"32 in red next year"

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Around this time next year, people were stocking BJ Mullens as the next Dwight Howard. They were marveled by his athleticism and high-flying finishes. One thing that separated him from Howard was his potential to be finesse on the post and not rely on athleticism. Most of shots throughout his Basketball career was molded by reverse layups, literally rim moving put-backs, Air Jordan symbolized dunks, and the most notable Patrick O'Bryant hook shot. Obviously, once he arrived at O.U. and didn't finished the season with a bang, people were ready to jump off the bandwagon of BJ Mullens. Then, they was speculation that Thad Matta was to blame in regard to Mullens' inconsistencies. He was out-shined by Dallas Lauderdale, which in many cases was deliberately designed. That wasn't suppose to happen, it was times when I watched Mullens play and he was managing, then for no apparent reason Matta would take him out the game. It was games where I just refused to watch more because I knew Mullens wasn't coming back into the game. I understood Matta wanted to compete very badly that next year, because he had no great recruitment's coming in until 2010. I'm just saying, Jerry Reinsdorf has been quoted in saying, "obviously what we lack is a inside presence, that's the biggest thing we're missing and somehow we have to find it." Now, we all know Jerry don't know much about the NBA; he just wants to make that "Montre-moi l'argent". Surprisingly, I have to agree with him on that need. BJ Mullens might take 3 years to develop at most but you just don't omit the fact he could possibly save Noah and Thomas jobs. He don't have to come in right away and post 16 points per game. Fans had the same concern about Rose, they felt Beasley would help us win right away and Rose would be a project, meaning we would have to rebuild. Ending on this note, I would love to have a guy on the Bulls roster next year that's a big man with Mullens skill-set. He has shot over 70% from Field Goal in every league, meaning, Highschool and College. He led the Big Ten in Field Goal Percentage with legit minutes as the touted Freshman. I can go on and on, point is, if you pass on him Gar, don't be surprise if it comes back to bite you in the rear in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBuUZIkuS9s&feature=related
Jerry%20Reinsdorf.jpg
 

MADman24

New member
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
143
Liked Posts:
0
If Reinsdorf thinks we need an inside presence then maybe we don't. Seriously I simply don't feel anyone available at 16 or 26 will be able to be a legitimate post presence.

Mullens will probably need a big man coach to work with him but if the Bulls were going to do that they would have hired one after we drafted two top ten big men and I can't recall the last center drafted so late, besides international players usually picked in the 2nd round, that turned out to be a go to post player. Teams usually reach for any 7 footer with upside so unless the Bulls are the only team that thinks he has a chance to be good then he probably won't be there.
 

ryguy24

New member
Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
Posts:
457
Liked Posts:
3
Location:
CP
Re:

I'm fine with Mullens. Depends if we want to shoot for upside or shoot for a role player. Time will tell what GarPax thinks.

And I think you meant 60%, not 70. And you're first line is confusing as well.
 

SouL EateR

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
344
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Staten Island ,Ny
Re:

As of right now id still take James Johnson if available @ 16 if not than Tyler Hansborough ,Mullens would be my third choice.
 

JimmyBulls

New member
Joined:
Apr 3, 2009
Posts:
491
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

At this point, Mullens is my clear first choice at 16. But from a development standpoint, the kid is going to really have to work on his upper and lower body strength. If you look at Brook Lopez's, the guy has a very strong base. It allows him to hold his position in the post on both ends. Mullens is going to really have to do work in the strength and conidtioning department. If it happens, whoever drafts him will probably end up with the steal of the draft.
 

Bullsman24

Mr Metta World Peace
Joined:
May 10, 2010
Posts:
1,403
Liked Posts:
51
Re:

SouL EateR wrote:
As of right now id still take James Johnson if available @ 16 if not than Tyler Hansborough ,Mullens would be my third choice.

why would you take hansborough at 16 over mullens? psycho t, although maybe a good personality for the bulls, doesn't fit any of the many needs that we need. his main offense is the wide open midrange shot. we have luol deng for that. and we have noah to get those tough offensive rebounds. what does he bring? if mullens works out, we could have the centerpiece of our franchise ready.

imagine a rose and developed mullens team for the next couple of years. now replace mullens with psycho t. eh...

and i think we actually have good coaches to develop him. if he goes to chicago, i think we can untap his potential. you can see the marked improvements of noah and rose throughout the season, which i think some of the credit has to go to our coaches.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
Re:

Around this time next year, people were stocking BJ Mullens as the next Dwight Howard.

I know you love BJ Mullens, but your hyping him up as if he was ever considered the next Dwight Howard is downright silly.

He wasn't even ranked #1 in his class, nor particularly close to it, and his HS class was considered one of the weakest that we've seen in the past decade. Dwight Howard was viewed as a once in a generation talent coming out of HS.

There was no point in Mullens career where he was ever considered a once in a generation talent.

That's not to say that Mullens will be lousy or that he shouldn't be our pic, but he's not Dwight Howard.
 

AirP

New member
Joined:
Apr 3, 2009
Posts:
247
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

dougthonus wrote:
Around this time next year, people were stocking BJ Mullens as the next Dwight Howard.

I know you love BJ Mullens, but your hyping him up as if he was ever considered the next Dwight Howard is downright silly.

He wasn't even ranked #1 in his class, nor particularly close to it, and his HS class was considered one of the weakest that we've seen in the past decade. Dwight Howard was viewed as a once in a generation talent coming out of HS.

There was no point in Mullens career where he was ever considered a once in a generation talent.

That's not to say that Mullens will be lousy or that he shouldn't be our pic, but he's not Dwight Howard.

Hell no he's not Dwight Howard, nothing even close, but Mullins has some agility a guy his size usually doesn't have. He needs strength and a lot of high level scrimmages/games, from the looks of his game, he's really not use to higher level competition and needs an adjustment timeframe.

With a 20 year old franchise player, I don't think it's a stretch to draft for the best available talent in 3-5 years, especially as far down in the draft we are. Unless some great talent drops to us, why not take a chance with him, good big men are very hard to come by.

I'd like for Chicago to get Mullins, but he probably shouldn't see the floor his rookie year.. plus he could learn a few things from B.Miller while he's still with Chicago.
 

Basghetti80

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
234
Liked Posts:
0
I am of the opinion that Mullens is in the discussion for us at 16. Will we take him? I don't know. I would say chances are greater that we don't.

Here is how I see it:

Top 10
Griffin
Thabeet
Harden
Rubio
Hill
Evans
Holiday
Curry
DeRozan
Flynn



That puts us at the 11 pick.

11 - Blair is the choice here I think. Putting him next to Lopez makes a lot of sense.
12 - Henderson is a perfect fit for Brown and the Bobcats
13 - Jennings, Lawson, Teague are the choices. Pacers go with the PG they like the most.
14 - Clark or Johnson are the choices. It will be one of these two combo forwards.
15 - This is the wildcard for me. I can see a PG like one of the 3 from earlier when talking about the 13 pick--Mullens is possible, Daye is possible, whichever of Johnson or Clark is not picked by Phoenix is also possible. Even Williams I could see here. I am concerned that Detroit picks whomever our number one choice is.
16 - Ok to me it comes down to 5 players, some might be here, some might not. In no particular order those 5 are Clark, Johnson, Williams, Mullens and Hansbrough. I don't think a PG is in play here and I don't think they would pick Daye. Amongst the 5 I listed I think Johnson is probably their favorite followed by Williams, Mullens, Clark and then Hansbrough. With that said to get Johnson we need Phoenix to take Clark and Detroit to take one of the other guys I mentioned. I think I am sure in saying Williams will be there and I think if Johnson is chosen they go with him. Only chance Williams is not there and Johnson is not there is if Phoenix goes with Johnson and Detroit goes Williams. We then might and I stress might take Mullens. It would be either Clark or Mullens.
 

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

dougthonus wrote:
Around this time next year, people were stocking BJ Mullens as the next Dwight Howard.

I know you love BJ Mullens, but your hyping him up as if he was ever considered the next Dwight Howard is downright silly.

He wasn't even ranked #1 in his class, nor particularly close to it, and his HS class was considered one of the weakest that we've seen in the past decade. Dwight Howard was viewed as a once in a generation talent coming out of HS.

There was no point in Mullens career where he was ever considered a once in a generation talent.

That's not to say that Mullens will be lousy or that he shouldn't be our pic, but he's not Dwight Howard.

People at Boost Mobile showcase were saying he was the next freak show since Howard. But look, Noah or Thomas don't do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vef5G3zTPns&feature=related
 

SouL EateR

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
344
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Staten Island ,Ny
Re:

bullsman24 wrote:
SouL EateR wrote:
As of right now id still take James Johnson if available @ 16 if not than Tyler Hansborough ,Mullens would be my third choice.

why would you take hansborough at 16 over mullens? psycho t, although maybe a good personality for the bulls, doesn't fit any of the many needs that we need. his main offense is the wide open midrange shot. we have luol deng for that. and we have noah to get those tough offensive rebounds. what does he bring? if mullens works out, we could have the centerpiece of our franchise ready.

imagine a rose and developed mullens team for the next couple of years. now replace mullens with psycho t. eh...

and i think we actually have good coaches to develop him. if he goes to chicago, i think we can untap his potential. you can see the marked improvements of noah and rose throughout the season, which i think some of the credit has to go to our coaches.
Good points on Mullens no doubt,at this point its just a personal prefrence for me ..I do think this team needs some toughness though and Psycho would definitley bring that ..Anyhow i would not be throwing my remote if PaxGar chose Mullens over Hansborough..
 

SouL EateR

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
344
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Staten Island ,Ny
Re:

Simeon2UC wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Around this time next year, people were stocking BJ Mullens as the next Dwight Howard.

I know you love BJ Mullens, but your hyping him up as if he was ever considered the next Dwight Howard is downright silly.

He wasn't even ranked #1 in his class, nor particularly close to it, and his HS class was considered one of the weakest that we've seen in the past decade. Dwight Howard was viewed as a once in a generation talent coming out of HS.

There was no point in Mullens career where he was ever considered a once in a generation talent.

That's not to say that Mullens will be lousy or that he shouldn't be our pic, but he's not Dwight Howard.

People at Boost Mobile showcase were saying he was the next freak show since Howard. But look, Noah or Thomas don't do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vef5G3zTPns&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeRP9beF_YI Dont be so sure of that..lol;)
 

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

SouL EateR wrote:
bullsman24 wrote:
SouL EateR wrote:
As of right now id still take James Johnson if available @ 16 if not than Tyler Hansborough ,Mullens would be my third choice.

why would you take hansborough at 16 over mullens? psycho t, although maybe a good personality for the bulls, doesn't fit any of the many needs that we need. his main offense is the wide open midrange shot. we have luol deng for that. and we have noah to get those tough offensive rebounds. what does he bring? if mullens works out, we could have the centerpiece of our franchise ready.

imagine a rose and developed mullens team for the next couple of years. now replace mullens with psycho t. eh...

and i think we actually have good coaches to develop him. if he goes to chicago, i think we can untap his potential. you can see the marked improvements of noah and rose throughout the season, which i think some of the credit has to go to our coaches.
Good points on Mullens no doubt,at this point its just a personal prefrence for me ..I do think this team needs some toughness though and Psycho would definitley bring that ..Anyhow i would not be throwing my remote if PaxGar chose Mullens over Hansborough..

Tyler Hansbrough is cool and you know what you're going to get. But it's not final that his skills transfer to the next level - same rules apply to Mullens. I still take Mullens because he's 7'0'' with 275LBS on that frame. Mullens wasn't even terrible in his year at OU. He just wasn't getting the minutes because Matta wanted to keep him for another year. The Stats don't lie, just go back and analyze his games. For all the naysayers out there, if you look at his workout regime through morning and night, it clearly shows that his work ethic was official. I'm hearing that phrase that Mullens isn't ready. Teams passed on Deandre Jordan last year, I bet Cleveland at least wish they had not taken Hickson over him. Look, both of them guys are on the bench but Jordan still reminds to improve. I saw one of his games last year against Lakers where he posted 23 points and 12 rebounds. All Jordan has to do is get stronger, whereas Hickson doesn't have that upside. And c'mon guys, Jordan wasn't suppose to do anything last year with all their talent and options. I'm saying you take the most talented available and you groom him, in this case, Mullens is that guy you groom. For god sake, it's a draft pick, you lose nothing with a draft pick. He doesn't have to come in right away and do spectacular stuff. We made it to the playoffs without him and Hansbrough. Which guy make since long term... obviously it's Mullens. I just don't see Hansbrough having a huge impact next year. Whereas, three years later Mullens is a solid contributor!
 

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

SouL EateR wrote:
Simeon2UC wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Around this time next year, people were stocking BJ Mullens as the next Dwight Howard.

I know you love BJ Mullens, but your hyping him up as if he was ever considered the next Dwight Howard is downright silly.

He wasn't even ranked #1 in his class, nor particularly close to it, and his HS class was considered one of the weakest that we've seen in the past decade. Dwight Howard was viewed as a once in a generation talent coming out of HS.

There was no point in Mullens career where he was ever considered a once in a generation talent.

That's not to say that Mullens will be lousy or that he shouldn't be our pic, but he's not Dwight Howard.

People at Boost Mobile showcase were saying he was the next freak show since Howard. But look, Noah or Thomas don't do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vef5G3zTPns&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeRP9beF_YI Dont be so sure of that..lol;)

That was lame because we all know that isn't Tyrus Thomas game. I'm glad you posted that because it goes to show how weird that looked. I never saw him do a back-to-basket move. I want to see him do that on Josh Smith or Garnett. Was that Duhon he posted up lol?
 

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

Tyler Hansbrough is cool and you know what you're going to get. But it's not final that his skills transfer to the next level - same rules apply to Mullens. I still take Mullens because he's 7'0'' with 275LBS on that frame. Mullens wasn't even terrible in his year at OU. He just wasn't getting the minutes because Matta wanted to keep him for another year. The Stats don't lie, just go back and analyze his games. For all the naysayers out there, if you look at his workout regime through morning and night, it clearly shows that his work ethic was official. I'm hearing that phrase that Mullens isn't ready. Teams passed on Deandre Jordan last year, I bet Cleveland at least wish they had not taken Hickson over him. Look, both of them guys are on the bench but Jordan still reminds to improve. I saw one of his games last year against Lakers where he posted 23 points and 12 rebounds. All Jordan has to do is get stronger, whereas Hickson doesn't have that upside. And c'mon guys, Jordan wasn't suppose to do anything last year with all their talent and options. I'm saying you take the most talented available and you groom him, in this case, Mullens is that guy you groom. For god sake, it's a draft pick, you lose nothing with a draft pick. He doesn't have to come in right away and do spectacular stuff. We made it to the playoffs without him and Hansbrough. Which guy make since long term... obviously it's Mullens. I just don't see Hansbrough having a huge impact next year. Whereas, three years later Mullens is a solid contributor!
 

SouL EateR

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
344
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Staten Island ,Ny
Re:

Relax dude i was just kidding, i am the biggest Tyrus fan out there and i realize thats not part of his game at this point..sheesh.:dry:
 

MADman24

New member
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
143
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

Simeon2UC wrote:
That was lame because we all know that isn't Tyrus Thomas game. I'm glad you posted that because it goes to show how weird that looked. I never saw him do a back-to-basket move. I want to see him do that on Stoudemire or Garnett.
I got the joke besides you say that like that Mullens highlight was against one of them. That was against a 6'8'' bench player on Butler named Avery Jukes. Sure Mullens has lots of upside but he has huge bust potential as well. Do I want him? meh. I wouldn't mind him for the potential but I wouldn't get my hopes up on him actually becoming really good.
 

Newskoolbulls

New member
Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
Posts:
2,897
Liked Posts:
6
Location:
Bullspodcasters>Any other bulls board
Re:

If we draft BJ I will be so dissapointed. We would have to wait atleast three years to get anything out of him.
 

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

All I know is, teams are paying for not drafting Deandre Jordan. If you compare Jordan and Mullens freshmen years', it's obvious that Jordan looked less developed. He got pushed around more, his boxing out was terrible, and his body is nowhere near finished. He came into the NBA and is getting looked over. Despite that, Jordan had some very good games. Knowingly, Jordan wasn't expected to do nothing. I'm saying, Hansbrough is limited offensively. James Johnson really isn't something we really need, especially with the recovery of Deng in pending. Gerald Henderson likely won't drop to us and BG might resign. Going into this past season, we still hadn't address the size and scoring down-low. Well, at 16, I think it's imperative you gamble and take this guy. It's either a jackpot or not, compared to taking a orange when you can grow it.
 

Simeon2UC

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2009
Posts:
303
Liked Posts:
0
Re:

Newskoolbulls wrote:
If we draft BJ I will be so dissapointed. We would have to wait atleast three years to get anything out of him.

Who do you want to draft?
 

Top