VDN blows timeouts; Bulls lose

[chi_hawks_23]

charity stripe wrote:

Doug, I don't think its just a few people. I also was listening online to the postgame show, and more than 1 caller called up and said it would not be a bad idea to let Gordon go because he is just a one trick pony. All he can do is shoot. And I hear this pretty often.

Anybody that calls in and says they dont want Gordon next year...after Gordon single handily kept us in this game by putting up 42 in a playoff game in Boston...they are effing stupid. Period.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most sports writers and most educated bulls fans (those that understand the game and the dynamics of the NBA) understand the importance of Gordon's role on this team. I just think there are a lot of folks still attached to kirk, "the great white hope", even though its clear he will not get any better, and is a serviceable starting PG, who is vastly overpaid.

Unless we land Bosh AND salmons averages 20ppg next year, this team will be much worse without Gordon. I have not yet heard an argument where we get better next year by letting Gordon walk...and thats probably because there isn't one.

My money is on us shipping off Hinrich and one of our firsts to make room to resign Gordon. If we could dump Deng and Hinrich, even better. The problem is Hinrich has some value...Deng seems to have none, except to JR, who seems to think Deng is the 2nd coming of jesus christ himself.

 

[charity stripe]

I agree chi_hawks. Since the 2nd half of the season, I have been growing more and more confident that Reinsdorf sees Gordon's importance and he will pay him. Whether that means trading Hinrich and draft picks to free up some money, or going over the luxury tax, I think he will make it happen.

 

[dougthonus]

Doug, that's my point. As I said, the people in this forum are intelligent. But I can guarantee you, if you take a poll of the 20,000+ who show up at the United Center, and say, "Hirnich or Gordon for next year's team?", the majority would take Hinrich.

I speak to a lot of the people around me at the UC since I'm there a lot, and not a single one of them has ever said they like Hinrich more than Gordon. Maybe I just live in some random weird sphere of basketball knowledge but in probably 100+ different people I've met and talked to about the Bulls, not a single one of them has said they think Hinrich is more important than Gordon.

That includes people from forums and a lot of people I strike up conversations with at the game or anywhere else that I meet someone who loves the Bulls.

I've no doubt there are Hinrich fans out there, but I have a hard time believing that they are out there as some huge army like you suggest given that I've never met any of them.

If anything, most casual fans like both players (because casual fans like everyone) and most die hards like Gordon.

 

[Ralphb07]

dougthonus wrote:

The shot wasn't even a good one Gordon was just hot. He had two guys on him and he would of got that same look.

I disagree. It was a free throw distance jumper that wasn't blocked where he got his normal shooting form. That's in 95% of the time. He shook 2 guys to get that open look which made it look hard, but he went straight up, took his normal shot and didn't have to alter it due to the players on him from about 15 feet out.

Gordon sinks that virtually every time IMO.

If he can hit that shot everytime he would of got that same shot with 4 seconds on the clock so we could of held the ball longer than. Gordon can make that shot but it still doesn't mean it wasn't a hard/tough shot to make.

IMO we ran the play too early.

 

[dougthonus]

If he can hit that shot everytime he would of got that same shot with 4 seconds on the clock so we could of held the ball longer than. Gordon can make that shot but it still doesn't mean it wasn't a hard/tough shot to make.

IMO we ran the play too early.

You think Gordon can get an open free throw line jumper whenever he wants? I would disagree with that statement. He had to work hard to get that shot, and there's no guarantee he gets it later.

 

[Ralphb07]

If I remember the play correctly Rose had the ball to start right? I think using Rose and Gordon yes if we ran the play later Gordon could of gotten a similar shot.

We agree more than you think

I feel Game 1 the timeouts were okay being Game 1 and having a young team in a close game

In Game 2 I thought Vinny did a good job up until the final minute. I don't think I would of used the first timeout in the last minute like he did and with the 2nd timeout I think it was okay if he was going for the final shot. So if he wanted us to take a quick shot then the timeout should of never been made but I'm focusing on why did he want us to run the play so quick over the timeout.

So basically Game 1 I'm okay with it based on the young team and being game 1 but what happen in Game 1 with the extra time though I agree with Game 1 he should of either called the timeout and make sure it's the final shot or don't call

I may sound stupid saying this but I'd much rather have the ball for the last shot and if we miss we miss then give the opposing team the ball

 

[dougthonus]

I feel Game 1 the timeouts were okay being Game 1 and having a young team in a close game

In Game 2 I thought Vinny did a good job up until the final minute. I don't think I would of used the first timeout in the last minute like he did and with the 2nd timeout I think it was okay if he was going for the final shot. So if he wanted us to take a quick shot then the timeout should of never been made but I'm focusing on why did he want us to run the play so quick over the timeout.

I was actually far more mad about the use of timeouts in game 1 than game 2.

In game 2 we used 3 timeouts in the final two minutes, so he did save them up at least, and we used them to break legit momentum at 2 minutes left, and then at key possessions the other two times.

I would have preferred to pocket one of them given that each play out of a timeout resulted in Gordon running an isolation which clearly doesn't require the coach to get the clipboard out, but I thought he used them all appropriately.

To me, in game 1 that timeout with 8:45 left was completely indefensible. I mean you simply don't take a timeout there after giving up just 1 basket in 3:15 gone in the quarter when the game is tied, and you're winning the quarter so far.

While I think VDN needed to find a way to save a timeout in game 2, I didn't specifically have a problem with any TO he took in particular, just that he needed to have one left.

 

[Ralphb07]

dougthonus wrote:

I feel Game 1 the timeouts were okay being Game 1 and having a young team in a close game

In Game 2 I thought Vinny did a good job up until the final minute. I don't think I would of used the first timeout in the last minute like he did and with the 2nd timeout I think it was okay if he was going for the final shot. So if he wanted us to take a quick shot then the timeout should of never been made but I'm focusing on why did he want us to run the play so quick over the timeout.

I was actually far more mad about the use of timeouts in game 1 than game 2.

In game 2 we used 3 timeouts in the final two minutes, so he did save them up at least, and we used them to break legit momentum at 2 minutes left, and then at key possessions the other two times.

I would have preferred to pocket one of them given that each play out of a timeout resulted in Gordon running an isolation which clearly doesn't require the coach to get the clipboard out, but I thought he used them all appropriately.

To me, in game 1 that timeout with 8:45 left was completely indefensible. I mean you simply don't take a timeout there after giving up just 1 basket in 3:15 gone in the quarter when the game is tied, and you're winning the quarter so far.

While I think VDN needed to find a way to save a timeout in game 2, I didn't specifically have a problem with any TO he took in particular, just that he needed to have one left.

I think if game 1 is Game 3 or 4 I would agree with you but being Game 1 I can see why he would be quick to call the timeout.

I think we pretty much understand eachother but I just feel with it being his first time on the scene and having a young team understand the thinking of why he did in Game 1.

IMO in Game 1 he was trying to make sure a run didn't happen since it was a close game but I feel that he should of took what happen in Game 1 and learn from it.

Throughout Game 2 I thought he let the players fight through it more. Game 3 to be honest with you he needs to save one.

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

Anyone listen to the ESPN 1000 pregame show? A drone sent in a question to Wennington, basically saying "I wouldn't mind seeing Ben go. Kirk can do everything he can, except he plays better defense. Would you re-sign Ben?"

It's talkback radio ... that format is all about putting on people with controversial views to get people riled up. If they're playing up the anti-Gordon argument, it's probably actually an indication that most people like Gordon.

There's no market in being boring when it comes to the entertainment industry.

 

[dunkside.com]

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

My money is on us shipping off Hinrich and one of our firsts to make room to resign Gordon. If we could dump Deng and Hinrich, even better. The problem is Hinrich has some value...Deng seems to have none, except to JR, who seems to think Deng is the 2nd coming of jesus christ himself.

Cause he is.
Just think about it: Jesus couldn't take people off the dribble either. And he didn't have a post up game.

As for shipping Hinrich and Deng, I'm all for it. But I doubt Paxson/JR will do it. They are the teachers' pets and I can see Paxson/JR letting Gordon go before they trade their darlings.

dougthonus wrote:

I speak to a lot of the people around me at the UC since I'm there a lot, and not a single one of them has ever said they like Hinrich more than Gordon. Maybe I just live in some random weird sphere of basketball knowledge but in probably 100+ different people I've met and talked to about the Bulls, not a single one of them has said they think Hinrich is more important than Gordon.

That's all your fault - you radiate basketball knowledge within a 100 ft radius.