The Bulls will regret their decision if they draft Rose over Beasley

[QUOTE=eeeeeebro]what does beasley have to make him dominant.

Strength
Shooting skills (3 point shooter)
good dribbles.
Versitile he can play PF if needed
[B]athletic this guy gots tyrus thomas beat[/B]
Drive - he wants to be the best in all of NBA

Kevin Love bested him in every category at the predraft workouts. Kevin ****ING Love.

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Beasley's scoring ability will largely depend on matchups. His area of effectiveness will be determined by whether or not the player guarding him is taller or shorter than he is. Rose's responsibilities will not change regardless of opponent.

With a brand new head coach with no coaching experience at all the stability that comes from having a player perform the same job every game is invaluable.[/QUOTE]

Try again. You know who else's responsibilities changed depending upon the opponent?

Charles Barkley.

As a matter of fact, being able to play multiple roles is a strength, not a weakness.

Beasley has a good midrange game. He can get to the basket. He wasn't asked to rebound much because he always had the ball in his hands at K-State. Someone else mentioned they have a potentially great SF lineup in Sefalosha, Nocioni, etc. Even if the guy bombs, he will be significantly better at SF than Danny Granger. And DG is far superior to anything the Bulls have at the position. And this overlooks the fact that Beasley will be able to play significant minutes at PF. He's not exactly another Marcus Fizer.

The bottom line is that the Bulls need a scorer. Not another player who is limited offensively. This (and their defense going back to normal) are the reasons they've plateaued. If you were to pick best fits in the league for Rose, the Bulls would easily be in the bottom 10.

[QUOTE=dak121]Hinrich and Deng are not the kind of player's you make concessions towards. If the guy that Paxson wants plays one of their positions take him. No one on the Bulls is currently better than average.[/QUOTE]

Concessions? If Hinrich isn't the kind of guy you make concessions to, what do you call his contract?

The Bulls have a lot of players who are average or better than average for their roles, but they don't have a guy who can take a larger portion of the offensive burden. That is, they have the market cornered on the Deng, Hughes, Hinrichs, Goodens, and Gordons of the world. These guys are generally efficient scorers. They just need someone to draw double teams.

If bulls take Beasley, Heat should draft Mayo

mayo + wade = nasty

[QUOTE=JPR] but he does have character concerns and when you look into his eyes, you can see looney tunes playing. He has zero focus.[/QUOTE]

What character issues? Geeze you make up crap about players that dont exist.

[QUOTE=JPR]at 6 foot 7...come on now. He's a tweener. Chicago already has enough of those. It's Rose all day.[/QUOTE]

He's not 6'7.

[QUOTE=Chicago76]..... If you were to pick best fits in the league for Rose, the Bulls would easily be in the bottom 10.[/QUOTE]
And if the same was done for Mike Beasley the Bulls would be in the bottom five.

My initial comment was about who between Mike Beasley and Derrick Rose was a better fit. Never said anything about either guy being a [I]GOOD[/I] fit.

[QUOTE=Da KO King]And if the same was done for Mike Beasley the Bulls would be in the bottom five.

My initial comment was about who between Mike Beasley and Derrick Rose was a better fit. Never said anything about either guy being a [I]GOOD[/I] fit.[/QUOTE]

And that's what you need to come to grips with. The Bulls have a far more adequate PG than they do anyone who can score with the shot clock winding down...the former Rose would provide...the latter Beasley.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who has seen them more than a couple of times over the last two or three seasons.

[QUOTE=Chicago76]And that's what you need to come to grips with. The Bulls have a far more adequate PG than they do anyone who can score with the shot clock winding down...the former Rose would provide...the latter Beasley.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who has seen them more than a couple of times over the last two or three seasons.[/QUOTE]

...or who didn

[QUOTE=Chicago76]And that's what you need to come to grips with. The Bulls have a far more adequate PG than they do anyone who can score with the shot clock winding down...the former Rose would provide...the latter Beasley.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who has seen them more than a couple of times over the last two or three seasons.[/QUOTE]
Re-read my postings in this thread and see if you can finally understand my point because you still have not gotten what I've been saying.

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1951384&postcount=15"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1951384&postcount=15[/URL]
[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1951542&postcount=20"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1951542&postcount=20[/URL]
[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1951799&postcount=30"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1951799&postcount=30[/URL]
[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1952417&postcount=47"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1952417&postcount=47[/URL]


Let me summarize my point through out this thread, the Chicago Bulls are a bad fit for both players. However, the Bulls are less of a bad fit for Derrick Rose.

[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets]Everyone knows that Derrick Rose is a nice player, but just like he himself admitted a month ago, Michael Beasley is a way better player than him. [B]Besides, the Bulls already have a not-too-bad backcourt and they badly need a inside scorer like Beasley.[/B] In a word, Beasley fits better in the current Bulls team than Rose. As a consequence, I'd say the Bulls will regret their decision if they do take Rose over Beasley during this draft. Seriously, why do people think the Bulls would draft Rose? Just 'cause he's from Chicago?[/QUOTE]

No, the Bulls have a terrible back court with Hinrich, Hughes, Gordon and Sefolosha. If they draft Rose they can use Hughes, re-sign Gordon and Hinrich and try and trade for a big man like Elton Brand. Even if they don't, if Rose can play up to his potential and be nearly as good as Chris Paul I think he turns Sefolosha, Tyrus Thomas, Deng, Noah and even Gordon into all-star kind of players.

Hinrich and Ben Wallace were neck and neck for worst Bulls player of the season. And everyone on that team sucked.

[QUOTE=dhenk]...or who didn

I'm going to be disappointed if the Bulls draft Rose over Beasley. They need help on the lowpost not another god damn PG.

Yeah, I agree with you. Bulls have too many pg/sgs.

Do you know who Michael Beasley reminded me of......Boozer.

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Both players in question are going to disappoint seeing as both are expected to be "beasts" at their positions. Both will be fine players but considering Rose is being touted as a "game changer" and Beasley as a potential "scoring champ" people will surely be let down by what really happens.

That said, if I was in charge of Chicago's draft I'd select Derrick Rose. Vinny Del Negro was hired on to coach with absolutely no coaching experience. I'd be more comfortable giving him an athletic guard and figuring out his philosophy than giving him an inside-outside player whose effectiveness is determined by matchups.[/QUOTE]

Great post. Rose would fit better with the Bulls situation. Also it's much harder to land an elite PG while aquiring a solid big man is more realistic and plus there should be a few available in the offseason anyway. A true point gaurd like Rose don't come around often and the Bulls could be set at that position for many years.

[QUOTE=Gundress]Yeah, I agree with you. Bulls have too many pg/sgs.

Do you know who Michael Beasley reminded me of......Boozer.[/QUOTE]

So what if they have too many gaurds at the moment that's just more pieces for a trade.

If Beasley was like Boozer than the outlook on him would be totally different and believe me a majority would pick him over Rose, but that's not the case. Since I heard he wasn't even 6'8" that totally made me not want Beasley. Plus I'm comfortable with the Bulls developing frontcourt and how Rose could make them really good soon.

[QUOTE=Crazy Style]So what if they have too many gaurds at the moment that's just more pieces for a trade.

If Beasley was like Boozer than the outlook on him would be totally different and believe me a majority would pick him over Rose, but that's not the case. Since I heard he wasn't even 6'8" that totally made me not want Beasley. Plus I'm comfortable with the Bulls developing frontcourt and how Rose could make them really good soon.[/QUOTE]

Beasley will be better than Boozer. He's better at everything except for rebounding, which can be easily developed. Did everyone forget Beasley just beat Durants historic College #'s playing at the PF position?! Beasley's fundamentals at this stage are WAY better than Durants were.


If they draft Rose then Hinrich has to be moved. They already pay Hinrich like a franchise PG.

well i got news for you all rose didnt practice for heat so our dreams of beasley can be squashed now.

hell mayo would even be a good fit on the bulls it could get rid of gordan's non dribbling ass. i wish there was a youtube film of how many times gordan fell down or lost the ball in clutch situations.

Has everyone forgotten? The Bulls were a damn good team a year ago. Nearly everyone was counting on the Bulls to be great contenders for a long time and to push even further into the playoffs. The players do NOT suck. They're NOT below average. In fact, I still think Hinrich and Deng are great players and will continue to improve.

Now what was the problem? Team chemistry and lack of a cohesive coaching presence. A low-post, score-first mentality player would be great, but what the Bulls really need is someone to restore team unity and help bring out everyone's A game. Rose is the man to do that.

For a stretch the seaon before last, the Bulls were torching everyone on threes and taking it to the hole quite nicely. There was great sharing of the ball, lots of drive and dishing, and solid defense. I think the Bulls should maintain their core and have Rose to keep everyone at their best, be the Chris Paul to the Bulls. THEN, when the occasion comes, fill in the missing piece by trading for a big man.

My Ideal Lineup:
PG: Rose
SG: Hinrich
SF: Deng
PF: Gooden
C: Noah

Eventually, we should get a better low post presence, but that isn't what's most important now.

Rose all the way.

[QUOTE=GOBB]He's not 6'7.[/QUOTE]

He was just measured 3 weeks ago by doctors hired by the NBA at 6 foot 7 flat.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]He was just measured 3 weeks ago by doctors hired by the NBA at 6 foot 7 flat.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]When the results were released, Beasley’s official height was basically in the middle of those two numbers. He measured 6-foot-7 without shoes and [B]6-foot-8 1/4[/B] with shoes on. Beasley’s wingspan was measured as a tad more than 7-feet and his standing reach was 8-foot-11.[/QUOTE]

Try again :applause:

[QUOTE=GOBB]Try again :applause:[/QUOTE]

The link you posted said 6'7" without shoes. You just shot yourself in the foot. Saying he's not 6'7" is different than saying he's not 6'7" in shoes. You should have been more specific.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]The link you posted said 6'7" without shoes. You just shot yourself in the foot. Saying he's not 6'7" is different than saying he's not 6'7" in shoes. You should have been more specific.[/QUOTE]

Shot myself in the foot? :roll: Last I checked NBA players play with SHOES. So what relevance does his height without them have? Absolutely NONE. Which is why this entire "He's [I]6'7"[/I] is BS.

Like I said...TRY AGAIN.

[QUOTE=GOBB]Shot myself in the foot? :roll: Last I checked NBA players play with SHOES.[/QUOTE]

I walk down the street with shoes too, doesn't mean that I'll say I'm 5'9" if someone asks which would be my height in shoes. If someone asks I'll say almost 5'8". Listing any height other than a players height in their barefeet or socks is misleading because a persons height doesn't include the additional height added by shoes. Doe NFL players list height in cleats and helmets? They play in both of those but last I checked they are listed at their real heights.

You also said he's not 6'7" which is in correct because he is 6'7" in atleast one way. I go by barefoot heights and I have good reasons why.

[QUOTE=GOBB]So what relevance does his height without them have? Absolutely NONE. Which is why this entire "He's [I]6'7"[/I] is BS.[/QUOTE]

It is relevant because some players are listed at their barefoot heights.

The following heights were recorded at the pre-draft camp

Kevin Durant 6'9" w/o shoes, 6'10.25" w/ shoes, listed 6'9"
Chris Bosh 6'10.25" w/o shoes, 6'11.5" w/ shoes, listed 6'10"
Elton Brand 6'8.25" w/o shoes, 6'9.5" w/ shoes, listed 6'8"
Kevin Garnett 6'11" w/o shoes, listed 6'11"
Grant Hill 6'8" w/o shoes, listed 6'8"
Shaq 7'1" w/o shoes, listed 7'1"

Those are just a few examples. Then you factor in that Bosh says he's now 6'11" and KG says he's 6'11 3/4" so that means both are listed an inch under their barefoot height.

So yes barefoot heights are relevant because many players are listed at those heights aswell.

You're trying too hard here. Just admit when Beasley plays the game he isnt 6'7. The poster implied Beasley is only 6'7. He is wrong. If you arent gonna draft a guy based on his height WITHOUT SHOES you are an idiot. Again NBA players PLAY with thier SHOES ON. The height listed without is irrelevant as hell.

Nice try tho.

[QUOTE=GOBB]You're trying too hard here. Just admit when Beasley plays the game he isnt 6'7. The poster implied Beasley is only 6'7. He is wrong. If you arent gonna draft a guy based on his height WITHOUT SHOES you are an idiot. Again NBA players PLAY with thier SHOES ON. The height listed without is irrelevant as hell.

Nice try tho.[/QUOTE]

If height without shoes was irrelevant than the NBA wouldn't let guys like Shaq, Elton Brand and Kevin Durant be listed at that height.

Beasley is as much 6'8" when he's on the court as I am 5'9" when i walk down the street. Considering I wear workboots at work does that mean I'm 5'10" when I'm at work? I just don't get it. So if you mean if Beasley was stopped while he was on the court and measured then yes he wouldn't be only 6'7". If that's all that matters though then Shaq would be called 7'3" and Durant would be called 6'10" while Garnett is 7'1" and Bosh is over 7 feet then.

NFL players wear shoes too and they wear helmets which also add height but there is a reason they aren't measured in both of those and that's because someones real height is measured in their bare feet.

I can't figure it out, height shouldn't be subjective.

This all seems to be about height, which is an issue, more important than some say, less than others say.

Fact, Beasly is smaller than we thought.
It didn't bother his game much in College.
It isn't foolish to [I]ask [/I]if that will translate to the bigger NBA game.

So that is the question.
Defensively he isn't going to take Duncan, Garnet, or any other oversized PF by himself. Offensively he should be able to still get what he wants.

We all want the prototypical franchise big man who plays both ends (Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, Garnet, Howard, etc...). Beasley probably isn't that player because of his height. However, just because he won't be IMO, doesn't mean he isn't a smart pick. If I make that choice for Chicago, I take Beasly.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]If height without shoes was irrelevant than the NBA wouldn't let guys like Shaq, Elton Brand and Kevin Durant be listed at that height.[/quote]

Who cares? Its the 40 time in the NFL. Game speed, how fast you are with pads on arent measured in the 40. No one runs vertically untouched in the NFL. Yet people make a big deal over it. You care about height without shoes. I dont because it has no effect when plays the game on the court WITH shoes.

[QUOTE]Beasley is as much 6'8" when he's on the court as I am 5'9" when i walk down the street. Considering I wear workboots at work does that mean I'm 5'10" when I'm at work? I just don't get it. So if you mean if Beasley was stopped while he was on the court and measured then yes he wouldn't be only 6'7". If that's all that matters though then Shaq would be called 7'3" and Durant would be called 6'10" while Garnett is 7'1" and Bosh is over 7 feet then.[/QUOTE]

He's 6'8 1/4. Not 6'7.

[QUOTE]NFL players wear shoes too and they wear helmets which also add height but there is a reason they aren't measured in both of those and that's because someones real height is measured in their bare feet.[/QUOTE]

Helmets add height? Wow you are Mr. Irrelevant. Stop trying so hard bruh.

[quote]I can't figure it out, height shouldn't be subjective.[/QUOTE]

He's 6'8

[QUOTE=GOBB]Who cares? Its the 40 time in the NFL. Game speed, how fast you are with pads on arent measured in the 40. No one runs vertically untouched in the NFL. Yet people make a big deal over it. You care about height without shoes. I dont because it has no effect when plays the game on the court WITH shoes.[/QUOTE]

The problem is with the in shoes measurement players show up to the pre-draft camp with shoes bigger than they actually play in like Spencer Hawes shoes that add 2 1/4 inches or Kevin Love's that add 1 3/4 inches.

You can count height with shoes, that's fine...many people do that. I consider a players height the height they measure without shoes.

There is a reason the pre-draft camp didn't add the in shoes measurement until the late 90's.

And answer this. If height without shoes are irrelevant then why is Shaq listed 7'1", Brand listed 6'8" and Durant listed 6'9"?



[QUOTE]He's 6'8 1/4. Not 6'7.[/QUOTE]

Yes he's 6-8 1/4" but in shoes. To say he's not 6'7" isn't correct though because he was measured at that height and it's a documented fact.

[QUOTE]Helmets add height? Wow you are Mr. Irrelevant. Stop trying so hard bruh.[/QUOTE]

They do, if you're only talking about height that contributes to the sport then they should just measure standing reach in basketball.


[QUOTE]He's 6'8[/QUOTE]

Yes, in shoes...his actual height is 6'7" though.

[QUOTE=luigi>mario]This all seems to be about height, which is an issue, more important than some say, less than others say.

Fact, Beasly is smaller than we thought.
It didn't bother his game much in College.
It isn't foolish to [I]ask [/I]if that will translate to the bigger NBA game.

So that is the question.
Defensively he isn't going to take Duncan, Garnet, or any other oversized PF by himself. Offensively he should be able to still get what he wants.

We all want the prototypical franchise big man who plays both ends (Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, Garnet, Howard, etc...). Beasley probably isn't that player because of his height. However, just because he won't be IMO, doesn't mean he isn't a smart pick. If I make that choice for Chicago, I take Beasly.[/QUOTE]

What did you think Beasley was? If anything he was listed 6'9 at best. 6'8 in other places. He measured 6'8 1/4, so he is 3/4 off from what was said he was. I mean what is Shaqs weight? You tell me the listed weight...he damn sure isnt that. Just like alot of NBA players. People make too big of a deal over inches when in the NBA? Its not about traditional positions + traditional heights. You dont have to be 6'10 to be a PF or 7'0+ to be a Center. SF dont have to be 6'6-6'7 and SG dont have to be 6'5-6'6. Its about putting the best 5 on the court and executing the gameplan. Beasley could have measured without shoes 6'9. Doesnt mean he will be an elite PF given his friggin height. Dude back to the basket game needs work. When he scored in college I dont recall many games where he got it downlow and schooled mofos.

How tall is Jamison? Has a similar inside-outside game like Beasley. He's played PF and SF. Same with Shawn Marion who is listed at 6'7. There are other measurements that can counter those worried about inches. At the end, can they play? I dont see Beasley height being much of a big deal. Again if he were listed without shoes at 6'9...he still couldnt handle those PFs you listed. And his back to the basket game still would need improvement.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]And answer this. If height without shoes are irrelevant then why is Shaq listed 7'1", Brand listed 6'8" and Durant listed 6'9"?[/quote]

I dont know and really never cared. I just dont understand the usage of height without shoes when they make a living in them. And showing up with shoes to make your height seem bigger? Funny. If the NBA season starts and Beasley is on the court. I'm pretty sure whatever sneakers he wears adds inches making him not 6'7.

At the end of the day does that 1 inch 1/4 really make a difference? No.

6'7, 6'8, 6'9...i dont think Beasley being either height matters. Because that inch or two doesnt help his game. Thats why I argue the height thing with Beasley. Not like if he was 6'8, 6'9 without shoes it helps his game. Just makes it look nice on "paper" for people whose perception get aroused over it. :confusedshrug:


[QUOTE]Yes he's 6-8 1/4" but in shoes.[/QUOTE]

That is all that matters. We're talkin basketball....if you mention height it has to be in regards to him IN SHOES. Otherwise its irrelevant and good for medical checkups. But when me, you and others talk basketball? You use the height he balls in.


We're arguing over a f*cking inch. Think we reached the point of overkill. He's 6'7 to you, he's 6'8 to me, he's a potential bust to someone else, he is a stud muffin to another. Blah

Beasley will most likely get listed as 6'7. Who cares if he's an inch taller than 6'7 when he is playing, the rest of the NBA are going to be an inch taller because they are also wearing shoes, so that extra inch becomes meaningless anyway.

[QUOTE=GOBB]How tall is Jamison? Has a similar inside-outside game like Beasley. He's played PF and SF. Same with Shawn Marion who is listed at 6'7. [/QUOTE]

Jamison was measured 6-7 3/4 so probably 6-9 in shoes and Marion was measured at 6-6 1/2 without shoes and 6-7 3/4 in them.

So both are similar in size but Jamison has a much more polished post game, Marion is more athletic and both are better rebounders especially Marion.

I don't think Beasley can make up for being undersized at the PF position because he just doesn't seem to play that much above his size. I think he'll make a great SF and he can use his size advantage in the post at that position.

[QUOTE=GOBB]At the end of the day does that 1 inch 1/4 really make a difference? No.[/QUOTE]

Then why start the argument in the first place?


[QUOTE]That is all that matters. We're talkin basketball....if you mention height it has to be in regards to him IN SHOES. Otherwise its irrelevant and good for medical checkups. But when me, you and others talk basketball? You use the height he balls in.[/QUOTE]

A player is measured at 2 heights and NBA players can choose if they want to be listed in shoes or without shoes. So you can go by in shoes height and I can go by height without shoes. I won't correct you if you call someone their height in shoes if you don't correct me for referring to a players height without shoes. It's an easy way to avoid both of us wasting our time.

[QUOTE]We're arguing over a f*cking inch. Think we reached the point of overkill. He's 6'7 to you, he's 6'8 to me, he's a potential bust to someone else, he is a stud muffin to another. Blah[/QUOTE]

Yeah so just don't correct me if I call him 6'7" and I won't correct you if you call him 6'8".

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Jamison was measured 6-7 3/4 so probably 6-9 in shoes and Marion was measured at 6-6 1/2 without shoes and 6-7 3/4 in them.[/quote]

Funny how they arent listed by thier heights without shoes. :oldlol:

[QUOTE]Then why start the argument in the first place?[/QUOTE]

Because you wanted to give me height without shoes. Holds no relevance with me. Thus the argument began.

[QUOTE=GOBB]Funny how they arent listed by thier heights without shoes. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Actually Marion is listed closer to his height without shoes. :roll: His height in shoes would be 6'8".



[QUOTE=GOBB]Because you wanted to give me height without shoes. Holds no relevance with me. Thus the argument began.[/QUOTE]

If the inch doesn't matter then why start the argument?

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]If the inch doesn't matter then why start the argument?[/QUOTE]

Because someone ASSumed it was a problem "He's only 6'7" as one of thier reasons not to draft him.

[QUOTE=GOBB]Because someone ASSumed it was a problem "He's only 6'7" as one of thier reasons not to draft him.[/QUOTE]

I agree it's dumb to say he's 6'7" but then assume for example everyone else is at their barefoot height.

Keep in mind though I know most of the heights without shoes anyway so I'm not looking at him at 6'7" the way most people do. I know he's only an inch or 2 below average size for a PF. He just doesn't seem to play any bigger than his height that's the problem.

Bump!