy Gay level athlete. I think of him in the athletic range of a Manu Ginobili or a Ray Allen. Speaking of Allen, I think Roy has similar grace and smoothness and efficiency of motion. He is always absolute control of himself. He's also an extremely good rebounder for a guard, another testament to his underrated vertical leap and athleticism.

On defense, Roy is always one to take a charge and scrap for a steal. He's a demon in the passing lanes, and he's going to earn himself a lot of cheap baskets that way. He's not a lockdown guy, but he's well above average, plus he has the size we need in the backcourt.

I like LaMarcus Aldridge's skill level, but really, nobody in this draft can hang with Brandon Roy in terms of skill. I think Roy would have the potential to be the best player on our team, and I also think he would have the potential to be Paxson and Skiles' favorite player on the team, assuming his defense progresses as it should. 

When it all comes down to it, Roy's basketball IQ is off the charts. I definitely think he has a chance to be the best player in the draft.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I think the only way you take a G at #2 is if he's going to score at least 25 PPG, be at least 6'6", a slasher type that can dunk and draw lots of fouls, be a good ball handler, passer AND defender. Is Roy all of that?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

You know that is what is special about Roy. He isn't necessarily off the charts on anything, but he is really, really good at _everything._

Not many players are really, really good at _everything._


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

If Roy was as good ad DMD said, why wouldnt the raptors take him. I mean they are pretty much set at the front court, they could really use a good guard.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Roy is a good athlete but certainly not a Rudy Gay level athlete. I think of him in the athletic range of a Manu Ginobili or a Ray Allen.


Thus proving that Manu's athleticism continues to be under-rated. 

Great post. If I knew how the 'rep' thing worked, I'd give you some.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

GB said:


> Thus proving that Manu's athleticism continues to be under-rated.
> 
> Great post. If I knew how the 'rep' thing worked, I'd give you some.


Just click on the little "scales of justice" under his username. Then click "I approve."


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You know that is what is special about Roy. He isn't necessarily off the charts on anything, but he is really, really good at _everything._
> 
> Not many players are really, really good at _everything._


I don't think we can say with any certainty at all that Roy will be really, really good at shooting the three at the next level (which imo is a must for any NBA 2 guard, but critically important for a 2 guard playing in our offense).

Enough players have plenty of trouble transitioning to that shot at the next level, and those are the guys who were great college 3-point shooters for their whole career. Roy hardly ever shot the college three prior to his senior season, and when he did shoot it, he was atrocious. 

I think it's a stretch to assume his 40% from 19-9 for one year is going to translate to a similar number in the NBA. If a guy shoots well over 40% for his career on a high volume of college threes like Hinrich or Gordon, that's another thing.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't think we can say with any certainty at all that Roy will be really, really good at shooting the three at the next level (which imo is a must for any NBA 2 guard, but critically important for a 2 guard playing in our offense).
> 
> Enough players have plenty of trouble transitioning to that shot at the next level, and those are the guys who were great college 3-point shooters for their whole career. Roy hardly ever shot the college three prior to his senior season, and when he did shoot it, he was atrocious.
> 
> I think it's a stretch to assume his 40% from 19-9 for one year is going to translate to a similar number in the NBA. If a guy shoots well over 40% on a high volume of college threes like Hinrich or Gordon, that's one thing.


35% from 3 his junior year is not atrocious.

However, I agree with your general premise. One can't guarantee Roy will be a deadly 3-point shooter in the pros. There's a lot of difference between the lengths of the shot. However, his shooting form looks quite good. I think he's got a chance to be good from range.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> 35% from 3 his junior year is not atrocious.


I guess not, but he took 20 threes in 29 games. I took a leap of faith and assumed he took few 3s because he didn't feel comfortable shooting them or his coach didn't want him to or both.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

20 ppg, 5 and a half rebounds per game, better than 4 assists, a steal and a half, nearly a block a game, .810 from the line, better than .500 from the field, .402 from the college arc.

Not too shabby a senior year.

There are no gaurantees in life. So sayeth Ditka. 


But I would like our chances with this kid. Seems to be fundamentally sound. Seems committed to getting better every year. Good head on his shoulders. Good basketball IQ. Coachable.

I think he is coming in NBA ready and is still poised to get better and better.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

One thing that concerns me about Roy's shot is that, if I remember correctly, he has a little bit of a low release.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You know that is what is special about Roy. He isn't necessarily off the charts on anything, but he is really, really good at _everything._
> 
> Not many players are really, really good at _everything._



and for those of you that think this type of statement can't be said about superstar type players I think Walter Payton is a perfect example of how someone isn't necessairly the best at something but is really really good at everything...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I guess not, but he took 20 threes in 29 games. I took a leap of faith and assumed he took few 3s because he didn't feel comfortable shooting them or his coach didn't want him to or both.


It might have had something to do with Roy's being hampered by a knee injury his junior year...He hurt it in November and I understand he never fully recovered that season (but showed no lingering problems his senior year).

Or not. I guess I don't know for sure why he didn't attempt more 3s that year.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> 20 ppg, 5 and a half rebounds per game, better than 4 assists, a steal and a half, nearly a block a game, .810 from the line, better than .500 from the field, .402 from the college arc.
> 
> Not too shabby a senior year.
> 
> ...


Nice synopsis. Of course, college stats don't necessarily transfer to the NBA (TB, you may be the only one on the board who might remember that the Bulls' very first draft choice was the NCAA's top scorer, Dave Shellhase, who positively sucked in the NBA).

I'm fine with Roy. It's a little frustrating that there's not a sure-fire superstar out there in the draft, and this may lead folks to want to take a big swing on the off-chance we might hit something. Not me. Unlike most teams who would be picking at #2, the Bulls are already a pretty good team. If they were already a great team, or if they were a terrible, rebuilding team, taking on a project might make sense. Unlike the great teams, the Bulls need to fill holes. Unlike the bad teams, they have more than a couple legitimate pieces.

One of the holes is a guard with size who can defend and score some. Roy looks like he could fill this hole and be a legitimate piece on this team...right away. Stealing a line from Bears' GM Jerry Angelo, Roy has a very good "ceiling," but he has the highest "floor" of any of the top picks.

If there was a truly great center in this draft, I'd feel differently, but there ain't. We drafted Curry and Chandler 5, count 'em 5, years ago and we still don't know whether either one is the real deal. I'm 52 years old and have lived through the multiple post-dynasty rebuilding suckfests. I like the Bulls' nucleus (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Nocioni) and the team's coaching. 

Roy looks to me like the best way (barring a trade of the pick) to build on what we have to win more games, and possibly contend, over the next 3 years.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Just click on the little "scales of justice" under his username. Then click "I approve."


You've got rep. 

(him too!)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> It's skill, Mike, pure and simple. Usually small guys have better skill than big guys, but Roy has a set of skills that is extremely rare for a 6' 6" guard, giving him the chance to be elite.
> 
> He is a gifted ball handler for a shooting guard (or a point guard). This allows him to penetrate the lane with great fluency. He is also particularly skillful at penetrating and kicking: Gordon, Roy, and Nocioni would be a terror on the court together. We'd get so many open looks. I acutally think Roy is better at penetrating, passing, and handling than anyone on the Bulls.
> 
> ...


Nice stuff DMD. I'm not sold, but I haven't walked out of the showroom yet.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I guess not, but he took 20 threes in 29 games. I took a leap of faith and assumed he took few 3s because he didn't feel comfortable shooting them or his coach didn't want him to or both.



Scott, you may be making the same mistake I was:

I just got done rewatching Roy's game against Arizona. At first, I came away underwhelmed: he's a step slower and a spoonful more tentative then Iguodala and Artest on D; his jump shot is pure but a shade more inconsistent then the league dead-eyes; he doesn't take over games like Ben Gordon, though he's money down the stretch; Roy's not as explosive off the dribble as Steve Nash; he's not as creative at the bucket as a Vince Carter; and his first step isn't as quick as Lebron.

But then you take a step back and realize you are comparing to the very best in the game. 

Roy does everything at a high NBA level; we just are so set on looking for the best, we can't appreciate what he does bring to the table. Just the fact that you can already compare Roy to nba all-stars means that he is going to be special. He's in the same ballpark, if not quite yet, in the same league. I mean, Tyrus Thomas and Aldridge are years away from even beginning to be able to make these type of comparisons.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Scott, you may be making the same mistake I was:
> 
> I just got done rewatching Roy's game against Arizona. At first, I came away underwhelmed: he's a step slower and a spoonful more tentative then Iguodala and Artest on D; his jump shot is pure but a shade more inconsistent then the league dead-eyes; he doesn't take over games like Ben Gordon, though he's money down the stretch; Roy's not as explosive off the dribble as Steve Nash; he's not as creative at the bucket as a Vince Carter; and his first step isn't as quick as Lebron.
> 
> ...


Whoa, let's hold on a second here. I've acknowledged Roy is probably going to have the easiest transition to the next level of any of the draft picks. 

But three-point shooting isn't something that has to be compared vs. other players -- it's one guy vs. a stripe on the floor. Based on his college numbers, it's wildly premature to say he'll be even an above average three-point shooter at the next level, and in fact, there's some evidence to suggest he'll be a below average or even poor NBA three-point shooter. 

I don't deny that Roy's looked pretty impressive in the games I've seen. I'd just feel more comfortable about taking a four-year-senior at #2 if he'd had more than one good statistical year and if his team had made a Final Four or even a title game.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Whoa, let's hold on a second here. I've acknowledged Roy is probably going to have the easiest transition to the next level of any of the draft picks.
> 
> But three-point shooting isn't something that has to be compared vs. other players -- it's one guy vs. a stripe on the floor. Based on his college numbers, it's wildly premature to say he'll be even an above average three-point shooter at the next level, and in fact, there's some evidence to suggest he'll be a below average or even poor NBA three-point shooter.
> 
> I don't deny that Roy's looked pretty impressive in the games I've seen. I'd just feel more comfortable about taking a four-year-senior at #2 if he'd had more than one good statistical year and if his team had made a Final Four or even a title game.


 Take a guy like J.R. Smith. . . he shoots threes at a relatively good clip: %.371 last year. I would take Roy over Smith as a three point shooter any day of the week even though Roy may shoot a worse percentage now, and his first year in the league. Roy is almost always on balance, and has a consistent motion and release. Smith's form is ungainly, inconsistent and he secores based on his natural talent for chucking the ball towards the hoop. Theres more to evaluating whether a prospect will be a good three point shooter than just looking at his shooting percentage from the stripe in college.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> It's skill, Mike, pure and simple. Usually small guys have better skill than big guys, but Roy has a set of skills that is extremely rare for a 6' 6" guard, giving him the chance to be elite.
> 
> He is a gifted ball handler for a shooting guard (or a point guard). This allows him to penetrate the lane with great fluency. He is also particularly skillful at penetrating and kicking: Gordon, Roy, and Nocioni would be a terror on the court together. We'd get so many open looks. I acutally think Roy is better at penetrating, passing, and handling than anyone on the Bulls.
> 
> ...


Tremendous post. Great summary of Roy. I think a lot of Bulls fans choose to look at what he can't do, due to our need for a big-man clouding their judgment. I'm always hearing something new everyday about what he can't do. One day it's that he's not very athletic. The next it's that he can't shoot. The next it's that he's good at a lot of things, but not great at one. The truth is, he's a great player. He's not the most exciting guy out there to watch, but he's incredibly effective. I believe he has the upside to be a 20-plus point per game scorer in the NBA. The only slight qualm I have with him is his aggressiveness. He's unselfish, which is a good thing, but I think he lets the game come to him almost to a fault. He can take over games pretty much whenever he wants, but he needs to look to do it earlier in games. I love and appreciate his passing ability, but he could stand to look for his shot a little bit more. I think he will in the NBA. I would absolutely love to see him in a Bulls uniform.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I don't deny that Roy's looked pretty impressive in the games I've seen. I'd just feel more comfortable about taking a four-year-senior at #2 if he'd had more than one good statistical year and if his team had made a Final Four or even a title game.


I can't remember the specifics, but injuries really slowed Roy down junior year. I believe he missed part of the season and came back as a 6th man because the team gelled so well while he was out. He probably would have put up nice numbers as a junior otherwise.

Maybe one of the bigger Royaholics can elaborate on this.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

BDMcGee said:


> I think a lot of Bulls fans choose to look at what he can't do, due to our need for a big-man clouding their judgment.


Please, nobodies judgement on here is "clouded", WE just realize the obvious which is : the CHICAGO BULLS need BIG men, PERIOD. We need a big with potential to be great more than we need a 3rd GUARD with potential to be great.

When we're the 3rd seed next year and we face Orlando at the 6th seed, and we get molested by Darko and Dwight..and put out of the first round again.

I'll be SURE to bring this thread up.

But we'll still have Brandon Roy, so you'd still probably be happy, since he's gonna lead us to a title and all, with Chandler, Schensher & Sweetney giving him great production in the frontcourt.

So, I'll answer the threadstarter's question,

Hell yeah, I'd be upset. Would I still want Roy? yes, but not at the expense of the #2 pick.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Please, nobodies judgement on here is "clouded", WE just realize the obvious which is : the CHICAGO BULLS need BIG men, PERIOD. We need a big with potential to be great more than we need a 3rd GUARD with potential to be great.
> 
> When we're the 3rd seed next year and we face Orlando at the 6th seed, and we get molested by Darko and Dwight..and put out of the first round again.
> 
> ...


Pure Ownage from someone I'm beginning to mistake for my clone.

I swear people just cant get over the fact that we don't have a 6'6" 200 lb do it all lead guard.

Michael Jordan is GONE people. GET OVER IT and stop trying to bring him back out of retirement through "other means". Can you guys just for once be happy that we have a backcourt that on most nights is better than the opposition?

I mean, Gordon and Hinrich, for all the complaining about their lack of size, WERE NOT THE REASON we were eliminated by Miami. In fact, the two of them were almost exclusively (along with Nocioni) the reason we were able to challenge them. ANd for the second year in a row, it was a lack of size UP FRONT, not in the BACKCOURT that doomed us in the playoffs.

Good grief. I could see if we were drafting Dwayne Wade. But we aren't. Even at his current level, he wouldn't even crack the top 10 if we go back a few years and stick him in the '04 draft (the one where we got DENG and Gordon).


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Pure Ownage from someone I'm beginning to mistake for my clone.
> 
> I swear people just cant get over the fact that we don't have a 6'6" 200 lb do it all lead guard.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't go that far. Roy is easily better than #10 pick Luke Jackson and seems comparable to #6 pick Josh Childress as a prospect (but better, I was never impressed with Josh Childress). I disagree that he wouldn't crack the top 10. As that realgm poster pointed out-- Roy suffered a knee injury in his sophomore year, and came back as a 6th man so as not to upset team chemistry. It doesn't bother me that he's a senior who only had one good season. 

Of course, I voted "yes" initially, but now that Thomas has been revealed as a 6'7 tweener, I wouldn't mind grabbing Roy at 2 if Toronto took Aldridge. He would be the best player available, and we could always choose which member of our guard trio is weakest to trade for a big man before the season. 

By the time Wade started practicing with Miami, 2 weeks after he was drafted, Riley, Van Gundy, and the Heat organization recognized that he was a special player and deemed him untradeable.  Ask any Heat poster. I'm not saying Roy is the next Wade, (certainly not after tonight) but it wouldn't take long to evaluate Roy once we started seeing him scrimmage with the other Bulls.


----------

