share

Michael Beasley

Tongue-Out-Like-23
Tongue-Out-Like-23's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/16/2010
Posts: 8299
Points: 11850
Offline
Michael Beasley

Would Michael Beasley have more success at the small forward position than at the power forward position?


butidonthavemoney
butidonthavemoney's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/26/2009
Posts: 6125
Points: 9688
Online
No

Playing him at small forward would just amplify his weaknesses (basketball IQ, passing, defense).

I think at the 4 he creates more of an advantage for himself on both ends of the floor.

But he is more likely to see time at small forward next season, so we'll see.

The UnderKanter
Registered User
Joined: 06/12/2009
Posts: 2412
Points: 248
Offline
I'll have to wait and see. I

I'll have to wait and see. I have my doubts but this is what I would do too in this situation. He is a little small for the 4, so maybe this will suit him better. I think the Wolves should seriously look into trading him, him and Love just isn't a good combo to me. Personally, I think its worse than the Love and Jefferson combo they used to have.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
Michael Beasley does not have

Michael Beasley does not have a low basketball I.Q. and he certainly isn't undersized to play the four. The guy is only a half inch shorter then Love who is considered ideal size for the four and played Center on the National Team. Beasley isn't the best defender and doesn't even know how to pass. Beasley can play either position well but I think he would be best suited playing power forward because he can create a ton a mismatches on offense and can guard power forwards better then small forwards. He is strong and long enough to guard most of the starting power forwards in the league and got the leaping ability to compensate for whatever height advantage the other 4 may have.

Beasley is going to have to play small forward in Minny regardless however with Love penciled in as he should be at 4 and Darko at the five. The Minny starting lineup will probably look like this:

Flynn
Webster/Brewer
Beasley/Johnson
Love
Darko

Looking at that lineup im thinking Darko is in the top five in blocks because they have no perimeter defense, but they do have gobs of outside shooting. And the sad thing is Love is probably the best pure passer in that lineup with Darko being second. FYI Beasley's combine numbers in the lane agility and the 3/4 spring is 11.06 and 3.21. He tested better believer or not then Flynn in both categories to prove to you he is more then athletic enough to play wing.

The real question is can Wesley Johnson play shooting guard?

bobbyb
Registered User
Joined: 04/06/2009
Posts: 1115
Points: 387
Offline
B-easy

anyone that has seen him play knows he cannot play the wing. The T- Wolves might put him there but they dont know what they are doing. This is the same team that wastes a 5 pick on a play they most likely will never use. I dont care what the combine says he will fail at the 3. He is a good rebound, very good in isolation , he has an arsenal of offensive weapons, but will be exposed if he has to defend wings.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
Why can Beasley not play

Why can Beasley not play wing? Sure quicker wings will give him trouble, but in Minny's division look at the starting small forwards, Kevin Durant, Melo Anthony, Kirilenko, and I'm assuming Batum in Portland. Michael Beasley is every bit as athletic as any one of those players and has more then enough foot speed to keep up with them (if anybody can keep up with Durant and Melo) Beasley will have to work on his technique and moving his feet but speed will not be a problem. And on offense do you realize that Beasley is more of a face up power forward anyway. Did you see him play at Kansas State? Mike got most of his points on outside jumpers. Beasley got a sweet jump shot, and his dribble drive game has improved since entering the league, and it wasn't that bad coming in. You will see this year how well Beasley can play Small Foward because he will be the Wolves starting 3 man and will score, i project he'll average around 18 a game.

jdstorm
Registered User
Joined: 05/20/2010
Posts: 159
Points: 14
Offline
Beasley is like barkley 2.0.

Beasley is like barkley 2.0. an undersized PF that can be straight out dominant. However he is too small to be the number 1 post defender, and too slow to guard NBA level wings. particularly in such a loaded division for SF's with durant, Melo, AK/Haywood. Man i Wish He had ended up on the Suns. Especially if clark develops, he would have been the perfect amare replacement.

OhCanada-
OhCanada-'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/08/2010
Posts: 5635
Points: 4943
Offline
Im starting to think we could

Im starting to think we could see a McGrady like transformation here. Remember when T-Mac left the Raps...well it is a very similar situation here.

McGrady averaged 16-points, 6-rebounds, 3-assists, 2-blocks and 1-steal in 32-minutes per game with Toronto when told to take a defensive approach to the game.

Beasley averaged 15-points, 6-rebounds, 1-assist, 1-steal, half a block in 32 -minutes per game on Miami asked to provide a defensive role as well. These are good stats for someone inhis situation, remember he came out of college known as a underzsized-selfish scorer, with bad defensive skills, bad mentality and bad work ethic. He was drafted 2nd overall on his scoring and rebounding abillities alone...

We all know what McGrady turned into when he went to Orlando, now am I saying Beasley will become MVP material like T-Mac was, no. But Beasley could easily turn into the dominant scorer he was projected to be.

Tongue-Out-Like-23
Tongue-Out-Like-23's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/16/2010
Posts: 8299
Points: 11850
Offline
jdstorm... SMH... Beasley is

jdstorm... SMH...

Beasley is like Charles Barkley 2.0?

Barkley was one of the greatest rebounders of all time while Mike can barely grab 7 boards on a good day. Barkley was 6'4" while Beas is 6'8 - 6'9

Stupidest comparison I've ever seen.

sc0rebuckets11
sc0rebuckets11's picture
Registered User
Joined: 01/03/2009
Posts: 281
Points: 145
Offline
there is...

no way Beasley transforms like T-MAC did. Not close, not even scoring wise.

I still think he could be a melo type scorer, but I'm not sure if a team would give him that type of freedom.

Cardinal_Fan
Registered User
Joined: 09/06/2010
Posts: 488
Points: 891
Offline
I think Beasely just has 2

I think Beasely just has 2 apply his self and he could be a really good 3 man, all-star caliber. The talent and potential is there......hate 2 see him turn in2 Derrick Coleman or maybe even worse then that.

NorthernLights666
NorthernLights666's picture
Registered User
Joined: 01/16/2009
Posts: 453
Points: 69
Offline
Worst Case/Likely Case/Best Case Scenarios

Al Harrington/Antawn Jamison/Carmelo Anthony

Platypus
Platypus's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/30/2009
Posts: 2462
Points: 3328
Offline
why dont they move Love to

why dont they move Love to the Center and start Beasley next to him?

Make a trade for a shooting guard and a back up powerforward

they can use Flynn and Pekovic since they wanna trade him for Rubio and think Darko is Vlade / Chris Webber

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
I think you all are

I think you all are forgetting that the t-pups will be running the triangle. You don't need to be a great ball handler to
play small forward in that offense. I'd be a lil skeptical if ut was a traditional offense but in the triangle u don't have to be a traditional point guard or small forward to
play it. You just need to be able to shoot

joecheck88
joecheck88's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 2607
Points: 2280
Online
i like beasley as a mismatch

i like beasley as a mismatch 4 man. kind of like a shorter dirk nowitzki. i think if he was a starting 4 he would pull down 9rpg and he could score 23ppg. i think he could lead a team to success(not a championship unless he had a great supporting cast). thats just my opinion. but seriously, to me his could be a shorter version of dirk. i see his potential at like 24 and 9. put him with a defensive center and he could help a team make the playoffs.

what im trying to say is, i am a believer in b easy talent wise. i think in the right situation he could be a number 1 option on a good team ala dirk nowitzki. he is still young and even though undersized at the 4(not terribly undersized) i believe he could rebound and defend well enough to be an all star in the nba. right situations are hard to come by, i know and it may not happen(and probably wont in minny) but he has the upside in my opinion.

TooNice4TV
TooNice4TV's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/14/2010
Posts: 171
Points: 152
Offline
Either way

He's done playing out of Wade's shadow.

Now he gets the opportunity to start off as the primary option, just like his other draft buds - mayo, rose(pg leadership role) - and we'll see more of his game now that there isn't someone taking 20-25 shots before him.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
Why do people say undersized

Why do people say undersized at the 4 like it's such a problem. Do you know what's a bigger problem?being unskilled at the 4even if you're 6'10. Arm
lenght/reach is much more important then how tall you are

Besides all that there are many so called undersized pf in the NBA who do very very well

dolla130
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 512
Points: 429
Offline
stanford hoops

i agree with you 100% ala carlos boozer,elton brand when he was very good, david west and david are all under 6'9 and they are all allstars just to name a few

The UnderKanter
Registered User
Joined: 06/12/2009
Posts: 2412
Points: 248
Offline
Mr. 19134, where are you

Mr. 19134, where are you getting your information? Love according to draftexpress.com is 6'9. which is considered standard size by the NBA. Not big, nor small. 6'9 is not the "perfect" size for the 4. Just look at Booz. He's 6'9 yet he struggled against Pau Gasol who is 2 inches taller than him. If he was 6'10, he would have done much better (I think) Love would also struggle playing against Gasol. And so would David Lee. Put them up against a 6'10 player like Amare Stoudamire and it would be a little easier, but still Lee and Booz would struggle. Height makes a huge difference in the NBA. If I were trying to build a team I would not want a 6'9 PF, I'd want a 6'10 or taller one. If I had a 6'9, 4 I would make sure that he can play the 3 as well, and it would be better if he was better at the 3 than the 4. Now for Beasley:
He is considered a small 4 because he is only 6'8. (according to draftexpress.com) You may consider that okay size for the 4, but most teams today have bigger 4's than 6'8 so when he plays the 4 and goes up against let's say Zach Randolph (who is only an inch taller than him) he struggles and Z-bo has a huge night. Just look at the grizzlies schedule last year, when the Heat played the Grizz and you will see what I mean. Beasley struggled against Z-bo, yet he is only an inch shorter. You would think that an inch wouldn't make much of a difference but it does especially in the NBA.
Now about his BBIQ. Lets take Paul Millsap. Same size, same position, but completely different IQ. When Millsap plays a 4 taller than him (which is pretty much every game) he doesn't shrink from the competition. He relishes it and plays D. He puts a little "meat" in his game, and makes his opponent work for his points. Now he is not going to completely stop his opponent, but he will make him work for every point he gets. He will play tough D. He will go for the blocks, go for the steals, and do whatever he can do to cause his player problems. While Beasley basically shrinks from the competition. He may get a steal here and there, but not too many. He won't give him problems because he is not a great defender. He won't try and block the opposing 4's shots because he is not much of a shot blocker. But if just had a better BBIQ he would know when to go for the steals, he would know when and how to disrupt a shot. Athletic ability is one thing, but BBIQ is another.
You can have all the athletic ability in the world but if you don't have an ounce of BBIQ then you are going to struggle, just like Beasley does as a 4.

The UnderKanter
Registered User
Joined: 06/12/2009
Posts: 2412
Points: 248
Offline
Yes, you guys are right,

Yes, you guys are right, there are many 6'9 power forwards who are all stars in the NBA. They are still considered undersized because of their size. yes they are all stars but they are because THEY WORK FOR EVERY SINGLE POINT THEY GET. They have to because of their size. THEY PLAY DEFENSE VERY WELL BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO SUCCEED. Every 4 they go up against is pretty much taller than they are. oIf they just shrunk in every contest we would not be having this debate, and we would all see why size matters. Just read my explanation earlier and you will see what I mean. I explain it very well. Now size does not make that much of a difference as does length and reach but it does matter. Fascinating how such a microscopic detail as one inch shorter can make a difference in the NBA.

Slim
Registered User
Joined: 09/25/2009
Posts: 1053
Points: 348
Offline
...

here are the guys listed here vs Beasley

Pau Gasol- 7'1
Amare- 6'10
Elton Brand- 6' 9.5
Carlos Boozer-6' 9.5
Kevin Love- 6' 9.5
David West- 6-9 1/4
David Lee- 6'9

Beasley- 6'8.25
Paul Millsap- 6'7.25

Slim
Registered User
Joined: 09/25/2009
Posts: 1053
Points: 348
Offline
20 ppg

Beasley per36 minutes his rookie season he was on pace for 20ppg, last year that dropped to 17.1ppg
but his Efficiency Ranking was 16.1 that's still Rudy Gay level, he can average around 20ppg.
I expect him and Kevin Love to lead the team in scoring.

MIN still needs a SG though

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
I get my information from

I get my information from where everybody else get's there heights and measurements and its no big secret. You can call Love 6'9 and Beasley 6'8 if you want but at the end of the day Beasley got a 7'0 wingspan and a 8'11 standing reach compared to Love's 6'11 and 8'10, so thats your inch right there because nobody grabs rebounds or blocks shots with there foreheads. And a lot of people struggle against Z-Bo the guy averaged 20 and 10 last year. But the big difference is somebody mentioned David West, Brand, and Boozer all those guys have 7'4 wingspans so even tho they may be an each or two shorter when they go to actually reach for the basketball they are actually and inch or two longer. Thats the difference. Plus basketball I.Q. is a big part of it and Love has tons of it enabling him to be where he needs to be to get the ball. Beasley also has an advanced BB.I.Q on the offensive end he has an uncanny feel for the game and how to get buckets. Do not confuse character issues with BBIQ because they are different. Beasley has the length and strenght to play underneath and just in case ur not sure what I mean here is a video is Beasley going against Blake Griffin ( your prototypical 4) in college.

Slim
Registered User
Joined: 09/25/2009
Posts: 1053
Points: 348
Offline
...

Michael Beasley meh...
To answer the question more success at the small forward position.
He didn't set the bar too high last season imo!

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 3136
Points: 2201
Offline
The T-Wolves need height at C

The T-Wolves need height at C so that was why they were so keen on Darko and said that having him on the team gave them interior defence and gives them a legit blocking presence. Regardless of how prolific a rebounder K-Love is, playing him and Jefferson together just didn’t work judging by the number of games that the T-Wolves won with them both in the line up.

Beasley isn’t as creative as T-Mac was in his prime when he could make his own shot and create havoc on the perimeter but I can see the T-Wolves using him as a pure scorer as minus Jefferson they don’t have a 20ppg player but Beasley could do this role as the likes of Johnson can help more on defence.

I can see Johnson being able to play SG or SF as he has the size and speed and can provide the much needed perimeter defence. We may have to accept that Beasley will never be a good defender and thus may need an Artest or Battier type player alongside him to help guard the SF’s or PF’s but he can be a good impact scorer. Johnson alongside him it does provide a bit of insurance and with Darko and Love both being excellent passers for big men then Minny can also be a good fast break team and use Beasley’s athletic skills to their advantage.

You perhaps need a cross between him and Marvin Williams at Atlanta to have a top level SF prospect, Marvin hasn’t become the player he was hyped to be scoring wise but has a very good all round game and has become a rock solid NBA complimentary starter whilst Beasley has a very good scoring touch but cannot really play at the business end of the game which may mean that no true contender will ever look at him as they may not be able to afford this liability and thus prefer an Artest, Battier, Prince type player.

The T-Wolves have had numerous high draft picks themselves or have got underachieving high drafted players via trades but have never been competitive since before KG left. So unless someone really steps up this year they will continue to struggle and it may depend on whether Rubio comes over before they can improve. Also Coach Rambis will have to find the right line up amongst his roster.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12943
Points: 11502
Offline
"Playing him at small forward

"Playing him at small forward would just amplify his weaknesses (basketball IQ, passing, defense).

I think at the 4 he creates more of an advantage for himself on both ends of the floor.

But he is more likely to see time at small forward next season, so we'll see."

I agree with these statements. It sums everything up the right way. I think Beasley should be a 6th man who provides a mismatch at the PF spot offensively. He should play an Al Harrington-type role (offensive minded 6th man, who plays starter-esque and can play SF or PF depending on matchups) if the T-Wolves were smart.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
Slim where in the world did

Slim where in the world did you pull those measurements from? None of them are correct. If you want the correct measurements go to draftexpress.com and add in their standing reach and wingspan to compensate because they are more important then height. Yes Beasley is 6'7 in socks but his standing reach and wingspan are higher then Love's and Lee who have no trouble play power forward in fact Lee was an All Pro center last year. The game has changed.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
So if the T Wolves were smart

So if the T Wolves were smart they would bring their most talented player off the bench? And what's the point of bringing somebody off the bench that plays more minutes then a starter anyway, he might as well start because he is on the floor longer. Beasley isn't really mismatched up with anybody. He can guard power forwards. He can also guard small forwards. He has to pick one and become better at it. Beasley will never be an elite defender but he will get you some steals, a block a game, and a good amount of rebounds.

You see the thing is when you're a team as desperate as Minny is and you steal the number 2 pick from 2 years ago, who only played one year of college and completely dominated on a level that was rarely ever saw before. Now you get a chance to do something with him and bring out his talents and give him the chance to succeed because he still is hardly old enough to drink, you don't want to bring him off the bench. How would it look it Minny if Darko's starting and B-Easy aint? Do you kno how much that would damage his psych? They got nothing to lose, hell start him at shooting guard, just get him the ball and let him score thats when the fans start piling into the arena every night and thats brings excitement because Mike if he can do anything he can score.

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 3136
Points: 2201
Offline
Kurt Rambis will decide who

Kurt Rambis will decide who starts, does starting and not playing down the stretch make Beasley feel better for example. There are arguements for starting him or using him as a 6th man, personally unless Johnson proves that he's better at SF than SG and a good SG option emerges then I'd prefer the T-Wolves to use Johnson at SG and Beasley at SF but it's down to Coach Rambis.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12943
Points: 11502
Offline
Yeah, they would be smart to

Yeah, they would be smart to play Beasley off the bench. It can easily be argued that Kevin Love is the most talented player on the Timberwolves. He's at least the best player if he's not the most talented anyway.

If Beasley's psych is thrown off by Darko starting over him, his head isn't in the right place. Him and darko play 2 different positions, so why would that bother him? He needs to play YMCA basketball if he's worried about playing a role that may not be as glamorous as a guy that doesn't play the same position or role as him.

There is nothing wrong with playing him off the bench. It's no secret Kevin Love isn't more than a flat 30 mpg player due to him not being a true high endurance player. And even if Beasley doesn't come in directly for him, Love could easily slide to the C spot and play with Beasley in the same lineup. It wouldn't be good for defense, but it is something that I'm willing to bet will be a real lineup, and it should be taken into consideration.

You are naive if you think that Beasley is above being a bench player, who plays a starter-esque role. Beasley has a chance to be the team's leading scorer, off the bench or not. I think it's in the T'Wolves' best interest because Beasley to be is too poor in perimeter D, passing, and too streaky as a perimeter shot-cretor to start and play exclusively at SF, and not quite a good enough rebounder to play exclusively at PF. To me, when a player is a tweener, it's always smarter to play them off the bench to take advantage of their strengths and use them accordingly.

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 3136
Points: 2201
Offline
Lots of team's now use almost

Lots of team's now use almost a "psuedo 6th man" for example Manu Ginobli who was the Spurs starting SG for a few years until Coach Poppovich figured he could start a solid veteran like Mike Finley and use Manu off the bench against other teams 2nd units or make the opposition counter this considering they have Duncan, Parker etc to counter in the starting unit.

Ben Gordon, Jason Terry and perhaps James Harden are used in a similar role where you have a steady or more defensive minded player starting and then a better player perhaps comes off the bench to try and dominate for the 2nd unit.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12943
Points: 11502
Offline
Yeah, that's why I think the

Yeah, that's why I think the T'Wolves should start either Brewer or Martell Webster at SF.

Along with some other concerns, if they start Beasley and don't put Brewer or Webster at SG (even though that would probably be a mistake, since both are more SF's than SG's), they would have no player in their starting lineup that plays more than mediocre D, to be modest.

Mr.Knick 32
Mr.Knick 32's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/17/2010
Posts: 4648
Points: -72
Offline
"Beasley is like barkley 2.0.

"Beasley is like barkley 2.0. an undersized PF that can be straight out dominant."

I retire from basketball debates.

NorthernLights666
NorthernLights666's picture
Registered User
Joined: 01/16/2009
Posts: 453
Points: 69
Offline
Rambis and Minnesota doesn't need

traditional 2s or ball handlers at the 2, from what they've said in pressers to fans questions regarding the 2 spot they think Rubio/Flynn, Love, Tolliver and Beasley can handle that, all they need are guys that can guard 2s and can shoot from the perimeter, Brewer/Webster can both guard 2s and they hope Johnson can do the same. Webster or Johnson will be their starting 2 for the immediate future.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
First off it can be argued

First off it can be argued that Love is the best player on their team but not easily. I like Love alot and thought he was the 3rd best player in that draft. In hindsight he is either the third or the fourth going into this season. Love to me has 20 and 10 potential but more likely will max out around 18 and 13.

And Miami tried doing that will Beasley and it didn't really work. Beasley is a scorer. He is easily the best scorer on that team right now and he also has the most potential. I understand bringing him off the bench if he is on a playoff but the Wolves are not. Know matter how hard they play and how well Rambis coaches they will not be a playoff team. So this is your opportunity to see what you have in Beasley. I see no reason why he can't be a Carmelo Anthony type Small Forward. Beasley came into the league boasting every bit the praise and potential Anthony had. And the point of this season for the Wolves is to see what they have.

Since Beasley is their best scorer it would be wiser to have him in the starting lineup to A) maximize potential. If you want him to be the man you got to put him in a position to be the man and make him feel like the man of the team something Miami never did. B) Beasley is who the Wolves should gameplan around. Expect them to go to him early and often in games to get the offense going. Last year they had Jefferson this year Beasley will do that.

And without Beasley in the starting lineup who do you go to on offense at the beginning of games? Love is most effective when he is in a position to pass out of incoming doubles or one on one (obviously) So predict Love and Beasley to develop a nice chemistry together. And Beasley if giving 35 minutes per game could develop into a 9-10 rebound a game machine all of this talk that he is a bad rebounder is entirely unfounded because he has been a great rebounder his whole life and got the requisite soft hands, agility, and strength to get in position and pull in boards.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
And I'm still waiting on an

And I'm still waiting on an answer on where the hell Slim pulled those measurements from.

jdstorm
Registered User
Joined: 05/20/2010
Posts: 159
Points: 14
Offline
whats with all the hating on

whats with all the hating on this barkley comparison. Did everyone forget just how dominant beasley was in college, he averaged 26,12. and had some monster games including a 40/15 an 40/11.

Miami was just a really bad fit for him. He's not a pat riley type guy. riely didn't even really want to draft him. he's never going to be a great defender. and jermaine O'neil isn't someone who can cover others defensive weakness anymore. he needs people covering for him.

Combine that with the city of miami and all its "temptations" And beasley still put up decent offensive numbers despite jerky plying time. Put him in a more stable environment where his basketball talents fit the teams needs, And he will be dominant

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12943
Points: 11502
Offline
Beasley is a tweener who can

Beasley is a tweener who can score, and is average or below at everything else. I say play him off the bench. The reason it didn't work that well is because he still found himself on the court with Wade, who obviously plays a ball-dominant style, and he didn't play enough D for Coach Spoelstra's liking, and it cut his PT. In Minnesota, he won't have a ball dominant player beside him like Wade is/was, so he'll get shots. That's not really the problem though. He still put up 15 ppg last season with Wade. He just doesn't have a position, and he doesn't defend good. Along with his scoring ability and decent rebounding skills, those are characteristics that would best describe a 6th man, or matchup ploy.

Love is better than Beasley. I don't think that really should be argued at all. Even if Beasley scores more, Love is a better and more valuable player. And that won't change next year.

Love is more important in running the offense through than Beasley is, even if he doesn't score. Beasley will get his scoring numbers, but the T-Wolves should run their offense through Love, who is a great passer and a guy who can score with versatility.

Putting him as a starting SF would justify what we already know: he can score and get about 7 or 8 rpg. Alright. That wouldn't really maximize his potential, and IMO wouldn't really maximize the T'Wolves potential as an overall team. Who in their lineup would defend? If Darko and Jonny Flynn are your lineupss best defenders, teams will possibly rape you with no vasoline on that end. So for as much as I love Beasley (I'm probably as big a K-State fan as their is), it's about getting some people in the lineup that defend. Beasley is no doubt more talented than Martell Webster and Corey Brewer, but he doesn't defend better and they would need that more on the perimeter than his scoring if they are serious about winning. Beasley will get opportunities to score, but D should be more important than his scoring, since we already know he can do it and he will be able to provide that in abundance in starter minutes.

"So this is your opportunity to see what you have in Beasley. I see no reason why he can't be a Carmelo Anthony type Small Forward. Beasley came into the league boasting every bit the praise and potential Anthony had. And the point of this season for the Wolves is to see what they have."

You see no reason, but I see plenty of reasons why Beasley won't be Carmelo Anthony. One, he doesn't have a true position. 2, he's not as quick or polished from the perimeter and he'll never be. 3, Anthony made the Nuggets a playoff team as soon as he was picked. The T'wolves will not sniff the playoffs next season or in the short term. Just because he was hyped like Anthony, doesn't mean he is the next Carmelo Anthony. Sebastian Telfair was hyped as the next Stephon Marbury. Deshawn Stevenson was hyped as the next Michael Jordan. By your logic, that means with extended time and a starting role they both could live up the hype. If you are basing how Beasley will play on a rather bad Minnesota T'Wolves team because of who he was compared to, you just aren't thinking the right way.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
I think they did forget,

I think they did forget, sorry but I had to post it. If you watch this video you will see what us Beasley fans mean. Despite getting limited minutes he still managed 15 a game on Wades team. If you watch this video notice how many "taller" players that Mike completely Horses. He blocks Pau twice, then dunks on him during an offensive rebound. Takes 7'2 Hibbert to the whole. He even blocks 7'4 Thabeets hook shot. This video is for everybody thinking Beasley is undersized and don't play D. It seems like Wade don't like him too, on the one play Wade misses a lay up and Beasley showing great hustle flies down the court and dunks it home n starts screaming while Wade casually jogged back up the court like Beasley didn't just save his ass no high five or anything.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
As a Sixers fan I would trade

As a Sixers fan I would trade Evan Turner for Mike right now. If Beasley stayed in college he like Evan would be at the end of his JR year. Could you imagine what Beasley numbers would of looked like had he stayed at K-State? 26 and 12 as a freshman, he would of had to be averaging like 30 and 14 as a JR. Atleast. And not only that Beasley said during the off season that if he could take it back he would of stayed in college all 4 years. I wish he would of.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12943
Points: 11502
Offline
" As a Sixers fan I would

" As a Sixers fan I would trade Evan Turner for Mike right now."

I bet you would, Tiger.

B-ball fan
Registered User
Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 1940
Points: 1927
Offline
Beasley

I don't think playing him at the 3 will help him especially. Coming into the NBA, he was expected to be a great iso player, but and he still can be. The problem is he has struggled to score with any kind of efficiency outside of isos in the NBA. His shooting percentages are pretty low, and he often struggles to score in the post or finish around the rim. If given the opportunity, he could be a good post player matched up against 3s. I just think he needs to develop into a more complete player, i.e. improve his range and consistency shooting, improve ball-handling, become a better rebounder and defender.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
He's a career 46% shooter

He's a career 46% shooter thats not low its above average. If Beasley is a beast around the rim. His skill set is more polished then people realize.

And the Wolves are high on Turner because he can play point in Rambis' triangle, I actually Think Turner for B-Easy is a feasible trade. But then again I'm still upset over the Sixers not drafting Cousins...What were they thinking. The Sixers, Nets, and Wolves really screwed up by not taking Cousins.

Mr.Knick 32
Mr.Knick 32's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/17/2010
Posts: 4648
Points: -72
Offline
Micheal Beasley has

Micheal Beasley has underachived and someone still help me how he's comparable AT ALL to Barkley

Hell, he barely had better numbers then Anthony Randolph last season...Randolph was the 4th option on a team with two chucks.

Mr. 19134
Mr. 19134's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/21/2010
Posts: 3429
Points: 3379
Offline
How has Beasley

How has Beasley underachieved. Everybody knew he was a bad fit in Miami and Riley didn't even wanna draft him. Riley had his eyes set on Mayo but thought the second pick was too high and in the end went with the safest bet in Beasley. Mike averaged 15 points off the bench last year playing only 29 minutes. Even after all the turmoil in the off season with him and the whole weed thing. He still came back last year and get better then he was in his rookie year. If you look around the League at any second option on a team with a high scoring guard it is very hard hard for a low post player to get a lot of point when somebody like Wade is hands the ball in his hands 90% of the time. Even Pau Gasol only averaged 17.8 points a game a playing with Kobe. Thats only 3 points more then Beasley averaged coming off the bench. Mike has always been the focal point of an offense so transitioning to a 2nd fiddle then to a bench player was hard for him but in the end he did well. If you can get 15 points a night out of a bench players thats outstanding. In Minny you can bet you will be the focal point of their offense and He will get 20 points a night. You're talking about a kid who would only be going into his senior college and with maturity issues but he still found a way to produce because in the end he has to much talent not to.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
Ou know what's funny. That

Ou know what's funny. That list u put up
had Amare on it who's 6'10. But is a worst defender then 6'7 millsap 6'6 chuck Hayes. You don't have to be tall to be a good defending pf. Ask
Dennis rodman

Bosh 6'10-bad defender
d lee
zrandolp

defense is about effort not height. Boozer is just a bad defender even if he was two inches taller gasol would still kill him because he's s bad defender. I bet rodman would have gave gasol
problems and he was boozers height

Mr.Knick 32
Mr.Knick 32's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/17/2010
Posts: 4648
Points: -72
Offline
How has Beasley

How has Beasley underachieved. Everybody knew he was a bad fit in Miami and Riley didn't even wanna draft him

That's a lie. Wade wanted a guard. Riley only looked into Mayo and at the time Bayless (stock high, thought about a potential trade down with Sacramento and New York) but he wanted Beasley because he had the higher potential and he saw Beasley as a combo forward who could potentially play like Jamal Mashburn.

I'm still not buying the Barkley comparison for a couple reason.

A) Barkley was a monster rebounder. He had the highest offensive rebound percentage from 87-92

B) Barkley had a WAY better post game and could run a fastbreak really well

C) Beasley is average and a tweener in the NBA

The UnderKanter
Registered User
Joined: 06/12/2009
Posts: 2412
Points: 248
Offline
Size does matter. I dont care

Size does matter. I dont care who you can think of. Put them up againt Pau Gasol or any guy with length, and he will get creamed. What did we just learn from the finals this year. Why did the Lakers win, it wasn't because of Kobe or their bench or they just got lucky. It was because of their size. I know it may seem microscopic and insignificant but we all saw it happen. The Lakers beat everyone because of size. Take away that size and you would just have an average team. Seriously size does matter. Now it doesn't matter that much as compared to length and reach but it does play a factor.
Just look at this considering the size.
Boozer vs Gasol. 6'9 vs 6'11 Booz got creamed 4-0 lakers win
Stoudamire vs Gasol 6'10 vs 6'11 Stoudamire did not get creamed but it was at least a contest. Lakers still won 4-2
Garnett & Perkins vs Gasol & Bynum 6'11, 6'10 vs 6'11, 7'0 Again not creamed another contest but closer. Lakers still won 4-3

And Mr. 19104, did you seriously just make the argument of Beasley played well against Griffen in COLLEGE. This is not College, this is the NBA. BIG DIFFERENCE. Seriously, The NBA is not college not by any means. I am not downgrading Griffen. I am just saying that for the 4, Beasley is undersized. I don't care how much athletic ability he has or his wingspan put him up against 6'10 and taller 4's that start on their respective teams and he will get creamed. And for your information Z-'bo is not hard to beat. Boozer could beat him. And he's the same size as Z-bo. David Lee could probably beat Z-bo. But Beasley would get creamed, unlike most other PF's. Like I said before size does matter. If you are a 6'8 PF you are going to have to work for everything you get. You are going to have to play tough. I don't care if you have all the athletic ability in the world, if you don't play tough and you are undersized like Beasley you are going to get creamed against any starting 4 in the NBA. Beasley does not play tough. He relies too much on his athletic ability and this is why he struggles so much. Normally I wouldn't care how tall he is, but since he does not care, it matters, and its pretty self explanatory why he struggles at the 4 in the NBA. He doesn't play tough. He has to, because he is undersized, even if he has all the athletic ability in the world.

jdstorm
Registered User
Joined: 05/20/2010
Posts: 159
Points: 14
Offline
would you believe that

@mr Knick
i also like anthony randolph a lot. maybe i'm just a sucker when it comes to intriguing PF's with potential. I dont think he's going to work out on the Knicks, because his game is to similar to amare.

Also D'antoni is almost as crazy as don nelson when it comes to rotation and playing time

Mr.Knick 32
Mr.Knick 32's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/17/2010
Posts: 4648
Points: -72
Offline
i also like anthony randolph

i also like anthony randolph a lot. maybe i'm just a sucker when it comes to intriguing PF's with potential. I dont think he's going to work out on the Knicks, because his game is to similar to amare.

Not it's not. Amare Stoudemire is a faceup offensive big. Anthony Randolph is a (bad) shooter and a put back guy who will have to earn his points in garbage time most likely. He's not a 20 ppg guy. Randolph is a 13-10-2 type player.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12943
Points: 11502
Offline
Anthony Randolph's game isn't

Anthony Randolph's game isn't very similar to Amare's. They play 2 different ways

RSS: Syndicate content