The potential for screwing this up comes down to overrating Derrick Rose and maybe overrating the importance of point guards in general. First, let's look at Derrick Rose. I think Rose is has the chance to be very good pro, but he is not the player that some are making him out to be. Mike D'Antoni described Rose as "Jason Kidd with a jump shot." I cannot overstate the ridiculousness of that statement. How many players in the history of the NBA could legitimately be described as "Jason Kidd with a jump shot?" I can come up with maybe two; Pete Maravich and Oscar Robertson. To suggest that Derrick Rose is of that caliber is outrageous. And when you look at Rose's skills and statistics this comparison becomes even more preposterous. Kidd averaged 8.4 assists over his two years at Cal and had an assist-to-turnover ratio over 2. Rose, on the other hand, averaged just 4.7 assists/game with an assist-to-turnover ratio under 2. But at least Rose is a better shooter, right? Well, no. Kidd averaged 14.9 ppg over two year and shot 33% from 3. Guess what, Rose's averages were exactly the same.
So, Derrick Rose isn't Jason Kidd and he's definitely not an improved version of Jason Kidd, but he can join the current ranks of point guards like Chris Paul and Deron Williams, right? Maybe. I've yet to see the decision-making from Rose to suggest that he is at their level, but maybe that will develop over time. But even if it does, how much does that matter? How important is the PG to the success of an NBA team? Well, from my point of view, not quite as important as some seem to claim. People point to the "success" of Utah and New Orleans and use that as "proof" of the importance of point guards. So let me ask this, how many NBA teams have won championships with great PGs? I'm not counting Tony Parker or Chauncey Billups. Both are good players but neither are the primary reason that their teams won championships. The last team to win by being led by a PG was the 1990 Detroit Pistons. Over that same span, teams led by big guys (Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal and Hakeem Olajuwan) have led their teams to 9 NBA titles and teams led by scoring guards (Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Dwayne Wade) have also won a number of titles. Meanwhile, the best point guards of the recent era (Stockton, Nash, Payton, Kidd) have combined for 1 title and that title (Payton winning with Miami in 2005) had very little to do with Payton's presence. This suggests that the best-case scenario for Rose is that he develops into a scorer, who can play a few minutes at the point (maybe it's just me, but if your looking for a guy like that in this draft, the pick is OJ Mayo).
Josh also did a good job summarizing Beasley's upside, so I won't get much into that. I keep seeing people predict that Beasley will but up 20 and 10. Well, if that's what the Bulls expect, then there's no way he shouldn't be the first pick in the draft. Only three guys in the NBA averaged 20 and 10 this year (Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, and Al Jefferson). In the Spurs four championship seasons, Tim Duncan averaged 20 and 10 each year. In fact, I've yet to read or hear anyone question any part of Beasley's game. Conversely, with Rose, we see potential, but many still question almost every aspect of his game.
So, yes, the Bulls can mess this up and to suggest that they can't is incomprehensible. There are plenty of examples of teams drafting a very good player but passed over an all-star (Glenn Robinson ahead of Jason Kidd, Jerry Stackhouse/Rasheed Wallace over Kevin Garnett, Bowie over Jordan, Sam Perkins over Charles Barkley). And while there is a decent chance the Bulls will end up with at least a very good player, the mistake most often associated with high draft picks is not a total "miss" but the instead the missed opportunity from passing on the next great NBA talent. And while my opinion is most likely biased, Michael Beasley has the most potential to be great.
4 comments:
Thanks for the input Chad, even if I pretty much knew what you would say.
The only part I possibly disagree with is your paragraph on the importance of point guards. Whereas it's hard to argue the need for a big guy I don't feel comfortable saying the point guard position is overrated. It's possible I'm just biased in favor of point guards (which just makes my preference of Beasley over Rose more of a credit to Beasley's skill) but I'm not sure I'm willing to say that just because it hasn't happened for the point guards doesn't mean it won't.
Plus, you mention some of the bigs that have won championships being Olajuwon, Shaq, and Duncan. I could probably make an argument that those bigs and Beasley are very different players (I want to throw the word "center" out there although I think Duncan is more of a power forward even if I think in the game today the center-power forward distinction is becoming more blurred).
By no means do I think that a team won't win with a great point guard, but it seems that teams that have a great PG, seem to think they can surround him with mediocre players because "he will make everyone better." Those teams also tend to be deficient defensively (think the Suns with Nash or any team that Jason Kidd has been on).
I agree that Beasley is not a traditional big like Shaq, Duncan, etc. The problem is I can't accurately compare him with anyone. I agree with you that the comparisons with Carmelo aren't right. I also considered Rasheed Wallace (I think they're similar from a shooting perspective) but Beasley is a better rebound and better off the dribble. Maybe the Derrick Coleman comparisons are the most accurate (he did put up three 20/10 seasons before gaining 500 lbs.). Or maybe Charles Barkley? I don't know....
The key is to not fill the rest of your team with mediocre players. If the Bulls can draft Rose knowing they have a way to bring in a guy like Elton Brand as well then passing on Beasley makes more sense (even if I would still disagree with it).
I don't think the point guard position is overrated. The problem with some of the guys you've mentioned is that they either played at the same time as Jordan (like Stockton or Payton) or Shaq (like Kidd) or Duncan (Nash and Kidd again). There's no shame in losing to some of the best players in the history of the league.
I also can't blame Williams and Paul for having not won a title yet (not that you did).
I guess I'm basically suggesting that maybe it's not so much an issue of position for guys like Shaq, Olajuwon, and Duncan or Jordan, Wade, and that other guy you mentioned (whose name I feel too uncomfortable listing in this sentence) but it's just really, really goodness and we haven't seen anyone that good yet at the point guard position.
I like that you brought up Glenn Robinson, who did end up making it to two all star games. I think players like Glenn, Derrick Coleman (and maybe at some point in the future) Carmelo all had the ability in the world to be all-stars but were lacking in drive/kiler instinct. They are also all soft 4's - though Carmelo plays more SF. I think if Beasley character is questionable that should be a key in making the decision.
It seems like character guys rise to the top in the NBA over the course of 5 or 6 years. Either they are smart and decent - KG - or ultra-competitive with flawed characters - AI, Pierce. If Beasley is not smart, competitive or a decent guy, bulls should pass.
Post a Comment