Via Blog-A-Bull:

It's only been a couple hours. I think the high has come down (a bit), and I'm starting to try and actually think about what the Bulls really should (and will) do.

It's early, but so far it isn't a situation where I knee-jerkedly say "take Rose" (which I did), and then as time goes on I start to think more and more about Beasley. It's pretty much still all in favor of selecting Derrick Rose.

He just seems the exact type of player, a real upgrade, that can be immediately plugged in without any messing with the rest of the roster. If anything he'll improve it, as while Rose won't make anyone better, he'll can get them open.

Plus there's something to be said about how much easier it's been made for guards to dominate the league. As 'Scotter' said in the comments, you'd abide by the old advice to 'go big' if Beasley was projected to be a Duncan or Hakeem. But he's a slightly undersized power forward, who can rebound but isn't going to be a defensive game-changer. To me, if you're passing on Rose for a big man, it better be for one that can dominate both ends. [Read]

I agree completely.

Beasley is a very talented player but the defensive rule changes the NBA implemented before the 2005 season made it impossible to impede or block the movement of either a cutter or a ball handler.

How do you think Steve Nash emerged from relative obscurity to win two straight MVP's?

The NBA is a guard's game now.

Since Beasley isn't a "Duncan, Hakeem" or even a Greg Oden, the Bulls should select Derrick Rose.

Ballerblogger.com