Ford: Bulls looking at Psycho T as high as 16?

ryguy24

New member
Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
Posts:
457
Liked Posts:
3
Location:
CP
• Another player who really seems to have helped himself at the combine was UNC's Tyler Hansbrough. He has been knocked for being too short to play in the NBA, but he measured over 6-8 in socks, had a solid 6-foot-11 wingspan and a standing reach that was an inch taller than Blake Griffin's. While Hansbrough isn't the explosive athlete that Griffin is, he isn't terrible, either.

I hear the Bulls are looking at him as high as No. 16.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...?columnist=ford_chad&page=InsiderNotes-090601

I know 99% of people will hate it, but i'm not opposed as long as no one obviously better is there. I think it's pretty obvious he won't be there by 26.
 

BullsBuddy

New member
Joined:
Jun 1, 2009
Posts:
23
Liked Posts:
0
#16 seems a little too high, but i would like Psycho T on the team. I think he will still be available at 26. He would add some meat to the frontcourt, which is what the bulls need. Noah needs bulk up this summer.
 

Woodz

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2009
Posts:
30
Liked Posts:
0
I would be fine with it. Just understand what you are doing, he is low risk/low reward.
Though if Hinrich is gone (and heaven forbid in combo w/ not resigning ben), I would rather spend the 16th on some guard depth.
 

chi_hawks_23

New member
Joined:
Apr 2, 2009
Posts:
337
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
I-O-W-A
Well, its a reach. He is what he is...and unathletic, undersized power forward. But he does battle, he wants to win, and he has and will continue to work his ass off on the court, at practice, in the weight room, etc. I don't think anybody is going to argue with that.

But if Bulls management has their eyes set on him, and really want him...then hell with it, take him at 16. Like Ron Wolf always preached, if you really like a guy in the draft, and you feel he can be a valuable piece to a championship.... you do whatever it takes to get him.

Funny though...I was joking a month ago about the mass chaos that would ensue if the Bulls took Hansbrough at #16. Now that's not looking so crazy.
 

TheStig

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
3,636
Liked Posts:
38
Must have had a really good private workout with us. He seems like the type that can amaze in workouts because he is such a polished product, the only variable is how he will play with the big boys.
 

Captain Klank

New member
Joined:
Jun 1, 2009
Posts:
13
Liked Posts:
0
If the Bulls pick Hansbrough over somebody with the upside/potential of Earl Clark or James Johnson, I am going to be really ticked off. You need to aim a lot higher than a career bench player with the 16th pick, IMO.
 

ryguy24

New member
Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
Posts:
457
Liked Posts:
3
Location:
CP
Captain Klank wrote:
If the Bulls pick Hansbrough over somebody with the upside/potential of Earl Clark or James Johnson, I am going to be really ticked off. You need to aim a lot higher than a career bench player with the 16th pick, IMO.

In all honesty I would doubt either will be there. There's a chance, but I could easily see them gone before 16.
 

MADman24

New member
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
143
Liked Posts:
0
Captain Klank wrote:
If the Bulls pick Hansbrough over somebody with the upside/potential of Earl Clark or James Johnson, I am going to be really ticked off. You need to aim a lot higher than a career bench player with the 16th pick, IMO.
I think it's alot extreme to call Hansbrough a career bench player at this point. He certainly has the skill set to be a starter even if he is not a star he was in college. I think people are forgetting that just because he likely won't be the star he was in college Hansbrough projects to be a solid player and is not undersized. It's not that I don't like Johnson and Clark but in general shooting for the skies with the 16th pick more often than not leads to busts.
 

clonetrooper264

Retired Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
23,347
Liked Posts:
7,400
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  2. Golden State Warriors
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I like Hansbrough, so I would be fine with him at 16. I would like him better at 26, but chances are he'll be gone before then so if the Bulls really do want him then they will have to pick him at 16. I'm pretty curious to see how angry everyone will be if the Bulls indeed take Hansbrough over someone with lots of upside.
 

J-Mart

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
289
Liked Posts:
1
After the measurements came out I would be ok with taking him at 16. He has some legit PF size which was one of the bigger concerns for him. As much as I love potential he would be a good/safer pick for us assuming guys like Blair and Johnson are off the board.

Personally I really want Blair. He gets knocked for being short, but IMO for a big man the wingspan is more imporant, especially since he has a wide body to bang with.
 

Basghetti80

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
234
Liked Posts:
0
Hansbrough would be a solid pick at 16 if we make no trades for a star bigman. His measurements show him capable of playing in frontcourt with Tyrus or Noah. He has much improved face up shooting ability all the way out to the college 3. Not a bad Brad Miller replacement. If you trade Hinrich for some capspace then you can always get a PG like Collison at 26.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
BullsBuddy wrote:
#16 seems a little too high, but i would like Psycho T on the team. I think he will still be available at 26. He would add some meat to the frontcourt, which is what the bulls need. Noah needs bulk up this summer.

I think there is almost no chance at all that Hansbrough is there at #26.
 

PJ Brown

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
236
Liked Posts:
0
This is the way the team has been drafting since Paxson was hired. Hard work, big program guy with big game experience. If they like him, and he won't be there at 26, they'll take him.

I'm fine with it, but it won't break my heart if we go in another direction. I'm not sure I buy the whole "can't take a bench guy at 16" logic, though. While there are always great players taken in the mid-first, there are just as many guys who wash out of the league, especially big men. The the typical mid-first rounder IS a bench player (Thabo anyone?). The Bulls aren't desperate for depth or for projects and could benefit from a valuable bench player who plays limited but meaningful minutes, especially one who might be able to score. While it may be a "low reward" move to stretch for Tyler at 16, the guys who are supposed to go there are all the "athletic project" type, "high reward, high risk" guys, and more than those guys flop than pan out. I don't have strong feelings on any of those project guys, and they might turn out to be good players--I'm just suggesting that the risk with Tyler isn't really much higher than with any of the other mid-firsters in a less than stellar draft class.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
I'm fine with it, but it won't break my heart if we go in another direction. I'm not sure I buy the whole "can't take a bench guy at 16" logic, though. While there are always great players taken in the mid-first, there are just as money guys who wash out of the league, especially big men.

We sure as hell aren't getting a guy who starts year 1 at #16 unless we get some crazy injuries or trade away enough guys that we're really thin at a position. Even then it'd be unlikely that anyone available at #16 is a starter.

#16 is a spot where you should feel good if you get a guy who belongs in your eight man rotation. Hansbrough probably does.
 

ryguy24

New member
Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
Posts:
457
Liked Posts:
3
Location:
CP
Doug, out of curiousity are you going to bother and look at Tyler? I mean, i'm sure most of us know his game and don't need a breakdown, but I was just wondering.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
I don't really know his game that well, so I'm going to look for my own education if nothing else.
 

Diddy1122

I ain't your pal dickface
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
4,459
Liked Posts:
1,155
Location:
Chicago
Psycho is not going to drop to #26. If he's on the board at #20, the Jazz will take him. He's a Sloan-type all the way, and they'll need a backup PF with Boozer leaving and Milsap taking over as the starter. If the Bulls really like him, I say go for it at #16. This is mainly a role player kinda draft. Reminds a bit of the 2000 draft. Nobody other than Griffin, Curry, & Flynn have really impressed me. When alls said and done, I think those 3, along with my sleeper Eric Maynor, will have the most success in the NBA.
 

Newskoolbulls

New member
Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
Posts:
2,897
Liked Posts:
6
Location:
Bullspodcasters>Any other bulls board
Funny one of you mentioned Earl Clark :laugh: , havent you learned anything with Tyrus Thomas? I hate 3/4s who are athletic (it means your not good enough to be a true PF).
 

Manic Devourer

New member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
328
Liked Posts:
0
Well it certainly doesn't seem like 99% of us are against Tyler, it seems split 50-50.

I've commented about Tyler more on a different forum, but I'll repeat myself one more time. He isn't an ideal pick at no.16, but as Doug said you can't really expect much from a pick in that range, you're just hoping to pick a player that can be part of your rotation - Tyler could and I believe be that player.

People say he isn't much of an athlete, but how many really good athletic big men are in the league? And people seem to be really under-rating his athletic ability, he doesn't jump like Tyrus, but he can still get to the rim strong, and finish with power when he needs to. He runs the floor hard and knows exactly where he wants to go. What's the point of being able to jump out of the gym, if you don't use that ability. Yes, you know who I'm talking about. How often do you watch Tyrus and say, "Damn, he really uses his athletic ability to his full potential". Give me a guy who has is an average athlete but uses every ounce of it to his advantage, over a guy who has loads of atheltic ability that uses 10% of it.

Assuming that he does get drafted by the Bulls, and that our roster remains practically the same, Tyrus better watch out. He better watch out because Tyler will work his butt off to get that starting position, and Tyrus better have his A game ready. I honestly believe that if our power forward spots consists of Tyrus and Tyler, Tyler will be able to make a decent fight for the starting spot if he doesn't improve his game drastically by next season.

Tyrus may have the type of game that Tyler may only dream of, but those games will only happen every 15 games or so, while Tyler will provide a consistent effort and production game in and game out. And in the league where you play so many games, you prefer a player who gives consistent production night in and night out over a player that keeps you guessing on what type of game they'll provide on a nightly basis.

Listen out for Tyler making a second visit to Chicago, because that could very well be a sign that Tyler will be our man at no.16. That being said, I think the Bulls management will approach the time from now until the draft in three parts;

1. Trade the picks for either Bosh, Amar'e or any established big man.

2. Trade up to get someone better, that they really like.

3. Trade one or two of the picks for draft picks next season, in a draft that people project as being a lot deeper.

4. Trade the best player that they are there at no.16 and no.26.

People talk about 'potential' players that we should consider picking at no.16, but let me ask you to name players that were drafted in the mid to late first round to second round picks that were picked as 'potential' picks that panned out well. Then name the players that were draft in that range that were picked due to falling in the draft because they stayed a year too long in college, or because their games didn't have enough potential, yet they had productive careers. I bet you could name more from the latter catergory.

Someone mentioned Adam Morrison as an example of a good player who produced really well in college, but didn't amount to much in the NBA, well the thing is we aren't thinking of picking Tyler at no.3, it's the middle pick in a relatively weak draft. You want to draft a player that can hopefully produce right away, and even if it means running around like a headless chicken, crashing the boards, and hitting a few hooks shots, mid-range shots, and setting screens, whilst scaring the hell of his opponents with his bug-eyes, I'm fine with that over drafting a player with only 'pontential' complaining about why Vinny isn't giving him any minutes, and then 3 years later we realize that he just doesn't have any game, then eventually trading him for a second round pick.
 

senrad

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
203
Liked Posts:
1
Location:
Florida
Don't forget that after next year we will need a big who can step out and hit a jumper. Truth be told we might need one this year; if we trade Miller as an expiring or if he turns old quick.

So this is where we are now (I think)

1) Trading Kirk- Opens a spot in the back court and a need for a backup pg as well as cap room to resign Ben.

2) Psycho T at 16- Do we have a need for a big man who can come in now? I like Tyler and think he could step in for Miller once he leaves, as well as fitting the Paxon mold but do we need to spend this pick on a 4th big man? He is basically injury insurance. This doesn't make sense unless we are planning on moving TT or Miller.

3) Working out PGs- seems to work with #1. With Kirk gone we would need someone to play pg when rose is out of the game. I think we could make do with Ben/salmons running the point infrequently but that is not the situation we want to put ourselves in. Singing a FA, drafting, or trading for a backup FA is a need if Kirk leaves.

So are we thinking Tyler at 16, then pg with the later pick, moving Kirk for cap room, and resigning Gordon? Seems odd because pg is a bigger need IMO.

That works for me; Rose, Gordon, Deng, Salmons, TT, Noah, Miller, backup-pg-to-be-named-later is a nice 8 man rotation. I don't see how Tyler cracks that rotation though.
 

Top