2024 NBA Draft - DA BULLS Edition Pick #11

[drosestruts]

"11 is way too high" to take someone seems like a foolish mindset, comparing the players output and projections shouldn't be connected to the popular opinion.

Thank you!

It's never too early to draft a good player.

I care way more about how a player performs and the impact he brings to a team over winning Kevin O'Connors post draft instant grades or some nonsense.

If mock drafts routinely ranked player correctly based on future impact there'd be no need for scouting departments.

[Chicagoat]

"11 is way too high" to take someone seems like a foolish mindset, comparing the players output and projections shouldn't be connected to the popular opinion.

Thank you!

It's never too early to draft a good player.

I care way more about how a player performs and the impact he brings to a team over winning Kevin O'Connors post draft instant grades or some nonsense.

If mock drafts routinely ranked player correctly based on future impact there'd be no need for scouting departments.

For argument sake, taking a player that is expected to be found much later would be wasteful when you have a good chance in drafting them later and being able to move down for an extra asset or two. In the Bulls case, having more than one pick would help add young talent in a team that needs it. But you know a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

But since the topic is about Tristan Da Silva, in my honest opinion his floor is Number 12th with OKC with even the Kings being likely to draft him. So discussing him with our pick wouldn't be that crazy.

[Jcool0]

"11 is way too high" to take someone seems like a foolish mindset, comparing the players output and projections shouldn't be connected to the popular opinion.

Thank you!

It's never too early to draft a good player.

I care way more about how a player performs and the impact he brings to a team over winning Kevin O'Connors post draft instant grades or some nonsense.

If mock drafts routinely ranked player correctly based on future impact there'd be no need for scouting departments.

Just because you think someone is good doesn't mean anyone else does.

[drosestruts]

"11 is way too high" to take someone seems like a foolish mindset, comparing the players output and projections shouldn't be connected to the popular opinion.

Thank you!

It's never too early to draft a good player.

I care way more about how a player performs and the impact he brings to a team over winning Kevin O'Connors post draft instant grades or some nonsense.

If mock drafts routinely ranked player correctly based on future impact there'd be no need for scouting departments.

Just because you think someone is good doesn't mean anyone else does.

But the arguments being made in this thread weren't "i wouldn't draft him he's bad" they were "X player at 11 is too early"

Too early for what?

If you're a good player you're a good player, if you're a bad player you're a bad player. Where you were picked doesn't change that.

James Wiseman is bad.

Tyrese Maxey is good.

Tyrese Maxey isn't good for a 20th pick, he's simply just good.

James Wiseman isn't bad for a 2nd pick, he's just bad.

If I say I like Tyler Smith and someone says - I think his defense is too poor to be a positive player - that's a quality discussion.

But Smith is going to be good or not whether he's drafted at 11 or 23

[MrSparkle]

Thank you!

It's never too early to draft a good player.

I care way more about how a player performs and the impact he brings to a team over winning Kevin O'Connors post draft instant grades or some nonsense.

If mock drafts routinely ranked player correctly based on future impact there'd be no need for scouting departments.

Just because you think someone is good doesn't mean anyone else does.

But the arguments being made in this thread weren't "i wouldn't draft him he's bad" they were "X player at 11 is too early"

Too early for what?

If you're a good player you're a good player, if you're a bad player you're a bad player. Where you were picked doesn't change that.

James Wiseman is bad.

Tyrese Maxey is good.

Tyrese Maxey isn't good for a 20th pick, he's simply just good.

James Wiseman isn't bad for a 2nd pick, he's just bad.

If I say I like Tyler Smith and someone says - I think his defense is too poor to be a positive player - that's a quality discussion.

But Smith is going to be good or not whether he's drafted at 11 or 23

I think if you like a #20 mocked player at #10, the common sense is to trade down and get some more value back. Kind of how Ainge fleeced Philly with Fultz. Easier said than done, but I thought we hired a great, expensive GM? I don't think we did if he's drafting guys who have performed/ranked 15-25 spots lower than their actual pick, and not made any interesting draft trades as of yet.

[Jcool0]

Thank you!

It's never too early to draft a good player.

I care way more about how a player performs and the impact he brings to a team over winning Kevin O'Connors post draft instant grades or some nonsense.

If mock drafts routinely ranked player correctly based on future impact there'd be no need for scouting departments.

Just because you think someone is good doesn't mean anyone else does.

But the arguments being made in this thread weren't "i wouldn't draft him he's bad" they were "X player at 11 is too early"

Too early for what?

If you're a good player you're a good player, if you're a bad player you're a bad player. Where you were picked doesn't change that.

James Wiseman is bad.

Tyrese Maxey is good.

Tyrese Maxey isn't good for a 20th pick, he's simply just good.

James Wiseman isn't bad for a 2nd pick, he's just bad.

If I say I like Tyler Smith and someone says - I think his defense is too poor to be a positive player - that's a quality discussion.

But Smith is going to be good or not whether he's drafted at 11 or 23

In that moment of the draft no one was taking Maxey #2, even if they liked him as a player. No one was like Dalen Terry is good, so its okay we took him at 18 when he was slated to be picked in the late 20s or even 2nd round. Everyone was mad for reaching for him.

[2weekswithpay]

Looking at Tankathon stats and comparisons, can anyone make a case for why you would draft Filipowski over DaRon Holmes in this draft? Holmes is better at just about everything, he is just older. (He is shorter, but has a better standing reach)

Competition for one. Easier for Holmes to put up those numbers in a mid-major. Both players are tweeners but Filipowski has better skills to play as a 4.

I haven't watched enough to notice slight differences in their skillset, but it is not like Filipowski can do something that Holmes CAN'T do. Even their agility measurements seem similar. Holmes' shooting and utility seem to be greater than Filipowski's. Competition is a good point, but I guess I thought Holmes finished better in the tourney, too. Just seemed like quite a gap for two players that do most of the same things at the same level.

Holmes only started shooting 3s this season and has only made 39 3s total in his college career. The volume of 3s made and taken isn't enough to convince some. Filipowski had 100 assists this season and 76 TOs, Holmes had 86 assists and 74 TOs. Filipowski had better teammates but he has the edge statistically.

Also being younger is pretty important if you're comparing similarly skilled players. Teams generally go with the younger guy unless there is a size/athleticism gap.

[drosestruts]

obviously if you're able to trade back, get additional assets, and draft the guy you liked that would be the ideal scenario.

Barring that - if I'm the GM and there's a player I really like available at my pick, and I have no deals on the table, I don't care that some random blogger or even a more credentialed NBA writer values him later - I like him, I'm drafting him.

If your scouting department is just regurgitating information available publicly online - save yourself some money and fire your scouting department.

[drosestruts]

Just because you think someone is good doesn't mean anyone else does.

But the arguments being made in this thread weren't "i wouldn't draft him he's bad" they were "X player at 11 is too early"

Too early for what?

If you're a good player you're a good player, if you're a bad player you're a bad player. Where you were picked doesn't change that.

James Wiseman is bad.

Tyrese Maxey is good.

Tyrese Maxey isn't good for a 20th pick, he's simply just good.

James Wiseman isn't bad for a 2nd pick, he's just bad.

If I say I like Tyler Smith and someone says - I think his defense is too poor to be a positive player - that's a quality discussion.

But Smith is going to be good or not whether he's drafted at 11 or 23

In that moment of the draft no one was taking Maxey #2, even if they liked him as a player. No one was like Dalen Terry is good, so its okay we took him at 18 when he was slated to be picked in the late 20s or even 2nd round. Everyone was mad for reaching for him.

But Dalen Terry isn't bad for a 18th pick - he's simply just bad.

Around May 20th 2011 Jimy Butler was being projected to get drafted 43rd overall per this chart - https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jimmy-Butler-6315/mock-draft-history/

The Bulls took him 30th? Was it a bad pick because they picked him before he was mocked to be selected?

[Jcool0]

But the arguments being made in this thread weren't "i wouldn't draft him he's bad" they were "X player at 11 is too early"

Too early for what?

If you're a good player you're a good player, if you're a bad player you're a bad player. Where you were picked doesn't change that.

James Wiseman is bad.

Tyrese Maxey is good.

Tyrese Maxey isn't good for a 20th pick, he's simply just good.

James Wiseman isn't bad for a 2nd pick, he's just bad.

If I say I like Tyler Smith and someone says - I think his defense is too poor to be a positive player - that's a quality discussion.

But Smith is going to be good or not whether he's drafted at 11 or 23

In that moment of the draft no one was taking Maxey #2, even if they liked him as a player. No one was like Dalen Terry is good, so its okay we took him at 18 when he was slated to be picked in the late 20s or even 2nd round. Everyone was mad for reaching for him.

But Dalen Terry isn't bad for a 18th pick - he's simply just bad.

Around May 20th 2011 Jimy Butler was being projected to get drafted 43rd overall per this chart - https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jimmy-Butler-6315/mock-draft-history/

The Bulls took him 30th? Was it a bad pick because they picked him before he was mocked to be selected?

This is all hindsight. We have no idea how good or bad Silva will be. You can talk all day long about how much you like him and it wouldn't be a reach to you. But to most people it would be. If he turns out to be a good players no one will care. But on draft night people are going to care. It will feed in the the notion AK doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

In that moment of the draft no one was taking Maxey #2, even if they liked him as a player. No one was like Dalen Terry is good, so its okay we took him at 18 when he was slated to be picked in the late 20s or even 2nd round. Everyone was mad for reaching for him.

But Dalen Terry isn't bad for a 18th pick - he's simply just bad.

Around May 20th 2011 Jimy Butler was being projected to get drafted 43rd overall per this chart - https://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jimmy-Butler-6315/mock-draft-history/

The Bulls took him 30th? Was it a bad pick because they picked him before he was mocked to be selected?

This is all hindsight. We have no idea how good or bad Silva will be. You can talk all day long about how much you like him and it wouldn't be a reach to you. But to most people it would be. If he turns out to be a good players no one will care. But on draft night people are going to care. It will feed in the the notion AK doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

You really haven't argued successfully against the opposite points. A good player is a good player no matter where you take them. The whole "reach" and "value" assessments are irrelevant and reactionary.

[Chi town]

ESPN updated mock has us taking Ron Holland, SF, G League Ignite at #11.

I'd be okay with that. Could have Anthony Edwards upside.

I like Holland. He has NBA athleticism. He can create his own shot and score.

[kulaz3000]

ESPN updated mock has us taking Ron Holland, SF, G League Ignite at #11.

I'd be okay with that. Could have Anthony Edwards upside.

I like Holland. He has NBA athleticism. He can create his own shot and score.

He actually reminds me of Jimmy Butler from his first few years in the league, when he was mostly used as a defensive player, which to me is Hollands best strength as of right now. And people forget, Butler was a pretty solid athlete, though probably not quite the level of Holland. Now, if Holland can continue to work on his offensive game like Jimmy did, then you could see his physical attributes fully utilized.

[Bulldog23]

Kelel is a top 15 pick. He looks like a solid center prospect for Bulls to pickup at 11..9’4 standing reach and 7’4 wingspan. Has post moves, mobility, defense, and three point shot.

[drosestruts]

ESPN updated mock has us taking Ron Holland, SF, G League Ignite at #11.

I'd be okay with that. Could have Anthony Edwards upside.

I like Holland. He has NBA athleticism. He can create his own shot and score.

I am very wary of Holland. He was very very inefficient last year. I'm not sure how that gets better when moving on to play against better competition without a complete evolution in who he is as a player.

FG% - 44%
3P% - 24%
TS% - 56%
Ast:TO Ratio - 0:0.9. - he turns it over more than he assists

He had a -13.6 Net Rating

He's assisted on 45% of his 2PFG and 83% of his 3P FG - very reliant on others to create shots for him

I'm not sure what the day one transferable skill is with Holland

[DuckIII]

obviously if you're able to trade back, get additional assets, and draft the guy you liked that would be the ideal scenario.

Barring that - if I'm the GM and there's a player I really like available at my pick, and I have no deals on the table, I don't care that some random blogger or even a more credentialed NBA writer values him later - I like him, I'm drafting him.

Or even what any other GM in the league would do. Show me a GM who won’t take the player he wants because he’s worried about perception and I’ll show you a GM I’d want fired.

The most important thing a GM can do is maximize his assets. That’s the job in a nutshell and as a fan that is what I analyze when evaluating the people who run my teams.

So if my GM wants a guy at 11 that everyone expects, and specifically the Bulls FO has reason to believe, will go in the low 20s, I expect him to try to trade back a little to secure the pick plus an asset. That is the job.

But if you love the guy and the trade is not there, take your guy. Perception be damned. You are going to be judged by the success of your decisions regardless so take the guys you believe in and hope you are right.

[Ice Man]

I'd be okay with that. Could have Anthony Edwards upside.

I like Holland. He has NBA athleticism. He can create his own shot and score.

I am very wary of Holland. He was very very inefficient last year. I'm not sure how that gets better when moving on to play against better competition without a complete evolution in who he is as a player.

FG% - 44%
3P% - 24%
TS% - 56%
Ast:TO Ratio - 0:0.9. - he turns it over more than he assists

He had a -13.6 Net Rating

He's assisted on 45% of his 2PFG and 83% of his 3P FG - very reliant on others to create shots for him

I'm not sure what the day one transferable skill is with Holland

While I generally agree with this, Ant was a 40% shooter with a 52% TS% during his one year in college, with a 1:1 assist to turnover ratio. So, there are exceptions.

[LateNight]

I like Holland. He has NBA athleticism. He can create his own shot and score.

I am very wary of Holland. He was very very inefficient last year. I'm not sure how that gets better when moving on to play against better competition without a complete evolution in who he is as a player.

FG% - 44%
3P% - 24%
TS% - 56%
Ast:TO Ratio - 0:0.9. - he turns it over more than he assists

He had a -13.6 Net Rating

He's assisted on 45% of his 2PFG and 83% of his 3P FG - very reliant on others to create shots for him

I'm not sure what the day one transferable skill is with Holland

While I generally agree with this, Ant was a 40% shooter with a 52% TS% during his one year in college, with a 1:1 assist to turnover ratio. So, there are exceptions.

The only thing they really seem to share is they will dunk through contact. I like that about Holland.

But, based on very first look - Ant in college already had a quicker first step & release and much tighter handle than Holland.

Holland is shooting a low percent and his release looks slow.

[Jcool0]

11. Chicago Bulls: Ron Holland

https://www.on3.com/pro/news/2024-nba-draft-espn-releases-updated-mock-draft-following-combine/

[Jcool0]

The Ringers NBA Draft Show

Ron Holland’s NBA Potential, Shooting Struggles, and Best Fits

KOC and J. Kyle Mann discuss the NBA potential of prospect Ron Holland from the NBA G League Ignite (01:22). They dive into his shooting inefficiency, what his role at the next level could be, and why team fit will be extremely important with him. Next, KOC is joined by Ron Holland himself to discuss what lessons he learned from losing on the Ignite, his defensive potential, how he continues to build his offense, and more (24:12).

https://open.spotify.com/episode/16fKVMqOmTYrMuzmS8hHju?si=r04hZ4t7SPeaUD-ukSTqRA