I Miss Ben Gordon

[houheffna]

nuff said

 

[ramblingrose33]

houheffna wrote:

Exactly right, Hinrich,Gordon,Deng along with guys like Nocioni and Duhon, these were all parts. The one criticism about this team all along is that they didn't have a go to guy, a star player that could draw attention and pressure the defense constantly. They essentially were the Houston Rockets of 1994 without Olajuwon. They had solid team defense, guys that could score in spurts but no one who was going to destroy you in a playoff series like Hakeem could. That is what they were missing...but you are right, it was a core of young, developing players, not Ben Gordon and the Gordonaires....for crying out loud man...

I completely agree here. Paxon always talked about the "core". Nobody was valued over the other. I wish Gordon was as a awesome as he was in last year's Playoffs but he wasn't always like that. We'll see if continues on the Pistons. Four times a year....

 

[ramblingrose33]

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

You don't have to be a number one guy on a championship to be a number one option. Melo is nowhere near a title and was always a go to guy and number one option. Kevin Durant plays on a cr@p lotto team and was a number one option and go to guy.

Why are you comparing Gordon to Durant and Melo? Gordon is not a top 25 player! Those are FRANCHISE PLAYERS!

Who called BG a franchise player? I know I certainly didn't. I have always said that BG was our number one option in the past and that we need another option in front of him to be a contending team. BG would be incredible as a second or third option, I always viewed a Rose, BG, Salmons, Bosh, Noah team as a contender. Thats why I view losing BG as a step backwards and not forwards. I just don't view Kirk or Deng as that third player. They are role players to me. Deng has that potential but he has major question marks with his health and showing up in the 4th. Those two are role players being payed big money. As a team handicapped by the LT, we aren't going anywhere with kirk on the roster and if Deng never takes a big step forward.

Thing is, nobody has ever called Gordon a franchise player but many have acted like he is. Anybody that wanted Gordon gone for the sake of getting rid of him is crazy. He will be missed for sure. But we have Rose, Kirk, Deng, and Noah. Life will go on. One or all of them will be traded or one or all of them will blossom.

 

[TheStig]

ramblingrose33 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

You don't have to be a number one guy on a championship to be a number one option. Melo is nowhere near a title and was always a go to guy and number one option. Kevin Durant plays on a cr@p lotto team and was a number one option and go to guy.

Why are you comparing Gordon to Durant and Melo? Gordon is not a top 25 player! Those are FRANCHISE PLAYERS!

Who called BG a franchise player? I know I certainly didn't. I have always said that BG was our number one option in the past and that we need another option in front of him to be a contending team. BG would be incredible as a second or third option, I always viewed a Rose, BG, Salmons, Bosh, Noah team as a contender. Thats why I view losing BG as a step backwards and not forwards. I just don't view Kirk or Deng as that third player. They are role players to me. Deng has that potential but he has major question marks with his health and showing up in the 4th. Those two are role players being payed big money. As a team handicapped by the LT, we aren't going anywhere with kirk on the roster and if Deng never takes a big step forward.

Thing is, nobody has ever called Gordon a franchise player but many have acted like he is. Anybody that wanted Gordon gone for the sake of getting rid of him is crazy. He will be missed for sure. But we have Rose, Kirk, Deng, and Noah. Life will go on. One or all of them will be traded or one or all of them will blossom.

My postion has always been that I prefer BG over Deng and Hinrich. We weren't thinking straight when we didn't sign him for 6/54. Kirk doesn't have a place on this team as rose is the pg of the future and Deng is vastly overpaid and a health concern. BG to me, is a border line allstar the same way that Rip, Allen, and Redd were. He is a great third piece on a team. Which at 6/54, he would have been. Deng and Kirk just don't belong on a team with a potential superstar pg and that is handicapped by the LT. We either spend above the LT or dump those two, otherwise, we are going no where. Neither are bad players, they are just role players.

 

[Diddy1122]

Wow, gotta catch my breath after breezing thru all these posts. And now exhale & yup, Ben Gordon is still on the Pistons, so that's about it for me on the subject.

 

[jsain360]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

If he is a go to guy, he is a number one option guy, not grading on a curve, in general, he is not a number one option guy.

Ask yourself, if Gordon is the number one go to guy do I win a championship?

Olajuwon was a go to guy. That is why I used his name. A consistent go to guy who could take over a series. The Bulls had no one like that...

You can discount our opponents however you want. But they were still defending champions. They won rings and still were for the most part intact. YOu can discount BG's contribution, to me he was the most valuable player on that team. He pretty much was the offense in the 4th quarter when hinrich and deng would routinely disappear.

Seeing Elton Brand's career unfold, he certainly is the individual better player but he has never been able to put it together. Those early bulls teams he played on still had artest and miller and couldn't manage to win more than 16 games. His career results look very close to Zach Randolphs. He isn't the team cancer but he could never make an impact on the game results. ANd the last couple of years he has just fallen apart. I just see a question mark when I see elton brand. How can someone with so much talent and fundamentals not be able to buy a winning year.

Sigh if BG wasn't the offensive leader of that team I don't know how you evaluate basketball. He took all the tough shots, closed out games and led us in scoring. Those guys lead teams.

In my opinion, there was no Gordon Era, there was no Ben Gordon led the Bulls...anywhere, you had players who were pretty much on an equal playing field who played well enough together, and at their best, they couldn't get past the second round because at their best they were not contenders. That is my opinion...

Technically speaking, Kevin Durant hasn't even sniffed the playoffs so by that definition, he's not a franchise player either. Now in reality is he? Absolutely. Is Gordon? Probably not. But that doesn't mean the Ben Gordon would not be a very good piece to have on a championship team. He would be an excellent 3rd option or even a 2nd option in the right situation. IMO having Ben Gordon on your team can't do anything to hurt it.

Durant is Franchise!!!, the Thunder have a chance to make some noise, their young talent has to mature.

 

[houheffna]

My postion has always been that I prefer BG over Deng and Hinrich. We weren't thinking straight when we didn't sign him for 6/54. Kirk doesn't have a place on this team as rose is the pg of the future and Deng is vastly overpaid and a health concern. BG to me, is a border line allstar the same way that Rip, Allen, and Redd were. He is a great third piece on a team. Which at 6/54, he would have been. Deng and Kirk just don't belong on a team with a potential superstar pg and that is handicapped by the LT. We either spend above the LT or dump those two, otherwise, we are going no where. Neither are bad players, they are just role players.

All of them were role players, except for Rose. That was the problem, at times Gordon didn't know his role, he never had the role of initiating an offense nor was he always elected the go to guy. He did not do a good job of moving the offense.

Again, those Bulls teams needed SOMEONE who commanded a consistent double team during the course of a game. They had no one, the core guys are a group that cannot handle that role on a consistent basis...none of them. So once again all of this talk about Gordon leading anybody anywhere...maybe you are talking about UCONN, you are not talking about the Chicago Bulls.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

My postion has always been that I prefer BG over Deng and Hinrich. We weren't thinking straight when we didn't sign him for 6/54. Kirk doesn't have a place on this team as rose is the pg of the future and Deng is vastly overpaid and a health concern. BG to me, is a border line allstar the same way that Rip, Allen, and Redd were. He is a great third piece on a team. Which at 6/54, he would have been. Deng and Kirk just don't belong on a team with a potential superstar pg and that is handicapped by the LT. We either spend above the LT or dump those two, otherwise, we are going no where. Neither are bad players, they are just role players.

All of them were role players, except for Rose. That was the problem, at times Gordon didn't know his role, he never had the role of initiating an offense nor was he always elected the go to guy. He did not do a good job of moving the offense.

Again, those Bulls teams needed SOMEONE who commanded a consistent double team during the course of a game. They had no one, the core guys are a group that cannot handle that role on a consistent basis...none of them. So once again all of this talk about Gordon leading anybody anywhere...maybe you are talking about UCONN, you are not talking about the Chicago Bulls.

I don't consider BG a roleplayer, he has shown he has a lot of offensive talent. His scoring makes him more than a roleplayer, I think he is a borderline all star talent like Rip, Allen and Redd. He's not a star but he is definetly in that borderline group.

 

[clonetrooper264]

jsain360 wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

If he is a go to guy, he is a number one option guy, not grading on a curve, in general, he is not a number one option guy.

Ask yourself, if Gordon is the number one go to guy do I win a championship?

Olajuwon was a go to guy. That is why I used his name. A consistent go to guy who could take over a series. The Bulls had no one like that...

You can discount our opponents however you want. But they were still defending champions. They won rings and still were for the most part intact. YOu can discount BG's contribution, to me he was the most valuable player on that team. He pretty much was the offense in the 4th quarter when hinrich and deng would routinely disappear.

Seeing Elton Brand's career unfold, he certainly is the individual better player but he has never been able to put it together. Those early bulls teams he played on still had artest and miller and couldn't manage to win more than 16 games. His career results look very close to Zach Randolphs. He isn't the team cancer but he could never make an impact on the game results. ANd the last couple of years he has just fallen apart. I just see a question mark when I see elton brand. How can someone with so much talent and fundamentals not be able to buy a winning year.

Sigh if BG wasn't the offensive leader of that team I don't know how you evaluate basketball. He took all the tough shots, closed out games and led us in scoring. Those guys lead teams.

In my opinion, there was no Gordon Era, there was no Ben Gordon led the Bulls...anywhere, you had players who were pretty much on an equal playing field who played well enough together, and at their best, they couldn't get past the second round because at their best they were not contenders. That is my opinion...

Technically speaking, Kevin Durant hasn't even sniffed the playoffs so by that definition, he's not a franchise player either. Now in reality is he? Absolutely. Is Gordon? Probably not. But that doesn't mean the Ben Gordon would not be a very good piece to have on a championship team. He would be an excellent 3rd option or even a 2nd option in the right situation. IMO having Ben Gordon on your team can't do anything to hurt it.

Durant is Franchise!!!, the Thunder have a chance to make some noise, their young talent has to mature.

I said he was :laugh:

 

[clonetrooper264]

houheffna wrote:

My postion has always been that I prefer BG over Deng and Hinrich. We weren't thinking straight when we didn't sign him for 6/54. Kirk doesn't have a place on this team as rose is the pg of the future and Deng is vastly overpaid and a health concern. BG to me, is a border line allstar the same way that Rip, Allen, and Redd were. He is a great third piece on a team. Which at 6/54, he would have been. Deng and Kirk just don't belong on a team with a potential superstar pg and that is handicapped by the LT. We either spend above the LT or dump those two, otherwise, we are going no where. Neither are bad players, they are just role players.

All of them were role players, except for Rose. That was the problem, at times Gordon didn't know his role, he never had the role of initiating an offense nor was he always elected the go to guy. He did not do a good job of moving the offense.

Again, those Bulls teams needed SOMEONE who commanded a consistent double team during the course of a game. They had no one, the core guys are a group that cannot handle that role on a consistent basis...none of them. So once again all of this talk about Gordon leading anybody anywhere...maybe you are talking about UCONN, you are not talking about the Chicago Bulls.

If he wasn't the elected go to guy, why was the ball always in his hands at the end of games?

 

[pinkizdead]

cause everyone knew the bull should go to gordon at the end of games.
also gordon drew a double team almost consistently.
gordon wasnt a role player.

 

[houheffna]

Gordon drew a double team consistently at the end of games, not during the course of games. But he did not consistently get double teamed, that is a myth.

 

[clonetrooper264]

houheffna wrote:

Gordon drew a double team consistently at the end of games, not during the course of games. But he did not consistently get double teamed, that is a myth.

They still put their best perimeter defender on him most of the time. The other part of the time, he was on Rose. So obviously Ben was a threat to them. Ben was liable to go off at any point in time, so at the very least, there was always a defender on him. When he got hot, that's when the double teams would start. If he was hot at the end of a game, double teams were pretty much a must from the defense unless they wanted to get scorched. It's not like he's Kirk Hinrich and is just an ok offensive player (below average in Fred's mind) Ben Gordon is one of the TOP 3pt threats in the league. No ifs ands or buts about it.

 

[houheffna]

Never said he wasn't, but he didn't command double teams consistently because he could get cold just like he could get hot. I just think that idea is a myth spread across this forum. He was no different from other players on this team in that they were not good enough to command a double team on a consistent basis. A lot of players in this league are doubled when they get hot. But to say that a player who is not top 25 in the league gets double from jumpball to the end of the game is over the top.

 

[clonetrooper264]

houheffna wrote:

Never said he wasn't, but he didn't command double teams consistently because he could get cold just like he could get hot. I just think that idea is a myth spread across this forum. He was no different from other players on this team in that they were not good enough to command a double team on a consistent basis. A lot of players in this league are doubled when they get hot. But to say that a player who is not top 25 in the league gets double from jumpball to the end of the game is over the top.

Well fact is, he was not doubled from jump to the final buzzer. I don't know who thinks he was, but he was obviously not. But he was definitely our best offensive weapon with Derrick Rose coming in at a close 2nd (though I can see the argument that Rose was better).

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Gordon drew a double team consistently at the end of games, not during the course of games. But he did not consistently get double teamed, that is a myth.

Even MJ didn't get doubled for half the game. Its just not practical. Doubles at the end of games is what matters. Before I hear your arguement, I am not comparing BG to MJ.

 

[houheffna]

You didn't have to double team Gordon all the time, and he didn't get doubled a lot in the clutch either. Gordon could be depended on to mess up and lose a game just as much as he could be depended on to win games.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

You didn't have to double team Gordon all the time, and he didn't get doubled a lot in the clutch either. Gordon could be depended on to mess up and lose a game just as much as he could be depended on to win games.

Ok, name me 15 players who did better in the clutch than BG? Since apparently according to you he was so average.

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2009/09/top-15-nba-clutch-shooters/

If you can't admit that BG is one of the top clutch players in the league, there is no point in arguing because you seriously hold an ob surd view on BG. Whats next questioning his 3pt shooting?

 

[ramblingrose33]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Gordon drew a double team consistently at the end of games, not during the course of games. But he did not consistently get double teamed, that is a myth.

They still put their best perimeter defender on him most of the time. The other part of the time, he was on Rose. So obviously Ben was a threat to them. Ben was liable to go off at any point in time, so at the very least, there was always a defender on him. When he got hot, that's when the double teams would start. If he was hot at the end of a game, double teams were pretty much a must from the defense unless they wanted to get scorched. It's not like he's Kirk Hinrich and is just an ok offensive player (below average in Fred's mind) Ben Gordon is one of the TOP 3pt threats in the league. No ifs ands or buts about it.

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

 

[houheffna]

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

This is my point exactly! Nobody remembers the times that Gordon got the ball at the end of games and turned the ball over and didnt even get off a shot? Why, because he is inept at ballhandling at times. My general point is he didn't lead anybody anywhere. Even if he was the best offensive player (which does not make him the best player necessarily) most of the time. What it comes down to is people on this forum at times act as if he was something he was not. There were/are other offensive SGs who were more effective as scorers than he was, and they are legitimate franchise players, or are playing that role. My point is I cannot name 15 players better than him in the clutch, I have said many times that he was a good clutch player, but I recognize the times he messed up...badly, taking shots that were not good shots and not within the offense (like in game 7, scored well, one dumb shot he took though in the clutch gave the game away), but I can name 25 or more players better than him, which means he doesn't deserve so much hype. He will be missed, but the Bulls can and should move on and continue to develop as much as they can. Saying he was a borderline allstar...there were other players on the team who were borderline allstars over the last 5 years too.