RealGM

The difference is, Larry Hughes is a wanna be thug, an ego maniac, and a waste of talent. Oh yeah, he also went to St. Louis University. I wonder why Coach K didn't recruit him.

Luke NOT Luc wrote:

Ralphb07 wrote:Guys it's going to be Johnson if we trade up......

IMO the Bulls order
1.Johnson
2.Henderson
3.Blair
4.Mullens

I think you're right about the way we're thinking. Ralph, you have pretty much been the biggest Johnson backer from the beginning. How is he going to help us short term and long term, you think?

Short term he'll play the 3 and the 4 backing up both Tyrus and Deng. I see him causing a lot of match up problems because of his size and skill set. Bigger slower PF will have to step out on him and he will blow right by them. When we put him at SF he will be bigger and be able to score down low

This is why I like him so much. At 6'8 257lbs he has Guard like skills but has the size not to hurt us on defense

Long term it let's us trade Deng and Tyrus for a big and we can just plug him in at the SF spot or in 2010 we don't re sign Tyrus and he plays the PF spot if we can't land a Bosh type player

I like Henderson OK if he falls to 16 and Blair, Mullens and Johnson are all gone, but not if one of those guys is available. I've changed my tune a bit on him after looking at some more footage and looking at his stats more carefully.

RE: the eye test, he really doesn't have much of a feel for creating his own shot. His form seems OK, but it's not a true shooter's stroke. I liked the way that he finished around the basket, but to pair with Rose we need someone who can really stroke it. I like his physicality and his rebounding potential, but not enough to want him as a starting 2-guard.

Statistically, unless you're taking a guard who really excels at 3-point shooting, as Gordon does, you really want to aim for someone who shoots close to 50% from the floor. Even then it's not a sure thing, but that's a great benchmark. Or a TS% that's up near 60%. Gordon was around 58% true shooting b/c of his 3-point shooting and free throw shooting. Henderson isn't even close. He's shot around 45% from the floor and around 53% TS%. That just doesn't cut it. Usually a guard will experience a bit of a drop-off from college to the pros, and if you're dropping off from 53% true shooting you're getting into pretty perilous territory.

Ralphb07 wrote:

Luke NOT Luc wrote:

Ralphb07 wrote:Guys it's going to be Johnson if we trade up......

IMO the Bulls order
1.Johnson
2.Henderson
3.Blair
4.Mullens

I think you're right about the way we're thinking. Ralph, you have pretty much been the biggest Johnson backer from the beginning. How is he going to help us short term and long term, you think?

Short term he'll play the 3 and the 4 backing up both Tyrus and Deng. I see him causing a lot of match up problems because of his size and skill set. Bigger slower PF will have to step out on him and he will blow right by them. When we put him at SF he will be bigger and be able to score down low

This is why I like him so much. At 6'8 257lbs he has Guard like skills but has the size not to hurt us on defense

Long term it let's us trade Deng and Tyrus for a big and we can just plug him in at the SF spot or in 2010 we don't re sign Tyrus and he plays the PF spot if we can't land a Bosh type player

If he's really good enough to be either our long-term SF or PF it sounds great. I just worry about a guy who doesn't have a set position and questionable work ethic. Does he have what it takes mentally to work hard enough to be quality enough to be a long-term piece at a single position? But in this draft, you take what you can get, right? If he pans out, he's going to be a beast

Edit:
I'd still prefer to take Blair and keep our later pick if possible, but if not, I can see how Johnson could help us and understand the thought process

ScottyKCMO wrote:The difference is, Larry Hughes is a wanna be thug, an ego maniac, and a waste of talent. Oh yeah, he also went to St. Louis University. I wonder why Coach K didn't recruit him.

I highly suspect that he did.

If he's really good enough to be either our long-term SF or PF it sounds great. I just worry about a guy who doesn't have a set position and questionable work ethic. Does he have what it takes mentally to work hard enough to be quality enough to be a long-term piece at a single position. But in this draft, you take what you can get, right? If he pans out, he's going to be a beast

Here's the thing that different about Johnson than say a Corless Williamson that was a tweener and most tweener's

They have a skill set of one position and the size for another making them tweener's

In Johnson's case he has the size and skill set for both position, which I think everyone misses on this board. He doesn't have a set position because he's versatile and you gotta see what spot he'll be better at

TyrusRose2425, any trade rumors T9 may have mentioned?

Honestly this draft is just a freakin crap-shoot in guessing who goes where and who is going to be good.

I would kill to get a player as good as Larry Hughes at his peak in this draft at #16.

I'm with the guy that said why not just draft Terrence Williams if you're going Henderson? Williams is taller and a far superior player aside from a good jump shot.

dougthonus wrote:I would kill to get a player as good as Larry Hughes at his peak in this draft at #16.

Doug, how do you rate Johnson and Henderson after watching film? Who would you take? Do you think James Johnson can be our PF and play that position without "tweener" issues on both sides of the ball?

Ralphb07 wrote:

If he's really good enough to be either our long-term SF or PF it sounds great. I just worry about a guy who doesn't have a set position and questionable work ethic. Does he have what it takes mentally to work hard enough to be quality enough to be a long-term piece at a single position. But in this draft, you take what you can get, right? If he pans out, he's going to be a beast

Here's the thing that different about Johnson than say a Corless Williamson that was a tweener and most tweener's

They have a skill set of one position and the size for another making them tweener's

In Johnson's case he has the size and skill set for both position, which I think everyone misses on this board. He doesn't have a set position because he's versatile and you gotta see what spot he'll be better at

That is yet to be seen Ralph, in all fairness. Let's not confuse projections and speculation with things that are actually known.

This is another case of where, if everything you say is correct, and it might be, there are some stupid teams picking in the top ten if he's not picked there. Possible - would not be the first time.

Payt10 wrote:I'm with the guy that said why not just draft Terrence Williams if you're going Henderson? Williams is taller and a far superior player aside from a good jump shot.

Because Williams is going to Charlotte, presumably.

Ralphb07 wrote:

If he's really good enough to be either our long-term SF or PF it sounds great. I just worry about a guy who doesn't have a set position and questionable work ethic. Does he have what it takes mentally to work hard enough to be quality enough to be a long-term piece at a single position. But in this draft, you take what you can get, right? If he pans out, he's going to be a beast

Here's the thing that different about Johnson than say a Corless Williamson that was a tweener and most tweener's

They have a skill set of one position and the size for another making them tweener's

In Johnson's case he has the size and skill set for both position, which I think everyone misses on this board. He doesn't have a set position because he's versatile and you gotta see what spot he'll be better at

This is what I keep trying to preach. Everyone is using "tweener" as a negative except for us I think. I'd say it's a positive.

Ralphb07 wrote:

If he's really good enough to be either our long-term SF or PF it sounds great. I just worry about a guy who doesn't have a set position and questionable work ethic. Does he have what it takes mentally to work hard enough to be quality enough to be a long-term piece at a single position. But in this draft, you take what you can get, right? If he pans out, he's going to be a beast

Here's the thing that different about Johnson than say a Corless Williamson that was a tweener and most tweener's

They have a skill set of one position and the size for another making them tweener's

In Johnson's case he has the size and skill set for both position, which I think everyone misses on this board. He doesn't have a set position because he's versatile and you gotta see what spot he'll be better at

That's a really good point. I'm just naturally a little weary about power forwards who live on the perimeter and look to create their own shots most of the time. But in terms of skills, he no doubt has them, I just worry about how much ball movement there's going to be if we have BG, Salmons and Johnson on the floor at the same time. That's where Rose is going to have to be what we hope he will because IF you get those guys to all work together, that's a lot of firepower.

I think we've become a snobish board. Every thread is about how player x has flaws, isn't going to make the all defensive team, etc.

I like Johnson at SF primarily, then some PF. Gives us Ding insurance (whether he sucks, injured or traded) with a better athlete, size and potential.

No Henderson, No TWill, still don't want Blair either but I take him above those guards. I'm ok with Mullens but I just don't see the Bulls taking on another project now.

bullzman23 wrote:I think we've become a snobish board. Every thread is about how player x has flaws, isn't going to make the all defensive team, etc.

It's this draft. Every player has at least one fatal flaw as opposed to a weakness

I'm certainly not in favor of packaging our picks for either of these guys. But I guess in a draft as thin as this one if they've identified their target Ok. Out of the two I would lean toward Johnson but I wonder what drafting him would mean for Tyrus. Henderson may be a better fit though if Kirk is indeed traded.

It all comes down to who fits the best with Derrick Rose.