Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring???

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Watch Chauncey Billups...and watch how Carmelo reacts to Billups. Carmelo gets the ball plenty of times, but Billups facilitates. Carmelo takes his shots when they are there, when they are not, he will pass the ball around. Billups is the quarterback, period. That is what you want in Rose. Run the offense. Not stand there and watch Ben dribble the ball and try to penetrate on the other team's 12 man roster. Rose should have the ball, period. No questions asked. That is all I am saying. I don't know how many times, Jalen Rose and Tim Legler pointed out on ESPN that the offense is too stagnant in Chicago. It happened numerous times, in the playoffs with Gordon, Salmons, and Hinrich. Too much dribbling, trying to get your shot, and not facilitating. Boston does not have that problem, Denver doesn't have that problem, the Lakers don't have that problem, Cleveland facilitates their offense through LeBron. Atlanta got a point guard so that Johnson would not handle the ball so much, even though he is very good at it. The PG runs the offense, let the PG run the offense, when the PG gets the ball to the SG and the SG has nothing left but a dumb ass shot, pass the ball, period.

That is all I want. I don't hate BG, I am a realist. Boston did not show at times that they wanted to win that series. Chicago just needed to be a bit more fluid offensively and they would have won. They can sign BG, but if I am VDN and he starts that Harlem Globetrotter crap, I sit his butt down! And dare anyone to ask me why I did it. Run the offense, go ISO when the coach says go ISO. That is all, that is what I mean by buying in. Gordon is the best scorer, he is also seriously erratic. Salmons showed consistency when healthy and could be just as potent scoring. He should start and Gordon should come off of the bench.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

That is all I want. I don't hate BG, I am a realist. Boston did not show at times that they wanted to win that series. Chicago just needed to be a bit more fluid offensively and they would have won. They can sign BG, but if I am VDN and he starts that Harlem Globetrotter crap, I sit his butt down! And dare anyone to ask me why I did it. Run the offense, go ISO when the coach says go ISO. That is all, that is what I mean by buying in. Gordon is the best scorer, he is also seriously erratic. Salmons showed consistency when healthy and could be just as potent scoring. He should start and Gordon should come off of the bench.

Who comes off the bench vs who starts isn't really all that relevant to me, though I think Gordon has shown he's a clearly better player than Salmons over his career, and Salmons has been most effective as a SF not as a SG.

However, I think the concept of "Ben needs to buy in" is true, except that it's already happened. Most of the complaints about Gordon to me are very outdated, or things that every player of his caliber does.

If Gordon wants too much money then he should go elsewhere. If he's willing to sign at the same price he was willing to last year, we'd be nuts not to take him because we'd never find a better player at the same price.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

What you say makes sense, however where we differ in opinion is that I don't think he bought in. I remember Stacey King and Kendall Gill pointing out that he did not defer to teammates when necessary, like on a fast break when two guys are on him and the PG with the 40-inch vertical leap is running along side him. I think he was looking at free agency, and wanting to showcase at times this season. He had a little Rickey Henderson disease, I understand that. Maybe he buys in totally when he is stable financially. Salmons has played and can play the 2 and the 3 very effectively.
 

Dpauley23

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
1,496
Liked Posts:
4
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Well since Stacey and Kendall said it must be right. Dude theres a reason why your Karma is -12 and thats because your believe in all that drone crap. He's 2 feet away from the basket just let him the ball and he misses he has Drose right there to follow up the layup
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

My karma is -12 because....who gives a damn!
I don't care what people think about me just respect my opinion and I will respect yours.

These are experts, which some on here claim to be...what is a drone, did you make that up? Hear that a lot on here. Is this a forum or some cult? Two people cannot disagree? Are you serious? You think you know more about basketball than King or Gill? Go to wikipedia and look them up, I think they are qualified to give an opinion based on actual experience. Stacey King voiced my frustrations during the game and that is why I pointed it out. People quote K.C. Johnson, DWade when it is too their convenience, when I have a dissenting view and get quotes or sources to back it up, there's a problem.

Good luck to you and all your "good karma" maybe you can write it off on your taxes or something.....
 

cool007

New member
Joined:
Mar 29, 2009
Posts:
688
Liked Posts:
2
Location:
Mundelein
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:
My karma is -12 because....who gives a damn!
I don't care what people think about me just respect my opinion and I will respect yours.

These are experts, which some on here claim to be...what is a drone, did you make that up? Hear that a lot on here. Is this a forum or some cult? Two people cannot disagree? Are you serious? You think you know more about basketball than King or Gill? Go to wikipedia and look them up, I think they are qualified to give an opinion based on actual experience. Stacey King voiced my frustrations during the game and that is why I pointed it out. People quote K.C. Johnson, DWade when it is too their convenience, when I have a dissenting view and get quotes or sources to back it up, there's a problem.

Good luck to you and all your "good karma" maybe you can write it off on your taxes or something.....

First of all forget about Karma - he doesn't have any good/bad anyways.

It's not about that.

Regarding what Gill and King said, that was 1 thing but have you seen them excited about 99% of the time this season??? I have. They both know that how good is Gordon as I remember King saying millions of times "Ben Gordon is a Shot Maker". Meaning he makes tough shots that normally other players can't/won't - BG has guts to take over games and delivers in the 4th qtr when it really matters. You really really don't find these type of players in the NBA that do it CONSISTENTLY - especially for a NON ALL-STAR.

The only other players who do it consistently are called SUPER-STARS in the league (Wade/LeBron/Kobe/etc) When we do already have that player, why are we in such a hurry to get rid of him or say bad things about him?

Every 20+ppg scorer have that flaws that they will take a shot even when they are double teamed or jack up a shot with 20 second on the clock, or force actions etc. The only thing is BG is not a household - star player name, people make him out to be really bad. Then they come up with - He is a chucker, he is a midget, he shouldn't be resigned, etc etc.

Doug already touched on this but let me say it too. YOU CAN NOT FIND A PLAYER BETTER THAN BG AT SHOOTING GUARD SPOT WHO SCORES 20+PPG AT A HIGHER EFFICIENCY AT AROUND $9MIL PER YEAR and has been such a professional in the league every year.

However, if he doesn't back down from his $11mil to $12mil per year, then I would just tell him good luck.

I have also no problem giving him $10mil per year but that's about it. If we can sign him to that price or lower, then we have a SG spot set for another 4-5 years.

IMO, We should just resign BG to around $9mil to $10mil a year and then try and consolidate the talent (Hinrich, Deng, Salmons, Tyrus) and bring in a star Stud at PF spot and we would be contenders for years to come.

Rose
Gordon
Salmons or Deng
Stud PF
Noah
 

Dpauley23

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
1,496
Liked Posts:
4
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Stacey King and Kendall Gill are experts? The only reason they got jobs is because they were with the organzation during their playing years. Isn't Stacey King also the one who always complains about one on one basketball? Guess what Stacey this isn't stupid Hooisers as Fred always says
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

So because they once worked for the Bulls, they are not qualified to talk basketball about the Bulls and have a high basketball IQ? King won 3 championships with the Bulls and he coached a semi-pro team at one time. And Gill was one of those 20ppg scorers you guys love so much...so maybe you should rethink that.
 

Rerisen

New member
Joined:
Apr 2, 2009
Posts:
68
Liked Posts:
0
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:
Watch Chauncey Billups...and watch how Carmelo reacts to Billups. Carmelo gets the ball plenty of times, but Billups facilitates. Carmelo takes his shots when they are there, when they are not, he will pass the ball around. Billups is the quarterback, period. That is what you want in Rose. Run the offense. Not stand there and watch Ben dribble the ball and try to penetrate on the other team's 12 man roster. Rose should have the ball, period. No questions asked. That is all I am saying. I don't know how many times, Jalen Rose and Tim Legler pointed out on ESPN that the offense is too stagnant in Chicago. It happened numerous times, in the playoffs with Gordon, Salmons, and Hinrich. Too much dribbling, trying to get your shot, and not facilitating. Boston does not have that problem, Denver doesn't have that problem,

Rose will do this when he develops more and is ready. The Chauncey Billups example is a good one because he reigned in players much more reckless and shot happy than Gordon, in Carmelo and J.R. Smith.

The answer is just to let Rose grow into his full responsibilities, not neuter his offensive options by kicking our leading scorer off the team, which will only force the pressure on Rose even more. If Rose doesn't have enough of an offense left to lead, then he is going to turn into early Chauncey Billups and not veteran Chauncey Billups. And early Chauncey was a guy that was more of a scorer than a PG, and didn't really know how to split up the duties of the position.
 

Dpauley23

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
1,496
Liked Posts:
4
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:
So because they once worked for the Bulls, they are not qualified to talk basketball about the Bulls and have a high basketball IQ? King won 3 championships with the Bulls and he coached a semi-pro team at one time. And Gill was one of those 20ppg scorers you guys love so much...so maybe you should rethink that.

I never called out Gill as I think he's pretty good analysis, but if you're taking analysis from King that's ridicolous. Maybe you should go pick up the book Jordan Rules and check out what ass clown Stacey was
 

charity stripe

New member
Joined:
Mar 30, 2009
Posts:
364
Liked Posts:
1
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:
What you say makes sense, however where we differ in opinion is that I don't think he bought in. I remember Stacey King and Kendall Gill pointing out that he did not defer to teammates when necessary, like on a fast break when two guys are on him and the PG with the 40-inch vertical leap is running along side him. I think he was looking at free agency, and wanting to showcase at times this season. He had a little Rickey Henderson disease, I understand that. Maybe he buys in totally when he is stable financially. Salmons has played and can play the 2 and the 3 very effectively.


What about the times where he threw lob passes to his teammates, I remember several instances where on fastbreaks he threw lobs to Rose, Thomas, and Noah, and Brad Miller. You say you don't hate Gordon, but you accuse him without any factual basis of thinking about money during fast breaks. That seems like hate to me.

John Salmons can play the two, but not as effectively as Gordon can play the 2. Salmons also cannot play the 2 as effectively as he plays SF.

Salmons has played 55 games in his career at guard, compared to 136 games at SF. If he was more effective at guard, then those numbers would be reversed, but they are not, so you cannot say he is more effective at guard. Further, he is slower and not as athletic as most SGs in the league.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

I never called out Gill as I think he's pretty good analysis, but if you're taking analysis from King that's ridicolous. Maybe you should go pick up the book Jordan Rules and check out what ass clown Stacey was

Why would I care about Stacey King being an ass clown 20 years ago. He won championships and he understands what winning basketball is. I read Jordan Rules when it was first out. Its a book written by Sam Smith, its not the Holy Bible. King is highly critical of the Bulls as a whole, yet, he is a BIG homer, along the lines of Red Kerr and Hawk Harrelson. The idea that his negative attitude or his not being a good player affects his ability to analyze the team is an asinine argument. I have learned a lot from King's analysis since he has been working on Comcast and WGN. He is good at what he does, he is not Hubie Brown, but he is very good when he is not being a homer.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

What about the times where he threw lob passes to his teammates, I remember several instances where on fastbreaks he threw lobs to Rose, Thomas, and Noah, and Brad Miller. You say you don't hate Gordon, but you accuse him without any factual basis of thinking about money during fast breaks. That seems like hate to me.

John Salmons can play the two, but not as effectively as Gordon can play the 2. Salmons also cannot play the 2 as effectively as he plays SF.

Salmons has played 55 games in his career at guard, compared to 136 games at SF. If he was more effective at guard, then those numbers would be reversed, but they are not, so you cannot say he is more effective at guard. Further, he is slower and not as athletic as most SGs in the league.




Salmons didn't play the 2 Guard position because Kevin Martin was in Sacramento with him. Plus that is not the point. The point is he is a better option defensively and offensively you don't lose much. And Delonte West is not trying to post up Salmons. Gordon's lob passes are not what I am talking about. I am sure they were great passes. All two of 'em. I am talking about allowing the offense to flow and find the open man on the floor. And letting Rose initiate the offense, that is all.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Salmons didn't play the 2 Guard position because Kevin Martin was in Sacramento with him. Plus that is not the point. The point is he is a better option defensively and offensively you don't lose much. And Delonte West is not trying to post up Salmons. Gordon's lob passes are not what I am talking about. I am sure they were great passes. All two of 'em. I am talking about allowing the offense to flow and find the open man on the floor. And letting Rose initiate the offense, that is all.

Teams shot a total of 36/69 with 10 turnovers in the post against Gordon this year. That's a poor overall scoring rate for when it was attempted, and it was attempted on average less than once per game.

The idea of teams posting up Gordon and beating the Bulls with it is fiction.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Teams shot a total of 36/69 with 10 turnovers in the post against Gordon this year. That's a poor overall scoring rate for when it was attempted, and it was attempted on average less than once per game.

The idea of teams posting up Gordon and beating the Bulls with it is fiction.

That is not fiction, teams that can do it, will, I remember him hurting the Bulls in the playoffs against the Pistons. He could not guard Billups or Hamilton, Billups posted him up, Hamilton ran him through screens, he could not handle either sufficiently. I have seen no change in his defense since then.

My point is that he cannot start, he can come off the bench. If you are going to have an undersized backcourt, one of those two at least has to deliver defensively. I look at Dumars/Thomas and even Kenny Smith/Vernon Maxwell (he was 6'4"), they could D up pretty good. Let's not try to make BG into something he is not. If we played Cleveland right now, Delonte would be right back on the block killing our backcourt.
 

Bullsman24

Mr Metta World Peace
Joined:
May 10, 2010
Posts:
1,403
Liked Posts:
51
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

no way, you have to play your best shooting guard to start

not your tallest guard
 

clonetrooper264

Retired Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
Posts:
23,605
Liked Posts:
7,413
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  2. Golden State Warriors
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:
Teams shot a total of 36/69 with 10 turnovers in the post against Gordon this year. That's a poor overall scoring rate for when it was attempted, and it was attempted on average less than once per game.

The idea of teams posting up Gordon and beating the Bulls with it is fiction.

That is not fiction, teams that can do it, will, I remember him hurting the Bulls in the playoffs against the Pistons. He could not guard Billups or Hamilton, Billups posted him up, Hamilton ran him through screens, he could not handle either sufficiently. I have seen no change in his defense since then.

My point is that he cannot start, he can come off the bench. If you are going to have an undersized backcourt, one of those two at least has to deliver defensively. I look at Dumars/Thomas and even Kenny Smith/Vernon Maxwell (he was 6'4"), they could D up pretty good. Let's not try to make BG into something he is not. If we played Cleveland right now, Delonte would be right back on the block killing our backcourt.
No way in the world would Delonte West be in any way successful in backing down Gordon in the post. Gordon is stronger than he is. Now, Gordon isn't going to be NBA all defense anytime soon, but he is NOT a bad defender anymore. He has made leaps and strides since his rookie season and now he is an average defender, as opposed to a horrible defender.

You do have a point in saying those undersized backcourts could D it up though. There's no denying that. Rose needs a lot of help defensively, but I'm sure with time he could be like Hinrich or maybe better since he is A LOT more athletic than Hinrich could ever dream of being. Besides, Ben Gordon is to other teams what you say other guards are against Gordon: offensive wonders.
 

Bullsman24

Mr Metta World Peace
Joined:
May 10, 2010
Posts:
1,403
Liked Posts:
51
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

and looking at the people that gordon's guarded, he's not really allowed anyone to go off except d-wade, which he scored 43 on. and wade was a defensive player of the year nominee.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

no way, you have to play your best shooting guard to start

not your tallest guard

I am sorry but you should check your history, you don't always start who is the best, you start who you fill works with that lineup. I pointed out Kevin McHale already, so I don't quite understand your logic.

No way in the world would Delonte West be in any way successful in backing down Gordon in the post. Gordon is stronger than he is. Now, Gordon isn't going to be NBA all defense anytime soon, but he is NOT a bad defender anymore. He has made leaps and strides since his rookie season and now he is an average defender, as opposed to a horrible defender.

Posting is not just about strength, again, watch some Adrian Dantley film, watch Olajuwon. If I am not mistaken, in the game that West got hurt in against the Bulls, on TNT I believe, West posted up and went crazy. They did nothing. Gordon improved leaps and bounds but Salmons is still a better defender.
 

Kush77

New member
Joined:
Mar 15, 2009
Posts:
2,096
Liked Posts:
151
Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

I think the Ben Gordon getting killed in the post thing is a overrated too. There are only a few guys that would take advantage of him in the post, like Kobe, but it doesn't happen as much as a Neil Funk would like you to think.

I think if Gordon's gone, Rose will pick up some scoring. And Salmons would do a good job of replacing some of it. But I don't know if John Salmons can do this again. He had his breakout year when he was 29. Is this who he is, or was last year the career year we won't see again.

If the Bulls start 2009/10 with a lineup of Rose/Salmons/Deng/Thomas/Noah, I see them being a 7th or 8th seed again. Not that Gordon would make them a 3 or 4 necessarily. I still think the Bulls need to make a move for a big man. They need a legit threat on the pick and roll. Noah and Thomas aren't that.
 

Top