Say hello to your #1 pick in the 2008 NBA Draft....

[TMACPIERCEMARION]

Putting way too much stock in a good tournament performance. MB was the best player in the country all year. Rose and Beasley both have tremendous upside, but now everyone is on Rose's jock just because of seeing him in the tournament.

Kinda like people think Stephen Curry is a first round pick now just because of the last 3 games.

The reason people are saying it now is because through the season his competition was nothing like what he is playing now, he's coming in against some of the best teams in the nation and still putting up the gaudy numbers that he did in the regular season, I can see him as a late first rounder..........NEXT year.

[bill curley II]

It's too early to say whether or not Beasley's going to be a good defender or not. People said the same thing about Artest comig out of St Johns, about him being a 3/4 tweener and not being quick enough to guard wing players and too short to guard pf's.

[Jonathan Watters]

Clearly the best way to evaluate a prospect is based on their last performance.

Seriously, people flip flop around so much based on whatever has happened most recently.

Things are never as simple as we would like them to be, my friend.

I was on the Rose #1 bandwagon before the season started, but obviously had to change that opinion over the first half of the season.

But there is a clear pattern of constant improvement out of Rose, and now it is completely obvious he was the prospect I thought he was headed into the season.

This isn't just one game...this is a series of games and a pattern of improvement confirming what I already knew from 2 years worth of play.

[skones]

It's too early to say whether or not Beasley's going to be a good defender or not. People said the same thing about Artest comig out of St Johns, about him being a 3/4 tweener and not being quick enough to guard wing players and too short to guard pf's.

Difference being Artest defending in college and Beasley not.....

[DaGoodz]

I think people overate Beasley's defensive problem. He is average on defense to above average on defense. He isn't no Tim Duncan or Dwight Howard on defense, he's more like Carlos Boozer on defense. Average, not great but passable.

[Bucky O'Hare]

I'll take Beasley over the 6'2" point guard that can't shoot.

[UGA Hayes]

I think people overate Beasley's defensive problem. He is average on defense to above average on defense. He isn't no Tim Duncan or Dwight Howard on defense, he's more like Carlos Boozer on defense. Average, not great but passable.

You are kidding right. He didn't have a damn clue what to do on defense most of the time.

[Doctor MJ]

I think people overate Beasley's defensive problem. He is average on defense to above average on defense. He isn't no Tim Duncan or Dwight Howard on defense, he's more like Carlos Boozer on defense. Average, not great but passable.

I don't think you're getting this. To be a lock as a big man at #1 over an ideal prospect at the 1, you've got to be a great defender. Defense is the reason why big man are the stars of this game, not offense. So the fact that Beasley isn't expected to be a defensive superstar cannot be something that is simply put aside when rating him as a big man.

Now, it's possible for a big man to be good enough on offense alone that he warrants the #1 pick in a draft, but using the classic "always pick the big man first" logic on a player like that misses the entire point of *why* you should pick the big man first.

[_BBIB_]

Look the reason we think rose will be #1 has as much to do with beasley as rose. nooone really believes that beasely is going to do what it takes to win on the pro level despite his immense talent. Fortunately for him until rose took a major leap noone was in position to give the team with the #1 pick an out from taking rose. To me a question should be is beasley going to be 2 either b/c I think teams might take a pass on him there perhaps for Love.

You all are putting WAY too much stock in NCAA tournament success.

Now Beasley isn't even a guaranteed top 2 pick and could go behind Kevin Love?

LOL no chance in freaking hell.

He's the best player in this draft and the only way he won't go #1 is if it's a team like Minnesota that needs help at the 1 more than they do at the 4.

[_BBIB_]

-= original quote snipped =-



Kansas State finished one spot down in the Big 12 last year and actually finished the season with a better record last year at 22-11 than they did this year at 20-11.

My point is, Beasley isn't a defensive big man. How many non defensive big men take their teams to the next level in the NBA? My point being, they just don't. Not only that, but the guy is stuck between the 3 and 4. It wouldn't surprise me if he measured out at 6'7 or 6'8 as opposed to the 6'9 he's listed at. My point was that the poster I was arguing with was constantly bringing up big guys like Duncan who lead their teams to championships, well, Beasley isn't a Duncan so that point he was making, doesn't matter.

Dude no offense but you don't have a clue about Kansas State and Michael Beasley.

Kansas State overachieved last year. They have a pathetic history as a program. Beasley led them to their first win over their rival in a 1/4 century and their first NCAA tournament win in about 15 years.

The overachieving team Kansas State had last year was COMPLETELY different than the one they had this year. 4 of their top 5 scorers from last year did not return to the team.

This cast was a whole lot more garbage.

And to make it seem like Beasley is some mediocre defender is ridiculous He led the nation in boards and had a pretty decent BPG total at 1.7. He also has pretty good feet down low for a 4.


He won't be a worse defender that PFs like Amare or Boozer.


Speaking of those guys, he has that length/athleticism combo of the future in guys like West, Amare, Boozer, and he has better range than them all.


The idea that he is not the best player in this draft and has no superstar upside is preposterous

[skones]

And to make it seem like Beasley is some mediocre defender is ridiculous He led the nation in boards and had a pretty decent BPG total at 1.7. He also has pretty good feet down low for a 4.


He won't be a worse defender that PFs like Amare or Boozer.


Speaking of those guys, he has that length/athleticism combo of the future in guys like West, Amare, Boozer, and he has better range than them all.


The idea that he is not the best player in this draft and has no superstar upside is preposterous

Beasley is and was a bad defender all season long. Last time I checked, rebounds and blocks DON'T MAKE A DEFENSIVE PLAYER. PERIOD. Oh, he won't be a worse defender than PFs like Amare and Boozer? AMARE IS ONE OF THE WORST DEFENSIVE POWER FORWARD/CENTERS IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE! You really are shooting for the stars there. Boozer is below average on that end of the floor. You'll routinely hear Jazz fans complaining about his play on that end of the floor.

Both Amare and Boozer are both damn fine players, ones I would love to have on my team, but neither are superstars. They aren't guys who you can have as the centerpiece of your team and build around them expecting to win a large number of games. It's just not going to happen. Both of those guys are playing with elite point guards which make the teams they just happen to be on.

I don't ever see Beasley becoming a superstar. I can see him going for 20 and 10 on a routine basis, but that doesn't make you a superstar. In fact, I see him as a rich man's Antawn Jamison. He'll be able to score in a multitude of ways, he'll hit the boards, and he'll be a poor defender that doesn't improve the play of others.

Derrick Rose has the ability and physical tools to be an absolute beast on both ends of the floor. Guys with his package of size, speed, strength, and athleticism just don't come around every year. In fact, based on physical traits alone he's a lot more rare than a guy like Beasley. He's a pure point guard that elevates the play of those around him, and he's shown steady progression as the year has gone on.

[_BBIB_]

Derrick Rose is an average shooter and playmaker at this point.

At this point of his career he almost relies solely on his speed to blow by guys and kick out or score.


To say Beasley has no superstar potential is absurd.


He can score inside with the best of them and he also has range on his jumper. How many of the 6'9/6'10 guys like Boozer, Amare, West, etc can knock down perimeter shots like Beasley?

Beasley also has also shown the slashing ability of a 3 that will create even more mismatches.


He doesn't need an elite PG to get him the ball. Dude is mature beyond his years at scoring in the post. He can finish with either hand, he grabs the ball with vice grips on offensive/defensive boards, and his ability to finsih after contact just makes the game look easy.


He's a potential 24/12/1.5 player in this league.

[Chi Dynasty12]

It's the same draft idea at 1 and 2 as last year.
Either pick you have, you win. Oden or Durant? Beasley or Rose?
You either get a star in the frontcourt or the backcourt.

[ponder276]

Re: Beasley's D, it did look pretty bad in K-state, but I think a big part of that was his role on the team:
a) On the defensive end they played him basically as a center, parking him in the lane and asking him to block shots, which is really not what he should be doing. He often looked lost trying to switch between defending the perimiter and getting back to the paint as a help defender, but in the NBA his job will be man d on SFs and PFs, not to play a center-like role on d, so he might not be so bad.
b) He was relied on very heavily for their offense, and had to save his energy for that end of the floor. He rarely seemed to be really bringing it on d effort-wise, hopefully that will change in the NBA.


Even though I see a lot of issues with Beasley's game (tweener, defense, etc.) I think he'll go 1st overall. He dominated all year, Rose dominates only in stretches.

[Leslie Forman]

I don't think you're getting this. To be a lock as a big man at #1 over an ideal prospect at the 1, you've got to be a great defender. Defense is the reason why big man are the stars of this game, not offense.

When it comes to PFs, this is completely untrue. Just look at the PFs that have gone #1 – Joe Smith, Chris Webber, Derrick Coleman, Larry Johnson, Danny Manning – none of these guys were picked because of their defense. Hell, just look at the guy picked #1 two years ago, a three-point chucking Italian center. And Charles Barkley, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, all were/are highly acclaimed recent PFs who play atrocious-to-mediocre defense. I always thought Malone's defense was really overrated and just average at best, but I'll leave him out if you disagree. There's obviously enough other examples.

I liken the Beasley/Rose situation to LJ/Kenny Anderson. Was LJ a better prospect than Kenny Anderson? No, not really. LJ was an undersized PF who everyone knew would have problems defending in the NBA. Kenny Anderson meanwhile was utterly unstoppable in college and had even more hype than Rose does right now, being an NYC PG and all. Yet LJ went first.

That's not to say Rose won't go first – if the right team gets the #1 pick, there's a decent chance it'll happen – but the history of the NBA suggests that the odds are heavily in Beasley's favor.

[Leslie Forman]

-= original quote snipped =-



When it comes to PFs, this is completely untrue. Just look at the PFs that have gone #1

[NO-KG-AI]

I think most of the board follows the big man theory, but a huge chunk don't really know the reason for doing so.

You want a big man for controlling the paint on D, dominating the glass, making the game easier for other players by drawing double teams into the paint to kick out to shooters, and getting high percentage shots near the rim, and drawing fouls.

I'd say the first two are the most important, and I don't think Beasley is going to be that guy.

Great player, not a dominant big man, more of a Melo than a paint dominator. Still not sure if I would definitively put Rose ahead, though I would probably take him, but Beasley is by no means the consensus top pick.

[Leslie Forman]

Let me clarify. I'm responding to the people say "Beasley is a lock to go #1 because he's a big man". Of course an offense-based big man can go #1. But what make a big man a true lock to go before the little guy is his defense. Beasley is simply not Greg Oden-type player, hence he's no lock.

Oh I agree with you, going #1 just because he's bigger clearly isn't a sure thing. I disagree with your definition of a "true" lock though, as even Greg Oden was not a true lock, as there was plenty of "Should Durant go #1?" business going on. I can't really say he was any more of a lock than Webber or Coleman. The hype on those guys was easily on par or even greater than Oden's.

The only definite, undoubted, airtight locks in the last 20 years were Duncan and Shaq, IMO.

Let's be clear though, forgetting the analogy to today for a minute, it was LJ who was considered the #1 non-NBA player in the world. Kenny, while he had a ton of potential, was not even considered the best sophomore in college ball at the time.

Ehhh…couldn't you say the exact same thing for Beasley? And yeah, Kenny wasn't the best sophomore in college, but hey, if Shaq had entered the draft a year earlier, he'd have gone before LJ too.

Man, I thought Kenny was gonna be a beast. Something like what Chris Paul is right now. Maybe I'm remembering wrong and it's just because I think everything was better in the '90s (which it was).

[Doctor MJ]

I think most of the board follows the big man theory, but a huge chunk don't really know the reason for doing so.

You want a big man for controlling the paint on D, dominating the glass, making the game easier for other players by drawing double teams into the paint to kick out to shooters, and getting high percentage shots near the rim, and drawing fouls.

I'd say the first two are the most important, and I don't think Beasley is going to be that guy.

Great player, not a dominant big man, more of a Melo than a paint dominator. Still not sure if I would definitively put Rose ahead, though I would probably take him, but Beasley is by no means the consensus top pick.

Thank you!

Solidarity my friend.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh I agree with you, going #1 just because he's bigger clearly isn't a sure thing. I disagree with your definition of a "true" lock though, as even Greg Oden was not a true lock, as there was plenty of "Should Durant go #1?" business going on. I can't really say he was any more of a lock than Webber or Coleman. The hype on those guys was easily on par or even greater than Oden's.

The only definite, undoubted, airtight locks in the last 20 years were Duncan and Shaq, IMO.

Oden wasn't a sure thing because he wasn't a star offensive player. I'm saying, that what makes a star big man go ahead of a non-big man, is that in addition to the offense, he has defense that the little guy can't hope to touch.

If Beasley had his offensive game, and had "big man" defense, he'd be a lock. As is, he's just another guy with a nice offensive game. He may go #1, he may not.

-= original quote snipped =-



Ehhh