Bulls get the #1 pick! 2008 NBA Draft Discussion

[Magnetic Curses]

all this hemming and hawing aside, I think you've got to take the potential superstar PG over the potential superstar PF.

 

 

I agree if the superstar PG can hit open jump shots. A SSPG is more like a stock and a SSPF is more like a bond to me, the PF can get you 17-21/8-11 but the PG could be the missing piece that makes it all work or shoot too much and screw up the system.

 

The Bulls don't have a guy that can create his own shots, other than Gordon, though his size hampers him often times. Rose can create his own and can create shots for his teammates, especially slashers like Deng, Noah, Tyrus. Rose has the best court vision I may have ever seen. I don't think there's physically anything Beasley CAN'T do on the court. But he won't make his teammates better.

 

oh, anybody that commands the attention that beasley does automatically makes his teammates better.

 

i wouldn't say that rose's court vision is a huge strength, others might, but i don't. his athleticism and explosiveness are his strengths and that's what makes him a great college player. as far as court vision, he's not close to guys like jason kidd, deron williams, or steve nash.

[Warpticon]

Kidd is all of the above: future hall of famer, exception to the rule, overrated. (At least, current Kidd, who's more turnover prone, defensively declining, and an even worse shooter (if you can believe that) than ever.)

 

My point is that his height isn't extremely important if he has the skills and athleticism to play the position. We've seen enough small PFs and big SFs in the league to know this by now. I'm not saying ti wouldn't be easier if he were the taller possibility. I just don't think it's anywhere near as much a detriment as it's made out to be. It would help if he were stronger, but he can improve there over time. And if, at worst, you end up with a small forward who's a rebound machine...well, there are worse scenarios to deal with. I'm sure Bulls fans won't be heartbroken if they end up with a more athletic Shawn Marion.

 

Besides, arm length is going to be much, much more important than a two inch potential fluctuation in his height. He's not going to be snagging rebounds with the top of his head. I've always wondered why this isn't really talked about more often.

[Guest]

Kidd is all of the above: future hall of famer, exception to the rule, overrated. (At least, current Kidd, who's more turnover prone, defensively declining, and an even worse shooter (if you can believe that) than ever.)

 

My point is that his height isn't extremely important if he has the skills and athleticism to play the position. We've seen enough small PFs and big SFs in the league to know this by now. I'm not saying ti wouldn't be easier if he were the taller possibility. I just don't think it's anywhere near as much a detriment as it's made out to be. It would help if he were stronger, but he can improve there over time. And if, at worst, you end up with a small forward who's a rebound machine...well, there are worse scenarios to deal with. I'm sure Bulls fans won't be heartbroken if they end up with a more athletic Shawn Marion.

 

Besides, arm length is going to be much, much more important than a two inch potential fluctuation in his height. He's not going to be snagging rebounds with the top of his head. I've always wondered why this isn't really talked about more often.

 

The thing about it is you have to be sure that his other advantages (athleticism, wingspan, innate rebounding ability, etc.) make up for any shortcomings with height. Especially when the alternative will be an athletic freak and a better bet to dominate at his position.

[Warpticon]

Kidd is all of the above: future hall of famer, exception to the rule, overrated. (At least, current Kidd, who's more turnover prone, defensively declining, and an even worse shooter (if you can believe that) than ever.)

 

My point is that his height isn't extremely important if he has the skills and athleticism to play the position. We've seen enough small PFs and big SFs in the league to know this by now. I'm not saying ti wouldn't be easier if he were the taller possibility. I just don't think it's anywhere near as much a detriment as it's made out to be. It would help if he were stronger, but he can improve there over time. And if, at worst, you end up with a small forward who's a rebound machine...well, there are worse scenarios to deal with. I'm sure Bulls fans won't be heartbroken if they end up with a more athletic Shawn Marion.

 

Besides, arm length is going to be much, much more important than a two inch potential fluctuation in his height. He's not going to be snagging rebounds with the top of his head. I've always wondered why this isn't really talked about more often.

 

The thing about it is you have to be sure that his other advantages (athleticism, wingspan, innate rebounding ability, etc.) make up for any shortcomings with height. Especially when the alternative will be an athletic freak and a better bet to dominate at his position.

 

 

The bolded is not relevant to what I'm talking about...I was responding specifically the the assertation that Beasley can't play PF if he's 6'7". I've already made it clear that I think Rose is the better pick for a number of reasons.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Warpticon

[Guest]

Fair enough, I'm coming from a view of comparing the two. On his own, Beasley is a fantastic prospect...6-7 or 6-9.

[Soul]

Fair enough, I'm coming from a view of comparing the two. On his own, Beasley is a fantastic prospect...6-7 or 6-9.

 

Can't disagree. I'm in the boat with a lot of others. I can't claim to have great technical basketball knowledge though. It just seems to me like Rose is a more solid choice. If we were picking #2 I'd be very happy with the prospect of getting Beasley.

[Guest]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080527

 

Ford now has Rose going 1. :)

 

The skinny: Our first mock draft put Michael Beasley atop the list. But the more I hear GM John Paxson speak about the pick, the more it sounds like Rose will be the choice.

 

I believe Paxson when he says the team hasn't decided. But if he is going to prioritize character, leadership and chemistry in his criteria, Rose will win the battle.

 

Beasley is a slightly better fit since the Bulls need a low-post scorer and rebounder, but they can't go wrong with Rose. He's ranked as the No. 1 player on our big board.

[Tyrant]

Besides, arm length is going to be much, much more important than a two inch potential fluctuation in his height. He's not going to be snagging rebounds with the top of his head. I've always wondered why this isn't really talked about more often.

 

This is good point, and you're right that it's often overlooked. I remember reading an article about "true height" that talked about how Tyrus Thomas plays like a seven-footer because of his wingspan and jumping ability.

 

Here's the link: http://www.82games.com/trueheight.htm

 

I'd be interested to know how this applies to Beasley.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080527

 

Ford now has Rose going 1. :)

 

Ugh, I don't like Koufas at 19. Hopefully Spreights or McGee falls there, or they go with someone like CDR.

[Guest]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080527

 

Ford now has Rose going 1. :)

 

The skinny: Our first mock draft put Michael Beasley atop the list. But the more I hear GM John Paxson speak about the pick, the more it sounds like Rose will be the choice.

 

I believe Paxson when he says the team hasn't decided. But if he is going to prioritize character, leadership and chemistry in his criteria, Rose will win the battle.

 

Beasley is a slightly better fit since the Bulls need a low-post scorer and rebounder, but they can't go wrong with Rose. He's ranked as the No. 1 player on our big board.

 

I was looking up and down that mock draft and I couldn't find the Lakers there anywhere. Can anyone tell me what happened to their first round pick? :D

[wolf stansson]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080527

 

Ford now has Rose going 1. :)

 

The skinny: Our first mock draft put Michael Beasley atop the list. But the more I hear GM John Paxson speak about the pick, the more it sounds like Rose will be the choice.

 

I believe Paxson when he says the team hasn't decided. But if he is going to prioritize character, leadership and chemistry in his criteria, Rose will win the battle.

 

Beasley is a slightly better fit since the Bulls need a low-post scorer and rebounder, but they can't go wrong with Rose. He's ranked as the No. 1 player on our big board.

 

I was looking up and down that mock draft and I couldn't find the Lakers there anywhere. Can anyone tell me what happened to their first round pick? :D

Note the two Grizzlies picks.

[Guest]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080527

 

Ford now has Rose going 1. :)

 

The skinny: Our first mock draft put Michael Beasley atop the list. But the more I hear GM John Paxson speak about the pick, the more it sounds like Rose will be the choice.

 

I believe Paxson when he says the team hasn't decided. But if he is going to prioritize character, leadership and chemistry in his criteria, Rose will win the battle.

 

Beasley is a slightly better fit since the Bulls need a low-post scorer and rebounder, but they can't go wrong with Rose. He's ranked as the No. 1 player on our big board.

 

I was looking up and down that mock draft and I couldn't find the Lakers there anywhere. Can anyone tell me what happened to their first round pick? :D

Note the two Grizzlies picks.

 

I know, hence the smiley.

[wolf stansson]

I was looking up and down that mock draft and I couldn't find the Lakers there anywhere. Can anyone tell me what happened to their first round pick? :D

Note the two Grizzlies picks.

 

I know, hence the smiley.

 

I don't what you are so smiley about. Instead of where you are now, you could have a legit shot at Kosta Koufos or Roy Hibbert if you hadn't traded for Gasol. Think of the possibilities.

[Guest]

I was looking up and down that mock draft and I couldn't find the Lakers there anywhere. Can anyone tell me what happened to their first round pick? :D

Note the two Grizzlies picks.

 

I know, hence the smiley.

 

I don't what you are so smiley about. Instead of where you are now, you could have a legit shot at Kosta Koufos or Roy Hibbert if you hadn't traded for Gasol. Think of the possibilities.

 

And still have Kwame Brown.

[wolf stansson]

I was looking up and down that mock draft and I couldn't find the Lakers there anywhere. Can anyone tell me what happened to their first round pick? :D

Note the two Grizzlies picks.

 

I know, hence the smiley.

 

I don't what you are so smiley about. Instead of where you are now, you could have a legit shot at Kosta Koufos or Roy Hibbert if you hadn't traded for Gasol. Think of the possibilities.

 

And still have Kwame Brown.

Hibbert AND Kwame? Talk about your twin towers.

[David]

Florida paper continues to insist that Bulls will draft Beasley and Miami will get Rose.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basketball/heat/sfl-roseheat0808,0,5566327.story

[Guest]

Florida paper continues to insist that Bulls will draft Beasley and Miami will get Rose.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basketball/heat/sfl-roseheat0808,0,5566327.story

 

Bwahaha, so they are relying on "a party familiar with the Bulls" and Joey Freaking Dorsey?

[Soul]

Dorsey has no idea what he's talking about.

[imb]

Dorsey has no idea what he's talking about.

 

Give him a break, he only learned english two years ago

[Guest]

Dorsey has no idea what he's talking about.

 

Well, he normally doesn't.

[da bears]

Dorsey has no idea what he's talking about.

 

Give him a break, he only learned english two years ago

 

Hahaha awesome.

[RedFlash]

i wouldn't say that rose's court vision is a huge strength, others might, but i don't. his athleticism and explosiveness are his strengths and that's what makes him a great college player. as far as court vision, he's not close to guys like jason kidd, deron williams, or steve nash.

 

Rose's "court vision" is better then you give him credit for. And IMO, I think his court vision will rival Kidd, Nash, and Deron Williams in no time.

[RedFlash]

Florida paper continues to insist that Bulls will draft Beasley and Miami will get Rose.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basketball/heat/sfl-roseheat0808,0,5566327.story

 

That's because everybody knows that Pat Riley controls the media down in South Florida. Rose won't be there at 2.

[nick23]

i wouldn't say that rose's court vision is a huge strength, others might, but i don't. his athleticism and explosiveness are his strengths and that's what makes him a great college player. as far as court vision, he's not close to guys like jason kidd, deron williams, or steve nash.

 

Rose's "court vision" is better then you give him credit for. And IMO, I think his court vision will rival Kidd, Nash, and Deron Williams in no time.

 

To say that Rose's court vision is not a strength is laughable.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

court vision scores:

Jason Kidd - 8.96

Deron Williams - 8.71

Steve Nash - 8.91

Derrick Rose - 8.64