Author Topic: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter  (Read 8720 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2015, 02:28:44 PM »

Offline Scintan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3066
  • Tommy Points: 656
People aren't sold on players just because of summer league?


Color me shocked!


When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2015, 02:41:04 PM »

Offline YoungOne87

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1167
  • Tommy Points: 65
I think hunter at 28 was a nice pick aswell, he was projected to go earlier.

the rozier pick I still dont like very much. But all the players I wanted were gone anyway (Johnson, Winslow, Oubre)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 03:00:50 PM by YoungOne87 »

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2015, 02:51:50 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
People aren't sold on players just because of summer league?


Color me shocked!

They liked Mickey.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2015, 02:55:20 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
GM's will change there tune quickly.  Sounds like these GM's wanted to get Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey in the 2nd round as a pure value play.

I know if the Bulls got Rozier at 22 instead of Portis it wouldn't even be criticized.  Anyone Ainge would of drafted would of gotten criticism due to our rebuilding situation, he has a magnifying glass right now on every move we make. Think about it, with no real stars on our team and tons of draft picks that we still have everyone is interested in what we do and how it will play out.

You bring up an interesting point about the Bulls at 22 drafting Rozier not being an issue, but there is a valid reason.  The Bulls NEED a backup point guard for Rose.  The Celtics didn't NEED Rozier.  This is why Ainge is getting so much **** for his draft.  Last year we drafted at the #6 Marcus Smart a point guard, and at #17 we drafted James Young a shooting guard/small forward.  This year we drafted at #16 a point guard in Terry Rozier, at #28 we draft R.J. Hunter who's a shooting guard, #45 we draft a shooting guard/point guard in Marcus Thornton.  Jordan Mickey was the only true smart pick for where we were picking. 

I'm not saying Rozier, Hunter and Thornton are not good players, but they weren't good fits for the Celtics at the drafting position.  They only one I'm a little intrigued with is Hunter because he can shoot very well, but also interested in why he fell to us. 

Personally I think they would have been better taking a Sam Dekker even though I'm not a huge fan, but he's a small forward who can play.  Or also a Justin Anderson who is that small forward/shooting guard who can also shoot the three.  I believe if we took Portis at 16 it would have been no issue, a solid big man who can play power forward and maybe the center. 

I think if he drafted these players I'm going to list he wouldn't be under a microscope or his players he drafted. 

#16 Sam Dekker (Position of need, skill sets match what we need.)
#28 Montrezl Harrell (Personal favorite but rebounds, second highest scorer for Cardinals, the most heart out of any player in this draft, Tommy would love his hustle, great at put backs, and is a up and down two way player, Rockets got a steal at 32 with this guy.)
#33 Jordan Mickey (shot blocker, rebounds, can be a scorer.) 
At #28 and #33 they fill in where we're able to trade Olynke, Sully and they also are great big man.
#45 Robert Upshaw (Yes, issues could be, but at #45 he's worth a risk unlike another guard who's now not going to play for us even this year.)

None of the guys that were projected at the 16th pick range are high upside guys. I don't believe anyone in the rebuilding stage drafts for need, I don't know why Ainge would all of a sudden start now. I believe Ainge really like Rozier the best with what was available at that point and wasn't going to risk hoping he was there at the 28th pick.

I also disagree with that we don't need Rozier, he provides the slashing/ball handling at the guard position we need.  Only other guy who can provide us this is IT4 and he'll be relegated to the bench.

As far Derrick Rose goes, I think his future in Chicago is becoming pretty bleak and that if the Butler and Rose rifts are true than the Bulls are looking ahead at the future of the team which makes perfect sense since Thibs has been fired and the rapid decline of Joakim Noah is only pushing the agenda. The one piece they have now is Butler and he's the guy they are building around.

 

So you just made the point I did, we didn't NEED a point guard that scores/slashes.  Rozier is just as good of a ball handler as Smart or IT, not any better.  So we got an IT 2.0 that's a couple inches taller.  When last year we drafted a point guard at the 6th spot, who will be our starting point guard.  Mind you we also drafted it when we also had Pressey so 3 point guards on the roster.  I'm not saying Rozier is a bad player, but at 16th we needed either a center, a big man that plays defense or a starting/soon to be starting small forward.

What are you disagreeing on Rose?  I said if we had drafted our NEED, the Bulls would have drafted a NEED in Rozier.

I think the point he's making is that we're not good enough to draft for need. We need to draft guys who we think have the best chance of becoming the BPA at his draft position.

I think your making the same mistake a couple of these "personnel" guys Bulpett quoted are making. Your looking at it like these positions (PG, SG, C) mean more than their supposed to, and that since Smart is labeled a PG on the depth chart drafting another PG doesn't make sense. That's just not the way the game is played anymore.

That scout said "I'm not sold Rozier can develop into a PG", but why does he have to? Smart can carry a large chunk of the playmaking duties from both the 1 and the 2 spots, because he has the defensive ability, size, and effectiveness without the ball to do so. But he's not a Rondo level ball-handler, and can't be the initiator every single trip up the floor. We love the things AB brings to the table (his defense, athleticism, improved jump shot, hustle), but he can't make plays. Having those two being prominent in the rotation makes it necessary to have a guy like Turner on the wing who is capable of running the offense. Even with the amount of line-up changes our depth affords us, as Smart grows having a back-up like IT is crucial, and if Avery Bradley could dribble and pass you'd have a much more complete and cohesive rotation.

That's why Rozier makes sense. He's a whole lot like AB in a number of very important ways, but he's already a good enough "PG" to shoulder some of that burden from Smart and open up the wing for someone with a better offensive game then Turner. Plus, now you've made AB expendable (who has legit trade value) as well as Turner. If you take Dekker, how does he fit long-term. He's not the kind of playmaker Turner is, so you probably need to keep him, but Dekker isn't really a great small-ball 4, and you still need to keep Crowder because neither of those guys is anywhere near good enough to guard the LeBron's, Durant's and Melo's of the world. Adding Portis to an already loaded front-court might not be the best idea either. Hunter fits into this picture because with a little added muscle he can play the 2 or 3 and provide dangerous shooting, with decent vision and a huge IQ.

Mickey is a great grab for us, and I hope we clear a couple guys out to get him some time. But I really think some people are looking at this like "Wow, another PG" or "How many PF's can we possibly have", and thinking of these positions in a far too rigid sense

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2015, 03:01:47 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
Without reproducing walls of test, I don't see any position that we could have drafted that couldn't have been criticized for being overstocked other than a pure center of which their were no candidates draftable at 16 unless you want to guarantee money to a guy with a serious drug problem who was a borderline first rounder to begin with. Otherwise PG was our weakest position with IT,  a shoot-first microwave PG, Smart, who played the position sparingly as a rookie, and Pressey, whose shooting woes and defensive size relegated him to fringe NBA status. I'm not sold entirely on Rozier yet, but he's a clear upgrade at the position.

Otherwise, I don't see how anyone seeing Hunter or Mickey in summer league didn't elevate their opinion of them. Hunter can get that shot off effortlessly and with little room and he's not going to see the double-teaming that happens to star players on weak teams in the NCAA. He's also a much better playmaker/passer than I expected and his defense was passable for a rookie. Mickey showed the same defensive skills he had amply demonstrated at LSU and a decent shooting touch away from the rim too. Statistically he was the best player we had this summer.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2015, 03:02:36 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8677
  • Tommy Points: 1138
Yeah. And I'm not sold on Steve Bulpett! Boom take that!!

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2015, 03:06:10 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20116
  • Tommy Points: 1333
Is a scout going to say he was wrong on them if they are good.   I am guessing not.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2015, 03:14:42 PM »

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
GM's will change there tune quickly.  Sounds like these GM's wanted to get Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey in the 2nd round as a pure value play.

I know if the Bulls got Rozier at 22 instead of Portis it wouldn't even be criticized.  Anyone Ainge would of drafted would of gotten criticism due to our rebuilding situation, he has a magnifying glass right now on every move we make. Think about it, with no real stars on our team and tons of draft picks that we still have everyone is interested in what we do and how it will play out.

You bring up an interesting point about the Bulls at 22 drafting Rozier not being an issue, but there is a valid reason.  The Bulls NEED a backup point guard for Rose.  The Celtics didn't NEED Rozier.  This is why Ainge is getting so much **** for his draft.  Last year we drafted at the #6 Marcus Smart a point guard, and at #17 we drafted James Young a shooting guard/small forward.  This year we drafted at #16 a point guard in Terry Rozier, at #28 we draft R.J. Hunter who's a shooting guard, #45 we draft a shooting guard/point guard in Marcus Thornton.  Jordan Mickey was the only true smart pick for where we were picking. 

I'm not saying Rozier, Hunter and Thornton are not good players, but they weren't good fits for the Celtics at the drafting position.  They only one I'm a little intrigued with is Hunter because he can shoot very well, but also interested in why he fell to us. 

Personally I think they would have been better taking a Sam Dekker even though I'm not a huge fan, but he's a small forward who can play.  Or also a Justin Anderson who is that small forward/shooting guard who can also shoot the three.  I believe if we took Portis at 16 it would have been no issue, a solid big man who can play power forward and maybe the center. 

I think if he drafted these players I'm going to list he wouldn't be under a microscope or his players he drafted. 

#16 Sam Dekker (Position of need, skill sets match what we need.)
#28 Montrezl Harrell (Personal favorite but rebounds, second highest scorer for Cardinals, the most heart out of any player in this draft, Tommy would love his hustle, great at put backs, and is a up and down two way player, Rockets got a steal at 32 with this guy.)
#33 Jordan Mickey (shot blocker, rebounds, can be a scorer.) 
At #28 and #33 they fill in where we're able to trade Olynke, Sully and they also are great big man.
#45 Robert Upshaw (Yes, issues could be, but at #45 he's worth a risk unlike another guard who's now not going to play for us even this year.)

If Kelly Oubre can be a swing 2 guard small forward, could make the case we should have traded up to grab him.  Just one spot, so maybe if we offered Wiz our 45th pick and a future 2nd round pick?  That way, we could have kept Hunter and Mickey picks, and groomed a guy for a need position, rather than a back up position.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2015, 03:26:18 PM »

Offline GzUP617

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 265
  • Tommy Points: 12

So you just made the point I did, we didn't NEED a point guard that scores/slashes.

No, Not really.  We actually need his skill set, what position we want to call him doesn't matter.

Rozier is just as good of a ball handler as Smart or IT, not any better.

I half disagree here,  Rozier is a good ball handler as IT4.  Smart not on thier level.

So we got an IT 2.0 that's a couple inches taller.

an IT4 that's a "coupe of inches taller" that can play good defense would be a starter.



When last year we drafted a point guard at the 6th spot, who will be our starting point guard.  Mind you we also drafted it when we also had Pressey so 3 point guards on the roster.

Smart was the BPA, had nothing to do with him as the future PG. A case can be made that we were strongly considering Randle if he didn't blow the Celtics off for the 2nd workout. Smart didn't even play Point Guard for us at any point last year. From what we've seen he is best suited off-the-ball which would somewhat help his shot selection.

  I'm not saying Rozier is a bad player, but at 16th we needed either a center, a big man that plays defense or a starting/soon to be starting small forward.
This sound like drafting for need, and even if we did so who would this Center, Big man be ? Portis?.  He would be our only real choice at 16 if we really wanted to draft for need.


What are you disagreeing on Rose?  I said if we had drafted our NEED, the Bulls would have drafted a NEED in Rozier. 

The Bulls are thinking of the future, they aren't thinking of using a 22 pick for a backup anything, maybe a backup as a rookie but the idea wouldn't be to keep them there. If they pan out.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 03:37:59 PM by GzUP617 »

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2015, 04:23:17 PM »

Offline CelticSooner

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11884
  • Tommy Points: 902
  • GOT IT!!!
Ask 10 different scouts about a player you'll probably get 10 different answers. It really doesn't matter.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2015, 05:24:26 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8677
  • Tommy Points: 1138
GM's will change there tune quickly.  Sounds like these GM's wanted to get Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey in the 2nd round as a pure value play.

I know if the Bulls got Rozier at 22 instead of Portis it wouldn't even be criticized.  Anyone Ainge would of drafted would of gotten criticism due to our rebuilding situation, he has a magnifying glass right now on every move we make. Think about it, with no real stars on our team and tons of draft picks that we still have everyone is interested in what we do and how it will play out.

You bring up an interesting point about the Bulls at 22 drafting Rozier not being an issue, but there is a valid reason.  The Bulls NEED a backup point guard for Rose.  The Celtics didn't NEED Rozier.  This is why Ainge is getting so much **** for his draft.  Last year we drafted at the #6 Marcus Smart a point guard, and at #17 we drafted James Young a shooting guard/small forward.  This year we drafted at #16 a point guard in Terry Rozier, at #28 we draft R.J. Hunter who's a shooting guard, #45 we draft a shooting guard/point guard in Marcus Thornton.  Jordan Mickey was the only true smart pick for where we were picking. 

I'm not saying Rozier, Hunter and Thornton are not good players, but they weren't good fits for the Celtics at the drafting position.  They only one I'm a little intrigued with is Hunter because he can shoot very well, but also interested in why he fell to us. 

Personally I think they would have been better taking a Sam Dekker even though I'm not a huge fan, but he's a small forward who can play.  Or also a Justin Anderson who is that small forward/shooting guard who can also shoot the three.  I believe if we took Portis at 16 it would have been no issue, a solid big man who can play power forward and maybe the center. 

I think if he drafted these players I'm going to list he wouldn't be under a microscope or his players he drafted. 

#16 Sam Dekker (Position of need, skill sets match what we need.)
#28 Montrezl Harrell (Personal favorite but rebounds, second highest scorer for Cardinals, the most heart out of any player in this draft, Tommy would love his hustle, great at put backs, and is a up and down two way player, Rockets got a steal at 32 with this guy.)
#33 Jordan Mickey (shot blocker, rebounds, can be a scorer.) 
At #28 and #33 they fill in where we're able to trade Olynke, Sully and they also are great big man.
#45 Robert Upshaw (Yes, issues could be, but at #45 he's worth a risk unlike another guard who's now not going to play for us even this year.)

None of the guys that were projected at the 16th pick range are high upside guys. I don't believe anyone in the rebuilding stage drafts for need, I don't know why Ainge would all of a sudden start now. I believe Ainge really like Rozier the best with what was available at that point and wasn't going to risk hoping he was there at the 28th pick.

I also disagree with that we don't need Rozier, he provides the slashing/ball handling at the guard position we need.  Only other guy who can provide us this is IT4 and he'll be relegated to the bench.

As far Derrick Rose goes, I think his future in Chicago is becoming pretty bleak and that if the Butler and Rose rifts are true than the Bulls are looking ahead at the future of the team which makes perfect sense since Thibs has been fired and the rapid decline of Joakim Noah is only pushing the agenda. The one piece they have now is Butler and he's the guy they are building around.

 

So you just made the point I did, we didn't NEED a point guard that scores/slashes.  Rozier is just as good of a ball handler as Smart or IT, not any better.  So we got an IT 2.0 that's a couple inches taller.  When last year we drafted a point guard at the 6th spot, who will be our starting point guard.  Mind you we also drafted it when we also had Pressey so 3 point guards on the roster.  I'm not saying Rozier is a bad player, but at 16th we needed either a center, a big man that plays defense or a starting/soon to be starting small forward.

What are you disagreeing on Rose?  I said if we had drafted our NEED, the Bulls would have drafted a NEED in Rozier.

I think the point he's making is that we're not good enough to draft for need. We need to draft guys who we think have the best chance of becoming the BPA at his draft position.

I think your making the same mistake a couple of these "personnel" guys Bulpett quoted are making. Your looking at it like these positions (PG, SG, C) mean more than their supposed to, and that since Smart is labeled a PG on the depth chart drafting another PG doesn't make sense. That's just not the way the game is played anymore.

That scout said "I'm not sold Rozier can develop into a PG", but why does he have to? Smart can carry a large chunk of the playmaking duties from both the 1 and the 2 spots, because he has the defensive ability, size, and effectiveness without the ball to do so. But he's not a Rondo level ball-handler, and can't be the initiator every single trip up the floor. We love the things AB brings to the table (his defense, athleticism, improved jump shot, hustle), but he can't make plays. Having those two being prominent in the rotation makes it necessary to have a guy like Turner on the wing who is capable of running the offense. Even with the amount of line-up changes our depth affords us, as Smart grows having a back-up like IT is crucial, and if Avery Bradley could dribble and pass you'd have a much more complete and cohesive rotation.

That's why Rozier makes sense. He's a whole lot like AB in a number of very important ways, but he's already a good enough "PG" to shoulder some of that burden from Smart and open up the wing for someone with a better offensive game then Turner. Plus, now you've made AB expendable (who has legit trade value) as well as Turner. If you take Dekker, how does he fit long-term. He's not the kind of playmaker Turner is, so you probably need to keep him, but Dekker isn't really a great small-ball 4, and you still need to keep Crowder because neither of those guys is anywhere near good enough to guard the LeBron's, Durant's and Melo's of the world. Adding Portis to an already loaded front-court might not be the best idea either. Hunter fits into this picture because with a little added muscle he can play the 2 or 3 and provide dangerous shooting, with decent vision and a huge IQ.

Mickey is a great grab for us, and I hope we clear a couple guys out to get him some time. But I really think some people are looking at this like "Wow, another PG" or "How many PF's can we possibly have", and thinking of these positions in a far too rigid sense
[/quote











Good post man, I almost believe you

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2015, 04:05:28 AM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8677
  • Tommy Points: 1138
GM's will change there tune quickly.  Sounds like these GM's wanted to get Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey in the 2nd round as a pure value play.

I know if the Bulls got Rozier at 22 instead of Portis it wouldn't even be criticized.  Anyone Ainge would of drafted would of gotten criticism due to our rebuilding situation, he has a magnifying glass right now on every move we make. Think about it, with no real stars on our team and tons of draft picks that we still have everyone is interested in what we do and how it will play out.



Good job of C-blocking the Bulls. Rozier would have been awesome there.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2015, 05:02:01 AM »

Offline LGC88

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1500
  • Tommy Points: 167
Living in the past is comforting, less risky. Thinking above the picture trying to get an edge in a modern nba path is risky.
Danny choose to pick Smart while Rondo was in place. He took Rozier while Smart is in place.
That's not appealing for fans and the media, but it's the king of moves that are necessary to rebuild.
During a rebuild you collect the best assets possible with great contracts.
If you can increase your odds of success with some projects you do it, regardless of position. Why? Because you don't have a roster, you have assets, a rebuilding team is more a business market than an nba team (at least that's the way Danny sees it).
Right now, none of our players are a keeper. If a team decide to move on with his best players, you just give what they want. That's what assets is for when you rebuild.
So, arguing about needs and positions (which by the way is completely wrong with the way Brad runs a team) is completely out of context and shouldn't be argued.
Drafting Dekker and Upshaw just because they fill a need is the wrong direction here. They don't make us better (maybe they do in 3 years), Upshaw is a big risk and most importantly they are less valuable than Rozier & Hunter (Ainge choose them because he thinks they have more upside).
In the mean time Danny managed to make those assets look like a decent team that is pleasant to watch for TD Garden. This is a bonus but not Danny's first priority.
Considering all this, I think the media should look carefully what Danny & Brad are doing instead of labeling each move based of common practice from the ages. We are not a team that play like Memphis or Clippers with 1 play-maker PG and 1 big center. We run and move the ball with 4 type of guys with no definite position.
Brad sees the game differently and Danny believes in it. Whatever the outcome will be, you should (as a reporter) acknowledge that and write your article accordingly.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 05:10:08 AM by LGC88 »

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2015, 12:32:28 PM »

Offline GreenCoffeeBean

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1155
  • Tommy Points: 91
Given the track record of 25 out of 30 GMs, I take this as a compliment so long as the GMs they talked to weren't from Golden State, San Antonio, Cleveland, Chicago or Memphis.

Re: Bulpett: Some not sold on Terry Rozier, R.J. Hunter
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2015, 12:42:04 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8740
  • Tommy Points: 856
Given the track record of 25 out of 30 GMs, I take this as a compliment so long as the GMs they talked to weren't from Golden State, San Antonio, Cleveland, Chicago or Memphis.