[USSoccer]

The majority of draft prospects don't reach their ceiling. I find it odd that you're convinced Thomas is such a tremendous risk. I'm talking about a very mature young man from all reports who will be 20 in two months. And who's to say any player won't lose this or that after they're drafted?

 

You do your research. You talk to his coaches and the young man. And you make your pick. I have full confidence in Paxson.

 

Why wouldn't you try and minimize your risks? Also, why would you value individual workouts and interviews with coaches more than actual game performance? Why should it be different than how we expect the Cubs to draft?

 

If Thomas were a baseball player, no one here would want him. He wreaks of "toolsy" and potential. He's a scouts dream, but we have such limited proof of his ability to perform in game situations.

 

It's not that I lack faith in Paxson. It's that I lack faith in one year wonders and athletic wonders actually turning out to be impact players. I'd rather go with a more proven commodity.

[SouthSideRyan]

So you're telling me we're not taking Aldriidge then

 

...Grrreat.

[1908]

Why wouldn't you try and minimize your risks? Also, why would you value individual workouts and interviews with coaches more than actual game performance? Why should it be different than how we expect the Cubs to draft?

You have to balance risk with reward. Who said anything about putting more value on workouts and interviews? It's all part of the puzzle. And I expect the Cubs to draft on ceiling and potential even more than the Bulls do.

 

It's not that I lack faith in Paxson. It's that I lack faith in one year wonders and athletic specimins actually turning out to be impact players. I'd rather go with a more proven commodity.

If by proven commodity you mean a player that's played 3+ years of college ball, I think that's a very limiting draft strategy. A high percentage of star players in the NBA have limited or no college experience. Again, risk versus reward. We'll find out Pax's preference in a week.

[1908]

So you're telling me we're not taking Aldriidge then

 

...Grrreat.

Doesn't seem to be as much buzz about him as Thomas and Roy. They did work him out this week, though.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

C'mon guys. I love Roy Williams. I went to a rival Pac-10 school of his and have seen him play throughout his career. And I can say without a doubt that Tyrus Thomas should be drafted ahead of Roy. Roy will probably win ROY (heh), but Tyrus (and maybe Bargani - I don't know much about him) should definitely end up as better pros. I have no problem with the Bulls selecting any of those 3. Just no Morrison.

 

:shock:

 

Me too, but then I am a Carolina fan.

 

EDIT: And how can you assert that Bargani will be a better pro than Roy if you admit to not knowing much about him?

 

Reading his scouting reports. More than some of you are doing with Tyrus Thomas.

 

I have read Mr. Thomas' scouting report, and my opinion is unchanged. If you look at him in a vacuum without considering the Bulls' circumstances, I definitely understand the notion that he has a higher ceiling than Roy andshould be picked.

 

But the Bulls need immediate production, and particulalry need a permiter player with the ability to create his own shot. History shows us that players of Thomas' type are not as productive from the outset as guys like Roy are, and several of them have been outright flops. If you insist, I will create a list, but I think we both know to whom I am referring. Here is why I am not in love with Thomas, relative to what the Bulls need:

 

From Collegehoops.com:

 

Weaknesses: Needs to add weight to his frame – is still too thin to play the post in the NBA. Doesn’t have very deep range on his jump shot – only shot (and hit) one 3-pointer this season. Still very inexperienced – was a medical redshirt his first year in school and then played one season – and game is still raw.

 

Why do the Bulls need immediate production? They need what's best for them to get to an NBA title as soon as possible, and if it means drafting a better, but rawer, player who will take longer to develop, so be it. The Bulls could use a bigger perimiter player who can defend and create his own shot, but I think they need an inside presence much more. Thomas can at least give some inside presence.

 

I agree that Thomas won't be as productive as Roy at the outset (I was the one who predicted Brandon would win the ROY award). But Thomas' potential, hard work (something Swift hasn't displayed much of), etc. can't be looked past. Yeah, he doesn't have a 3-point shot, but he has a great mid-range game. Thomas is more likely to flop than Roy, but he has a better ceiling too. You have to pick the player that you think will end up being the best player - not the guy who will be the best player in his rookie season. The Bulls aren't on the cusp of having their window close, they don't need to rush into this.

 

I have faith in Paxson, whether he picks Thomas or Roy.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The majority of draft prospects don't reach their ceiling. I find it odd that you're convinced Thomas is such a tremendous risk. I'm talking about a very mature young man from all reports who will be 20 in two months. And who's to say any player won't lose this or that after they're drafted?

 

You do your research. You talk to his coaches and the young man. And you make your pick. I have full confidence in Paxson.

 

Why wouldn't you try and minimize your risks? Also, why would you value individual workouts and interviews with coaches more than actual game performance? Why should it be different than how we expect the Cubs to draft?

 

If Thomas were a baseball player, no one here would want him. He wreaks of "toolsy" and potential. He's a scouts dream, but we have such limited proof of his ability to perform in game situations.

 

It's not that I lack faith in Paxson. It's that I lack faith in one year wonders and athletic wonders actually turning out to be impact players. I'd rather go with a more proven commodity.

 

Paxson has drafted Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon so far - a combination of "one-year wonders" (i.e. a freshman who turned pro) and proven college commodities.

 

This particular athletic one-year wonder has quite a game already. You have to have faith that you have the coaching staff to turn him into a star.

[USSoccer]

The majority of draft prospects don't reach their ceiling. I find it odd that you're convinced Thomas is such a tremendous risk. I'm talking about a very mature young man from all reports who will be 20 in two months. And who's to say any player won't lose this or that after they're drafted?

 

You do your research. You talk to his coaches and the young man. And you make your pick. I have full confidence in Paxson.

 

Why wouldn't you try and minimize your risks? Also, why would you value individual workouts and interviews with coaches more than actual game performance? Why should it be different than how we expect the Cubs to draft?

 

If Thomas were a baseball player, no one here would want him. He wreaks of "toolsy" and potential. He's a scouts dream, but we have such limited proof of his ability to perform in game situations.

 

It's not that I lack faith in Paxson. It's that I lack faith in one year wonders and athletic wonders actually turning out to be impact players. I'd rather go with a more proven commodity.

 

Paxson has drafted Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon so far - a combination of "one-year wonders" (i.e. a freshman who turned pro) and proven college commodities.

 

This particular athletic one-year wonder has quite a game already. You have to have faith that you have the coaching staff to turn him into a star.

 

The only 1 yr wonder on that list is Deng. Gordon was always a good shooter at UConn; he happened to have a great Big East and NCAA tournament. Hinrich was a solid performer at Kansas. Duhon was a starter at Duke.

 

I believe in the coaching staff, but I don't think Thomas is as good as people think he can be. I don't think it will be even close. I see a player who won't be able to get his own shot, struggle from the outside, is undersized for a 4, will get pushed around defensively, and will put up the occasional Chandler-esque 12 and 15 game.

[1908]

I believe in the coaching staff, but I don't think Thomas is as good as people think he can be. I don't think it will be even close. I see a player who won't be able to get his own shot, struggle from the outside, is undersized for a 4, will get pushed around defensively, and will put up the occasional Chandler-esque 12 and 15 game.

You don't think he's as good as people think he can be? What a colossal understatement. Your outlook is worse than the worst case scenario, and you ignore all of his obvious strengths. I think you'd be very, very hard pressed to find a single scout in the country that agreed with you. Not much else to say on this topic. Wow.

[USSoccer]

I believe in the coaching staff, but I don't think Thomas is as good as people think he can be. I don't think it will be even close. I see a player who won't be able to get his own shot, struggle from the outside, is undersized for a 4, will get pushed around defensively, and will put up the occasional Chandler-esque 12 and 15 game.

You don't think he's as good as people think he can be? What a colossal understatement. Your outlook is worse than the worst case scenario, and you ignore all of his obvious strengths. I think you'd be very, very hard pressed to find a single scout in the country that agreed with you. Not much else to say on this topic. Wow.

 

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

 

EDIT:

 

His obvious strengths are all physical traits. He doesn't have much polish on his basketball skill. I think his physical gifts will allow for him to be, as I said, at best, a plus defender with little offensive skill. I won't believe in any offensive game outside of putbacks and garbage dunks until I see him make shots from midrange and beyond in a game situation.

Edited June 20, 2006 by USSoccer

[1908]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

[USSoccer]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

 

So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I believe in the coaching staff, but I don't think Thomas is as good as people think he can be. I don't think it will be even close. I see a player who won't be able to get his own shot, struggle from the outside, is undersized for a 4, will get pushed around defensively, and will put up the occasional Chandler-esque 12 and 15 game.

You don't think he's as good as people think he can be? What a colossal understatement. Your outlook is worse than the worst case scenario, and you ignore all of his obvious strengths. I think you'd be very, very hard pressed to find a single scout in the country that agreed with you. Not much else to say on this topic. Wow.

 

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

 

EDIT:

 

His obvious strengths are all physical traits. He doesn't have much polish on his basketball skill. I think his physical gifts will allow for him to be, as I said, at best, a plus defender with little offensive skill. I won't believe in any offensive game outside of putbacks and garbage dunks until I see him make shots from midrange and beyond in a game situation.

 

So I take it you missed the NCAA tourney? (Outside of the UCLA game. :D)

Edited June 20, 2006 by CaliforniaRaisin

[1908]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

 

So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

At best? Huh? You asked for the worse case scenario, and I think he has an excellent chance at being better than that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

 

So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

 

Come on, you're better than this. You ask him to list a player's worst case scenario and then trash the player based on that?

 

I can do that with Roy or Morrison or Aldridge.

[USSoccer]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

 

So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

At best? Huh? You asked for the worse case scenario, and I think he has an excellent chance at being better than that.

 

Almost no NBA prospects make their "best case" projection. Most end up on the lower end of middle case. Using your worst case, middle case is a really, really good defensive player who can be explosive around the basket, and occasionally hit a jumper, like Shawn Kemp.

 

It's not a stretch to think he'll end up between my worst case and Shawn Kemp. It is a huge leap of faith to think he'll end up at his ceiling.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

By the way, I only take Roy if (like Mark_R), I can trade Gordon. Keeping Gordon defeats the purpose of having Roy and we'd have too many guards in the rotation.

[USSoccer]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

 

So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

 

Come on, you're better than this. You ask him to list a player's worst case scenario and then trash the player based on that?

 

I can do that with Roy or Morrison or Aldridge.

 

But Raisin, the point I'm trying to make is that while Aldridge and Roy's best case isn't nearly as high as Thomas', their respective worst cases aren't as deep. Do you want to take a gamble on a player that has such a range of possible outcomes?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

What do you think the worst case scenario is for him?

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots.

 

So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

 

Come on, you're better than this. You ask him to list a player's worst case scenario and then trash the player based on that?

 

I can do that with Roy or Morrison or Aldridge.

 

But Raisin, the point I'm trying to make is that while Aldridge and Roy's best case isn't nearly as high as Thomas', their respective worst cases aren't as deep. Do you want to take a gamble on a player that has such a range of possible outcomes?

 

Actually, I think Aldridge's worst case is lower than Thomas'.

 

You have to realize that a GM and scouts consider that too. They consider the likelihood of reaching the potential or anywhere near it. And with this considered, Thomas is a consensus top-3 pick.

Edited June 20, 2006 by CaliforniaRaisin

[1908]

His obvious strengths are all physical traits. He doesn't have much polish on his basketball skill. I think his physical gifts will allow for him to be, as I said, at best, a plus defender with little offensive skill. I won't believe in any offensive game outside of putbacks and garbage dunks until I see him make shots from midrange and beyond in a game situation.

His physical gifts are off the charts and allow for a sky's-the-limit ceiling. Did you see him dominate in the NCAA's? You seem to be projecting him to take a step back with NBA coaching.

[1908]

You have to realize that a GM and scouts consider that too. They consider the liklihood of reaching the potential or anywhere near it. And with this considered, Thomas is a consensus top-3 pick.

Testify.

[USSoccer]

 

Actually, I think Aldridge's worst case is lower than Thomas'.

 

You have to realize that a GM and scouts consider that too. They consider the liklihood of reaching the potential or anywhere near it. And with this considered, Thomas is a consensus top-3 pick.

 

FWIW, I think Aldridge ends up like PJ Brown. I'm not too convinced on him either, but at least you have a body of work to draw from.

 

And like I said, 1908 is much better informed than I. I'm just trying to argue what might be a flawed opinion, and if they draft him, I hope I'm proven the wrongest of wrongs.

[Derwood]

Nobody is a sure thing. Prior to last year, GM's were throwing first round money at 18 year olds whose body of work consisted of dunking on 5'6" white guys all game

[Mark_R]

By the way, I only take Roy if (like Mark_R), I can trade Gordon. Keeping Gordon defeats the purpose of having Roy and we'd have too many guards in the rotation.

 

For the record, I'd rather have Roy and Frye instead of Gordon and Thomas/Aldridge if given the choice. I think its pretty well documented I'm not the biggest Ben fan on the board, however. I'd rather have two guys with high ceilings (Roy and Frye) with size on their side than two guys with high ceilings (Gordon and Thomas, and to a lesser extent Aldridge) with limited and hindering size.

 

All bets are off if Bargnani is available at 2 however.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Nobody is a sure thing. Prior to last year, GM's were throwing first round money at 18 year olds whose body of work consisted of dunking on 5'6" white guys all game

 

I would like to point out that a likely second rounder in this year's draft (UCLA's Ryan Hollins) dunked over me (5'7") in a HS game. Twice.

 

:oops:

[USSoccer]

His obvious strengths are all physical traits. He doesn't have much polish on his basketball skill. I think his physical gifts will allow for him to be, as I said, at best, a plus defender with little offensive skill. I won't believe in any offensive game outside of putbacks and garbage dunks until I see him make shots from midrange and beyond in a game situation.

His physical gifts are off the charts and allow for a sky's-the-limit ceiling. Did you see him dominate in the NCAA's? You seem to be projecting him to take a step back with NBA coaching.

 

Don't you think there's a big difference between dominating NCAA frontcourts and NBA frontcourts?