Bulls Must Better Utilize Thomas

Link: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Whenever Thomas' situation comes to mind, I can't help thinking back to the example of Eddie Robinson.</div></p>

Ruh-roh!</p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>When it came to Robinson, Silas found a couple of things the 6-foot-9 forward did well -- run the court and shoot midrange jumpers. When he was in the game, Robinson typically scored some in transition and ran through baseline screens to get open shots.</p>
<p class="News">After signing a $32 million deal with the Bulls, Robinson basically was told to play within the offense by three different head coaches and was a complete bust. Scott Skiles' most frequent sideline comment during his first season here was "E-Rob, other side!"</p>
<p class="News">Now, I realize there were plenty of other reasons why Robinson didn't succeed with the Bulls. The point is, the Hornets played to his strengths and turned him into an effective player. With the Bulls, he was never effective and used to sit in the locker room wondering why he couldn't just do the same things he did in Charlotte.</p>
<p class="News">Getting back to today's Bulls, Thomas clearly does a number of things well. He won't have much success against Toronto's Chris Bosh 1-on-1, but Thomas can post up against certain players. He can face up and attack the basket, draw fouls and, of course, jump higher than most defenders.</p>
<p class="News">Could the Bulls do more to capitalize on Thomas' skills? It sure seems like it.</p>
<p class="News">There is no official count of successful alley-oop passes to Thomas this season, but it's not far from zero. Skiles has said his players aren't good at throwing lob passes, and there were two brutal attempts at lobs in the Knicks game. Then again, these same guards seemed to connect with Eddy Curry quite often in 2004-05.</p>
<p class="News">Should the Bulls set a backscreen once in awhile for Thomas? Try to isolate him in the post or on the wing more often? I'm sure these things have been considered.</p>
<p class="News">Skiles complained last week that Thomas doesn't run the court fast enough. It's debatable how much that would help, but the 6-foot-9 forward certainly could go after the offensive boards harder or attack the basket once in awhile instead of shooting jumpers.</p>
<p class="News">But the bottom line is Thomas seems to be losing the confidence that was growing late last season, and the Bulls need to turn that around right away.</div></p>
<p class="News">Pretty interesting article from McGraw</p>

 

Thomas is an explosive athlete that is good for a double-digit night, he should be used more.</p>

 

It's pretty hard to use a guy who collects fouls as quickly as he does</p>

 

Pretty much</p>

 

Meh, plus/minus numbers for the whole team must be horribly down right now. I see several other players had better numbers against the Clips, but over the course of the season, everbody's numbers must be pretty poor, because we're getting outscored pretty badly on the whole.

 

McGraw carefully tried to explain things without saying Tyrus=ERob, but not only is it a pretty appropriate description, it fits perfectly with what I've seen.</p>

Essentially, McGraw pointed out that ERob's success was a product of Paul Silas asking him to do very little but what he liked to do, and not to think much at all. ERob gets to the Bulls and everyone expects him to actually play within a structured offense. He was clueless and mad no one will let him just "go play".</p>

Like ERob, I think the issue is that Tyrus' fundamental lack of basketball IQ is exposed. From my understanding of things, he was asked to do very little at LSU defensively and even less offensively. Last year the Bulls asked him to do less and extended him a lot of lenience because he was a raw as sushi rookie. </p>

So what you had was a progressively bigger impact on the court by Tyrus, but inconsistently and situationally.</p>

Move forward a year however, and my belief is Thomas is still about as unwilling or unable to play within the team strategies as he was as a rookie, as he was last year.</p>

So what do you do with a guy like this. Is he good enough that you throw out all your team concepts and play streetball because he can't play organized basketball? I don't think so. He's a 6'7" 215lb guy who can't hit a jump shot (making him fundamentally unlike even ERob in a bad way). More to the point, that might work (and I'd admit Tyrus might be very effective) with Baron Davis or Steve Nash just running and gunning it to him. But we don't have a guy like that. Or other team components like that. And we don't have a style like that. And oh yeah, that style typically gets demolished once the playoffs start. Our lack of half-court ability is already of concern to me without going further in that direction.</p>

I don't think the "let him play and coach him later" approach is likely to work either. For every minute a player is on the court, he's probably been coached for five. In practice, film sessions, one-on-one, etc. A coach really does have limited options when it comes to a guy like this. Once you start doling out entitlement minutes, how do you reinforce the good things and weed out the negative ones? Obviously just talking about it and demonstrating it in non-game situations isn't makeing a difference.</p>

I don't think you can get blood from a stone, and I think a lot of the frustration directed toward Skiles this year ought to be directed elsewhere. Not that he's without sin, but I've pretty much concluded that it's not the fact that Skiles is a poor fit, it's the fact that Thomas is a very poor fit for this team.</p>

 

Or Brandon Roy. Or possibly even Rudy Gay or Ronnie Brewer. Or maybe Paul Milsap. We can go in a lot of directions and none of them are pretty.</p>

 

The unfortunate thing for us is that the one draft in which Paxson decided to go against his general drafting pattern, there were several other high jib/excellent quality players that really could have helped our team. Passing on Aldridge and Roy particularly hurts because to my eyes, both of them are shaping up to be better than anyone on our team.

 

Heh, I remember getting roundly criticized for being willing to offer up Gordon or Hinrich for the rights to Roy </p>

 

if the bulls aren't goign to use him at all and he's getting DNP-coaches decision on a regular basis they should just trade him. At least get something for him instead of letting him rot on the bench.</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fred)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

if the bulls aren't goign to use him at all and he's getting DNP-coaches decision on a regular basis they should just trade him. At least get something for him instead of letting him rot on the bench.</p>

</div></p>

Trading him would be a foolish move. Who or what could the Bulls possibly get for him? His trade value is extremely low.</p>

The main reason he is not getting playing time is that he's a very poor fit with Ben Wallace. Wallace only has 2 more years left on his contract after this year and he's getting older. Eventually Tyrus will pass him, take his minutes, and bring some very valuable skills to the table - skills that we don't currently need but will when Wallace leaves or deteriorates.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

I dont think it'd be that foolish if you could land someone who could help this team now. Someone like Gasol. Granted his trade value is low right now, but if he gets more PT, i think it'll definitely rise. I'd rather not trade him and just have him play more but thats a perfect world.</p>