Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

#16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=34120
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Jack Bauer [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Thoughts? I'm afraid he's another tweener.

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Jack Bauer wrote:
Thoughts? I'm afraid he's another tweener.

There's no doubt he's another tweener. I've said it many times, but the Bulls are the tweener-lovininest organization that ever was.

Author:  Tall Midget [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

If you're undersized, then your just the right size for the Bulls!

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Tall Midget wrote:
If you're undersized, then your just the right size for the Bulls!

The positive spin is that Johnson is "undersized in a good way." We'll see, I guess. Having a little time to deal with it, it does seem that this guy is at least good at basketball. Gar said they "love his versatility." We'll see, I guess.

Author:  SHARK [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

James Johnson? I don't know about this pick, but it proves that the 2009 NBA Draft is bad, bad, bad...The SCORE's David Schuster feels the picks the Bulls made tonight are tweeners at best.

Author:  The Original Kid Cairo [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

What do you personally think about the picks SHARK?

Author:  SHARK [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
What do you personally think about the picks SHARK?

OKC, how should I know?! :? This NBA Draft was as much fun as watching paint dry! It's supposed to be a bad draft overall...

Author:  Tall Midget [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
If you're undersized, then your just the right size for the Bulls!

The positive spin is that Johnson is "undersized in a good way." We'll see, I guess. Having a little time to deal with it, it does seem that this guy is at least good at basketball. Gar said they "love his versatility." We'll see, I guess.


"Versatility" is usually a euphemism for "sucks at more than one position." See, for example: Jamal Crawford, Thabo Sefolosha, Kirk Hinrich.

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Tall Midget wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
If you're undersized, then your just the right size for the Bulls!

The positive spin is that Johnson is "undersized in a good way." We'll see, I guess. Having a little time to deal with it, it does seem that this guy is at least good at basketball. Gar said they "love his versatility." We'll see, I guess.

"Versatility" is usually a euphemism for "sucks at more than one position." See, for example: Jamal Crawford, Thabo Sefolosha, Kirk Hinrich.

I don't know.. I'm coming around on this guy. He seems to handle the ball very well with both hands, and shoots fairly well, and is good around the basket. Maybe an Antoine Walker type?

Also, I see the other guy has a 7'-4" wingspan, and figures to be a defensive specialist. Looks like the Bulls aren't looking to re-sign Thomas at the end of the season.

Author:  Tall Midget [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

MattInTheCrown wrote:
I don't know.. I'm coming around on this guy. He seems to handle the ball very well with both hands, and shoots fairly well, and is good around the basket. Maybe an Antoine Walker type?

Also, I see the other guy has a 7'-4" wingspan, and figures to be a defensive specialist. Looks like the Bulls aren't looking to re-sign Thomas at the end of the season.


I don't clame to be an NBA expert, but isn't wingspan mostly talked about when teams are trying to justify picking an undersized guy? I mean, I don't doubt that Johnson has some nice long arms, but don't most of the 6'10" and 6'11 guys he's going to be matched against have long arms, too? "Length", after all, seems to be one of the main traits that NBA scouts seek when evaluating college prospects. So is Johnson's wingspan freakishly long, or is he just another short guy who will struggle against taller guys who also have long arms?

Author:  Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Did his Mom have a big wingspan? I'd like the Bull just once to draft a guy and hear the analyst say,

"This guy just isn't versatile. He has no versatility whatsoever. He actually has a position in this league and he's going to have to play there."

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Tall Midget wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
I don't know.. I'm coming around on this guy. He seems to handle the ball very well with both hands, and shoots fairly well, and is good around the basket. Maybe an Antoine Walker type?

Also, I see the other guy has a 7'-4" wingspan, and figures to be a defensive specialist. Looks like the Bulls aren't looking to re-sign Thomas at the end of the season.


I don't clame to be an NBA expert, but isn't wingspan mostly talked about when teams are trying to justify picking an undersized guy? I mean, I don't doubt that Johnson has some nice long arms, but don't most of the 6'10" and 6'11 guys he's going to be matched against have long arms, too? "Length", after all, seems to be one of the main traits that NBA scouts seek when evaluating college prospects. So is Johnson's wingspan freakishly long, or is he just another short guy who will struggle against taller guys who also have long arms?

The way I look at it, they drafted Johnson to be versatile and play a powerful SF or an athletic PF; at the 3, he's physically dominant, whereas at the 4, he's quick, which figures to give the team flexibility with rotations. Taj is indeed short at the PF, but I think they envision him giving them almost exactly what Tyrus gives them now: lotsa shot-blocking, and the quickness to score in transition, which they're obviously looking to do a lot of. That may not sound like a lot, but then, he's the 26th pick in a weak draft.

Author:  RFDC [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

How is 6'10" short at the PF?

Author:  Tall Midget [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

On ESPN they said he measured a little over 6'7". Bilas said he was a tweener who will "have" to play the 4.

Author:  RFDC [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

I am talking about Taj, MITC said he was short for a PF. The listing I see for Taj is 6'10"

Author:  Tall Midget [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

MattInTheCrown wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
I don't know.. I'm coming around on this guy. He seems to handle the ball very well with both hands, and shoots fairly well, and is good around the basket. Maybe an Antoine Walker type?

Also, I see the other guy has a 7'-4" wingspan, and figures to be a defensive specialist. Looks like the Bulls aren't looking to re-sign Thomas at the end of the season.


I don't clame to be an NBA expert, but isn't wingspan mostly talked about when teams are trying to justify picking an undersized guy? I mean, I don't doubt that Johnson has some nice long arms, but don't most of the 6'10" and 6'11 guys he's going to be matched against have long arms, too? "Length", after all, seems to be one of the main traits that NBA scouts seek when evaluating college prospects. So is Johnson's wingspan freakishly long, or is he just another short guy who will struggle against taller guys who also have long arms?

The way I look at it, they drafted Johnson to be versatile and play a powerful SF or an athletic PF; at the 3, he's physically dominant, whereas at the 4, he's quick, which figures to give the team flexibility with rotations. Taj is indeed short at the PF, but I think they envision him giving them almost exactly what Tyrus gives them now: lotsa shot-blocking, and the quickness to score in transition, which they're obviously looking to do a lot of. That may not sound like a lot, but then, he's the 26th pick in a weak draft.


Your description of Johnson sounds very similar to what the Bulls said about Fizer when they drafted him. What did they call him? A powerful small forward or something like that? We'll see...

Author:  Big Ern [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

What happened to all of the 7 footers? They are becoming extinct. Given that, I think the future of the NBA will involve these short power forwards who are more mobile to run up and down the court. It is becoming a full court game again and it will be to the advantage of these type of players.

Author:  Tall Midget [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Big Ern wrote:
What happened to all of the 7 footers? They are becoming extinct. Given that, I think the future of the NBA will involve these short power forwards who are more mobile to run up and down the court. It is becoming a full court game again and it will be to the advantage of these type of players.


Various basketball pundits have offered similar observations for the past decade or more, but when the playoffs roll around, it's always the best halfcourt teams that advance.

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

RFDC wrote:
I am talking about Taj, MITC said he was short for a PF. The listing I see for Taj is 6'10"

Got shit mixed up in my head. I guess he's not undersized from a height perspective, but he is slight, at around 215 lbs.

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Tall Midget wrote:
MattInTheCrown wrote:
The way I look at it, they drafted Johnson to be versatile and play a powerful SF or an athletic PF; at the 3, he's physically dominant, whereas at the 4, he's quick, which figures to give the team flexibility with rotations. Taj is indeed short at the PF, but I think they envision him giving them almost exactly what Tyrus gives them now: lotsa shot-blocking, and the quickness to score in transition, which they're obviously looking to do a lot of. That may not sound like a lot, but then, he's the 26th pick in a weak draft.

Your description of Johnson sounds very similar to what the Bulls said about Fizer when they drafted him. What did they call him? A powerful small forward or something like that? We'll see...

We'll call Fizer his his floor, and Antoine Walker his ceiling. 8)

Author:  Big Ern [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Tall Midget wrote:
Big Ern wrote:
What happened to all of the 7 footers? They are becoming extinct. Given that, I think the future of the NBA will involve these short power forwards who are more mobile to run up and down the court. It is becoming a full court game again and it will be to the advantage of these type of players.


Various basketball pundits have offered similar observations for the past decade or more, but when the playoffs roll around, it's always the best halfcourt teams that advance.


Would you categorize LA and Orlando as half court teams? I wouldn't. You didn't really have a C for the Lakers and Orlando had a big man who flourished more in the break then he did in the post.

Author:  Tall Midget [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Big Ern wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Big Ern wrote:
What happened to all of the 7 footers? They are becoming extinct. Given that, I think the future of the NBA will involve these short power forwards who are more mobile to run up and down the court. It is becoming a full court game again and it will be to the advantage of these type of players.


Various basketball pundits have offered similar observations for the past decade or more, but when the playoffs roll around, it's always the best halfcourt teams that advance.


Would you categorize LA and Orlando as half court teams? I wouldn't. You didn't really have a C for the Lakers and Orlando had a big man who flourished more in the break then he did in the post.


What percentage of points were scored by the two teams on breaks as opposed to half court sets? Didn't Orlando have something like four points off breaks in a couple of games?

"Easy" fast break points are generally the first thing good teams will take away from their opponents in the playoffs.

Author:  shakes [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Jack Bauer wrote:
Thoughts? I'm afraid he's another tweener.




Tweener is just a mean way of saying "versatile, can play many positions" Haven't you learned anything from listening to John Paxson rationalize his existence as GM over the past few years?

Author:  Hatchetman [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

everyone's got their panties in a bunch because the bulls, along with every other team in the league, passed on a 6-5" fat guy with bad knees.

Author:  FavreFan [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

Big Ern wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Big Ern wrote:
What happened to all of the 7 footers? They are becoming extinct. Given that, I think the future of the NBA will involve these short power forwards who are more mobile to run up and down the court. It is becoming a full court game again and it will be to the advantage of these type of players.


Various basketball pundits have offered similar observations for the past decade or more, but when the playoffs roll around, it's always the best halfcourt teams that advance.


Would you categorize LA and Orlando as half court teams? I wouldn't. You didn't really have a C for the Lakers and Orlando had a big man who flourished more in the break then he did in the post.


Considering Pau played C for more than 50% of the time this year including playoffs, I'll say they had the 2nd-3rd best C in the NBA. The Lakers are definitely more of a halfcourt team than anything else. The only thing strange about them is unlike traditional halfcourt teams, they hate playing defense.

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

By the way, for people who want to get a look at this guy, here are a couple videos from his pre-draft workouts:

Sacramento -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdGaajBgQj4

Charlotte - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0uvdo4xdcI

Author:  MattInTheCrown [ Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: #16 James Johnson SF Wake Forest

This amused me (from poster kyrv on RealGM):
kyrv wrote:
The Chicago Bulls wrote:
Chicago - The Chicago Bulls announced that Monday at 11AM local time they will be exposing their new Johnson to an eagerly awaiting fan base. Media and fans alike are rife with anticipation and are expected to give Johnson a rousing hand.

This Johnson is has more size and is expected to see more action than the previous Johnson, Linton. Linton came from a long line of Johnsons and was nice to have around. Quipped new GM Gar Forman, "Everybody either has a Johnson, or wants one."

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/