# Ben Gordon



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)




----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Hard to choke when you play 15 minutes and take only 1 shot?

What about Duhon running away from the basketball?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Blame Papa Skiles. You win with the guys who got you here. Glad to see Skiles was sending one of his stupid messages.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Chops said:


> Hard to choke when you play 15 minutes and take only 1 shot?
> 
> What about Duhon running away from the basketball?


Agreed.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

HKF said:


> Blame Papa Skiles. You win with the guys who got you here. Glad to see Skiles was sending one of his stupid messages.


 i blame skiles for not bringing in pargo earlier and giving him a chance to actually get in the flow of the game before the last minute. ben, on the other hand, had nothing going all day long. gordon's ability to dissapear is actually quite remarkable. one shot in fifteen minutes? that's not an inditement of skiles. 

cest la vie, gordon will have many, many shots at redemption before his career is done. this is just another game in another season. but, tonight he came up less then empty.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Gordon v. Skiles will be one of the major subplots of this summer's installment of "As the Bulls Turn."


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm disappointed that nobody got him the ball once in a position to score all game.

That being said, 5 turnovers? That's not good, and there's no defense for it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Chops said:


> Hard to choke when you play 15 minutes and take only 1 shot?
> 
> What about Duhon running away from the basketball?


Did you watch the game, or simply look at the boxscore? Heck, even looking at the boxscore you should see those 5 turnovers jump out at you. But on TV, Gordon looked as bad as he did in the pre-season. He had absolutely no clue out there tonight. I don't blame Skiles one bit for yanking him.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

I don't blame Skiles and I don't blame Gordon.
Gordon had a off game, **** happens. It sucks, its tough on a rookie, what can you do.

Gordon was playing like ****, so Skiles sat him. He gave him a chance in the 4th where he also failed to produce.

I don't have a problem with either person's decisions or whatnot.
I'd love if Gordon was on, we'd be playing on Sunday. I'm not going to say he choked, he didn't choke, he was consistently bad the whole game. I can see what you're getting at with that, but I don't think its choking.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> That being said, 5 turnovers? That's not good, and there's no defense for it.


It's not even just that -- the quality of those turnovers, in a game 6 elimination game, were just astonishing. It was like someone got him out of bed to play the game; he was totally out of it from the get-go.

That's the one nagging doubt I have about the guy. The laid-back-ness that allows him to operate so calmly and effortlessly at crunch time may be a double-edged sword.

Edit: the reason I say there's a "Gordon v. Skiles" dynamic at work is that during the regular season, Ben could have a horrid opening half and Skiles would still give him the ball in the 4th and say, "Go win this for us."


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm disappointed that nobody got him the ball once in a position to score all game.



Therein lies the truth. Gordon didn't take a shot because he was determined (with exception to the one he DID take), not to take any BAD shots. I've seen more and more of that from him this series. He didn't shoot, because he didn't have good shots. That is partly his fault, but SKILES doesn't run ANY PLAYS for him at all (which is amazing in and of itself to me). And the players didn't look for him either.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why don't you ride the horses who got you here? Yes, Gordon had 5 TO's, but man this is Game 6. Sit him down for 2 minutes, encourage him and get him back out there. Gordon is suffering from the same crap that plagued Crawford. I don't like this stupid favoritism crap. Next year, when he comes into camp ready to play, if I hear some BS excuse I hope Ben lashes out and demands a trade. Man had 27 in Game 5 and you gonna sit him for Pargo in the clutch. What the heck is that? I'm sure Skiles would sit Kobe or Wade in a stretch like that too huh if they turned the ball over?

Skiles is an idiot.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm disappointed that nobody got him the ball once in a position to score all game.


this seems too forgiving to me. gordon's whole job is to create offense. thats why he was drafted with the third pick. he's the only player on our team who can consistently shake players off the dribble. and if he wasn't doing it off the dribble he should have been finding daylight off screens. he just didn't bring it today.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Tough to choke in the 1st qtr. 

The 5 guys out on the court in the final 3 minutes of the game were the ones who choked.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Did you watch the game, or simply look at the boxscore? Heck, even looking at the boxscore you should see those 5 turnovers jump out at you. But on TV, Gordon looked as bad as he did in the pre-season. He had absolutely no clue out there tonight. I don't blame Skiles one bit for yanking him.


Yeah, it's also pretty obvious that Skiles was talking about Gordon when he said there are some guys on the team who just can't guard anyone.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Gordon v. Skiles will be one of the major subplots of this summer's installment of "As the Bulls Turn."


Unfortunately, that's the hard truth of this final game. We'll be hearing about Gordon vs. Skiles all summer. What a sour way to end the season, that's all I have to say. The Bulls won as a team, and they choked as a team. There's plenty of blame to go around, but you know what? They were just outmatched all series long against a better, healthier team.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

This MIGHT BE the worst post in teh histroy of this site, if its not its defaintely a contendor...


----------



## Zalgirinis (Feb 18, 2003)

Chops said:


> Hard to choke when you play 15 minutes and take only 1 shot?


You must have to be blind to defend Gordon after such game. He was making turnover after turnover and was horrible in both sides of court. 1 shot you say... well he just disapparead out there. You couldnt see him in those 15 minutes except turnovers. So why to keep such player in?



> What about Duhon running away from the basketball?


That was huge stupidity by Duhon... And it costed you a season... Will he make flight with the team or run away to hide to the mountains? 

EDIT: Good Lord, 10 posts in the time I was writing this. Im so slow...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

SPMJ said:


> Tough to choke in the 1st qtr.
> 
> The 5 guys out on the court in the final 3 minutes of the game were the ones who choked.



It should also be noted that All 5 of his TO's were in the first quarter. WHEN WE WERE WINNING. Skiles did not give him ANY opportunity to get it together at all. When he was inserted back in, they should have run a play for him immediately. Not pass the ball to him in the corner where he got trapped and took his 1 bad shot.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> i blame skiles for not bringing in pargo earlier and giving him a chance to actually get in the flow of the game before the last minute. ben, on the other hand, had nothing going all day long. gordon's ability to dissapear is actually quite remarkable. one shot in fifteen minutes? that's not an inditement of skiles.
> 
> cest la vie, gordon will have many, many shots at redemption before his career is done. this is just another game in another season. but, tonight he came up less then empty.


Pargo took Ben's minutes in the 3rd quarter... and he was flat out cold. He disappeared.... his shooting touch wore off just as much as Gordon's.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

"I think I've got the black lung, pop!"


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> It should also be noted that All 5 of his TO's were in the first quarter. WHEN WE WERE WINNING. Skiles did not give him ANY opportunity to get it together at all. When he was inserted back in, they should have run a play for him immediately. Not pass the ball to him in the corner where he got trapped and took his 1 bad shot.


I agree. He wasn't given much of a chance on offense. He took 1 SHOT!! I mean c'mon.....we can't blame him for having a bad shooting game when he didn't shoot. It seems like there weren't many plays run for him in the beginning of the 4th when Skiles finally gave him a chance to play.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

HKF said:


> Why don't you ride the horses who got you here? Yes, Gordon had 5 TO's, but man this is Game 6. Sit him down for 2 minutes, encourage him and get him back out there. Gordon is suffering from the same crap that plagued Crawford. I don't like this stupid *favoritism* crap. Next year, when he comes into camp ready to play, if I hear some BS excuse I hope Ben lashes out and demands a trade. Man had 27 in Game 5 and you gonna sit him for Pargo in the clutch. What the heck is that? I'm sure Skiles would sit Kobe or Wade in a stretch like that too huh if they turned the ball over?
> 
> Skiles is an idiot.


Favoritism? What are you talking about? Ben sat on the bench because he was absolutely useless out there. THe only thing that Skiles favors is WINNING. Ben Gordon out there wasnt giving us the best chance to win. 

I love the 2nd guessing that takes place when it comes to Bulls losses. If Skiles would have rode Gordon and Gordon didnt come through there woudl be just as many posters screaming, "Why didnt you put in pargo? why leave ben in there when you know he has shown nothing?"


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> Why don't you ride the horses who got you here? Yes, Gordon had 5 TO's, but man this is Game 6. Sit him down for 2 minutes, encourage him and get him back out there. Gordon is suffering from the same crap that plagued Crawford. I don't like this stupid favoritism crap. Next year, when he comes into camp ready to play, if I hear some BS excuse I hope Ben lashes out and demands a trade. Man had 27 in Game 5 and you gonna sit him for Pargo in the clutch. What the heck is that? I'm sure Skiles would sit Kobe or Wade in a stretch like that too huh if they turned the ball over?
> 
> Skiles is an idiot.


Kobe or Wade would've found other ways to contribute.

Ben was not contributing a lick out there. In fact, he was bringing the team down with sloppy ball control. I'm fine with him not shooting, just so long as he is taking care of the ball and getting others involved. But that wasn't the case at all. His 27 and 33 point games were amazing this series, but he's like Jeckyl and Hyde sometimes. A Crawford comparison isn't that far from the truth, except that Ben's a bit more efficient scoring wise.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> "I think I've got the black lung, pop!"



ha!!!!!!! :banana: :banana:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think Skiles has given up on this team and is ready to go elsewhere. He did not take control of the team when they were in turmoil, and left it up to the players to figure it out instead of doing his job.

Subplot will be interesting. Skiles has a knack of playing less talented players that simultaneously seems to cost us the game. Our 2 most talented players, Gordon and Curry have beefs with Skiles, and Deng might also, but its unknown because he is a pretty quiet guy.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

He had 5 turnovers, but even after that they were able to establish a double digit lead. So it's hard to argue that those turnovers really played a huge role in determining the outcome of the game. He took 1 shot. His performance may have been below expectations, but it was hardly a choke job.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Future said:


> I agree. He wasn't given much of a chance on offense. He took 1 SHOT!! I mean c'mon.....we can't blame him for having a bad shooting game when he didn't shoot. It seems like there weren't many plays run for him in the beginning of the 4th when Skiles finally gave him a chance to play.


\

The coach just can't hand a player shots. Ben's gotta be open, and the Wiz were doubling him like mad. It's not like Skiles' offensive strategy prevented him from shooting. The Wizards' guards did. Ben just didn't react to the pressure well enough. That's why he was yanked.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Next year, when Ben is by far the best player we'll see.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm sad it had to end this way.

HKF, I have to agree, ride the guys who got you there. I wanted Ben to get some serious burn in the fourth, not a few minutes. However, Larry Hughes was just driving right around him when he came back in. He really was not helping the team, so I see the other side of it. 

Ben has got to become a better all around player. Clearly he can and he probably will, as soon as next season. It's not easy being a 6'2" shooting guard, that's obvious.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

I don't see how you choke in the 1st qtr of a game.

Skiles just decided he wouldn't give Ben a chance after his play at the beginning of the game.......WHEN WERE LEADING ALL THE WAY! It wasn't as if his turnovers put us down 10 and it was all downhill from there on. Skiles just didn't give Ben a chance. I should've known he was going to get back at him from the moment a hobbling Chris Duhon began the 2nd half.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Skiles plays guys that are playing well. That's what he does. That's his thing, I guess.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm sad it had to end this way.
> 
> HKF, I have to agree, ride the guys who got you there. I wanted Ben to get some serious burn in the fourth, not a few minutes. However, Larry Hughes was just driving right around him when he came back in. He really was not helping the team, so I see the other side of it.
> 
> Ben has got to become a better all around player. Clearly he can and he probably will, as soon as next season. It's not easy being a 6'2" shooting guard, that's obvious.


He isn't a SG and if he was on the Hawks instead of the Bulls, learning the NBA PG game and working himself into it, he'd be even further along in his development then he is now. He can play the point, but he was never given the chance to with the confidence in him. Remember Hinrich's first games were 10 turnover fests. Same thing would have happened with Gordon, but as he got more comfortable he would have been terrific at it.

I don't know why people don't see that his offensive ability is just an added bonus to all the things this man will be able to do over the long term of his career. Whatever, I know what I know and it will be proven out. Bottomline, season is over and Ben is going to be pissed and come on like gangbusters that's all I know.

Bulls better stop playing around and start the man as well.


----------



## thegza (Feb 18, 2003)

I've got no problem with Skiles move of keeping Gordon on the bench. He certainly wasn't playing up to his potential, and even though he couldn't create much, get shots off, he wasn't handling the ball well and was commiting turnovers. In around 16 minutes, he had already had 5 TO's. That's an astonishing number.

Next season, we need Ben to become a better all around player. With his lack of size, he needs to learn some other ways to get points because it isn't going to get any easier. As I've thought all season, he's a good player, and not even our most effective rookie, but the expectations are high on him because his heroics outweigh his actual ability, making him somewhat overrated.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

HKF said:


> Next year, when Ben is by far the best player we'll see.



yup, 

lets: 










to next year.

This is just the first chapter of ben's career and it was brilliant -- even taking into account the sad ending. 

Cheers to Ben and the Bulls for a great season.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

HKF said:


> He isn't a SG and if he was on the Hawks instead of the Bulls, learning the NBA PG game and working himself into it, he'd be even further along in his development then he is now. He can play the point, but he was never given the chance to with the confidence in him. Remember Hinrich's first games were 10 turnover fests. Same thing would have happened with Gordon, but as he got more comfortable he would have been terrific at it.
> 
> I don't know why people don't see that his offensive ability is just an added bonus to all the things this man will be able to do over the long term of his career. Whatever, I know what I know and it will be proven out. Bottomline, season is over and Ben is going to be pissed and come on like gangbusters that's all I know.
> 
> Bulls better stop playing around and start the man as well.


I'm hoping to see Ben get some time at the point at this Vegas summer league thing, whatever it's called. It's just up a few hours from me here in Arizona.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Captain Kirk said:


> I've got no problem with Skiles move of keeping Gordon on the bench. He certainly wasn't playing up to his potential, and even though he couldn't create much, get shots off, he wasn't handling the ball well and was commiting turnovers. In around 16 minutes, he had already had 5 TO's. That's an astonishing number.
> 
> Next season, we need Ben to become a better all around player. With his lack of size, he needs to learn some other ways to get points because it isn't going to get any easier. As I've thought all season, he's a good player, and not even our most effective rookie, but the expectations are high on him because his heroics outweigh his actual ability, making him somewhat overrated.



He needs to find more ways to get points? HE is the LAST player on this team we need to worry about finding a way to get points...


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

HKF said:


> Next year, when Ben is by far the best player we'll see.


As the season near the end, I started to doubt this notion of Being becoming the best player on our roster. His game was too many hole despite occaional brilliance. I worry he may turn out to be one trick pony. An

Anyway, my gut says Ben won't be a complete player on oth end of the game and we may have to live with it and sometime die with it.

His hanfle is bad, he is terribly TO prone, not a particlurily good passer. ACtually at the moment bad passer.....

One thing is clear now if any hope (or doubt) was there before the playoff.

Ben is not Wade and will never be Wade. This much is clear now.

So in short we are still one super star short to be serious team.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

yodurk said:


> \
> 
> The coach just can't hand a player shots. Ben's gotta be open, and the Wiz were doubling him like mad. It's not like Skiles' offensive strategy prevented him from shooting. The Wizards' guards did. Ben just didn't react to the pressure well enough. That's why he was yanked.


They did that in game 5... and Gordon pulled through and scored around 26.. I mean c'mon.... he didn't play him at all in the 3rd... and popped him in at the beginning of the 4th just expecting him to do his thing. He sat for over 20 mins if you include halftime.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Skiles did this down the stretch of the season at the end to Ben too, kind of ruining Ben's Rookie of the Year campaign, like he is trying to send a message, and doesn't want his players to get personal awards or something.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> He isn't a SG and if he was on the Hawks instead of the Bulls, learning the NBA PG game and working himself into it, he'd be even further along in his development then he is now.


I think this is way off and completely the contrary. If Ben were on the Hawks, he'd be falling into some very bad habits of jacking up shots with no conscience of team play. This happens to young players when they're given too much freedom and are constantly told how good they are. It's those kinds of things that separate a winner like Steve Nash and a loser like Stephon Marbury. Nash was brought along slowly and learned team play in a winning environment (in Phoenix his first time around). Marbury was given the reigns to a bad team and has never learned any discipline since. Once certain habits are formed, there's often no turning back.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

sloth said:


> Skiles did this down the stretch of the season at the end to Ben too, kind of ruining Ben's Rookie of the Year campaign, like he is trying to send a message, and doesn't want his players to get personal awards or something.



Scott Skiles is just a ****ing idiot, he doesnt know what he's doing, he got extremely lucky with some young, extraordinary talent, this team could have made Tim Floyd look like Coach of the Year


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Gordon's heroics outweighed his ability all season. I've maintained that. He is a fantastic shooter, but inconsistent with that even. Outside of shooting, he is below average at everything else for his position. He was really overrated the whole year, and even though he was on the rookie 1st team, and rightfully so, the rookie of the year hype was ridiculous. Gordon is probably the worst player on the 1st team. Deng and Iguodala are better players, in my opinion. They bring a much better all around game, and bring it much more consistently.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Gordon's heroics outweighed his ability all season. I've maintained that. He is a fantastic shooter, but inconsistent with that even. Outside of shooting, he is below average at everything else for his position. He was really overrated the whole year, and even though he was on the rookie 1st team, and rightfully so, the rookie of the year hype was ridiculous. Gordon is probably the worst player on the 1st team. Deng and Iguodala are better players, in my opinion. They bring a much better all around game, and bring it much more consistently.


Are you that much of a hater? Without Ben Gordon, we aren't even a playoff team. Plain and simple....


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Gordon's heroics outweighed his ability all season. I've maintained that. He is a fantastic shooter, but inconsistent with that even. Outside of shooting, he is below average at everything else for his position. He was really overrated the whole year, and even though he was on the rookie 1st team, and rightfully so, the rookie of the year hype was ridiculous. Gordon is probably the worst player on the 1st team. Deng and Iguodala are better players, in my opinion. They bring a much better all around game, and bring it much more consistently.


Lets trade him now. :angel:


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Future said:


> Are you that much of a hater? Without Ben Gordon, we aren't even a playoff team. Plain and simple....



Game. Set. Match.

Without Curry? We proved it

Without Deng? We proved it

Without Hinrich- I truly believe we could have made the playoffs without the man, not saying were not MUCH better with him, but we could have been a low playoff seed without him.

Without Gordon- Sorry you can go and subtract probably 15 wins from this year without this kid. No playoffs without him


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Now it will be nice to get a new, better coach in there. Phil Jackson . Can't wait to see what he can do with Curry.....and Gordon......and Hinrich......and Deng. We have 4 real good offensive weapons, more than Phil had in LA up until that last year. I think we can be a 50+ win team with a guy actually knowing how to use Curry, and someone to trust Gordon.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Future said:


> Are you that much of a hater? Without Ben Gordon, we aren't even a playoff team. Plain and simple....


You don't base that on anything but homerism. You couldn't prove to me that we don't make the playoffs without Gordon. If Gordon's minutes had been given to somebody else tonight, we might have beat the Wizards on the road in the MCI center, without two starters in Curry and Deng. Gordon was a huge minus tonight.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Future said:


> Are you that much of a hater?


He's bigger then that. Dude's been hating all season. Just ignore.



> Without Ben Gordon, we aren't even a playoff team. Plain and simple....


We would've been VERY lucky to win 25 games w/o Ben this season. Forget the playoffs.


----------



## thegza (Feb 18, 2003)

Marcus13 said:


> He needs to find more ways to get points? HE is the LAST player on this team we need to worry about finding a way to get points...


I may have put this out wrong, but I feel that Gordon needs to become more versitile on both sides of the floor, including the way he scores his points. I don't want him to start jacking up shots, and if they aren't going in (he had a night or two like that in the playoffs), he could drive it in and use his strong body to his advantage. The kid might not have the size, but neither do a lot of the other elite SG's in the league, so experience will help.

Too much was being expected from this kid. With Curry and Deng out with injuries, we never really had a chance to win once we didn't steal game four or five in Washington.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I think this is way off and completely the contrary. If Ben were on the Hawks, he'd be falling into some very bad habits of jacking up shots with no conscience of team play. This happens to young players when they're given too much freedom and are constantly told how good they are. It's those kinds of things that separate a winner like Steve Nash and a loser like Stephon Marbury. Nash was brought along slowly and learned team play in a winning environment (in Phoenix his first time around). Marbury was given the reigns to a bad team and has never learned any discipline since. Once certain habits are formed, there's often no turning back.


Uhh... no. Stephon Marbury was not always a loser and stop using this argument please. Stephon Marbury left Minnesota and went to New Jersey and they didn't have talent there (especially with K-Mart and Kittles injured). Nash is playing with great talent. Don't give me that garbage about losers and winners. You can't be a winner if you play with Bums. You telling me, Steve Nash would take the Knicks to the playoffs? Of course he wouldn't so please throw that stuff out of here.

What were the Bulls last year? Were they not a bad team? They sucked. Didn't turn Hinrich into a loser? He was a guy who had to re-learn the PG position full time in the pros and after a few growing pains, guess what? He did. Bottomline, if Ben gets 35 minutes a night to play PG and asked to distribute and look for his offense when necessary (like Calhoun had him doing when he broke his nose during the middle of his junior year) he would have been fine and his progress playing the point would be fine.

To say he doesn't have handles and to think Hinrich does, when he can't even dribble penetrate past anyone on a regular basis is foolish. Doubt Ben all you want, but he's going to prove it and then Paxson is going to have a real problem on his hands. Keep the annointed one or trade Gordon and watch him turn into a perennial all-star and one Bulls fans will regret for years and years and years. You can't teach what he has and he has "IT."

And make no mistake you're going to have to make a decision on Gordon and Hinrich. One or the other.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Marcus13 said:


> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> Without Curry? We proved it
> 
> ...


Without Hinrich - No playoffs
Without Curry - No playoffs
Without Deng - No playoffs

Without Gordon - we make the playoffs. 

I don't believe that, but it has just as much merit as your baseless statements. Give me some proof that the team wouldn't make the playoffs without Gordon.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If Gordon's minutes had been given to somebody else tonight, we might have beat the Wizards on the road in the MCI center


Yeah, somebody in those 15 minutes IN THE 1ST HALF could've really stopped us from choking in the 4th qtr.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You don't base that on anything but homerism. You couldn't prove to me that we don't make the playoffs without Gordon. If Gordon's minutes had been given to somebody else tonight, we might have beat the Wizards on the road in the MCI center, without two starters in Curry and Deng. Gordon was a huge minus tonight.


Sure I can, you take away Ben Gordon's 4th quarter points... we lose all those games. You take away Ben Gordon's game winners, we lose. No one has proved to be as clutch as Ben Gordon has. Hinrich has not... he has even missed some clutch FTs at the end. 

You just can't ignore what Ben Gordon has done for this team....


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

SPMJ said:


> Sir Patchwork said:
> 
> 
> > If Gordon's minutes had been given to somebody else tonight, we might have beat the Wizards on the road in the MCI center/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Future said:


> . Hinrich has not... he has even missed some clutch FTs at the end.


Like 2 nights ago.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Captain Kirk said:


> I may have put this out wrong, but I feel that Gordon needs to become more versitile on both sides of the floor, including the way he scores his points. I don't want him to start jacking up shots, and if they aren't going in (he had a night or two like that in the playoffs), he could drive it in and use his strong body to his advantage. The kid might not have the size, but neither do a lot of the other elite SG's in the league, so experience will help.
> 
> Too much was being expected from this kid. With Curry and Deng out with injuries, we never really had a chance to win once we didn't steal game four or five in Washington.



Ok, that sounded better than your first post--

There's NO question the kid needs to learn how to play defense ESPECIALLY if he's going to be playing for Scott Skiles.

Yeah, it seems like, while amazingly talented, Ben isn't the smartest kid on that floor. It's like he doesnt even notice if the ball goes in or not or atleast it doesnt affect him in anyway. The kid is very gifted at getting to the basket and it frustrates me when he's having a bad shooting night that he just keeps shooting instead of driving the lane.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Future said:


> Sure I can, you take away Ben Gordon's 4th quarter points... we lose all those games. You take away Ben Gordon's game winners, we lose. No one has proved to be as clutch as Ben Gordon has. Hinrich has not... he has even missed some clutch FTs at the end.
> 
> You just can't ignore what Ben Gordon has done for this team....


You take away Curry's 16 points from our final average total score, we don't make the playoffs either. Same could be said for any starter averaging double digits. It's not that simple. 

I don't think we should trade him though, his value is beaten up after this series.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Another thing that has to be addressed is Skiles underdeveloping Curry. A great scoring big man, 2nd best in the league at scorign behind Shaq of natural centers, a gift for any other coach, didn't use the guy properly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Future said:


> Sure I can, you take away Ben Gordon's 4th quarter points... we lose all those games. You take away Ben Gordon's game winners, we lose. No one has proved to be as clutch as Ben Gordon has. Hinrich has not... he has even missed some clutch FTs at the end.
> 
> You just can't ignore what Ben Gordon has done for this team....


Hinrich has definite clutchness issues, which is why it's ludicrous to me that people are downplaying what Gordon did for the Bulls this year and ought to do going forward.

I think the two can coexist, and I hope that they do, but Gordon needs to improve his defense pretty dramatically and shore up his point guard skills.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Without Hinrich - No playoffs
> Without Curry - No playoffs
> Without Deng - No playoffs
> 
> ...



We played fine without Luol AND Eddy at the end of the year, we would have still been a playoff team if we played like that the entire time. Not give us Eddy adn Luol back and take Hinrich, you really dont think we make it?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Another thing that has to be addressed is Skiles underdeveloping Curry. A great scoring big man, 2nd best in the league at scorign behind Shaq of natural centers, a gift for any other coach, didn't use the guy properly.


Now you're blaming SKILES for Curry's shortcomings?

I know its Friday night, but isn't there some Trig homework you could be doing, rather than wearing out your keyboard with that nonsense?


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You take away Curry's 16 points from our final average total score, we don't make the playoffs either. Same could be said for any starter averaging double digits. It's not that simple.
> 
> I don't think we should trade him though, his value is beaten up after this series.


I don't understand what you are saying? I never said Curry wasn't important to our team.... one reason why we were able to make it all the way up to the 4th spot is because of Ben Gordon and his shooting. 

It seems to me like your saying we could've made the playoffs without Ben Gordon. This is not true. You are trying to diminish him as a player, but it is evident that he was an important cog in forming our team. Without Ben Gordon, we are the exact same team we were last year. We would be struggling to close out games.... Ben Gordon was our closer. Players on the Bulls have mentioned countless times how last year the Bulls had trouble closing out games. Is it not evident that since Gordon has come on this team, that the Bulls did a much better job of closing out games?

Again, you can't ignore Ben Gordon like he is some Bobby Jackson type players who just revitalizes our team off the bench. Ben Gordon is a game changer.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Marcus13 said:


> We played fine without Luol AND Eddy at the end of the year, we would have still been a playoff team if we played like that the entire time. Not give us Eddy adn Luol back and take Hinrich, you really dont think we make it?


I'm not denying Gordon's impact, I'm just saying it's a lot easier to say we don't make the playoffs without Gordon when he doesn't miss any games. I'm a Hinrich homer and I said the same things about him, before he went down and we kept winning. I remember sloth saying similiar statements about Curry before we won games without him. I felt like Deng was our best or 2nd best player during the season, and we won games without him. Gordon didn't miss games, so it's easy for his fans to say they wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Gordon was a top 5 player for us in the regular season. Hinrich, Deng, Curry, Chandler and Gordon were our best five.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm not denying Gordon's impact, I'm just saying it's a lot easier to say we don't make the playoffs without Gordon when he doesn't miss any games. I'm a Hinrich homer and I said the same things about him, before he went down and we kept winning. I remember sloth saying similiar statements about Curry before we won games without him. I felt like Deng was our best or 2nd best player during the season, and we won games without him. Gordon didn't miss games, so it's easy for his fans to say they wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Gordon was a top 5 player for us in the regular season. Hinrich, Deng, Curry, Chandler and Gordon were our best five.



Is that your order? There's NO WAY Curry or Deng are better than Gordon. Curry isnt even a better rebounder than Gordon but Gordon does everything Curry does on offense plus his clutchness. I have NOTHING but love for Hinrich so I won't argue against him. And Chandler and Gordon are the most opposite players on the planet so I think thats incomparable. But Curry!? NO man, No....


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Future said:


> It seems to me like your saying we could've made the playoffs without Ben Gordon. This is not true. You are trying to diminish him as a player......


About sums it up. Meanwhile nothing but praise for Hinrich. I wonder why??



Not really.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

At least until tonight, Skiles never held Gordon back.

I can't believe people are comparing the Gordon situation to Crawful's situation. That dog don't hunt.

And Gordon displayed zero PG skills this year.

But besides all of that, if Gordon was healthy, Skiles HAD, JUST HAD, to put him in there in the 4th quarter.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> At least until tonight, Skiles never held Gordon back.
> 
> I can't believe people are comparing the Gordon situation to Crawful's situation. That dog don't hunt.
> 
> ...



Yup.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Now you're blaming SKILES for Curry's shortcomings?
> 
> I know its Friday night, but isn't there some Trig homework you could be doing, rather than wearing out your keyboard with that nonsense?


Skiles didn't give Curry a fair bone. We go to him early in games, but why do we go away from him, especially when the other team isn't doubling on Curry? Curry is an unstoppable force, and we didn't force it in there until the other team stops it, and instead played passive with him, and just stopped going to him for no apparent reason.

Ben Gordon hasn't been given a fair bone this season either. Him and Curry have both been benched for odd reasons and then SKiles will go out and blast them in the press about not playing defense, and not hustling. Yet we never see guys like Antonio Davis or Othella Harrington being challenged for not rebounding or showing hustle or playing defense which they did for chunks fof the season.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> At least until tonight, Skiles never held Gordon back.
> 
> I can't believe people are comparing the Gordon situation to Crawful's situation. That dog don't hunt.
> 
> ...



There are SEVERAL occasions Skiles held Ben back INCLUDING the playoffs. You cant bench this kid in teh fourth because he's having a bas shooting night- you just cant do it.

He's not supposed to be a PG on this team! PG is the hardest position to learn in the NBA you cant have a rookie come in and try to convert him into a SG and still expect him to play NBA PG.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Skiles didn't give Curry a fair bone. We go to him early in games, but why do we go away from him, especially when the other team isn't doubling on Curry? Curry is an unstoppable force, and we didn't force it in there until the other team stops it, and instead played passive with him, and just stopped going to him for no apparent reason.
> 
> Ben Gordon hasn't been given a fair bone this season either. Him and Curry have both been benched for odd reasons and then SKiles will go out and blast them in the press about not playing defense, and not hustling. Yet we never see guys like Antonio Davis or Othella Harrington being challenged for not rebounding or showing hustle or playing defense which they did for chunks fof the season.


Same reason for Eddy and Ben. They have tended to be defensive liabilities.

Agreed that EC clogs the lane, but he is still a defensive liability far too often.

He also has to sit sometime, and has demonstrated difficulty in regaining momentum once he cools off from his initial burn.

Eddy can still correct his shortcomings, but I don't think Skiles has bungled the development of EC. Eddy was all but a lost cause until Skiles got a message through to him about "The Right Way."

Until then, he seemed destined to be more of an Oliver Miller than Shaq.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> But besides all of that, if Gordon was healthy, Skiles HAD, JUST HAD, to put him in there in the 4th quarter.


It's a hard one. He played early in the 4th, and it still seemed as though he wasn't there. I guess that was Skiles saying go out there, see what you can do and he didn't perform, and went with Pargo later he had played well earlier. Skiles goes with guys who were playing well.

It was a tough decision. If you go with Gordon and you lose, Skiles gets blamed. If you don't go with Gordon and lose, Skiles gets blamed.

Skiles certainly has an argument on why he didn't play Gordon.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Same reason for Eddy and Ben. They have tended to be defensive liabilities.
> 
> Agreed that EC clogs the lane, but he is still a defensive liability far too often.



Okay-- but you dont go on and blast on your players in press conferences and not expect there self esteem to go down and then the next night when they give win you a ball game (well in Gordon's case) then ignore there defense. He's ridiculous- half the times he's complimenting them and half the time he's insulting them to the world.

If I was a player I wouldn't want to play for Scott Skiles...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Same reason for Eddy and Ben. They have tended to be defensive liabilities.
> 
> Agreed that EC clogs the lane, but he is still a defensive liability far too often.
> 
> He also has to sit sometime, and has demonstrated difficulty in regaining momentum once he cools off from his initial burn.


Bens a different story than Curry, Ben can be a defensive liability, and we still have Duhon and Kirk, too great defenders their to man the backcourt. With Curry, our favorable lineup is him and Chandler together. When Curry is being a defensive liability, he is still less of a liability than Antonio Davis and much much less of a liability than Othella Harrington. Its not so much that Curry can't get going once he "cools off" but that we just stop going to him, and he isn't included in the 2nd half gameplan.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Benny the Bull said:


> It's a hard one. He played early in the 4th, and it still seemed as though he wasn't there. I guess that was Skiles saying go out there, see what you can do and he didn't perform, and went with Pargo later he had played well earlier. Skiles goes with guys who were playing well.
> 
> It was a tough decision. If you go with Gordon and you lose, Skiles gets blamed. If you don't go with Gordon and lose, Skiles gets blamed.
> 
> Skiles certainly has an argument on why he didn't play Gordon.



No-- he really doesn't.

How many times has Ben Gordon let us down in the fourth quarter?

Your supposed to trust your stars...


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

In saying that, not playing Gordon late isn't why we lost the series.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Benny the Bull said:


> In saying that, not playing Gordon late isn't why we lost the series.



No- but it is why we lost tonight.

As for the series- it was our effot from the OTHER players early on that made us lose when Gordon comes in teh game when were down 20 and all of a sudden Skiles is more than happy to let Gordon come in and score


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

HKF said:


> I don't know why people don't see that his offensive ability is just an added bonus to all the things this man will be able to do over the long term of his career. _Whatever, I know what I know and it will be proven out. Bottomline, season is over and Ben is going to be pissed and come on like gangbusters that's all I know._


That's a baseless argument.

I saw the game and yes, I really think Skiles did the right thing by benching Ben. If one would look at the stats, he turned the ball over once every three minutes, that's crazy, and I think he deserved to be benched in the first half. When he got more playing time in the second half, he got the ball and forced up a terrible mid-range jumper, way to get yourself benched Ben. I don't think "go with the guys that got you there" is a good argument since I believe that it's basic coaching knowledge to play who's playing well, and bench who's being a liability. And don't start arguing that five turnovers (and Ben's not even a PG) in 15 minutes is not a friggin liability. To add to that, Ben was also a liability on the defensive end. When it all comes down, the guy Ben defends scores points, and Ben isn't scoring any points, even more, he's giving the other team more opportunities by turning the ball over.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> No-- he really doesn't.
> 
> How many times has Ben Gordon let us down in the fourth quarter?
> 
> Your supposed to trust your stars...


I didn't say Skiles was right, I said he certainly has legitimate reasons for not playing Gordon later in the game.

How many games has Gordon won this season when he hasn't had any impact at all during the first 45 minutes of the game?

I personally probably would've gone with Gordon, but there is a case in agreeing with what Skiles did.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Bens a different story than Curry, Ben can be a defensive liability, and we still have Duhon and Kirk, too great defenders their to man the backcourt. With Curry, our favorable lineup is him and Chandler together. When Curry is being a defensive liability, he is still less of a liability than Antonio Davis and much much less of a liability than Othella Harrington. Its not so much that Curry can't get going once he "cools off" but that we just stop going to him, and he isn't included in the 2nd half gameplan.


If Eddy is really capable of playing 38 minutes of unstoppable offense, like he did from time to time in the first 5 to 10 minutes of games this year, then Skiles is the dumbest jackhole in history for not having Eddy touch the ball every possession of every game.

But I don't think either of those propositions are true: Eddy was not capable of sustaining that momentum. That is why they didn't Feed the Eddy all game.

Skiles isn't perfect, but he isn't a moron either. Overall, I have trusted his judgement more often than not.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Benny the Bull said:


> I didn't say Skiles was right, I said he certainly has legitimate reasons for not playing Gordon later in the game.
> 
> How many games has Gordon won this season when he hasn't had any impact at all during the first 45 minutes of the game?
> 
> I personally probably would've gone with Gordon, but there is a case in agreeing with what Skiles did.



I bet Gordon has won us more games when shooting a TERRIBLE first three quarters than ANY of our other players.

Not by a large margin, but nonetheless, you half to have player step up in the fourth and nobody on the Bulls does that. I have seen Hinrich display it once and Pargo display it a couple times, but the thing is, the team shuts down in the fourth offensively. We NEED Gordon out there, its almost like the rest of the team is SCARED of the damn ball


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If Eddy is really capable of playing 38 minutes of unstoppable offense, like he did from time to time in the first 5 to 10 minutes of games this year, then Skiles is the dumbest jackhole in history for not having Eddy touch the ball every possession of every game.
> 
> But I don't think either of those propositions are true: Eddy was not capable of sustaining that momentum. That is why they didn't Feed the Eddy all game.
> 
> Skiles isn't perfect, but he isn't a moron either. Overall, I have trusted his judgement more often than not.


You have to understand how the way Curry plays didn't make him very tired this year. With him in the game, the Bulls went to a slower pace half court game, slowing the game down a bit. Then you have to take into account all the dead balls, and constant timeouts. These guys probaly play an average of 2:30 of real time before they get a timeout called to rest themselves, with various deadballs in between. With the amount of stoppages in plays in the NBA and the constant timeouts, it surprised me deeply how many NBA players get fatigued. Its nothing like our ball here, 3 timeouts a game per a team, most of the time the teams only use 1-2, 8 minutes of almost non stop play, unless some team really needs a timeout, then multiply that 8 by 4, and put a shorter half time in too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

All I know is that if we chase this kid out of town like we did some of our former players, we'll regret it.

Of course Gordon made a massive difference for us. For the first time since Jordan left, we have a guy we can count on to hit big shots in close games. It's something we've lacked, and the difference IS playoffs.

We saw, done to us, what Gordon has done at least 20 times this year. Arenas nailed that dagger of a shot at the buzzer in game 5.

Here's something to chew on.

Gordon started for Duhon, right? He played Duhon's role, too. And he's not been given that role (PG) much all season.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

gian said:


> That's a baseless argument.
> 
> I saw the game and yes, I really think Skiles did the right thing by benching Ben. If one would look at the stats, he turned the ball over once every three minutes, that's crazy, and I think he deserved to be benched in the first half. When he got more playing time in the second half, he got the ball and forced up a terrible mid-range jumper, way to get yourself benched Ben. I don't think "go with the guys that got you there" is a good argument since I believe that it's basic coaching knowledge to play who's playing well, and bench who's being a liability. And don't start arguing that five turnovers (and Ben's not even a PG) in 15 minutes is not a friggin liability. To add to that, Ben was also a liability on the defensive end. When it all comes down, the guy Ben defends scores points, and Ben isn't scoring any points, even more, he's giving the other team more opportunities by turning the ball over.


I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. I don't know how much comp you get in the Phillipines, but I've played AAU, HS and some college and you have to ride the guys who get you here. If they suck in a playoff game, you still give them the rock. You can't lean on Jannero Pargo to win ball games down the stretch or Duhon to make a big offensive play. That's not how you win games.

See and this is why you need coaches who say "look, I'm taking you out, cause you made a couple of mistakes, now go back in there and kick some ***." Since Skiles is not going to do that and likes to forge rifts within his players and himself, it's all moot now. But don't tell me, that you don't put Ben in, in that 4th quarter. Pargo was definitely not going to deliver the goods. ****.... if you're going to lose, lose with your big guns blazing. 

God Damnit, what a terrible loss. :curse:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> Uhh... no. Stephon Marbury was not always a loser and stop using this argument please. Stephon Marbury left Minnesota and went to New Jersey and they didn't have talent there (especially with K-Mart and Kittles injured). Nash is playing with great talent. Don't give me that garbage about losers and winners. You can't be a winner if you play with Bums. You telling me, Steve Nash would take the Knicks to the playoffs? Of course he wouldn't so please throw that stuff out of here.
> 
> What were the Bulls last year? Were they not a bad team? They sucked. Didn't turn Hinrich into a loser? He was a guy who had to re-learn the PG position full time in the pros and after a few growing pains, guess what? He did. Bottomline, if Ben gets 35 minutes a night to play PG and asked to distribute and look for his offense when necessary (like Calhoun had him doing when he broke his nose during the middle of his junior year) he would have been fine and his progress playing the point would be fine.
> 
> ...


Someone's a little bitter about the loss tonight I see. That makes 2 of us.

I'm too tired and cranky to type a full response. But I will say one thing...you don't simply play a rookie alot of minutes and expect him to develop on the fly. You're either ready, or you're not. Dwight Howard was ready physically and mentally for a spot in the starting lineup. Ben probably was ready too, but to think he's suddenly develop into a dynamite point guard is ridiculous. The guy just played in his 88th NBA game, and he still turns the ball over like crazy when faced with a simple double.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Can anyone else really believe that were not playing another game of basketball this year?

Man- this sucks.

Man- Skiles sucks.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

tough way to lose the game but this finger pointing is really uncalled for. I consider this series to be a growing pain, hopefully we grow from from this experience, improve in the offseason and hopefully are able to win the central next year.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

DaFuture said:


> tough way to lose the game but this finger pointing is really uncalled for. I consider these series to be a growing pain, hopefully we grow from from this experience, improve in the offseason and hopefully are able to win the central next year.


That is a good point, why are we all blaming our own guys know? You win as a team and you lose as a team.

Even though this time we lost as a team because we are a poorly coached team


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The MVP of this team this year is Scott Skiles, IMO. 

He created something out of nothing.

Whether he’s the guy to coach this team for the next 5 years remains to be seen.

Gordon should have been benched.

I'm on the fence about if he should have been brought back for the last minute.

If he didn't look so completely inept out there tonight I think he would have been out there. Given the way he was playing, its a scary proposition to bring him out. He just didn't look ready to play tonight. His confidence was shattered out there from the opening tip. 

I agree that Gordon has glimpses of that magical “it” that HKF refers to. But you have to lock down on D and take care of the ball as well. Its like he has the “it” portion that so many players lack but lacks the decision making and defense that so many average players have.


----------



## Ravnos (Aug 10, 2004)

HKF, you say that Pargo wasn't going to deliver, but how would you know that when he delivered in game 5? Doesn't game 5 show he is capable of delivering?


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I want to keep Jannero Pargo, he can be our steve kerr.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> No- but it is why we lost tonight.
> 
> As for the series- it was our effot from the OTHER players early on that made us lose when Gordon comes in teh game when were down 20 and all of a sudden Skiles is more than happy to let Gordon come in and score


We didn't lose tonight because Gordon didn't play. We lost because we failed to execute down the stretch.



> I bet Gordon has won us more games when shooting a TERRIBLE first three quarters than ANY of our other players.


True, but Gordon gave us absolutely nothing tonight. Zero. Nil. Donuts. The bagel. No matter how you look at it. People can he he didn't shoot badly, he didn't get a chance to shot since he would turn the ball over. And it wasn't just the first 3 quarters. He played at the start of the 4th and still nothing. Saying if Gordon had of been in the game that we would have won is a stretch IMO.

Gordon has been fantastic this year. He didn't bring it tonight. Hopefully he can learn and improve from it.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I understand we're all a little disappointed. But let's face it, there have been so many positives this season, starting with Ben Gordon. This kid is going to be very special very soon. Tonight, he played like a rookie who has no clue. But I have no doubt this will change soon. 

It happens guys. That's life. Kids need to learn.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I can't believe there's a whole crew of you guys who watched the same game I watched and thought Ben Gordon should have played MORE!?

If anything Skiles should have played him less.
It was obviously a mistake to start him, it completely messed with his mojo or something. Kid is just not ready for primetime yet. Which is why he was on the bench to begin with. I don't think Skiles would have done it if Du wasn't banged up.

But some of you do need to get off Ben Gordon's jock. He's a piece of our puzzle here. He is not the best player on our team. He wasn't even our best rookie this year. I don't know if you noticed or not, but there was this rookie of ours who actually did start some games, some Luol Deng guy. Luol Deng doesn't just score, he rebounds, he plays defense, he gets assists. He's a multi-dimensional player. So Skiles could play a guy like that if he was struggling.

Ben on the other hand. All he does right now is score. And when he is off he is a huge liability. Because he doesn't play good enough defense. He is not a good decision maker with the ball. I give it to him, because I see him trying, but someone like Chris Duhon is a better right now overall. Just because Duhon understands the whole picture and can do more than one thing.

And let's not even get into the fact that Curry and Hinrich are both better than Ben. Curry is just as good a scorer as Ben, but he is much more efficient. Hinrich...again, has more dimensions to his game.

And people talk about all the game's Ben "won" us. Have you learned nothing about this TEAM!? The Bulls won games as a TEAM. Ben had those opportunities because of his teammates as much as his own skills.

I don't like seeing Ben get all of this publicity as our team's superstar right now, because he frankly hasn't earned it, and it is an insult to the rest of that locker room who bust their butts but don't do the things that end up on sportscenter.

And the ****ing gall to call out Skiles. Shame on you all. Skiles did one of the best coaching jobs of anybody this year. And just because he can't get a team that had to play large minutes of Funderburke, Pargo, and Griffin(and occasionaly Reiner) just to push the Wizards to 6--and you guys give him crap? Like you could have done better.

Completely ridiculous.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> And the ****ing gall to call out Skiles. Shame on you all. Skiles did one of the best coaching jobs of anybody this year. And just because he can't get a team that had to play large minutes of Funderburke, Pargo, and Griffin(and occasionaly Reiner) just to push the Wizards to 6--and you guys give him crap? Like you could have done better.
> 
> Completely ridiculous.


Good post. The knee jerk reactions going on in this thread are a little silly. Skiles is suddenly a terrible coach, and people are espousing a bunch of extremely polarized views about Ben, and I don't think either of them are very accurate.

I don't know if Skiles made the right decision to keep Ben out of the game, but I thought it was a defendable decision, and it has been consistent with his coaching all season. If Ben had brought it from the opening tip, I feel pretty certain that he would have been in there in the 4th quarter. But he was absolutely terrible, and Skiles had to make a decision on what to do with him, and either scenario had a large potential for failure. Those are the breaks. However, I do think that Skiles made this decision to win the game, and not send some message to Ben.

Oh well. Cheers to a great season everyone. Hopefully this will just fire up our players and make them work harder in the offseason.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Someone name me a particular game where the Bulls have won a close game without Ben Gordon playing in the final 5 minutes. Ben Gordon is our closer.... and today's game was proof enough that we can't win without him at the end. 

Hinrich disappeared in the 4th quarter..... he played great the 1st 3 quarters, but what the hell happened to his scoring in the 4th? Duhon is a liability on offense, and I don't recall him ever doing something special at the final minutes of a game. 

And was Pargo not a liability on offense at the end of the game? Jacking up fadeaway 3 pters.... that was pathetic.... I don't understand what he was doing in the 2nd half because he disappeared just as much as Ben Gordon. 


and where the **** is this Luol Deng is the best rookie on our team crap coming from. He backed up Andres Nocioni... I've got a lot of faith in Luol Deng, he will be a great player for us in the future.... but when he had a bad game he would not be out there. Andres would be. This Luol Deng injury hurt us because it forced us to have to play Adrian Griffin who is just so inconsistant on offense.... and Pike, who is inconsistant on O and D. We missed Deng because we lost depth at the SF spot when he went down. Just like how we missed Curry because we lost depth at the C spot. 


Honestly, name me a particular game where the Bulls have won a close game without Ben Gordon playing in the final 5 minutes. I haven't looked it up, so correct me if I'm wrong because I can account for over 20 games where Gordon has made a difference in the 4th quarter.


and Skiles deserves to be critiqued for todays game. One thing that is overlooked is that Nocioni wasn't in the game with under 3 mins left. AD was in... and AD was worthless on D. Letting Jamison hit that wide open jumper and letting Larry Hughes just drive to the lane and lay it up after Arenas blocked Hinrich. Nocioni wouldn't let Hughes just lay it up like that (Davis didn't even jump). Skiles seems to have so much confidence in our vet AD, who plays like a damn rookie sometimes when I see him out there. Noc had 5 fouls, but this is a do or die situation... he was playing great and he deserved to come back in with 3 mins left.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Gordon is an extremely one dimensional player at this early point of his career. Granted, that one dimension has been spectacular at times, and it is rare to have such a young, clutch shooter. He saved us so many times. 

The one thing this series did show was the Hinrich/Gordon backcourt is not going to be our future. Washington's big guards were punishing throughout the series. Gordon's defensive liabilities were exposed. Hinrich is much more of a point guard, and most tmes he is a great defender. He is much more multi-dimensional than Gordon.

Gordon looks to me like a Vinnie Johnson player, and because of his height it may be all we can expect. Johnson was crucial to Detroit's championship teams, but he was the third guard off the bench. We need a starting 2 guard who can score, is a good defender, and has height. We move to the next level with such a player. 

Gordon's game is perfect as a third guard. Vinnie Johnson did not start, but he was there at crucial times in the game hitting big shots. The Pistons also had outstanding defenders to cover up Vinnie's weaknesses. We don't have enough of those defenders, especially when we are short handed and playing people like Harington, Davis, Griffin, and Piatkowski in major roles. 

People tend to only look at points scored. While he can be an amazing scorer, he is also virtually useless on the court if he is not scoring.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Gordon should have been brought in for Duhon on that final play. Duhon is the guy that officialy lost this game for us. We would have had a chance to go up in the game at this point, but instead the Wizards went up by 2 because of his bafoon play. Gordon on a bad shooting night is much more valuable than Chris Duhon is, especially with a bad back, in the last 40 seconds of a game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's some fuel for the fire.

The Bulls didn't score in the final 2:54

For whatever reasons...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Here's some fuel for the fire.
> 
> The Bulls didn't score in the final 2:54
> 
> For whatever reasons...


I can give you the reasons :

1. Kirk underestimated Arenas and didn't protect the ball on the break away lay up and he got blind sided by a flying Arenas. That , to me , was when I knew we'd lost. Kirk converts and we're up 6.. they come back and we're up two after failing to stop and they inch foward with bogus impetus - re : Hayward's free throw that didn't touch 

2. Followed up with the Kirk and Du show on the inbounds .

3. Followed up by Nocioni's long 3 to tie and Tyson shooting a goddamn hard 2 with 4 seconds left instead of being composed enough to call the timeout when I believe we had a full timeout left


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I can give you the reasons :
> 
> 1. Kirk underestimated Arenas and didn't protect the ball on the break away lay up and he got blind sided by a flying Arenas. That , to me , was when I knew we'd lost. Kirk converts and we're up 6.. they come back and we're up two after failing to stop and they inch foward with bogus impetus - re : Hayward's free throw that didn't touch
> 
> ...


There's at least three kinds of blocked shots in the NBA:

1) The block that ends up in your teammates' hands
2) The block that ends up in row Q
3) The block that makes a statement: "not in my house!"

2:54	Tyson Chandler made 4 ft hook shot. Assisted by Kirk Hinrich.
<B>2:41	Kirk Hinrich's layup blocked by Gilbert Arenas.</B>
2:15	Kirk Hinrich Bad Pass. Stolen by Antawn Jamison.
1:50	Adrian Griffin Bad Pass. Stolen by Brendan Haywood.
1:49	Adrian Griffin Personal Foul. His 5th Personal Foul.
1:39	Jannero Pargo enters the game for Adrian Griffin.
1:25	Kirk Hinrich missed 22 ft jumper.
1:00	Jannero Pargo missed 18 ft jumper.
<B>0:34	Chris Duhon Lost Ball. Stolen by Jared Jeffries.
0:31	Jared Jeffries made dunk.</B>
0:17	Jannero Pargo missed 29 ft three point jumper.
0:17	Adrian Griffin enters the game for Antonio Davis.
0:17	Andres Nocioni enters the game for Jannero Pargo.
0:16	Kirk Hinrich Personal Foul. His 5th Personal Foul.
0:16	Antonio Davis enters the game for Adrian Griffin.
0:05	Andres Nocioni missed 28 ft three point jumper.
0:04	Tyson Chandler offensive rebound.
<B>0:01	Tyson Chandler missed 17 ft jumper.</B>

Bulls did have a full timeout. I really don't believe that Chandler could have gotten the ball to anyone else in time to get off a shot. He was barely able to get of the shot himself...

Oddly, neither Pargo nor Gordon were in to take the 3 at the end. Kirk and Nocioni were basically our only two options.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

I agree with the people who say Ben had to be there in the fourth quarter instead of Jannero frickin Pargo. Just because Pargo had a lucky *** run in the last minute of game five does not mean you play him over your best clutch shooter. You have to trust your stars. For example in game 5(sorry for the memories bulls fans), Arenas had an off night, but who took the last shot? Arenas.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

adarsh1 said:


> I agree with the people who say Ben had to be there in the fourth quarter instead of Jannero frickin Pargo. Just because Pargo had a lucky *** run in the last minute of game five does not mean you play him over your best clutch shooter. You have to trust your stars. For example in game 5(sorry for the memories bulls fans), Arenas had an off night, but who took the last shot? Arenas.


Don't forget game 4 too. We should have had this lineup on the court.

PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Jannero Pargo
SG2- Ben Gordon
SF-Eric Piatowski
C- Tyson Chandler

We should have had this lineup on the floor.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> There's at least three kinds of blocked shots in the NBA:
> 
> 1) The block that ends up in your teammates' hands
> 2) The block that ends up in row Q
> ...


That block just knocked the stuffing out of us

Interesting to jog the memory on your log notes

Clearly we lost our composure on that big swinging dick momentum changer by Gilbert Arenas

Even though I think the guy is a tool.. I have to acknowledge Brendan Hayward in this series who I think had a hell of a series... as did Larry Hughes

They deserved to win even though we went out swinging - showed some balls


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Good post. The knee jerk reactions going on in this thread are a little silly. Skiles is suddenly a terrible coach, and people are espousing a bunch of extremely polarized views about Ben, and I don't think either of them are very accurate.
> 
> I don't know if Skiles made the right decision to keep Ben out of the game, but I thought it was a defendable decision, and it has been consistent with his coaching all season. If Ben had brought it from the opening tip, I feel pretty certain that he would have been in there in the 4th quarter. But he was absolutely terrible, and Skiles had to make a decision on what to do with him, and either scenario had a large potential for failure. Those are the breaks. However, I do think that Skiles made this decision to win the game, and not send some message to Ben.
> 
> Oh well. Cheers to a great season everyone. Hopefully this will just fire up our players and make them work harder in the offseason.



I notice he didn't call out the other side of the argument. Typical.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

sinkingship said:


> Gordon is an extremely one dimensional player at this early point of his career. Granted, that one dimension has been spectacular at times, and it is rare to have such a young, clutch shooter. He saved us so many times.
> 
> The one thing this series did show was the Hinrich/Gordon backcourt is not going to be our future. Washington's big guards were punishing throughout the series. Gordon's defensive liabilities were exposed. Hinrich is much more of a point guard, and most tmes he is a great defender. He is much more multi-dimensional than Gordon.
> 
> ...


If we drafted Ben Gordon to be our sixth man, when we needed starters at BOTH WINGS last year, then put me back on the FIRE PAX list RIGHT NOW!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> If we drafted Ben Gordon to be our sixth man, when we needed starters at BOTH WINGS last year, then put me back on the FIRE PAX list RIGHT NOW!


If Gordon only ends up being a Vinnie Johnson, instant offense off the bench type... we could have done better with such a high draft pick.

I'm willing to give the guy more time. He's a competitor and will have a whole off-season to improve.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Gordon only ends up being a Vinnie Johnson, instant offense off the bench type... we could have done better with such a high draft pick.
> 
> I'm willing to give the guy more time. He's a competitor and will have a whole off-season to improve.



So am I. But the idea that Ben Gordon is the Bulls savior is laughable. What is equally laughable however is the ridiculous notion that he is anywhere NEAR his ceiling. HE WAS A ROOKIE, ladies and gentleman. If all you see ben becoming is what he is right now, then we REALLY REALLY screwed up last year in the draft by NOT drafting Andre Igoudala.

I don't believe it. The truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ben's got a long way to go, that's for sure.

I don't know what the hell was going on yesterday- it looked pretty mental to me, but he certainly didn't deserve to be on the court.

For the crap Pargo gets (and deservedly so), he and Gordon are pretty much identical players at this point- we just hope Ben's got more upside. 

For the record, I didn't want Pargo out there at the end either... after the first couple of shots in the fourth, it was clear he was cold tuna. Think I would have been happy just to stick with Kirk, Chris, Griffin, and Noc, with Tyson up front.

Nonetheless, Gordon's horrendous performance was hard to take. I'm not really concerned about anyone else getting psyched out from the loss. Kirk, Chris, and Tyson all appear to have made mental mistakes at the end of the game, but they were balanced by being in the heat of the moment and doing other things well.

But I am concerned about Gordon's long-run status after the game, because his issues seem to me to be in his head to start with. That's the kind of performance than can send a guy into a tailspin, and I think the Bulls need to work to ensure that doesn't happen.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Ben's got a long way to go, that's for sure.
> 
> I don't know what the hell was going on yesterday- it looked pretty mental to me, but he certainly didn't deserve to be on the court.
> 
> ...


I agree.....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> For the crap Pargo gets (and deservedly so), he and Gordon are pretty much identical players at this point- we just hope Ben's got more upside.


I agree with this. I just didn't have the guts to say it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Ben's got a long way to go, that's for sure.
> 
> I don't know what the hell was going on yesterday- it looked pretty mental to me, but he certainly didn't deserve to be on the court.
> 
> ...


Actually, there is one major difference between Ben and Janerro, and that's that Ben can make his own shot. Therefore, sometimes, Ben drives around somebody and scores in the lane. You'll see Pargo do that about three times a year.

As for Ben, this bitter defeat on a bad game may be a good thing in the end. HKF can defend Ben all he wants, but the fact is that Gordon had a terrible game in the most important game of the year. Not shooting doesn't bother me nearly as much as the particularly bad defense and the five turnovers. Still, we've all seen what Ben can do when he's in the flow, so we know the talent is there.

The anger that Ben must feel for having it end this way must motivate him to get better over the summer. If he really refines his handle and his footwork on defense, he could really come into his own next year.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Actually, there is one major difference between Ben and Janerro, and that's that Ben can make his own shot. Therefore, sometimes, Ben drives around somebody and scores in the lane. You'll see Pargo do that about three times a year.


That's true in general, and I should have mentioned it. Ben can do some things offensively (when he's on his game), that Pargo can't do. And he was more consistently "on" than Pargo.

But I think the overall point is still valid; he's a streaky offensive player who, if he's not "on", is generally a liability.

The upside is that his "on" is better than Pargo's, that he's "on" more often, and that he might well improve in other areas. Unfortunately, none of those help in a particular instance where he's "off".

The real question is how often is he going to be off? For a guy who was clutch so often this year, his implosion is just mystifying to me.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> That's true in general, and I should have mentioned it. Ben can do some things offensively (when he's on his game), that Pargo can't do. And he was more consistently "on" than Pargo.
> 
> But I think the overall point is still valid; he's a streaky offensive player who, if he's not "on", is generally a liability.
> 
> ...


ROY?

Ben is a far from complete player. Mostly, he doesn't get the idea of feeding his offense from his defense. So, he was the least prepared to do what the Bulls had to do for this game, which was to control the game flow through defensive intensity. His trick is to control the game through offensive explosion. But if that means that the defensive leash is loosened too much, it leads to losses in tight games where every possession matters.

Skiles has used him well. But I think that Ben needs to learn that basic idea that the best offense flows from good defense. I think that he can. He will have to, if he wants to be more than a career sixth man (even Scottie Pippen suggested this). 

By the way, I think that he is much better than Pargo, and I don't think anyone on the Bulls thinks otherwise.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

When Gordon doesn't score, he's next to worthless. He turns the ball over at an alarming rate. That said, I love the guy, and he won many, many games for us. He's just so one-dimensional it isn't even funny.

Exactly why do people think he has any sort of future as a PG in the league?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

I don't know if this got posted here. If it did, sorry to repost. But I thought KC's take (before game 6) was interesting.

trib 



> With all the young talent on the Bulls, whom do you think will be the first of the Baby Bulls to be an NBA All-Star? --Jeff Enriquez, Chicago
> 
> Kirk Hinrich. His reputation is growing rapidly and his defensive prowess impresses coaches, who select the All-Star reserves. I'll nip the hate mail in the bud: This doesn't mean I think Hinrich will surely be the best of the Baby Bulls (your term, not mine), just that I think he will earn All-Star status first. So all you Ben Gordon lovers out there, back off.


One day, we'll be the team with all the recognized "talent".


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

adarsh1 said:


> I agree with the people who say Ben had to be there in the fourth quarter instead of Jannero frickin Pargo. Just because Pargo had a lucky *** run in the last minute of game five does not mean you play him over your best clutch shooter. *You have to trust your stars.* For example in game 5(sorry for the memories bulls fans), Arenas had an off night, but who took the last shot? Arenas.


See, here's the big misconception that the media does to the NBA. They try to make stars out of people who aren't really stars. Gordon is certainly our best scoring guard, but he is NOT a star. He is not even a player yet who can consistently get you 20 points a night. He'll have a 30 point game, then follow it up with a 5 point game. And because he doesn't offer anything else, you can't ride him through the tough stretches the way other REAL stars can. Hence why Ben only plays 25 minutes a game. He's a tremendous 6th man, but all this talk of him being a STAR will eventually hurt the Bulls team concept. He already has it in his head that he should be starting, and this will cause some major conflict if he doesn't fill the holes in his game.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Future said:


> and where the **** is this Luol Deng is the best rookie on our team crap coming from. He backed up Andres Nocioni...


Deng backed up Nocioni? Did you stop watching the Bulls in November? Deng started 45 of the 61 games he was healthy for us. He took Nocioni's starting spot right at the beginning of December, and there was no question it was the right move. That's when the Bulls turned it around, infact. Deng was more efficient than Gordon on offense, his numbers were better. On top of that, he was in another world defensively than Gordon.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Deng backed up Nocioni? Did you stop watching the Bulls in November? Deng started 45 of the 61 games he was healthy for us. He took Nocioni's starting spot right at the beginning of December, and there was no question it was the right move. That's when the Bulls turned it around, infact. Deng was more efficient than Gordon on offense, his numbers were better. On top of that, he was in another world defensively than Gordon.


Yes, I remember that. I was going to edit my post when I realized that, but it was already 4 AM and I was still pissed off because of this game and didn't feel like going back and editing it. But Deng did back up Nocioni... he backed him up after he came back from his ankle injury. It still does not change my point....losing Deng ****ed up our SF depth because we were forced to play Griffin and Pike significant minutes. 

Some of you are trying to diminish Ben's game just to raise Luol Deng's... and that is BS. Luol Deng was important to this team (I love Deng's game... he is long and plays great defense.), and we missed him during the playoffs, but don't diminish Ben's game and ignore all his important 4th quarter shooting, just to raise another player's stature. We missed Deng, but Noc filled in admirably... I'm standing by my opinion that without Ben Gordon we are not a playoff team. If we lose Ben Gordon, who's gonna score in the 4th and close out games?


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

One bad _quarter_, and people are ready to dump Gordon. 

Ok, let me start by saying this. Without Gordon, NO PLAYOFFS. Did you not witness Gordon carry us and single-handedly win us games in the 4th?? Haters like to say things to the line of, oh Gordon.. all he can do is score and make clutch shots. Listen, there is no greater discernable skill than to be able to make shots like Gordon can. To whomever expressed regret over not picking Iguodala, do you honestly believe the Bulls would have won more games with Iggy than Ben? Are you out of your mind? Solid defense is great, something the Bulls ALREADY have. I love how people seem to dismiss offensive ability as an afterthought to "playing the game the right way"... ie. no talent, defensive hustle. Bulls would have won 5-10 games LESS if not for Gordon. Who, outside of Curry, is a consistent offensive threat on this Bulls team? WHO??? Honestly, if Skiles was half as critical of any of the other Bulls players as he has been with Gordon.. if any of you would be objective in your grading of Bulls players. Great players have bad quarters. Gordon played a whole of 15 min in game 6. You don't just trash a player who has been MJ-esque in 4th quarters because of a bad start. Gordon deserved a second chance, and it's just sad and pathetic that he didn't. Ya know what, I hope Gordon is angry about this... he damn well should be. Most teams wouldn't trash their most talented player like this in the single most important game of the season. 

Sounds like to me.. y'all would want a team of Chris Duhons.. fine with me. take em. I'll take actual talent anyday.

And finally, it's funny people were critical of Curry the exact same way before he went down. Without him, people are recognizing exactly how valuable he was and will be to this Bulls team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

david123 said:


> Who, outside of Curry, is a consistent offensive threat on this Bulls team? WHO???


That's irrelevant, because Gordon himself wasn't a *consistent* offensive threat. Regardless, people are quick to jump in your face if you don't think Gordon was the most important player on the team. I can't imagine how that's "hating" on Gordon. He did his thing this year, but a couple other guys were more important. Sam Cassell wasn't better than Kevin Garnett because he was the guy closing out games for them in 03-04. Kobe wasn't more important than Shaq, even though the ball was in Kobe's hands in the final minutes. 

I've said these things the whole year. Shooting isn't the only talent in basketball, and if it was, sure Gordon would be the most talented player on the Bulls. However, defense, ball handling, playmaking, passing and other things are also talents and are very important. Gordon isn't our most talented player.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's irrelevant, because Gordon himself wasn't a *consistent* offensive threat. Regardless, people are quick to jump in your face if you don't think Gordon was the most important player on the team. I can't imagine how that's "hating" on Gordon. He did his thing this year, but a couple other guys were more important. Sam Cassell wasn't better than Kevin Garnett because he was the guy closing out games for them in 03-04. Kobe wasn't more important than Shaq, even though the ball was in Kobe's hands in the final minutes.
> 
> I've said these things the whole year. Shooting isn't the only talent in basketball, and if it was, sure Gordon would be the most talented player on the Bulls. However, defense, ball handling, playmaking, passing and other things are also talents and are very important. Gordon isn't our most talented player.


Are you KC Johnson, or what?

http://web.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2221765&postcount=116


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> I notice he didn't call out the other side of the argument. Typical.



Well, the other side of the argument was that Ben Gordon has often won some games for us in the 4th quarter this season, and has usually been our go-to scorer in crunch time, and hence, it wouldn't make sense to take him out of our most important game of the season. 

If that's the viewpoint that you prescribe too, then yeah, I'm sure it's natural to think that Skiles made a terrible mistake. Personally, I think the idea has some merit, but I still see why Skiles made the decision that he did. Ben's had some outstanding games this season, and gone through certain stretches where he's been unstoppable, but he's also had a number of games where he's completely stunk it up, and has been a liability on the floor, since the only thing he really seems to do well right now is score. 

This was an important game, and Ben was a huge liability on the floor during the time he was on the court, offensively and defensively, so Skiles benched him. I think he gave him another shake in the 4th quarter to see if he could get things going for himself again, but everything he did on the floor seemed to point to more of the same, and I'm guessing Skiles felt like he couldn't afford to keep him on the floor any longer to see if he could get in a groove. Maybe if he would have kept him in a little bit longer he could have gotten hot and helped us win the game. I don't know. And I doubt Skiles, Ben, or anyone else does either, or ever will. I think it was a judgement call any way you slice it, and personally, I think we probably would have lost the game either way, so Skiles was pretty much damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. In the end, I'm pretty sure he made the decision that he felt would give his team the best chance of winning. I'm really not sure if it was the right decision or not, but his judgement and roster management has been pretty spot on all season long, so I guess I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, since I can't seem to make up my own mind.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> But I am concerned about Gordon's long-run status after the game, because his issues seem to me to be in his head to start with. That's the kind of performance than can send a guy into a tailspin, and I think the Bulls need to work to ensure that doesn't happen.


I mentioned this vaguely (I think) in another thread: if I were Paxson and/or Skiles, I'd have the Bulls video guys put together a "Ben's Greatest Hits" tape of highlights of his this season. Except I'd tell them not to include a single three-pointer -- just his drives, fouls leading to free throws, and his assists. There were times this year -- not many, but they were there -- where I was simply blown away by how easily he could get by people and set up teammates. That needs to be cultivated (he should be setting up his shot off his penetration, not the other way around), and his defense obviously needs to improve.

I can't speak to why Ben played so poorly yesterday. It was a big moment for all of the Bulls, and each guy responded pretty negatively in his own way at one point or another. If there's one concern I have about his make-up, it's that the calmness that allows him to perform so effortlessly in the clutch MIGHT be the same thing that causes him to start a big game too slowly and never really get up to speed.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> If we drafted Ben Gordon to be our sixth man, when we needed starters at BOTH WINGS last year, then put me back on the FIRE PAX list RIGHT NOW!


You know, if what we got out of the 3rd pick in the draft was a consistent sixth man of the year player and a very clutch shooter under pressure, we could of done a heck of a lot worse. Just because Igoudala is a starter for Philly and a more rounded player it doesn't mean he would be more valuable to our team. We desperately needed scorers, and Gordon provided a rare type of clutch shooting not normally seen in a rookie, or any player for that matter. Gordon fit in well, and this was not going to be a championship team this season anyway. He is an important piece for us, but one of many we needed and still need. I think he was a great pick, and his 6th man role could be the biggest difference in a future championship season.

I think our shooting guard needs to be an established player, like a Finley or Ray Allen type. Gordon would be perfect continuing his role as a 25 minute a man instant offense guy. 

I just don't think because you are drafted at 3 it automatically means you need to be a star for the pick to be successful. Gordon's ability is rare and very valuable. It just might mean he is not suited for a starters role. He is basically a 6 foot tall shooting guard (I don't know where 6'2" comes from. He stands next to Hinrich and looks tiny. He may not even be 6 foot). Unless your name in Iverson, 6 foot tall shooting guards are not normally successful starters. 

I think the guy is great for the Bulls and important for our future. You just can't make him something he isn't, unless you can stretch him out another 5 inches.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

whether ben gordon is going to be a complete player or not down the line, or whether the bulls would of won X number of games withoutout him is irrelevant to the discussion at hand...

...what is important is for those last five minutes we needed someone to finish off the wizards in the fourth quarter and that is something ben gordon has done for the whole season....there is no one on the bulls more qualified to take on that task...save the tough all around play for the first 90% of the game....in the last 5 minutes we needed shots, ben gordon was the best guy to do that...pargo has done that in flashes and i have no idea what we expected chris duhon to do out there....

he did not have a good game, he turned over the ball 5 times and did not hit any shots....but i cannot let 20 minutes erase a seasons body of work...

....this was the most important 4th quarter of the season, not letting the guy who has done it for the whole season is nothing short of kneejerk and wrong....

but overall we had a great season, if eddy curry and deng are healthy for this series we be debating how many game we could steal away from the heat....we'll be back


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I dont see how people can blame skiles for gordon's mess.

1st half 11 minutes 0-0 from the field 5 turnovers .

2nd half 5 min. 0-1 from the field .

no defense in all of that time .

his job is to score , he tried in the 1st half and he got alot of turnovers for his trouble and got gunshy....in the 2nd half he got a shot off but was clearly playing scared out there so skiles pulled him.

8 pages later nothing changed , air gordon choked, its not skiles fault gordon didn't play well , they were doing the same stuff they have been doing all season and series , to get him shots , in the 2nd half he took 1 by way of the team offense and didn't seem to search out shots, for this he was sat.

everyone has bad games and sometimes people have horrific games , this was a horrific game by gordon .

pippen had one against the pistons 15 years ago and rebounded into one of the games all time great forwards .

nick anderson had one and faded into obscurity.

somehow i figure gordon to find his way to be some place in between, skiles did his job, he tried to win , his job isn't to create a legend in ben gordon , pargo was clearly outplaying gordon , so he played , skiles gave him another chance in the 4th after pargo went a little cold and he did nothing so he sat again , because if gordon is not scoring he doesn't do much for his team.

in the end it became the end of their season , but it shouldn't overshadow what he's done this season and it wont, the biggest issue right now is eddy's health. A far bigger deal than a clutch player failing one time , due to what is in my opinion the gravity of the situation.

it happens if the bulls had managed to pull out the game they would have owed their homecourt advantage in that game to jamal crawford's choke against them with 2 games left in the season . Sometimes players play bad when they are needed to play well, it can be because the shots dont go in that night , or it can be due to their own issues , its not a crime and if its just a glitch its not even troubling , it just becomes something that makes a player dig in and get better , like it did for kobe when he clearly choked against the jazz his rookie year, launching up 4 airballs when his team needed him most.

moments like that made him the player he is today...hopefully game 6 will have the same effect on ben.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

sinkingship said:


> I just don't think because you are drafted at 3 it automatically means you need to be a star for the pick to be successful. Gordon's ability is rare and very valuable. It just might mean he is not suited for a starters role. He is basically a 6 foot tall shooting guard (I don't know where 6'2" comes from. He stands next to Hinrich and looks tiny. He may not even be 6 foot). Unless your name in Iverson, 6 foot tall shooting guards are not normally successful starters.
> 
> I think the guy is great for the Bulls and important for our future. You just can't make him something he isn't, unless you can stretch him out another 5 inches.


actually you do draft 3rd in an attempt at a star, you can get role players later in the draft, if paxson's goal was to get a 6th man he should be fired .

but as i remember gordon started this season as a starter, he just didn't play well in that role so it was skiles' job to make him a good player ...which he did , because its skiles' job to win basketball games.

gordon was drafted to be a combo guard with kirk, they thought he could possibly defend 2 guards because he is strong and has long arms ....he cant. So he needs to play with a player who can defend shooting guards so ben can defend pgs, they also thought he could play pg down the line...he hasn't been able too thus far, probably because of the glut of pg's on the roster and his inability to do it well at this stage in his career.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The startling thing is Gordon took ZERO shots in the 1st half.

The big question is "why?"

It's not like he's going to have trouble getting at least a shot off in 11 minutes.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

its not skiles fault that gordon played like crap, but it is his fault that our best 4th quarter player for 80 some games wasnt on the floor


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> I dont see how people can blame skiles for gordon's mess.
> 
> 1st half 11 minutes 0-0 from the field 5 turnovers .
> 
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

Fantastic.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The tenor of this thread aside, I think their was a lot of intersting material in here. The question was: will Ben Gordon rebound after his disasterous playoff series? Many were convinced he would work on his game all season and come back with avengence. And while he has substantially improved his game, he seems to be -- at least temporarily -- missing his killer instinct. 

Just as an exercies, I formed a list of the shooting guards taken over the last nine years who were 6'3 or less. The first thing I noticed is there is a lot of "bad." And the few successes, are from players who are one size bigger then Gordon and play a combo position. Ie. Arenas and Francis. Perhaps this should be a cautionary tale for anyone suggesting drafting a sg who is under 6'3. It'll be interesting to see where Redick measures. 

2005:
21. Nate Robinson 5-9 181 PG Wash. Jr.
24. Luther Head 6-3 179 SG Illinois Sr.
31. Salim Stoudamire 6-1 186 SG Ariz. Sr.

2004:
3. Ben Gordon 6-2 192 PG UConn Jr.
53. Romain Sato 6-3 204 SG Xavier Sr.

2003:

2002:
Jay Williams 6-2 195 PG Duke Jr.
Dajuan Wagner 6-2 200 PG/SG Memphis Fr.
Juan Dixon 6-3 165 SG Maryland Sr.

2001:
31. Gilbert Arenas 6-3 199 SG Arizona So.
36. Jeff Trepagnier 6-3 196 SG Southern Cal Sr.
44. Kyle Hill 6-2 180 PG/SG Eastern Illinois Sr.

2000:
32. AJ Guyton Indiana Sr. PG/SG 6-1 175

1999:
2. Steve Francis 6-3 194 SG Maryland Jr.

1996:
1. AI 

Nonetheless, I still have faith in Gordon. Perhaps, more now then at the end of last season. He should to be starting; as a vote of confidence, and because we need someone who can create in the starting lineup.


----------

