Chad Ford's Mock Draft 6.0
This one's interesting. Chad has once again updated his mock draft (in two parts, 1-5 here and 6-30 here for Insiders). A review on the movers and shakers and how it impacts the Bulls:
1. Because Monta Ellis thinks he's a PG and has strongarmed the Warriors into thinking so, too, Ford now has Golden State taking Jordan Hill with the 7th pick instead one of the bajillion true PGs available. This is significant because of the cascade effect leading to New Jersey taking Jonny Flynn 11th. Ford has had Hansbrough at 11th for the past few mocks, but says that "if Flynn is on the board, Nets GM Rod Thorn won't hesitate to take him." Partially because of this, he expects Hansbrough to fall all the way to Utah at #20 (meaning Ford expects him to be available to the Bulls if the Nets take Flynn).
2. Ford now believes Blair will be a Pacer (pick 13). Before all the knee drama, Ford reported that Blair would go well before 16, and now it seems he's trending back toward that opinion. It's not set in stone, however. Ford states that Indiana will look hard at a PG and would almost certainly take either Holliday or Flynn if either one dropped. Indiana is also looking at Hansbrough apparently. So, here's to hoping Holliday or Flynn are still on the board or Ty Lawson has wowed them in workouts.
3. Ford has Henderson going 14th to the Suns, but that's just a guess based on the fact that Henderson will be the highest prospect available. Chad mentions that the Suns have looked hard at Earl Clark, James Johnson, and BJ Mullens for this pick, as well.
4. Here's what Chad has to say about the Bulls:
Analysis: The Bulls have been working the phones this week trying to move up in the draft.
They've talked to the Nets, Bobcats and Pacers about swapping the 16th and 26th picks to move up a few spots.
Who are they after? I've heard everything from Johnson to Blair to Hansbrough to Williams to Mullens here. To be honest, I can't get a terrific handle on which way they are leaning. In this scenario, Williams and Blair are gone, which leaves Johnson, Mullens and Hansbrough.
Hansbrough is the most NBA ready. Mullens has the most upside. Johnson is somewhere in between. I'm not sure exactly how Johnson fits in Chicago with Luol Deng on one side and Tyrus Thomas on the other, but there's no question about his upside.
So, basically, he has no idea (although the pick is Johnson in this mock based on who's available).
5. Chad has Lawson going to Philly at 17, Mullens going to Minnesota at 18, and Hansbrough going to Utah at 20. Austin Daye goes to Sac-Town at 23 and Chase Budinger goes to OKC at 25. This all means that Chad still has the Bulls taking Toney Douglas at 26 (congrats, smash) as a Ben Gordon "insurance policy" and future running-mate of "Jalene" Rose.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
42 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My draft Wish List
At 16, take Mullens or Hansborough.
At 26, take Ellington or Budinger.
Its really that simple. First pick address a needed athletic big, second pick address the departure of either Hinrich or Gordon.
I’m not interested in trading up, as there isn’t much difference between the 10th best talent and the 20th in this draft. At both spots we currently have, we should be able to fill a need with a talented player.
I'm with you on the general philosophy...
But I’m not convinced Hansbrough fits the bill or an “athletic big.” Did you mean athletic pig? Sorry, that was a very lame attempt at a joke.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
My draft wish list
Blair or Mullens @ 16
Hansbrough or Terrence Williams @ 26
If nothing else, Mullens has good hands and can score in the post, which is the main thing this team has been missing…at worst he’s a taller thinner whiter eddie curry…
TWill is almost certainly gone by # 26. I'd take Danny Green there, though.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 22, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Mullens has all of the tools...
…to come off of the bench on a college team. Saying that he can score in the post in the pros is a little much, particularly since he didn’t average even 9 a night for OSU. This guy is 2-4 years away from being a contributor in the NBA. If the Bulls did not have Asik, I would be OK with taking a flier on Mullens at 26 (no way at 16), but there is no reason for the Bulls to get involved with a project if they have any intention of bringing Asik here later.
I'm coming around to the idea of James Johnson.
I’ve liked all along the idea of Blair but bemoaned his lack of versatility. He’s a PF and he’ll never be anything else. He might, however, never be good enough to start. That sucks, even for a 16th pick. Hansbrough could probably man the C position for 5 mpg but really, what’s the point? They’ll have Noah and Asik long-term (supposedly, of course).
I’ve always thought (and have said so) that the best thing you can hope for drafting in these spots is a 7th or 8th man in the rotation that can play multiple positions. If the Bulls got a SG/SF like Williams or Budinger then having a guy who can only play PF isn’t that big of a deal. But getting a SF/PF and then a PG/SG is probably about the best one can expect from this draft.
Johnson fits the first bill.
I like Toney Douglas’s ability to create his own shot, but I like Nick Calathes’s ability to create for others better. Both shoot from outside similarly well, but go about it in different ways. I like Toney Douglas’s ability to defender better PG’s, but at 6’2" I wonder how he’d do against SG’s. I like Calathes’s size in that regard. And, of course, Gar Paxdorf would love Calathes’s decision to go overseas so they can avoid paying the luxury tax.
It certainly wouldn’t be the most exciting thing after all the trade talk, but getting James Johnson and Toney Douglas/Nick Calathes would be a satisfactory draft for me.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Wow, that's about the worst wording possible.
I apologize for making you try to decipher what I meant.
Basically, what I mean is that if Deng proves to be healthy and the Bulls get (or keep or develop) legitimate solutions at SG and PF, they already have a backup in the pipes for C. There would be 20-30 mpg available for a player that could back up two positions competently. Johnson, I think, could develop into one of those and Douglas/Calathes are two others that could also develop. The latter two come with bigger question-marks but… it’s the 26th pick. That should be expected.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I just wrote something similar in one of the other Johnson threads... it looks to me like we could use a tweener forward...
As he stands, he looks to have exceptional size and athleticism for the 3/4 spots. And truth be told, that’s a position we need.
Some combination of the following is bound to happen.
1. Gordon Walks. In that case, it makes pretty good sense to play Salmons primarily at the 2 and Deng at the 3. We’ll need a backup 3 and a backup 4. Johnson fits the bill.
2. Deng isn’t fully healthy. In that case, Johnson makes pretty good since, for while we limped through with Salmons at the 3, we had to go to a lot of smaller lineups as well.
3. We trade for a big name 4 like Bosh or Amare. Well, if we do that, we still need a backup, and a backup that can credibly play two positions makes decent sense.
So, I guess to me I don’t see much reason to even start looking at Johnson as a 2. He makes pretty good sense as a 3/4.
Also, I just have to say that the numbers he turned in, at his size, were pretty amazing.
I agree
I think Tyrus is gone at some point this season if trades are to happen for the Bulls… and Deng at this point is a big question mark in terms of health and reliability….
So a good PF/SF with athletic ability would fill in nicely for Tyrus.
"Remember, I'm Italian".
I also like that he's primarily "offensive".
The Bulls have enough defensive-first players (even if the team’s defense doesn’t reflect that).
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
I'm actually gonna have to disagree with that one
Who are our defense-first guys?
1. Noah. Because he’s a good defender with no offensive game whatsoever.
2. Kirk is about an even split IMO.
3. Deng, if healthy.
I think Salmons is defensively neutral if he’s playing well.
The killer with all of them, however, is that they’re all what I would call “situational” defenders for lack of a better term. By that, I mean they’re sometimes very good defenders, but none of them has every tool that’d you’d want in a defensive player’s toolbox a their respective position.
Noah is an excellent rebounder, has quick hands, and when his head is in the game, know how to play excellent team and man defense. However, he’s still woefully weak and gets routinely pushed around by more physical players. If he can add significant muscle to his frame, he’ll be an all around excellent defensive player.
Deng and Hinrich are both excellent team defenders and good man defenders against opponents that aren’t too quick for them. But unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of guys these days that are too quick for them. Quick PGs (e.g. Ford, Paul, Mo Williams) have routinely lit up Kirk, while quick SFs (e.g. Iggy, Howard, Prince) have routinely lit up Lou.
They’re sort like my assignments in high school. I’d get 4 100% grades and then skip the 5th homework entirely, so I’d only end up with an 80% for my total grade.
I'd put, um, Tyrus Thomas in there as well.
And Omer Asik, from everything I’ve read.
I’d say Deng is pretty evenly split and Hinrich is a better defender than offensive player but not by a lot.
But both, and all of them, really, are good defenders and can defend on their own from time-to-time. None of them could play offense on their own. I wouldn’t give any of them an “80%” on offense.
(And you’re wrong… about Prince… and Howard… and Iggy… Iguodala has had the best games against him, but all three are held under their career averages in a few categories. Deng keeps just about all SF’s below their averages except the very best like James, Anthony, Pierce. The 2nd-tier guys you mentioned have been slowed by Deng.)
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Deng actually has Pierce's number as well. He's always done well against him. I know this because I always razz
my C’s fan friend and diehard Pierce fan. I did it more frequently before they won a title and he became insufferable.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 22, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions
(re: Deng) You've got the evidence on your side there, but...
Although I’d point out that if we look at 2007-2008 onward, we see that Deng has consistently “lost” matchups he used to consistently win.
Howard:
12/3/07 outscored Deng 27-11. That’s a game that sticks out in my mind
and 2/25/08 16-10
and 11/25/09 21-20
and 2/7/09 13-10
Prince:
Deng really whupped Prince for most of their careers, despite my memories of Prince taking it to him in that playoff series. However, again the trend is over the last couple years moved from solid domination to almost the opposite. Deng bested Prince 17-4 and 17-5 in their first two 07-08 matchups, but the next was 21-21 and the last two were 6-14 and 7-16 in favor of Prince.
So, while you’re right, and this isn’t a perfect analysis since they surely weren’t guarding each other the entire time, it seems like they support the notion that Lu has tailed off pretty noticeably from his 06-07 production.
Yeah, Deng's been worse the past two years.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Deng's defense, along with the rest of the team
seriously suffered as soon as Skiles was fired. I wouldn’t consider Tyrus a very good defender quite yet. Yes, his help defense (well, mainly just the blocking shots part) is quite good but the rest of his defense is average overall. His biggest deficiency is obviously man defense in the post. To be honest though, in the third Cleveland game last season (when LeBron missed like 25 shots in a row or something ridiculous like that) I thought Ty played pretty good perimeter defense on Bron.
That’s something I would like to see more of out of Tyrus — a commitment to solid man defense. I know he has the ability, I just wish he could put it all together.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions
"I know he has the ability, I just wish he could put it all together."
Welcome to Tyrus Thomas.
-I was wrong about Pau Gasol. I have been shamed. :(
Calathes would be bidness.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 22, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
1. Bidness 1.The opposite of legitimate business. 2. A street hustle, or a shady and mostly illegal business venture.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
I like Johnson and Earl Clark too...
but Johnson is a classic tweener and Clark is an enigma. Hansbrough is, other than Griffin, the player with whom you already know what your gonna get. He’s also the only other Wooden award winner. Who is the best low post scorer availalbe at 16? Either Hansbrough (highest floor) or Mullens (highest ceiling).
I'm a little confused
as to why we think we NEED a low-post scorer to succeed in this league. The two guys mentioned most in rumors surrounding the Bulls (Stoudamire and Bosh) aren’t really low post scorers. They’re face-up PFs.
Did the last few championship teams (outside of the Spurs) have any real low-post scorers? I guess Pau Gasol’s kind of that guy, but he’s more along the lines of a Bosh or Stoudamire than a Duncan or Shaq.
The Celts have KG, but again, he’s a face-up PF who likes to shoot 15 footers. The only teams that won with post scoring had straight-up DOMINANT guys down there. I don’t see Hansbrough or Mullens as dominant.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 3:19 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
"Did the last few championship teams (outside of the Spurs) have any real low-post scorers? I guess Pau Gasol’s kind of that guy"
Or maybe Shaq is that kind of guy? Is that enough recent champions? haha, can we put a halt to the ‘championship’ standard?
There are lots of ways to be an effective team. Getting players who can actually take the ball (or receive it) in the post and score would be one way to go about it. Whether it’s jumpshooting or a hook shot or whatever. The Bulls have nobody who can do anything effective in that scenario.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions
But,
if you give the ball to Brad Miller he uses his Matrix technique to slow down time and navigate by open-mouth defenders…
by kingj41 on Jun 22, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
He can also take a chop to the face pretty well
Most guys curl up and shy away from that, or get suspended for their reaction.
Just draft the guy with the biggest balls. In this year’s draft class it may be the best way to pick since talent and potential are differentiating enough.
"Remember, I'm Italian".
I agree, in fact
I mean, what to do, no one seems to be able to evaluate this class. You could try to pick a high floor solid 7th or 8th man, but he could also end up sucking. Or you could draft a riskier gamer. I think I’d rather have the guy with balls, at least on this current Bulls team.
Fired Up? Fired up! Ready to go? Ready to go!
He didn't take that chop well at all...
He missed the shot and a free throw.
" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem
is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger
I guess my point was...
that I don’t think getting Hansbrough at 16 gives us that post presence to get us to the next level. I’m not even sure “low post scorer” is the correct category for Hansbrough. He’s just not skilled enough.
I didn’t say you can’t win a championship with a post-scorer (I actually mentioned Shaq as well), I just said that the post scorer needs to be more like Shaq or Duncan than Hansbroug or Michael Doleac. And by recent I mean in the last few years (i.e. post rule changes). 3 of the 4 Spurs championships and all 3 of L.A.’s with Shaq were in the era when scoring 99 ppg would lead the league.
We’re in guard-dominated league now, where having a very large man in the post clogs things up for your wing players. That was why I mentioned the recent Celtics and Lakers teams.
Again, I’m not saying you can’t win that way. I’m just saying a dominant wing or face-up PF is a lot easier to come by than a Shaq or Duncan (which is why there have been only two of those).
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the definition of a "post scorer" is a bit broader than you're making it.
I mean, even Duncan spends a significant number of his offensive possessions faced up. The point is having a frontcourt guy able to create on his own (or draw double teams). That often involves some back-to-the-basket work, but it doesn’t mean the guy has to be Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Pau Gasol certainly fits that definition, Garnett less so.
True dat.
I was limiting post scorer to a back-to-the-basket kind of traditional mold. When I think of “post-scorer” that’s what I think of — someone who operates primarily from the block.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions
um, sure.
Hansbrough isn’t going to get the Bulls into a championship-caliber level by his presence alone. Who said otherwise?
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
wow
I meant to reply to this post, I don’t know why it went to the bottom. Oh well, my bad.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions
bring me Blair
and i will be a happy man
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jun 22, 2009 3:58 PM CDT reply actions
Haha, this all started with..
the assertion that Hansbrough was a low-post scorer. I was just pointing out that the perception of us NEEDING one might be overblown. I didn’t say we don’t need a scorer at the PF or C position, I was just saying the traditional definition of a “low-post” scorer (i.e. on the block) is a little 1990s.
The original post I commented on was inquiring about the best "low-post’ scorer available at 16. I’m not sure Hansbrough is that.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 4:59 PM CDT reply actions
alright, truce.
I agree: if Hansbrough is the answer, then we’re asking the wrong question.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
Rec that!
" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem
is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger
Couldn't have said it better myself
which is why I guess I hadn’t so far. Props to you sir.
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions
That's a fair assessment...
Hansbrough is not a real low post scorer, certainly not at teh next level. Is Johnson really a PF though? He’s like an undersized PF (if you can say that 6’8" 257 lbs is undersized) who plays like an off guard. He’s got a quick first step and can handle the ball well. Most of the scoring I’ve seen him do is off the dribble drive. In the liga he’ll be facing longer bigs tht are just as quick, and he won’t be able to fill the lane like he did in college.
I don't think he's undersized
The knock on Johnson is that, to me, he’s just not been that good or that successful. He’ll still have above average athleticism.
Physically, his athletic skills and size are on par with guys like Marvin Williams (not quite but close), Josh Smith, and somewhat surprisingly, Kevin Love and Michael Beasley.
On the other hand, guys like Brandon Bass and Kris Humphries aren’t far off the mark either.
All of which is to say a guy like Johnson can probably hang in the league, but he’s not guaranteed a success or anything just on the virtue of his physical prowess and skillset.
I'd take Johnson over Hansbrough
if they’re both on the board at 16. It’s not that I don’t think Hansbrough has any value, I just feel like we can get a guy like that on the cheap in free agency every summer. With a draft like this (when guys outside the lottery are just as likely to be all stars as those from 4-14) I think you take a shot on a guy who might have all star potential.
I don’t mean take a 3-4 year project like BJ Mullens, but Johnson’s ceiling to me is 20-28 minutes a game, 15 ppg and 7 rpg as a rookie. His floor might be a little lower than Hansbrough’s, but like I said, why not take a little chance?
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 22, 2009 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions

by 














