pinkizdead
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,692
- Liked Posts:
- 131
- Location:
- south loop
here's another thought. how much were teams willing to pay odom. 5-6 milion a year. hmm. about that.
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,331
- Liked Posts:
- 919
- Location:
- Germany
I think Gordons task was to be the leading scorer of the team. And he did this well for 5 seasons. Beside scoring Gordon is not that important as for example Odom is.
Odom is kind of an allround player who does a little bit of everything. And this is how he helps his team.
In the team of the LA Lakers there would easily be no spot for Gordon. Why? Because they have Kobe for their scoring. So they are not in need of another shooter.
That´s what makes this comparison so hard. Both players have totally different tasks on totally different teams.
If you put them both to an absolute crappy team I think Gordon would be the player to lead the team. He would be so to say the head of the team. But he would never win anything without guys like Odom who can help you at both ends of the floor.
Odom is kind of an allround player who does a little bit of everything. And this is how he helps his team.
In the team of the LA Lakers there would easily be no spot for Gordon. Why? Because they have Kobe for their scoring. So they are not in need of another shooter.
That´s what makes this comparison so hard. Both players have totally different tasks on totally different teams.
If you put them both to an absolute crappy team I think Gordon would be the player to lead the team. He would be so to say the head of the team. But he would never win anything without guys like Odom who can help you at both ends of the floor.
??? ??????
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,435
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Columbia, MO
clonetrooper264 wrote:
He continues to misconstrue the idea of Gordon being a franchise cornerstone (one of the pieces you can build around), and says that people are calling Gordon a franchise player (Lebron/Dirk/Wade/Duncan/Howard).
He continues to misconstrue the idea of Gordon being a franchise cornerstone (one of the pieces you can build around), and says that people are calling Gordon a franchise player (Lebron/Dirk/Wade/Duncan/Howard).
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
I said he would be Vinnie Johnson on the Lakers team. I was not talking about other teams. But I am sure on some other teams that would be the case too.
How much were teams willing to pay Odom? How much were they willing to pay Gordon? We don't know, one team overbid for him. Doesn't mean he is worth the money.
Odom is a better ball handler, not slightly better. He is a better defender, who can defend on the wing and in the post. He is inconsistent. So is Gordon. I will take Odom, especially if I already have a top 10 shooting guard...
So Gordon is a franchise cornerstone...but Deng and Hinrich are not? What is a cornerstone? What good is that without a franchise player. That was the Bulls' problem. Too many cornerstones, no franchise player.
Put Hinrich on the Lakers, he wins a championship. Matter of fact on that team he would start and more than likely Gordon would not. The opposite is true for the Magic. Depends on the personnel.
Odom and Gordon are both cornerstones (that is a blah term to me). I would take Odom...
How much were teams willing to pay Odom? How much were they willing to pay Gordon? We don't know, one team overbid for him. Doesn't mean he is worth the money.
Odom is a better ball handler, not slightly better. He is a better defender, who can defend on the wing and in the post. He is inconsistent. So is Gordon. I will take Odom, especially if I already have a top 10 shooting guard...
So Gordon is a franchise cornerstone...but Deng and Hinrich are not? What is a cornerstone? What good is that without a franchise player. That was the Bulls' problem. Too many cornerstones, no franchise player.
Put Hinrich on the Lakers, he wins a championship. Matter of fact on that team he would start and more than likely Gordon would not. The opposite is true for the Magic. Depends on the personnel.
Odom and Gordon are both cornerstones (that is a blah term to me). I would take Odom...
Diddy1122
I ain't your pal dickface
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 4,459
- Liked Posts:
- 1,155
- Location:
- Chicago
houheffna wrote:
You really gotta get over this Vinnie Johnson characterization of Ben Gordon. Whoever started that whole comparison is a grade A moron. They are nothing alike, other than Vinnie could hit a few shots in a row. BG can take over games, & has on multiple occasions. In his rookie season alone, he single-handedly won 12-14 games in the 4th quarter. He won the 6th man of the year award that year, only rookie to ever do that. What the hell has Vinnie Johnson ever done in his career that could come anywhere close to that? The Johnson comparison needs to stop because it's been proven to be completely off base & frankly insulting to Ben as a player.
If BG were on the Lakers, they would be vying for a historic 70+ win season. He would be the #2 option, & that's a fact. The team would be unstoppable. Lamar Odom is one of the most talented & frustrating players ever. He shows little to no enjoyment when playing the game & lacks any drive or desire to be great. He's content just skating bye in the background, occasionally playing up to his abilities. BG is one of the hardest working players in the NBA, who wants the ball in the clutch situations & delivers time & time again.
You really gotta get over this Vinnie Johnson characterization of Ben Gordon. Whoever started that whole comparison is a grade A moron. They are nothing alike, other than Vinnie could hit a few shots in a row. BG can take over games, & has on multiple occasions. In his rookie season alone, he single-handedly won 12-14 games in the 4th quarter. He won the 6th man of the year award that year, only rookie to ever do that. What the hell has Vinnie Johnson ever done in his career that could come anywhere close to that? The Johnson comparison needs to stop because it's been proven to be completely off base & frankly insulting to Ben as a player.
If BG were on the Lakers, they would be vying for a historic 70+ win season. He would be the #2 option, & that's a fact. The team would be unstoppable. Lamar Odom is one of the most talented & frustrating players ever. He shows little to no enjoyment when playing the game & lacks any drive or desire to be great. He's content just skating bye in the background, occasionally playing up to his abilities. BG is one of the hardest working players in the NBA, who wants the ball in the clutch situations & delivers time & time again.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
You didnt watch Vinnie Johnson if you are saying that. Vinnie took over games, and hit big shots just like Gordon does. Neither were good defensively. Gordon is a better standstill shooter, Johnson was better at getting his shot off the dribble.
I said that on that Lakers team that would be Gordon's role. And guess what, that would have been his role on those Pistons teams too, either one, the Isiah or Chauncey teams, Gordon would have been instant offense off the bench.
Dude, Gordon a number 2 option over Gasol? That is asinine man! That is just crazy.
YOU have to get over this St. Ben of UCONN stuff, he is a decent player, Gordon over Gasol...that's nuts.
So you think Gordon is a better basketball player than Gasol, Odom and Artest....dude...you need to get NBA Season Pass...seriously.
I said that on that Lakers team that would be Gordon's role. And guess what, that would have been his role on those Pistons teams too, either one, the Isiah or Chauncey teams, Gordon would have been instant offense off the bench.
Dude, Gordon a number 2 option over Gasol? That is asinine man! That is just crazy.
YOU have to get over this St. Ben of UCONN stuff, he is a decent player, Gordon over Gasol...that's nuts.
So you think Gordon is a better basketball player than Gasol, Odom and Artest....dude...you need to get NBA Season Pass...seriously.
Kush77
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Liked Posts:
- 151
houheffna wrote:
I have to say this again. I NEVER SAID HE WAS A FRANCHISE PLAYER OR # 1 GUY. Yet you keep bringing that point up. Your preaching to the choir. No one ever said he's a franchise player. "He is not Allen Iverson," who said he was????
The Lakers can't win without Odom. Sure they could. Phil is going to say that about his players, that what a coach would do.
Ben Gordon has had a better career than Odom. Odom has been an underachiever, bottom line. You get back into stats, Odom can do more over 48 min. What exactly? get more rebounds? That's it, and he should since he's 6'10.
I must of missed the part where Odom was Dennis Rodman on defense?
This is how much the Lakers think of Odom. They were willing to roll with the headcase that's Ron Artest instead of Odom. They got Odom back pretty much on their terms so it worked out for LA. But if Bynum gets back to for Odom will be the Vinnie Johnson of that team, because he won't be starting.
Gordon was a big part of the Bulls' success, as much as you want to discredit it, he was. You take Ben Gordon off of those teams how good are they? The Bulls have played without Deng, played without Hinrich, played without Nocioni, but how would they fair without the leading scorer during that time? They guy who was the clutch player and best shooter?
Gordon is better than Odom. Odom might grade better in a skills camp, but once the game starts, I'll pick gordon over Odom.
You make it seem as if Ben Gordon was the sole reason the Bulls won, he helped the Bulls win, just as Odom helped the Lakers win. You shouldn't devalue Odom. To say that Odom has done nothing in his career is overboard. He is a good player. Since when is being the 3rd option (something that Gordon would'nt be on that team) on a championship team such a bad thing? Gordon's role on the Lakers? Vinnie Johnson. As I have said before, Phil Jackson has made it plain that the Lakers cannot win without Odom as the team was structured. So I don't buy your argument that Gordon was the reason the team won, again, it was a core of young players, of equal value, who all contributed to the win, none were allstars, none were franchise players. Saying Gordon is THE reason the Bulls won is simply not true. What would Gordon do with Gasol and Kobe, he would not be as productive. And more than likely he would be coming off the bench, not starting. The Lakers need Odom more than they would ever need Gordon. The Lakers have multiple players in their backcourt that can hit an open shot. And those guys played defense. And with a guy like Kobe, Gordon is the least of your concerns. When Odom is balling, he is more valuable than Gordon, he can do more things, when Gordon is not scoring, or his shot is off, he holds no value. That is not the case with Odom. You are into Gordon's clutch play, that is nice, but Odom over 48 minutes does more for your team. Gordon had a good career in Chicago, helped, I emphasize HELPED the team get into the playoffs, he never played on a contender. He is not a franchise player, he will never be a franchise player. He is an undersized shooting guard with and exceptional ability to score. But he is not Allen Iverson at 26. Believe that.
Odom is just better at basketball. Period. And that's the bottom line because Houheffna said so...
I have to say this again. I NEVER SAID HE WAS A FRANCHISE PLAYER OR # 1 GUY. Yet you keep bringing that point up. Your preaching to the choir. No one ever said he's a franchise player. "He is not Allen Iverson," who said he was????
The Lakers can't win without Odom. Sure they could. Phil is going to say that about his players, that what a coach would do.
Ben Gordon has had a better career than Odom. Odom has been an underachiever, bottom line. You get back into stats, Odom can do more over 48 min. What exactly? get more rebounds? That's it, and he should since he's 6'10.
I must of missed the part where Odom was Dennis Rodman on defense?
This is how much the Lakers think of Odom. They were willing to roll with the headcase that's Ron Artest instead of Odom. They got Odom back pretty much on their terms so it worked out for LA. But if Bynum gets back to for Odom will be the Vinnie Johnson of that team, because he won't be starting.
Gordon was a big part of the Bulls' success, as much as you want to discredit it, he was. You take Ben Gordon off of those teams how good are they? The Bulls have played without Deng, played without Hinrich, played without Nocioni, but how would they fair without the leading scorer during that time? They guy who was the clutch player and best shooter?
Gordon is better than Odom. Odom might grade better in a skills camp, but once the game starts, I'll pick gordon over Odom.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Okay, we will agree to disagree. Gordon was a big part of those teams' success, so was Deng, and Hinrich...again, the core players. Whatever little success they had, they all can share the credit.
When the Bulls succeeded it was mainly because of defense, who were the best defensive players on the Bulls teams? You take Gordon off of those teams, you still have one of the best defensive teams in the league. When they were at their best, I still say Deng was the best player, not Gordon. Again, why didn't Kobe insist Gordon stay on the team when he blocked that trade?
Not trying to discredit Gordon's contributions to the team, just not buying the hype, that's all.
By the way, Odom and Artest were not mutually exclusive in the Lakers' mind. One transaction had nothing to do with the other. Artest replaces Ariza, not Odom, Odom can play 3 or 4, while handling the ball.
Let me help with Odom's skill set...Odom can rebound, defend, and handle the ball, he can post and drive, he can shoot the ball long range also. Over 48 minutes Gordon can score, Odom can do a lot more than score.
When the Bulls succeeded it was mainly because of defense, who were the best defensive players on the Bulls teams? You take Gordon off of those teams, you still have one of the best defensive teams in the league. When they were at their best, I still say Deng was the best player, not Gordon. Again, why didn't Kobe insist Gordon stay on the team when he blocked that trade?
Not trying to discredit Gordon's contributions to the team, just not buying the hype, that's all.
By the way, Odom and Artest were not mutually exclusive in the Lakers' mind. One transaction had nothing to do with the other. Artest replaces Ariza, not Odom, Odom can play 3 or 4, while handling the ball.
Let me help with Odom's skill set...Odom can rebound, defend, and handle the ball, he can post and drive, he can shoot the ball long range also. Over 48 minutes Gordon can score, Odom can do a lot more than score.
Kush77
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Liked Posts:
- 151
houheffna wrote:
I would assume Kobe would want Deng over Gordon because they play the same position. And even when those trade rumors were going on I said that Hinrich would be a better backcourt partner for Kobe than Gordon. Defensively it made sense, and when you got Kobe scoring you can live with Hinrich averaging 10 or 11 ppg. Would Kobe want to play with a high-scoring backcourt mate? probably not. I don't know. But if Kobe had to play with Gordon would thrive. That's why I say he'd easily win a title on the Lakers (positions aside) if he was on the court with Kobe and Gasol he would be benefitting from open looks all day.
Deng and Hinrich were part of those teams, but when the game's on the line it was Gordon who showed up. When the bulls were down by 10 it was Gordon scoring 8 straight points to make it a game again. That's not hype, it's fact. Please link me to any highlight of Deng or Hinrich hitting a game-tying or game-winning shot. In the other thread Scott Skiles says how valuable Gordon was.
You could argue Deng was better in 06/07 but overall Gordon was better.
I would assume Kobe would want Deng over Gordon because they play the same position. And even when those trade rumors were going on I said that Hinrich would be a better backcourt partner for Kobe than Gordon. Defensively it made sense, and when you got Kobe scoring you can live with Hinrich averaging 10 or 11 ppg. Would Kobe want to play with a high-scoring backcourt mate? probably not. I don't know. But if Kobe had to play with Gordon would thrive. That's why I say he'd easily win a title on the Lakers (positions aside) if he was on the court with Kobe and Gasol he would be benefitting from open looks all day.
Deng and Hinrich were part of those teams, but when the game's on the line it was Gordon who showed up. When the bulls were down by 10 it was Gordon scoring 8 straight points to make it a game again. That's not hype, it's fact. Please link me to any highlight of Deng or Hinrich hitting a game-tying or game-winning shot. In the other thread Scott Skiles says how valuable Gordon was.
You could argue Deng was better in 06/07 but overall Gordon was better.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Okay, we are not going to convince each other...
neither is in the top 25 in the league...so it really doesn't matter...
neither is in the top 25 in the league...so it really doesn't matter...
Kush77
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Liked Posts:
- 151
houheffna wrote:
There we go. we can end all of our arguments with that. Neither is in the top 25.
But what if Ben Gordon played for the 1983 76ers? :silly:
There we go. we can end all of our arguments with that. Neither is in the top 25.
But what if Ben Gordon played for the 1983 76ers? :silly:
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,331
- Liked Posts:
- 919
- Location:
- Germany
I don´t get that discussion. Gordon is a pure SG while Odom is more a PF than a SF. How can you make such a big story about that? What next compare Chris Paul with Kevin Garnett?
Anyway this is pretty funny.
Oh and I can see what will happen in the fantasy league draft:
With the first pick of the 2009 fantasy league houheffna select.....Lamar Odom from the Los Angeles Lakers.
Anyway this is pretty funny.
Oh and I can see what will happen in the fantasy league draft:
With the first pick of the 2009 fantasy league houheffna select.....Lamar Odom from the Los Angeles Lakers.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
If Gordon played for the '83 Sixers, he would have been a champion. He would have come off the bench though behind Cheeks and Toney...hahaha!
pinkizdead
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,692
- Liked Posts:
- 131
- Location:
- south loop
houheffna wrote:
bull shit. a laker team would not start hinrich over gordon. gordon would be deadly in the triangle offense. the guy would be the ideal pg in that system.
odom is a pf/sf. can you really compare a pf to a sg? really? i duno. sometimes you have to just say they're two very different players. Yeah odom is blessed with a big body that helps in his defense, but he's barely into each game. You assume they overpaid for him. i think for 20 ppg, they got a decent player. .
bull shit. a laker team would not start hinrich over gordon. gordon would be deadly in the triangle offense. the guy would be the ideal pg in that system.
odom is a pf/sf. can you really compare a pf to a sg? really? i duno. sometimes you have to just say they're two very different players. Yeah odom is blessed with a big body that helps in his defense, but he's barely into each game. You assume they overpaid for him. i think for 20 ppg, they got a decent player. .
Rerisen
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2009
- Posts:
- 68
- Liked Posts:
- 0
houheffna wrote:
I've seen you on this board telling people to 'get over' Gordon being gone. This type of weak dig at him doesn't really represent your advice. Anyhow, supposedly Salmons defended very well on some of the west's best swingmen (Kobe? Roy? Tmac?). That is what some Kings fans said so maybe he picked up a vote from an opposing Western GM. However, last year with us his defense was nothing special. It was adequate, but his +/- is right there as ugly as Gordon's with the Bulls giving up about 4 more points when he was on the floor. I think Salmons focused on his offense to the detriment of his overall game in Chicago. His passing fell off a cliff and he didn't rebound very well for playing SF.
This season I think its a fair bet that Gordon has a better year than Salmons. Like he has every year actually. Gordon is coming into his prime and Salmons is moving out of his. Moreover, Salmons just finished a ridiculous tear for the Bulls at the end of the year after he was traded and its unrealistic to expect him to put up that kind of efficiency again. I would be prepared for a decline in his TS% even if he might score a little bit more overall due to getting more shots.
I've seen you on this board telling people to 'get over' Gordon being gone. This type of weak dig at him doesn't really represent your advice. Anyhow, supposedly Salmons defended very well on some of the west's best swingmen (Kobe? Roy? Tmac?). That is what some Kings fans said so maybe he picked up a vote from an opposing Western GM. However, last year with us his defense was nothing special. It was adequate, but his +/- is right there as ugly as Gordon's with the Bulls giving up about 4 more points when he was on the floor. I think Salmons focused on his offense to the detriment of his overall game in Chicago. His passing fell off a cliff and he didn't rebound very well for playing SF.
This season I think its a fair bet that Gordon has a better year than Salmons. Like he has every year actually. Gordon is coming into his prime and Salmons is moving out of his. Moreover, Salmons just finished a ridiculous tear for the Bulls at the end of the year after he was traded and its unrealistic to expect him to put up that kind of efficiency again. I would be prepared for a decline in his TS% even if he might score a little bit more overall due to getting more shots.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Salmons is a good defender, never said he was Scottie Pippen, but he is a definite improvement over Gordon. I don't even acknowledge +- score talk, this ain't hockey.
That weak dig represents my advice entirely.
I think you are wrong about Salmons time here as a Bull, he did well here. Again, people shouldn't discredit one player's value to give credit to someone else.
Right, and that is why the Bulls started Steve Kerr over Ron Harper...wait...that didn't happen, I believe Jackson started Harper because Harper was a good defender, which might explain why he would start Hinrich while Gordon, a good shooter, a specialist, might come off the bench, the Lakers don't need his 20 points. They have arguably the best player in the game scoring and distributing the ball...
That weak dig represents my advice entirely.
I think you are wrong about Salmons time here as a Bull, he did well here. Again, people shouldn't discredit one player's value to give credit to someone else.
Right, and that is why the Bulls started Steve Kerr over Ron Harper...wait...that didn't happen, I believe Jackson started Harper because Harper was a good defender, which might explain why he would start Hinrich while Gordon, a good shooter, a specialist, might come off the bench, the Lakers don't need his 20 points. They have arguably the best player in the game scoring and distributing the ball...
Rerisen
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2009
- Posts:
- 68
- Liked Posts:
- 0
houheffna wrote:
I expect that Salmons *can* play better defense than BG would have for us this year, but I don't think its to a significant degree. For our defense to noticeably improve we have to get better inside.
I agree he did well. I'm not trying to discredit him at all, just tamp down the overrating that I think occurs in an attempt to shovel dirt on Gordon's departure. Salmons was very one-dimensional for us last year, he provided great efficient scoring but didn't do a whole lot else. I think people fall into a trap of believing a player is a complete player simply because physically they look like the prototype size for their position.
I don't buy the whole notion of Salmons 'replacing' Gordon anyhow, we already had Salmons, so if John is replacing BG then who is replacing John. We could have had both. If someone is replacing him minutes wise, its really Deng, who continues to look like a big time question mark so far.
You might not acknowledge the stat, but the fact remains the team gave up more points per minute when he was on the floor vs off. When you look at the very good defenders in the league this is rarely the case. So could it be a circumstantial thing? Sure, but they have more advanced numbers that correct for strength of teammates and opponents and he still came out bad there.
I expect that Salmons *can* play better defense than BG would have for us this year, but I don't think its to a significant degree. For our defense to noticeably improve we have to get better inside.
I agree he did well. I'm not trying to discredit him at all, just tamp down the overrating that I think occurs in an attempt to shovel dirt on Gordon's departure. Salmons was very one-dimensional for us last year, he provided great efficient scoring but didn't do a whole lot else. I think people fall into a trap of believing a player is a complete player simply because physically they look like the prototype size for their position.
I don't buy the whole notion of Salmons 'replacing' Gordon anyhow, we already had Salmons, so if John is replacing BG then who is replacing John. We could have had both. If someone is replacing him minutes wise, its really Deng, who continues to look like a big time question mark so far.
Diddy1122
I ain't your pal dickface
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 4,459
- Liked Posts:
- 1,155
- Location:
- Chicago
houheffna wrote:
You are off your rocker. I saw him play. And yes Vinnie could score in bunches. He was not scoring 40+ points several times in his career like BG already has. Vinnie was a horrible 3pt shooter. BG is one of the best. Vinnie better off the dribble than BG? What are you talkin about? BG is one of the best at stopping & popping. He makes a living off it for cryin' out loud! Look we all know you don't really like BG. And this thread seems to illustrate that.
Is BG a better overall basketball player than Gasol? No. Never said that. Better scorer? Hells yes. And he would be the #2 scoring option. BG would be the ultimate #2 for any superstar. And that superstar would be 10x's better because of his ability to space the floor & keep defenses honest with his shooting.
And I'm not a BG worshiper despite what you think. I just recognize how unique of a player he is & feel that he gets pigeonholed into this 6th man theory alot of the time. I'm anxious to see what he can do this season on a team that actually put trust in him to be one of the leaders on the floor. He was never given that type of respect or trust here, so it should be interesting.
You are off your rocker. I saw him play. And yes Vinnie could score in bunches. He was not scoring 40+ points several times in his career like BG already has. Vinnie was a horrible 3pt shooter. BG is one of the best. Vinnie better off the dribble than BG? What are you talkin about? BG is one of the best at stopping & popping. He makes a living off it for cryin' out loud! Look we all know you don't really like BG. And this thread seems to illustrate that.
Is BG a better overall basketball player than Gasol? No. Never said that. Better scorer? Hells yes. And he would be the #2 scoring option. BG would be the ultimate #2 for any superstar. And that superstar would be 10x's better because of his ability to space the floor & keep defenses honest with his shooting.
And I'm not a BG worshiper despite what you think. I just recognize how unique of a player he is & feel that he gets pigeonholed into this 6th man theory alot of the time. I'm anxious to see what he can do this season on a team that actually put trust in him to be one of the leaders on the floor. He was never given that type of respect or trust here, so it should be interesting.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
BG would not be the number 2 scorer on the Lakers period, point blank. That is not a legit argument. Vinnie couldn't shoot the three, guess what, at that time neither did Dumars, or Thomas much, but Dumars and Thomas were better players than Gordon. They didn't shoot threes, but were very effective. So what role would he have on that team? He wouldn't start ahead of Isiah, he can only dream of handling and distributing the ball that well, he would not start over Dumars who defensively is in another galaxy from Gordon, and both of those guys are HOFers. So what would happen with Gordon? Daly would give him Vinnie Johnson's seat. Instant offense...have a seat. I also disagreed with people who said Deng could be a number 2 guy. And that you don't trade Deng to acquire Kobe. I have said time and time again, they are all expendable except one, Rose.
I found it interesting that he would say that but many GMs and coaches feel that way. I believe it depends on the team, but I don't believe Jackson would make Gordon the second option. Gasol if he comes to Chicago would have been the first option. Do you really believe he would have been second to Gordon? Don't think so. It is hard to find two wing players that win championships as the first two scoring options. That doesn't happen too often, especially in recent years. The Lakers, in my opinion would not have started Gordon.
Nor would the Magic, or Cavaliers, or Spurs, Hornets, Jazz or a lot of contenders. He would definitely get a chance to score, but the second guy? That is too ambitious. 3rd possibly, but not 2nd...
Again, we agree to disagree, don't disagree about Gordon's scoring abilities, just think that certain teams might not value him the same way his fans do here in Chicago.
I found it interesting that he would say that but many GMs and coaches feel that way. I believe it depends on the team, but I don't believe Jackson would make Gordon the second option. Gasol if he comes to Chicago would have been the first option. Do you really believe he would have been second to Gordon? Don't think so. It is hard to find two wing players that win championships as the first two scoring options. That doesn't happen too often, especially in recent years. The Lakers, in my opinion would not have started Gordon.
Nor would the Magic, or Cavaliers, or Spurs, Hornets, Jazz or a lot of contenders. He would definitely get a chance to score, but the second guy? That is too ambitious. 3rd possibly, but not 2nd...
Again, we agree to disagree, don't disagree about Gordon's scoring abilities, just think that certain teams might not value him the same way his fans do here in Chicago.
- Joined:
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts:
- 23,599
- Liked Posts:
- 7,413
My favorite teams
On a team with Gasol and Gordon, Gasol is the 1st option, no question. Perhaps with the game on the line, but ball goes to Gordon, but over the course of the whole game, Gasol is the go to guy.
On that Pistons team with Joe Dumars and Isaiah Thomas, yes Gordon is instant offense and thus by extension is playing Vinnie Johnson's role, but he is by far BETTER than Vinnie Johnson! Why? Because he CAN shoot three's. He can do Vinnie's job better than Vinnie could because his 3pt shooting ability makes him a more dangerous threat.
And yes, Thomas and Dumars are better than Gordon. Why? Dumars had what Kush would call "all world defense" and a potent scoring ability. Thomas had "all world defense" as well and outstanding passing and ball handling abilities. Gordon does not have anything close to "all world defense" which is obvious to anyone who has seen him play. In that sense, he's mostly a one sided player. Now I think that he's an average defender right now, but clearly you don't. But that's ok in this argument because offensively Ben Gordon is a superb offensive player, no if's and's or but's about it.
Depending on the makeup of the team, Ben Gordon could be a 2nd option. On that team there would need to be a big man as the #1 along the lines of a Dwight Howard or a Tim Duncan and a defensive specialist like Ron Artest or Trevor Ariza. On every other kind of team he could definitely be a 3rd option for sure. A team in which he would be deferred to a 6th man role would be on a team filled with stars. If you have Duncan, Bosh, LeBron, Kobe, and Chris Paul as your starting lineup, or something like Shaq, Rodman, Pippin, Wade, and Deron Williams (ignore the fact that they're from different eras) you'd better believe that BG would be a 6th man. But no such team exists, so Ben Gordon is not a 6th man.
On that Pistons team with Joe Dumars and Isaiah Thomas, yes Gordon is instant offense and thus by extension is playing Vinnie Johnson's role, but he is by far BETTER than Vinnie Johnson! Why? Because he CAN shoot three's. He can do Vinnie's job better than Vinnie could because his 3pt shooting ability makes him a more dangerous threat.
And yes, Thomas and Dumars are better than Gordon. Why? Dumars had what Kush would call "all world defense" and a potent scoring ability. Thomas had "all world defense" as well and outstanding passing and ball handling abilities. Gordon does not have anything close to "all world defense" which is obvious to anyone who has seen him play. In that sense, he's mostly a one sided player. Now I think that he's an average defender right now, but clearly you don't. But that's ok in this argument because offensively Ben Gordon is a superb offensive player, no if's and's or but's about it.
Depending on the makeup of the team, Ben Gordon could be a 2nd option. On that team there would need to be a big man as the #1 along the lines of a Dwight Howard or a Tim Duncan and a defensive specialist like Ron Artest or Trevor Ariza. On every other kind of team he could definitely be a 3rd option for sure. A team in which he would be deferred to a 6th man role would be on a team filled with stars. If you have Duncan, Bosh, LeBron, Kobe, and Chris Paul as your starting lineup, or something like Shaq, Rodman, Pippin, Wade, and Deron Williams (ignore the fact that they're from different eras) you'd better believe that BG would be a 6th man. But no such team exists, so Ben Gordon is not a 6th man.
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up