Tyler Hansbrough- Backup PF

[BrianFromWA]

I think Psycho T would be available at the 20th or so pick, and thus available for 3M or so.

I wouldn't have been on the bandwagon of the slow, undersized White Hope, but I'm watching him play against the long, super-athletic FSU team right now. He's having his struggles, but he's really, really tenacious and goes after rebounds (especially offensive) hard. He's not letting them get position, he's not giving up after getting his shot blocked. He hits his FTs, he's from a winning program, he's been playing with other good players for 4 years...

I'd feel pretty good about sending a Sergio/Rudy/Webs(or Outlaw)/Hansbrough/Joel 2nd Unit out there.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Would love it. Would bring such an electric atmosphere when he's fighting hard for boards, getting bloody and kicking ass.

 

[MIXUM]

its funny u posted this. i was just thinking how bad we need a backup pf that can bang.

god forbid something ever happens to aldridge... we would be clearly fucked in the biggest way.

besides pg, getting a solid pf is an absolute must for the blazers next year. and im not talking about guys like joe smith... im thinking more like david lee

 

[Sinobas]

Hmm..we'll probably pick more of a project type. Travis Outlaw will probably be our backup PF next year, with Webster returning to be our backup SF. Another option that I"m excited about is Joel Freeland! The dude is really blooming in Euroleague! He's 6-11 and a solid 255. From what I hear, he plays with a lot of heart, and is both skilled and athletic.

But I do think Tyler would be an interesting selection.

 

[RR7]

I really hope we don't select Tyler Hansborough in the draft. Doesn't seem, to me, someone KP would draft, either. I can't see him being all that good in the league, and with an otherwise solid, or fairly solid, but very young roster, I would rather fill up slots with cheap veterans, if needed, and use the draft for sort of a more high risk, high reward sort of situation.

 

[MIXUM]

with batum and webster... im thinking we might just upgrade pg and backup pf

however... who knows about websters health for 82 games... i think we should trade him

 

[Ed O]

I don't know if Tyler is good enough to contribute next year... if we want to have a prospect on the bench, I think I'd prefer Freeland.

The team will probably add a veteran backup 4. Someone to bang and rebound and give stability to the second unit. Or at least that's what I think they ought to do.

Ed O.

 

[julius]

I like Tyler, but I'd rather he be after we got a backup PF.

 

[tlongII]

Mark Madsen Version II

No thanks

 

[julius]

Mark Madsen Version II

No thanks

I could understand saying he won't be much of a player, but he's nothing like Mark Madsen.

 

[Ed O]

I could understand saying he won't be much of a player, but he's nothing like Mark Madsen.

Sure he is. An accomplished collegiate who is an undersized power forward. Less than ideally athletic, not terrifically strong. No expanded offensive game and not dominant rebounder.

I think that Madsen is a pretty good (down-side) comparison.

Ed O.

 

[julius]

Sure he is. An accomplished collegiate who is an undersized power forward. Less than ideally athletic, not terrifically strong. No expanded offensive game and not dominant rebounder.

I think that Madsen is a pretty good (down-side) comparison.

Ed O.

Tyler averaged twice as many points, and was relied on as a main contributor to his team. Mark Madsen wasn't.

I understand that some people don't like Tyler, but this is just as crazy as the "Adam Morrison is like Larry Bird" comparisons.

 

[Minstrel]

Tyler averaged twice as many points, and was relied on as a main contributor to his team. Mark Madsen wasn't.

Sure he was. Madsen was one of the stars of a great, deep Stanford team, a team that challenged for a perfect record. That team disappointed in the tourney, but it was a tremendous team, and Madsen was one of its most important players.

 

[tlongII]

Tyler averaged twice as many points, and was relied on as a main contributor to his team. Mark Madsen wasn't.

I understand that some people don't like Tyler, but this is just as crazy as the "Adam Morrison is like Larry Bird" comparisons.

Madsen didn't score as much as Hansbrough does, but he was definitely a main contributor to his Stanford teams. They didn't score as much as UNC so there was less opportunity for him to score. Hansbrough is probably a little better, but not much imho.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Every time I watch Tyler Hansbrough play I can't help but think of how poorly his game will translate to the next level; it's not just the lack of height and lack of athleticism, it's a lack of bulk and a bankable NBA skill (hustle is not a skill).

If the team really does go for a banger in the draft I've got to think there are better prospects with greater upside who can be developed for a couple of years in the low to mid twenties, and like others have said, I think there's a good shot Freeland gets brought over after having himself a very solid year in the ACB -- he's got the size, he's got some athleticism, and he's still pretty young.

P.S. I should add that I wouldn't be averse to the team taking a flier on him with an early second round pick, since there is little financial risk associated with that kind of a pick and could end up being a value in that case.

 

[BrianFromWA]

People have been saying his game will not translate to the next level, and I've tended to agree in the past. But I brought it up specifically today b/c he's playing a team with other NBA talent, lots of length and athleticism...basically his supposed Achilles' Heel and he's still bringing it.

As for "not being a KP player", I can't think of people who are more "KP" than squeaky-clean college graduates from winning programs whose only bankable NBA attributes are hustle, toughness and court sense.

I like Freeland better than Hansbrough as well.

And of the big guys projected 24+, there's Hansbrough, Tulsa's Jordan and Damian James from Texas. Maybe that's the time to take a pick like Maynor or Johnny Flynn, but of all those guys I like Hansbrough for us the best.

 

[RR7]

As for "not being a KP player", I can't think of people who are more "KP" than squeaky-clean college graduates from winning programs whose only bankable NBA attributes are hustle, toughness and court sense.

I didn't mean to imply a KP type personality wise, more the type of prospect he is, and a fit with our team, in that sense, I don't think he seems like a guy KP would go after.

As for that being the type he likes to bring in, who out of Brandon, Sergio, LaMarcus, Oden, Rudy, Batum, Bayless, Freeland, Kopponen, his draft picks since he has been GM, who out of those fits college graduates whose only bankable attributes are hustle, toughness, and court sense? What he has done is taken relatively low risk, very high reward players. I think bringing Blake in as a free agent is the ONLY guy on our roster that fits that. And I can't see him going with Hansborough for that reason. That doesn't fit with what he builds our roster with.

 

[BalancedMan]

I can't make a valid comparison because I never saw Paul Milsap play in college, but I know he led the NCAA in rebounding three times, and then was passed up into the second round. At least Hansbrough has a record of solid performance all four years, although it's hard to say he's gotten much better. He clearly has a low ceiling. The one thing that makes him stand out, I think, is his competitiveness and desire, which I think are probably higher than 99% of the other players around him. You don't have to worry about him "fighting" for a rebound.

He probably would have been drafted in the later half of the first round had he come out after any year of college. The Blazers won't have to "buy" the 20th pick, because their own pick will be in the lower 20's, probably where Hansbrough is still available.

I'm mixed on drafting him, and brought this subject up before a few times. Watching so much college ball recently, he seems like an ideal backup PF. If only he were a few inches taller. If we draft him, I'll trust KP's judgment. But I don't know if it will come to that.

 

[MAS RipCity]

I was on the Hansbrough bandwagon until I saw DaJaun Blair...trade up to get him! He's a much more talented Paul Millsap.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I didn't mean to imply a KP type personality wise, more the type of prospect he is, and a fit with our team, in that sense, I don't think he seems like a guy KP would go after.

As for that being the type he likes to bring in, who out of Brandon, Sergio, LaMarcus, Oden, Rudy, Batum, Bayless, Freeland, Kopponen, his draft picks since he has been GM, who out of those fits college graduates whose only bankable attributes are hustle, toughness, and court sense? What he has done is taken relatively low risk, very high reward players. I think bringing Blake in as a free agent is the ONLY guy on our roster that fits that. And I can't see him going with Hansborough for that reason. That doesn't fit with what he builds our roster with.

I get you...though I think I'd say "low risk" much more than "high reward" for his high lotto picks. LMA over Tyrus would fit that, as would Roy over Gay. But that's with the high picks. Oden vs. Durant was a really tough one for him, but eventually he went with the "lower risk"--going for the franchise big rather than the wing scorer savant.

His keepers in the late 1st/2nd have been young Euro projects.

Everyone's probably right in saying we probably will pass over him for a Euro stud project, but I don't think he's anywhere close to Madsen-esque.

 

[Minstrel]

"Mark Madsen" seems to be viewed as an insult. Madsen was a very good college player, and he's had a relatively good number of years in the NBA, during which he was a fairly well-known role-player for a championship-level team. Saying Hansbrough is similar to Madsen isn't akin to saying he can't play.

I don't think Hansbrough has much NBA star potential, but he could definitely be a useful role-player/back-up for a good team.

 

[RR7]

My low risk high reward statement, I meant that most of the guys he picks have pretty high worst case scenarios, compared to other players available. But also have higher upsides. Not to say it's always just the safest sort of pick, but what they brought to the league, LaMarcus Aldridge was highly less likely to be a bust than Tyrus Thomas was. However, high reward on his ceiling is probably ultimately higher than Thomas' is as well, IMO. Same with Roy and Gay. Gay seemed more likely to be a bust, and by more likely, I just mean more likely than Roy, not likely in general, but out of the two, ROy was the more likely to at a minimum have a Ron Mercer sort of career. Contributor, nothing great, but could start for you, whereas Gay was the more likely to flame out. But with upside, I think KP saw the upside we are now seeing of Roy, which few others did, and thought the upside was higher than Gay's potential upside.
And, the same thing with Oden over Durant, IMO. Safer, in that his floor(outside of injury plagued career) was a Dikmbe Mutombo type, it seemed, but also higher reward, in that at their respective ceilings, I would take Oden's over Durant's as well.

 

[BalancedMan]

"Mark Madsen" seems to be viewed as an insult. Madsen was a very good college player, and he's had a relatively good number of years in the NBA, during which he was a fairly well-known role-player for a championship-level team. Saying Hansbrough is similar to Madsen isn't akin to saying he can't play.

I don't think Hansbrough has much NBA star potential, but he could definitely be a useful role-player/back-up for a good team.

Maybe, I just looked at Madsen's stats, and never put up anything resembling impressive numbers, even considering for limited playing time. He never averaged more than half a block or half a steal a game. Never averaged an assist (a single 1). Never got more than 3.6 pts or 3.8 rebs.

He was a big body though. I think Hansbrough has a superior motor though, which will help him be more successful in the pros. I don't think he'll be a star either, but there's no reason to think he won't be better than Channing Frye. I remember watching Channing Frye in college and thought it was ridiculous that he was drafted so high...I thought he was so awkward running down the court. But he had a decent rookie year in NY. Hansbrough will be okay, but I'm sure there will be a better prospect to steal at that point in the draft.

Who knows. We might make a lopsided draft using our capspace and bring back a backup PF in the process as well.

 

[free_lafrentz]

"Special T" is going to be a bust!

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Meh. like others have said, Freeland is a much better option.

 

[PapaG]

I think Psycho T would be available at the 20th or so pick, and thus available for 3M or so.

I wouldn't have been on the bandwagon of the slow, undersized White Hope, but I'm watching him play against the long, super-athletic FSU team right now. He's having his struggles, but he's really, really tenacious and goes after rebounds (especially offensive) hard. He's not letting them get position, he's not giving up after getting his shot blocked. He hits his FTs, he's from a winning program, he's been playing with other good players for 4 years...

I'd feel pretty good about sending a Sergio/Rudy/Webs(or Outlaw)/Hansbrough/Joel 2nd Unit out there.

I find it odd that you would be a champion for Hansbrough, a guy who is perhaps the least versatile college player of the year that I can recall. Based on some of the threads you've posted, it appears as though you like to have more well-rounded players. I mean, you even criticize players who play more than one position off of the bench; what good does having a guy who is limited to one position and plays a very "stiff" game?

 

[BrianFromWA]

His "stiff, one-dimensional" game has been good enough for a CPOY-candidate. Though I dn't watch as much college BB as I used to, I can't think of a time when a bonehead move by Psycho T took his team out of the game. In fact, I've seen him keep his team in the game much more than he should be able to with a stiff game.

Should he be our starting PF? Nope, I expect our team to have a PF that plays above-average defensively for his 35-40 mpg. Should he get 30mpg? Nope, he probably doesn't have the athleticism to not be exploited in that amount of time.

the players I criticize most on this board are for their lack of effort and boneheaded plays that lose games as veterans, not for any one-dimensional-ness or versatility. I'll take it a step further...the people I'd posted most about having a significantly reduced role on this team were Travis for much of the first half and Blake almost all year, but especially when he came back from injury. Travis was for reasons I've posted significantly about, and posted significantly recently about him rectifying a lot of those. It wasn't for his playing of multiple positions off the bench, it was for his poor defense and lack of effort crashing the boards, especially from the SF position early in the year. I cannot possibly fathom making criticisms about effort or BBIQ against Hansbrough, especially since he'll get at most 12-15 mpg.

As I've posted elsewhere on this thread, I think the stiff things he does bring (specifically effort, hustle, motor, whatever you want to call it) are in short supply for the most part on our team.

 

[PapaG]

His "stiff, one-dimensional" game has been good enough for a CPOY-candidate. Though I dn't watch as much college BB as I used to, I can't think of a time when a bonehead move by Psycho T took his team out of the game. In fact, I've seen him keep his team in the game much more than he should be able to with a stiff game.

Should he be our starting PF? Nope, I expect our team to have a PF that plays above-average defensively for his 35-40 mpg. Should he get 30mpg? Nope, he probably doesn't have the athleticism to not be exploited in that amount of time.

the players I criticize most on this board are for their lack of effort and boneheaded plays that lose games as veterans, not for any one-dimensional-ness or versatility. I'll take it a step further...the people I'd posted most about having a significantly reduced role on this team were Travis for much of the first half and Blake almost all year, but especially when he came back from injury. Travis was for reasons I've posted significantly about, and posted significantly recently about him rectifying a lot of those. It wasn't for his playing of multiple positions off the bench, it was for his poor defense and lack of effort crashing the boards, especially from the SF position early in the year. I cannot possibly fathom making criticisms about effort or BBIQ against Hansbrough, especially since he'll get at most 12-15 mpg.

As I've posted elsewhere on this thread, I think the stiff things he does bring (specifically effort, hustle, motor, whatever you want to call it) are in short supply for the most part on our team.

I was just wondering how long it would be before posters started ripping apart Hansbrough's limited game. That seems to be a favorite subject for some posters.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Wouldn't you say, though, that it would be a significantly higher number if he was getting 30mpg rather than 12-15?

Honestly, I'd think he could live up to a ceiling of Najera/Turiaf/something like that. Yea or nay?

 

[Minstrel]

Wouldn't you say, though, that it would be a significantly higher number if he was getting 30mpg rather than 12-15?

You keep talking about minutes. Who's fault is that, so that the criticism can be correctly targeted?


Outlaw's? (Case for: He could turn down minutes above 12-15, but chooses not to)

McMillan's? (Case for: He could play Batum more minutes but, since Outlaw is getting a lot of minutes at power forward now, he'd need to play Frye/Ruffin/Randolph more to cut Outlaw's minutes significantly)

Pritchard's? (Case for: He could have more talented players)

Webster's? (Case for: Had he not been hurt, he'd cut into Outlaw's minutes [but mostly Batum's] to some extent)

Frye's? (Case for: If he'd stop sucking, he'd cut into Outlaw's power forward minutes quite a bit)


Which case do you consider most substantial? Or is there a target I'm overlooking? Since most of your criticism is aimed at Outlaw, what is it he should be doing?