1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NBA Lottery selections: Chicago dude has no shame

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MU_was_not_so_hard, May 20, 2008.

  1. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Nocioni: Not a power forward. He's a very solid backup for Deng.
    Ty Thomas: So inconsistent, it's maddening.
    Gooden: Decent, not spectacular. A solid sixth or seventh man.
    Noah: The second coming of Tyson Chandler. Below average offense, above average defense. Good hustle.

    Beasley would be a slam dunk for them.
     
  2. rube

    rube Active Member

    They've also got Sefolosha and Deng (who is more of a perimeter type slasher I suppose). I guess the point I was trying to make is that they're a perimeter oriented team with literally no inside presence. And while I don't think Beasley will be a low-post beast or anything, he'll be able to at least provide something to work inside out from.
     
  3. rube

    rube Active Member

    Key phrase there there: Beasley's a slam dunk for anyone ... I'm not 100 percent sure Rose is. But who knows.
     
  4. Boobie Miles

    Boobie Miles Active Member

    Seeing what Paul did for Chandler, your description of Noah could be an endorsement for Rose.

    I lumped Nocioni and Deng into the "frontcourt" but if we want to address the actual positions involved its PG and PF. The Bulls have some combination of Gooden, Thomas and Noah -- not sure who is the C out of that group -- for power forward and Duhon and Hinrich as PG. I think they're weaker at the point. But I don't watch them as much as you probably do. I just think Rose is better than Beasley.
     
  5. Norman Stansfield

    Norman Stansfield Active Member

    Rose will be a perennial All-Star. Beasley will be a solid, not spectacular, player.

    When given the chance to draft a franchise point guard, you do it. Even if you have one or two decent guards already in the fold.
     
  6. melock

    melock Well-Known Member

    Well she did refer to him as Stan, not Steve, when she initially introduced him with the rest of the team reps.
     
  7. broadway joe

    broadway joe Guest

    You have to ask that question, even though you know he probably won't answer it. It's the one thing everyone wants to know, so you can't let it go un-asked.

    For what it's worth, ESPN's mock has the Bulls taking Beasley, Heat taking Rose and surprisingly, Minny taking Brook Lopez at #3.
     
  8. melock

    melock Well-Known Member

    I agree. Got to ask the question. You know he won't answer it, especially since he has nothing to do with basketball decisions, but still.

    At #3 Minny needs to take the best player available. I know a lot of people like Mayo at 3, but he's the kind of player to me who will always be real good but never as good as he should be. Just my opinion.
     
  9. Rumpleforeskin

    Rumpleforeskin Active Member

    The T-Wolves already have enough guards as is. The only problem is see them having is they are young. They have the pieces they need.
     
  10. Flip Wilson

    Flip Wilson Well-Known Member

    And she also introduced him as director of basketball operations; on-screen graphic said business operations.
     
  11. melock

    melock Well-Known Member

    How hard is it to introduce someone? I mean what she was reading could have been wrong. If that's the case, how hard is it to find out someone's name and job title?
     
  12. Hammer Pants

    Hammer Pants Active Member

    Some of Chad Ford's first round mock choices still have me shaking my head. Several of his predictions after the first two are laughably horrendous (and sadly, also conceivably accurate).

    I'll never understand why potential is consistently overshadowed by production in these things.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page