Bulls Beat #116 - The first draft preview

[dougthonus]

I am joined by Joey Whelan of draftexpress.com to discuss the players currently projected to be at teh top of the lists in the Bulls draft range. We give overviews of about 15-20 different guys whom the Bulls will be looking at in the NBA draft.

Subscribe Via Itunes to the Bullsbeat

Bulls Beat #116

 

[Ralphb07]

Great stuff. Seems like he's high on Williams

 

[ryguy24]

Only have listened for a few minutes, but I really love draft anything. I could listen to this stuff for hours.

 

[Ralphb07]

Doug it seems like this is the draft that is good to have mid to late 1st rd picks

 

[ryguy24]

I'd love Earl Clark if he dropped, but I don't think he'll last quite to 16 though. You guys made a Anthony Randolph comparison, i've seen Odom comparisons. To me, he kind of looks like a less fluid (more robotic)Rudy Gay. Both were underachievers in college, and off the top of my head put up (remotely) similar numbers.

I've been on the Blair bandwagon, but Whelan's comment scared me when he mentioned that he was 6'2 and thought he was standing eye to eye with Blair. I'm expecting 6'6-6'7, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.

 

[dougthonus]

Earl Clark is interesting to me, because I could easily see how he could be awesome in the NBA, the problem is that he basically needs to improve at everything. He doesn't do a single thing good enough at the NBA level right now. He just needs to get better. He's got the body, and a nice overall skillset, but it's far below what he'll need.

I guess that's relative to a guy who has one skill at an NBA level already, but doesn't have much else to offer.

 

[Basghetti80]

I just listened to the whole thing and it was very good. One guy that he did skip and you gave him the chance twice to talk about was Patrick Patterson. I wanted to hear about him because right now he is one of my potential choices at 16. At least right now in order this is how I have it.


Choices at 16(in order)

Williams(I think he goes top 10)
Henderson(I see him around 12-14)
Clark(Also somewhere 12-14)
Patterson(my favorite choice at 16)
Mullens(much more upside than Patterson but so risky it will take like 4 years before he is good)
Blair(not a bad choice and we need muscle inside but just not sure about him in pick and roll game)
James Johnson(big time tweener who does not play hard enough for me more 3 than 4 so I pass)


Choices at 26(in order)

Budinger(perfect fit in our offense and better shooter than this guy gave him credit for)
Young(I love his defensive intensity a little small but a very very good on the ball defender)
Ellington(lights out shooter from deep and mid range but does not pass and can't defend)
Calathes(If Hinrich is moved to make capspace for Gordon then this guy moves up higher for me-I like him a lot but I want to keep Hinrich so I have him lower)
Hansborough(as a Dukie I am bias in the opposite way but he battles hard and can shoot now so you have to think about it)
Daye(boy like Mullens there is upside but it will take a long time for him to be good-strictly a SF for me)



In a perfect world for me if you can get Patterson and Budinger you have had a good draft from a Bulls perspective.

 

[ryguy24]

The Hansborough/Noah comparison surprised me a bit. I mean, I know they are both hustle guys, but there are still alot of differences between the two. Noah's a very good rebounder, Hansborough is pretty average (and that's at the college level). Tyler can hit the jumper when he needs to, and we know Noah pretty much can't (or won't). Then you've got the obvious size/position difference. I actually wouldn't be upset with drafting Tyler at all (mainly because I think he can be a solid, 20 minute rotational guy off of the bench who has an infectious work ethic...and you can't really expect much more than that at 26), but i'm not too sure that comparison works.

 

[dougthonus]

ryguy24 wrote:

The Hansborough/Noah comparison surprised me a bit. I mean, I know they are both hustle guys, but there are still alot of differences between the two. Noah's a very good rebounder, Hansborough is pretty average (and that's at the college level). Tyler can hit the jumper when he needs to, and we know Noah pretty much can't (or won't). Then you've got the obvious size/position difference. I actually wouldn't be upset with drafting Tyler at all (mainly because I think he can be a solid, 20 minute rotational guy off of the bench who has an infectious work ethic...and you can't really expect much more than that at 26), but i'm not too sure that comparison works.

I was thinking the same thing. I thought Hansbrough was a far more accomplished offensive player than Noah, far less athletic. I didn't really see anything in common except that they are both hard working hustle types (which is more or less what Joey said), but even that's a stretch given that Noah's not known for his off court work ethic or anything.

I too would be okay with Hansbrough, he'd be a guy who would almost certainly play some role for you at #26 and that's okay by me. I'd love Ellington based on the description as a lights out shooter and good scorer that you could get late. Maybe he can't defend or do anything else, but I'll take a guy who can shoot/score at #26 if he can step into the NBA and do it.

 

[Manic Devourer]

Doug, you need to tell Draft Express to churn out more podcasts.

I went to their podcast section, and they've only had like 4 in the past 2-3 years. That's just not going to cut the mustard for one of the best NBA draft websites out there.

 

[ryguy24]

dougthonus wrote:

Earl Clark is interesting to me, because I could easily see how he could be awesome in the NBA, the problem is that he basically needs to improve at everything. He doesn't do a single thing good enough at the NBA level right now. He just needs to get better. He's got the body, and a nice overall skillset, but it's far below what he'll need.

I guess that's relative to a guy who has one skill at an NBA level already, but doesn't have much else to offer.

At 16, that's probably all you can ask for. Chances are that you'll have the choice of a strong potential guy like Clark or a solid role player guy like Patterson. I guess it just comes down to scouting and background information to make the decision if you think a guy like Clark will work hard enough to polish his game and reach that potential.

 

[ryguy24]

Doug, what'd you think of Henderson if you've seen him yet (I think you said you have)? Alot of people want him if he fell to 16, but i'm not even sure i'd take him there. I just don't get a good vibe with him. Luckily for me, he'll probably be gone by then anyways, but still.

 

[dougthonus]

I really didn't like Henderson. His shot didn't seem even close for an NBA 2 guard prospect, and he can only dribble with one hand. I forget if he always went left or if it was always right (I think it was right), but he basically drove EVERY time with the same move.

How do you play 3 years at Duke and still only dribble with one hand to one side of the court? I would probably take Jeff Teague ahead of him even though there's almost no hope that Teague and Rose could play together.

 

[dougthonus]

At 16, that's probably all you can ask for. Chances are that you'll have the choice of a strong potential guy like Clark or a solid role player guy like Patterson. I guess it just comes down to scouting and background information to make the decision if you think a guy like Clark will work hard enough to polish his game and reach that potential.

I've heard his work ethic is singularly terrible. On top of that, I've heard he's dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[ryguy24]

dougthonus wrote:

At 16, that's probably all you can ask for. Chances are that you'll have the choice of a strong potential guy like Clark or a solid role player guy like Patterson. I guess it just comes down to scouting and background information to make the decision if you think a guy like Clark will work hard enough to polish his game and reach that potential.

I've heard his work ethic is singularly terrible. On top of that, I've heard he's dumber than a box of rocks.

:S

 

[dougthonus]

Well that's why he might drop

You figure if a big man with complete stud potential is there at #16 then there is some major red flag. Clark definitely has stud potential. Like legit, top tier big man type potential.

At the same time, because he has no NBA ready skills really, he also has complete washout potential.

 

[Shakes]

I don't have anything to back it up, but my gut feel is that if you're drafting outside those top 5-6 surefire picks you talk about, the hit rate on drafting guards is much better. Probably because to make it as a guard you're competing against a lot more guys who are that height so you have to have some sort of identifiable basketball skill, not just be tall and athletic.

To me where the team is at seems to be back at the stockpile some assets and try to make a move stage, rather than swing for the fences or fill in the gaps. So maybe drafting a safe option we know can play is the way to go, which usually means guard/wing given the picks we have.

 

[Rose1]

Doug Man, I haven't listen to the podcast yet about the draft. I want to know are you going to have more in the near future?

 

[clonetrooper264]

Haven't listened yet, but I think that if you trade Hinrich to resign Gordon, then you get a PG at 16 and Hansborough at 26. I just like Hansborough because he does the things well that Tyrus wants to do but can't (shoot a midrange jump shot + knows what he's doing in the post), and thus would be a bit more of a...threat. Plus he works hard, so that fits in nicely with the players already on the team for the most part.

I really don't know anything about the prospects yet so I might change my mind later on.

 

[wjb1492]

dougthonus wrote:

At 16, that's probably all you can ask for. Chances are that you'll have the choice of a strong potential guy like Clark or a solid role player guy like Patterson. I guess it just comes down to scouting and background information to make the decision if you think a guy like Clark will work hard enough to polish his game and reach that potential.

I've heard his work ethic is singularly terrible. On top of that, I've heard he's dumber than a box of rocks.

I don't think it'd be fair by any means, but I can already hear a bunch of jokes about him fitting in perfectly with our existing front court.

Dumb and bad work ethic - not much of an endorsement. :dry: