# Thoughts on Ben Gordon???? / Why? [merged]



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

*Ben Gordon???? Why?*

Why do we need ben gordon when we have hinrich!!! Hinrich has the ability of being the best pg this team ahas seen in a while....hes got all the stuff you want from a pg....correct me if im rong, gordon has it too but im more the fan of hinrich

Iguodala and Childress have both impressed paxson. Childress can be grabbed at 7 and will provide us a shot from behind the arch at the 2 guard and he has a great passing ability.... Iguodala brings the defense that the bulls fans have lacked since the jordan era....he will drop his midrange baskets and is a guy who will be put on you paul pierces, rip hamilton, cuttino mobleys, richard jeffersons, michael redd....the guys who have the ability to capitilize on our weak defence...

The lineup of Hinrich, Childress, Iguodala, Chandler, Curry may seem a little pre-mature but our team has been like that for years. The only reason i'd select gordon is if we ehave the ability to trade hinrich and someone like a chandler for a player that will make an impact next year...I'm really confused of the direction of this team is going...we need a new Jalen Rose....remember when we first got him and the impact he made early before he started struggling....thats why this paul pierce trade excited me soo much...i thought we might have win a game....to win we cant stack a position with talent like we have in the past. EX. PF position with chandler, davis, and fizer.....fizer, if given the chance in charlotte, will dominate and we saw that in the game we let him play in...if we stack the pg position with gordon and hinrich...without trading one of them.....whats the point of even trying....im sick of rebuilding.....Chicago was a basketball town but not any more.....god knows i love the bulls and always will but co'mon....we do not need another pg.....somewon pleas give me a good reason why we are even considering gordon.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

ben is here to take craw's spot, not hinrich's

Ben is a definate superstar- you cant pass that up.

I would love to grab Ben at 3 and Iggy at 7, but unfortately it sounds like were dealing the 7 for Harrington.


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

well i hope it works for the best...i really do....but isnrt he a little small for a 2 guard....u have to have A.I. type talent to succed there being this small


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Ben is a definite superstar? I don't know, imo UConn was nothing close to being Ben Gordon's team - it was Okafor's all the way. Ben seemed to disappear sometimes. Then there's this... I know it's Sam Smith, but whereas his own opinion is often wacky, I do think he has good sources, so when I hear this about Ben Gordon I wonder about the "Gordon is definitely a superstar" line of thinking. 

"Connecticut guard Ben Gordon, who just a few months ago was regarded as a marginal first-round pick, has shot up in the eyes of many, especially the Bulls, who are expected to take him with their No. 3 overall pick.

His selection, at least for the Bulls, would be symbolic as much as anything. It would suggest the type of team they're trying to build and a certain end to Jamal Crawford's Bulls career. Last season, there was considerable lip service paid to 'hard work' without the requisite performance."

...

"While Gordon isn't considered a potential superstar, he's 21 and a junior accustomed to big-game college situations. He will understand the NBA quickly." - From chicagosports.com.

#3 seems like a lot for someone like that. No wonder Pax wants to trade. A "symbolic" pick of a recently-marginal first rounder at #3 who isn't a potential superstar? Oy.

By the way - if I'm GM of the Bulls, and I see the absolute lack of free agents willing to come to Chicago, there is NO WAY I let a restricted free agent like Jamal who has some demand and has scored fifty walk for nothing. Who will we spend his money on if not Jamal? KEEP Jamal. He's the only free agent we can force to be here! Then use him in a trade for whatever you can get if you don't want him. If he complains about not having assets and then lets Jamal walk for nothing, it will be sad. He should match whatever comes in, if only to trade him to that same team for some "assets".


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Philomath</b>!
> Ben is a definite superstar? I don't know, imo UConn was nothing close to being Ben Gordon's team - it was Okafor's all the way. Ben seemed to disappear sometimes. Then there's this... I know it's Sam Smith, but whereas his own opinion is often wacky, I do think he has good sources, so when I hear this about Ben Gordon I wonder about the "Gordon is definitely a superstar" line of thinking.
> 
> "Connecticut guard Ben Gordon, who just a few months ago was regarded as a marginal first-round pick, has shot up in the eyes of many, especially the Bulls, who are expected to take him with their No. 3 overall pick.
> ...


well said


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Anyone remember watching Ben's "defense" in the final four? He might be as bad or worse than Jamal at keeping his man in front of him.

Replacing Jamal with Gordon is not improving the team. At best it's a lateral move. Most likely it's a regression for a few years.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Ben is a definate superstar- you cant pass that up.


It's always refreshing to know who the definate superstars are. If he were definate, why wouldn't he be going #1?

People look at statistics and make something probable definate.

For example, the odds of the Magic getting the #1 pick were not in their favor. Yet, after they did get the #1 pick, the draft commentator said that just as the odds suggested, Orlando got the #1. The reality is that Orlando had a 75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick, but they had the best chance out of all the teams out there.

If Gordon had a 50% chance of becoming a star, would you take him? 40%? 30%? That is what GMs and scouts are trying to determine. It's no doubt that anyone taken in the first round has skills.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Anyone remember watching Ben's "defense" in the final four? He might be as bad or worse than Jamal at keeping his man in front of him.
> 
> Replacing Jamal with Gordon is not improving the team. At best it's a lateral move. Most likely it's a regression for a few years.


Yes, in the second half he had 2 bad defensive plays in a row and ever since then he has been stereotyped as a terrible defender. Nobody takes into consideration how exhausted BG was. He had Duhon and Ewing guarding him the whole game. Duhon (who has good first step) got past Ben twice in a row and that is all everybody remembers, but nobody remembers when Ben shut down Duhon the last 3 mins.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Realize, this is a must for the Bulls.....

We need to begin each year with a COntroversy -

Hinrich V Gordon......the PG controversy continues....


He's replacing Crawford for all of about 20 minutes in to the first game where the other team posts him up on 10 straight consecutive scoring trips.


What were you all watching this past season? Ummmm, Gordon was good, not great. His D fits with the rest of our matador style of defense.

Good, yes. Contributor, yes. Definite superstar - fine, then we won't miss Hinrich and Crawford.

Gordon is a disaster for this team.


We are now backed into a corner. You have to get Pierce to score from the outside.

Harrington, Curry and Chandler all trying to score on the inside....you'd better start praying that Crawford is resigned and working on his outseide shot consistency. Damn, we almost need Antoine Walker.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Gordon looks waful short next to Stern.*










Boy..He looks tough, though. Fiesty looking dude!


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Notice the RED tie?


----------



## lou4gehrig (Aug 1, 2003)

*Gordon's height a non issue.*

People are freaking out about a Hinrich Gordon backcourt.

How these players / backcourts:

Baron Davis 6'2", David Wesley 6'1"
Andre Miller 6'1", Voshon Lenard 6'4"
Steve Francis 6'3, Mobley, 6'4"
Derek Fisher, 6'1"
Jason Terry, 6'2"
Stephon Marbury, 6'2"
Sam Cassell 6'3"
Steve Nash 6'3"
Mike Bibby 6'1"
Tony Parker 6'2"
Gilbert Arenas 6'3"
Allen Iverson 6'1"

Point is, Gordon is similar to Francis in athletic ability (vertical) quickness. To me strength and bulk, along with quickness and vertical are most important. You're telling me Hinrich can't guard the SG on other teams, while Gordon guards the PG? Please. Its a non issue. Jamal is 6'6" but his height does nothing for him. He can't even drive the lane consistenty or guard anyone.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

Tiny backcourts can be hell for the oppsition to guard . . . as long as they can hold their own defensively we should be ok. But from the games I watched Gordon in the tourney, he is horrible at stopping dribble penetratioin.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>7thwatch</b>!
> But from the games I watched Gordon in the tourney, he is horrible at stopping dribble penetratioin.


I recall Gordon stinking on D also, I think JC is a better defender. Also, this kind of negates Pargo if we keep JC. I'd prefer trading Gordon along with Deng and filler to get a top guy at SF if it can be done. Still, hard to complain too much given the situation, Pax got good talent at both picks.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

From what I've seen of Gordon, he might actually be a worse defender than Jamal.

So it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. My guess is that Gordon is JC's replacement. But I don't know that he'll actually be better next year than JC was. So we may find our way back into the lottery next year if this is the best Pax could do.

Two lottery picks in one a weak draft.

Wooo hoo.

It's like Fizer-Crawford pt. 2


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Gordon didn't play any D cause he relied on Okafor to clean it up for him.


The next time he plays D, will be the first time.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

To me, the commish looks awful short next to Gordon. :yes: 

The hat looks great on him. A perfect fit...


----------



## Reciprocity Failure (Jun 10, 2004)

*Why I like Ben Gordon @#3*

I for one don't think the drafting of Gordon spells the end of JC's playing days in Chicago. Though another "PG" could seem a bit redundant, this is how I see Pax's thought process...
A. Gordon was the best available player who is most likely to contribute now...
B. Gordon is insurance at the 2 if JC signs elsewhere...
C. Gordon (or Hinrich) is a tradeable asset to bring back veteran help and or cap relief...

thoughts?
opinions?
talk amongst yourselves...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Gordon looks a lot like Pippen in the cap


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

For the most part, I agree with you on all points.

I think for the most part, Gordon was just hands down the best player at #3, and if he truly is an impact player, then it is the right choice to draft him, IMO, even if he doesn't play the right position. 

Besides, if you disregard height, he provides a lot of what this team needs. He is explosive, attacks the basket, plays above the rim, and I think he'll be a good finisher as well. I think we needed that just as much as someone who could play the '3'. And we got that anyways with Deng, so overall, I'm pretty happy.

The situation with JC this summer should be interesting. I really hope we make an aggressive attempt to keep him, but I have my doubts. Drafting two more PG's would have to make you think that Paxson is preparing for JC's departure. I'm guessing Pax has a fixed number in his mind for what he will pay for JC, and will wait to see if anyone goes above it. It should be an interesting summer.


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

*Ben Gordon*

Congrats on the pic, I think he's going to be a special player.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I do too

I feel weird though

Almost as if I feel like the Bulls are going to be good next year


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

By acquiring the #7, the Bulls allowed themselves the opportunity to hit a home run with the #3. Hinrich vs. Harris or Hinrich vs. Livingston would have been a true PG controversy. I think Hinrich and Gordon compliment each other well.

Our largest need, the SF, could be addressed between Iggy, Jackson, Childress, Snyder, and Deng, and we were guaranteed to have our choice at least out of 2 of them. They all have their areas of strength, but are all pretty even in the talent level IMO. I think Iggy has the best potential, which is why I would have preferred the Bulls picked him, but Deng is a fine pick as well (although I would rather the Bulls had Snyder or Jackson over him even).


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm thinking that Ben Gordon is the Dwyane Wade that we should have gotten last year and who we had to wait for a year to get.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Why - Best player available , not by need...


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philomath</b>!
> 
> Ben is a definite superstar? I don't know, imo UConn was nothing close to being Ben Gordon's team - it was Okafor's all the way.


Who got the ball to Okafor? I don't watch college ball, so I really don't know. I'm assuming it was Ben. 

What was the biggest problem this year on the Bull? IMO it was not enough touches for Eddy. Kirk, Gordon, Duhon all know how to get the ball inside, and Crawdaddy is getting better at it. As we are able to spread the floor with 5 legit scoring options, it will also be much easier to get Eddy the ball.

Also, remember back to last season when Tyson was healthy. There were some great passes in the post from Tyson to Eddy.

This team will produce.

Great draft.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Damn, I wonder what Jay Will thinks of all this.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i hope jay williams heals and come back to the bulls next season. then we will have 4 PGs or 6 PGs if u consider JC and pargo. thats a great team man. in some meaningless blowout games, we should really try the 5 PGs lineup just to tick off the other team.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Those 5 PGs would beat 5 Stacey Kings any day of the week.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Has Ben ever showed up in a big game....HELL NO!



Talk about overrated. He is not that good. This is ridiculous. Workout Warrior Ben.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I was pretty disturbed last night about Gordon. I wanted Iggy and like DMD I was caught up in the hysteria. As well, I was one of the founding members of the Luke Jackson appreciation club and he didnt' go at 7. Slept on it. Tossed and turned.

After some careful consideration, I AM OKAY with the pick. Why? Because he just might the most talented player on the board at #3 and he can contribute right away. As Pax says, its a matter of building assets. Gordon can be a guy who comes in right away w/ a splash.. the position is almost irrelevant.

Yeah it sucks taking another combo smallish guard. But the philosophy of taking the best player available just might do the trick this time. I will trust what PCLoad and Kramer were saying all during the draft party...that he will turn out to be a special player.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

No disrespect to Okafor but he was mostly injured during the NCAA turnament as i recall. And he was out like the whole first half of the finals. I watched some of those games and it was Ben Gordon taking the team all the way, period.

Anyone who says Gordon was not the man on that team that won the finals needs to go back a look at there stats.

Okafor had two points against Alabama while gordon had 36 pts in the regional finals, Okafor was hurt, period but gordon carried the team. 

In the first game of the regionals gordon had 20 pts, 9 rebounds, and 5 dimes. Okafor had 12 pts and i think 9 rbs.

So lets stop all this it was Okafor's team, they won on the combined play of both players and when Okafor was hurting Gordon stepped up big time and led that team.

david


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> No disrespect to Okafor but he was mostly injured during the NCAA turnament as i recall. And he was out like the whole first half of the finals. I watched some of those games and it was Ben Gordon taking the team all the way, period.
> 
> Anyone who says Gordon was not the man on that team that won the finals needs to go back a look at there stats.
> ...


yup, but are we looking at an Allen Iverson here or a Baron Davis. ??


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> Has Ben ever showed up in a big game....HELL NO!
> 
> 
> ...


 

I'm sure his record 81 points in the Big East tourney meant nothing to the team. He carried UConn while Meka was injured...the team that won the national championship. He dominated Alabama and hit the game winner against Pittsburgh during the tournament.

I can't believe all of these people that don't even watch college basketball repeatedly bash him. He's the most efficient and smooth scorer that I've seen since fellow alum Ray Allen.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

DaFuture said:


> Has Ben ever showed up in a big game....HELL NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about overrated. He is not that good. This is ridiculous. Workout Warrior Ben.


1 year later.
6th man of the year,
the clutchest player in the 03-04 season.
and 2nd in voting for ROY.

Gordon cant come through in big games? if theres one thing he can do, its that.
its always nice havin perspective from a year later.


----------



## canadianbullsfan07 (Sep 19, 2005)

> the clutchest player in the 03-04 season.


Yeah, plus isn't it weird that two of the best clutch plays this year came at the expense of the Knicks.. in the Garden!! They didn't call it Madison Square Gordon for nothing! Hopefully he still has more clutch left in him.. hopefully again at the expense of the Knicks.


----------



## canadianbullsfan07 (Sep 19, 2005)

:banana:


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

DaFuture said:


> Has Ben ever showed up in a big game....HELL NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about overrated. He is not that good. This is ridiculous. Workout Warrior Ben.



lmao.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> I do too
> 
> I feel weird though
> 
> Almost as if I feel like the Bulls are going to be good next year


This, really, was probably the golden comment of this thread. Talk about prophecy.

Truly, a weird feeling, to come off a 23 win season and "feel like the Bulls are going to be good next year", regardless of how good the draft was.

Almost as if by "be good next year", he meant "double the win total".


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Sleep on Ben Gordon at your own risk.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

HKF said:


> Sleep on Ben Gordon at your own risk.


I'm really excited to read that he has been the hardest working Bull over the summer. I can't wait to see what new tricks he's added to his bag.


----------



## BullsPro27 (Jul 19, 2006)

*Re: Ben Gordon???? Why?*

Y have one great pg when u can have 2 great players on the team. hinrich and gordon can switch off at the 1 and 2 spot that works great then uve got duhon when they need a rest. that 1 2 combo works out great for the bulls and yes hinrich does have the stuff to be one of the greatest bulls pgs but so does gordon so let them both be great together. that can only mean more than greatness for the city of chicago.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

because he is a top 20 player in the NBA


----------

