2024 NBA Draft - DA BULLS Edition Pick #11

[Chi town]

Castle scares me.

Holland intrigues me.

[Muzbar]

Dark horse pick I like (maybe if they had a later pick)

Carlton Carrington.

[Charlesareed]

Draft Bronny lol. I mean that would probably guarantee Lebron to come here. If we are not going to be contenders anyways, lets make it interesting lol

Nah let that punk go back to Cleveland with his kid

[dukeespn]

Watch on YouTube

Topic is injured, looks like non contact. Might be out for long time. Could be rehabbing his whole rookie season.

Hurts an already weak draft but should the Bulls look into him if he falls to us? I get Bulls have a bad history with injured point guards but is it worth risk for BPA?

That's too bad. I liked his plays before he got injured. Also he had aggressive mindset to compete for higher stages like the EuroLeague.

I think his draft stock would drop significantly. He's hurt again after his left knee ligament injury early in the year.

I don't think he's a pure point guard but I like his ability to drive to the basket though he hasn't elite athleticism.

[dukeespn]

Castle scares me.

Holland intrigues me.

I like Holland too. He needs to improve lots of areas like 3pt shooting but he has some decent tools to develop. I think he's already gone by the #11 pick though.

Competing for the play-in tournament is more important for AK than having better draft position so don't surprise if AK keep pushing meaningless winnow modes just to give away our 2025 FRP to the Spurs.

[Jvaughn]

My top 5 want list in this draft is:

-Ron Hollamd
-Cody Williams
-Tidjane Salaun
-Bobi Klintman

All long forwards with switch ability skills. Barring Clingan dropping to us, I'm not super enamored with the players in our range. I would absolutely want to stay away from Collier. Ignoring the fact that we already have too many guards on this roster, something about him reminds me of a taller Davion Mitchell. Stephen Castle also scares me. Can't help but see a lot of Issac Okoro in him.

[Jcool0]

KC thinks Zach has negative value. I think he’s right.

KC also thinks the Bulls should draft need over BPA.

Well, I think he’s about as openly confused about AK’s desire to treadmill as any Bulls affiliate.

He also said he’s not an expert on college ball, but if Collier is the best guy available, he’d welcome a floor general since Coby still doesn’t really address that… despite the guard log jam.

He is the size of a PG but i wouldn't call him a floor general.

[Muzbar]

My top 5 want list in this draft is:

-Ron Hollamd
-Cody Williams
-Tidjane Salaun
-Bobi Klintman

All long forwards with switch ability skills. Barring Clingan dropping to us, I'm not super enamored with the players in our range. I would absolutely want to stay away from Collier. Ignoring the fact that we already have too many guards on this roster, something about him reminds me of a taller Davion Mitchell. Stephen Castle also scares me. Can't help but see a lot of Issac Okoro in him.

A fellow Bobi Klintman fan, good to see I'm not alone.

Collier isn't anything like Davion Mitchell IMO, Mitchell is dog on defense whereas I don't think Collier is anywhere close defensively but also much better on offense than Davion.

I haven't watched anything on Castle, but he's been shooting the lights out at the combine.

[ChiTownHero1992]

My top 5 want list in this draft is:

-Ron Hollamd
-Cody Williams
-Tidjane Salaun
-Bobi Klintman

All long forwards with switch ability skills. Barring Clingan dropping to us, I'm not super enamored with the players in our range. I would absolutely want to stay away from Collier. Ignoring the fact that we already have too many guards on this roster, something about him reminds me of a taller Davion Mitchell. Stephen Castle also scares me. Can't help but see a lot of Issac Okoro in him.

This is a good list and I'd bet 3 out of 4 (any order) will be avialable at 11!

The group we need to watch should be Holland, Williams, Salaun, Collier, Walter and McCain in my opinion. Anyone else is likely gone before 10 or a reach pre Top 12. Clingan would be awesome but thinking he is a Top 5 lock especially with Topic hurt now. I also agree that we dont "need" a guard with Coby and Ayo, however if you think any of the above are going to be better which could be true you can still go for them. I'd rather look for a good 3-4-5 to pair with our two guards. Ideally I'd like to see Coby, Ayo, Pat (on a Coby White prove it deal), and #11 as main rotational players next year to start a rebuild/retool.

Sheppard, Sarr, Risacher, Clignan are locks for Top 5 IMO and we should do our due diligence to look at them but not get our hopes up because i can't see any of them falling past #8.

[DuckIII]

One thing is for sure IMO. This isn't the year and situation where we should draft "BPA". We need to vote for the guy most likely to become a star, even if he doesn't project as the best player. Because the guy that projects as the best player at 11 probably won't ever be a good player (because there really aren't ever 11 good players in a draft historically). Im a sense, at 11 we should want to take a chance on a guy that might project as only like the 15th best player, but who has the best chance to be one of the top 3 guys. That chance might only be 10 or 20% or whatever, but that should be our guiding method IMO. We have more than enough solid players. Need to take a longshot at a star IMO.

I don't know what others think of the term BPA, but to me it's not to do with production on the college or whatever level they had played in prior to the draft, I'm talking about who the scouts and team deems to project as the best player that is available where they pick, regardless of position. So this would include raw projects, who they see has having potential to be a star player.

I think that's how 99% of people define BPA. It means the best "possible" player available at your draft spot regardless of position or immediate production.

[League Circles]

What I would really like to see would be to identify guys that seem likely to be top in the nba at one thing (dribbling, shooting, rebounding, rim protection, etc) and determine which one has the fewest other weaknesses that would cancel out his elite skill. This team simply cannot afford roster spots and contracts for any more well rounded, pretty good but not great at a few things type players. The only elite skills we have are Demar at difficult, mid range iso scoring (which is important but very easy to overuse), Caruso at perimeter defense and Drummond at rebounding. And the latter two are underused by roster design.

[drosestruts]

players drafted in the low teens in the past 5 drafts


2023- Derrick Lively, Jordan Hawkins

2022 - Jalen Williams, Jalen Duran, Mark Williams

2021 - Alperen Sengun, Trey Murphy, Corey Kispert (guys like Jalen Johnson, Ayo, Herb Jones, and Cam Thomas drafted even later)

2020 - Tyrese Haliburton, Devin Vassell, Tyrese Maxey

2019 - Cam Johnson, PJ Washington, Tyler Herro


There's real talent available in this range every year, and I see no reason why this year will be any different. The most difficult part might be properly assessing the order. I feel like there's usually a good idea of who will be in our range. This year I really do not know - everyone seems so bunched together that certain players could easily rise or fall.

[DuckIII]

I know a lot of you will understandably disagree due to fit and shooting, but the more recent mocks have me drooling for Castle.

If it holds that he ends up projected around 8/9/10 I’d really like to see AK trade up to secure him.

But I’m intrigued by a lot of these guys.

Duck, what intrigues you about Castle, admittingly I haven't checked out an film on him yet, but his stats look pretty pedestrian (although he was the best shooter in the 3pt drill at the combine).

I don't care about fit, the Bulls should be drafting for talent, not best fit.

I'll check out some YT on him later.

In the games I saw, his defense and competitiveness were off the charts. Total winner, total intensity. Not real tall but tall enough and has outstanding wingspan and every element of athleticism you need. He also has a good halfcourt handle, a good finisher, and has PG level vision and passing. I think his ceiling is Jimmy Butler.

The only issue with him as a prospect is his perimeter shooting, and its a legitimate issue. Including the technique, which needs work. If he can't become a passable threat from 3 it will limit his ceiling, but he has everything else.

[DuckIII]

Stephen Castle also scares me. Can't help but see a lot of Issac Okoro in him.

I love Castle, but I'm not going all "Bulls need to draft this guy" on him. So I'm not going to be that guy who defends him constantly in the draft thread. He has a serious flaw. But this is not a great comparison. Different players.

Okoro came out of Auburn projected as an elite perimeter defender with very little offensively. And not just in shooting. Castle comes out projected as a plus perimeter defender (especially after playing dominating perimeter D in the NCAA tourney) and an offensive player with everything except the long ball. He is shifty, drives left and right, has a pull-up mid-range game, goes hard downhill and is closer to a PG than a wing as a passer.

Also, regarding Okoro, if anything his example should offer some degree of hope regarding Castle's long ball. Okoro is one of the best example out there of a guy turning himself into a three point shooter in the NBA.

Not saying Castle is gonna hit. Just don't think the Okoro analogy is a good one.

[DuckIII]

My top 5 want list in this draft is:

-Ron Hollamd
-Cody Williams
-Tidjane Salaun
-Bobi Klintman

All long forwards with switch ability skills. Barring Clingan dropping to us, I'm not super enamored with the players in our range. I would absolutely want to stay away from Collier. Ignoring the fact that we already have too many guards on this roster, something about him reminds me of a taller Davion Mitchell. Stephen Castle also scares me. Can't help but see a lot of Issac Okoro in him.

Don't know Klintman well enough to comment but I'd be totally fine with any of those other three for the exact reasons you state. Problem being they all project to be developmental players and I don't think AK has any intention at all to go that route. He's going to be looking for plug and play guys or will reach for size. If he keeps the pick, which I doubt he will.

[League Circles]

One thing is for sure IMO. This isn't the year and situation where we should draft "BPA". We need to vote for the guy most likely to become a star, even if he doesn't project as the best player. Because the guy that projects as the best player at 11 probably won't ever be a good player (because there really aren't ever 11 good players in a draft historically). Im a sense, at 11 we should want to take a chance on a guy that might project as only like the 15th best player, but who has the best chance to be one of the top 3 guys. That chance might only be 10 or 20% or whatever, but that should be our guiding method IMO. We have more than enough solid players. Need to take a longshot at a star IMO.

I don't know what others think of the term BPA, but to me it's not to do with production on the college or whatever level they had played in prior to the draft, I'm talking about who the scouts and team deems to project as the best player that is available where they pick, regardless of position. So this would include raw projects, who they see has having potential to be a star player.

I think that's how 99% of people define BPA. It means the best "possible" player available at your draft spot regardless of position or immediate production.

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way. Regardless of position or immediate production, yes. But best possible, in the sense of highest ceiling, no (for me). I factor in how likely a guy seems to be to reach his ceiling vs his floor, which is admittedly highly subjective.

For example guys can develop a LOT of skills after they're drafted (cause they're usually just 19 years old), and often better work ethic also. If we pick highest ceiling as BPA, it basically would make choosing BPA a purely physical exercise. Take the best combination of athlete/frame.

One Bulls example is that Deng was probably BPA over Ben Gordon IMO, even at #3 where BG was taken. But BG had a higher upside, in the sense that while Deng's floor was far higher IMO, the chances that BG could turn into an elite perimeter scorer was greater than the chance that Deng would develop high level ball handling skills, just to take a super generic Bulls history example to illustrate my point. I would have said Deng was likely to become the better player than BG (which was basically true long term), and therefore would have said he was BPA. There are many times when that makes sense. This year for the Bulls at #11, IMO, is not the time. Take the best chance at a star, even though a different guy will be likely to become a better player long term.

Basically, we have to get lucky IMO. If we take BPA that guy will likely spend 5 years mixing his nice relative mediocrity in with the other guys like that (Caruso, Coby, Demar, Zach, Patrick, Ayo etc etc etc). We don't need any more "quality" players. They won't be very helpful short or long term IMO. We need a difference maker, even though swinging for one will more likely result in a bust.

God that's a lot of words to say again that I like Edey lol.

[BigUps]

Tyler Smith is very intriguing to me. 11 may be a little high for him, but its hard to find what he offers at his size and age.

[sco]

One thing is for sure IMO. This isn't the year and situation where we should draft "BPA". We need to vote for the guy most likely to become a star, even if he doesn't project as the best player. Because the guy that projects as the best player at 11 probably won't ever be a good player (because there really aren't ever 11 good players in a draft historically). Im a sense, at 11 we should want to take a chance on a guy that might project as only like the 15th best player, but who has the best chance to be one of the top 3 guys. That chance might only be 10 or 20% or whatever, but that should be our guiding method IMO. We have more than enough solid players. Need to take a longshot at a star IMO.

I don't know what others think of the term BPA, but to me it's not to do with production on the college or whatever level they had played in prior to the draft, I'm talking about who the scouts and team deems to project as the best player that is available where they pick, regardless of position. So this would include raw projects, who they see has having potential to be a star player.

I think about the BPA term just as a broad term meaning not selecting a player who might be a slightly lesser player but plays a position of need.

[BigUps]

One thing is for sure IMO. This isn't the year and situation where we should draft "BPA". We need to vote for the guy most likely to become a star, even if he doesn't project as the best player. Because the guy that projects as the best player at 11 probably won't ever be a good player (because there really aren't ever 11 good players in a draft historically). Im a sense, at 11 we should want to take a chance on a guy that might project as only like the 15th best player, but who has the best chance to be one of the top 3 guys. That chance might only be 10 or 20% or whatever, but that should be our guiding method IMO. We have more than enough solid players. Need to take a longshot at a star IMO.

I don't know what others think of the term BPA, but to me it's not to do with production on the college or whatever level they had played in prior to the draft, I'm talking about who the scouts and team deems to project as the best player that is available where they pick, regardless of position. So this would include raw projects, who they see has having potential to be a star player.

I think about the BPA term just as a broad term meaning not selecting a player who might be a slightly lesser player but plays a position of need.

Thats correct. BPA and highest ceiling are two different things.

[sco]

I don't know what others think of the term BPA, but to me it's not to do with production on the college or whatever level they had played in prior to the draft, I'm talking about who the scouts and team deems to project as the best player that is available where they pick, regardless of position. So this would include raw projects, who they see has having potential to be a star player.

I think about the BPA term just as a broad term meaning not selecting a player who might be a slightly lesser player but plays a position of need.

Thats correct. BPA and highest ceiling are two different things.

I think we can all agree that we don't want the Bulls to draft for need (i.e. Center) if that player isn't the current best player or player with the highest potential.