# Here's the deal about Ben Gordon



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

A team's primary scorer and best offensive star has to be the primary scorer and best offensive scorer for a good team like the Bulls to have a pretty good shot at winning against essentially any other team. When your team's primary scorer and best offensive star does very little on the offensive end (and isn't a great defender), your team stands a pretty good chance of losing to essentially any other team. Against a playoff-quality team, the chances of winning a game when Gordon is on are less than losing a game when Gordon if off. Gordon is on one game, off the other. If this continues, what are our chances in the posteason?

Tonight he's 0-7 from the field after starting the second half with a missed wide open jumper.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Essentially, he's another Jamal Crawford.

But Jamal was MORE trigger happy but he also could rebound and assist better than Gordon. BUT he doesn't work as hard as Gordon on his game but honestly, doesn't look like he's improved much at all.

Both are SUPER streaky, look like god's one night, and look like Rodney White's the next.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

Ben needs consistent minutes to be a consistent scorer. That's my opinion. If he doesn't come out on fire, he is benched.

And some of the plays we run for him are terriable, we run the same curl play over and over for him. Where he gets a pass and shoots a off-balance fade away 18 foot jumpshot. It's a really low percentage shot and nearly half of his attempts are coming off of that set play. I think Ben's at his best when he has the ball in his hand and creates his own shot.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The Bulls need an actual offensive threat in the post. Until then, how can anyone expect Gordon to be a consistent offensive player? No one on the Bulls perimeter is consistent, because there is nothing consistent down low. It's not like any of these guys are as good as Kobe, who can get his regardless.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

Trade Gordon for Garnett now im telling u.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Bulls rock your socks said:


> Trade Gordon for Garnett now im telling u.


Gordon ain't gettin you Garnett...

They're gonna trade a 24 & 12 player for a kid that scores 5 one game then 25 the next?

They have Randy Foye and Rashard Mccants, they don't NEED Ben Gordon


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

HKF said:


> The Bulls need an actual offensive threat in the post. Until then, how can anyone expect Gordon to be a consistent offensive player? No one on the Bulls perimeter is consistent, because there is nothing consistent down low. It's not like any of these guys are as good as Kobe, who can get his regardless.


Its not like Gordon gets double teamed or something of that sort. He takes many open shots, has room to operate but fails consistently. And when he isnt hitting from outside, he insists from downtown which makes it even more irritating.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

OK Throw in Deng


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Its not like Gordon gets double teamed or something of that sort. He takes many open shots, has room to operate but fails consistently. And when he isnt hitting from outside, he insists from downtown which makes it even more irritating.


He's double and triple teamed constantly.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

HKF said:


> The Bulls need an actual offensive threat in the post.


The Pistons haven't had a post scoring threat and neither did the Suns last season.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Bulls rock your socks said:


> OK Throw in Deng


They wouldn't want Gordon...

Deng, Tyrus & Kirk would be ATOP a Minnesota list.......And I'm sure that NY pick would also.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> The Pistons haven't had a post scoring threat and neither did the Suns last season.


Rasheed, McDyess and Prince aren't post scoring threats? Also Diaw played in the paint quite a bit. The Bulls best offensive in the paint in Michael Sweetney.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

RagingBulls316 said:


> Ben needs consistent minutes to be a consistent scorer. That's my opinion. If he doesn't come out on fire, he is benched.
> 
> And some of the plays we run for him are terriable, we run the same curl play over and over for him. Where he gets a pass and shoots a off-balance fade away 18 foot jumpshot. It's a really low percentage shot and nearly half of his attempts are coming off of that set play. I think Ben's at his best when he has the ball in his hand and creates his own shot.


I agree with this and DaBullz' post in the game thread. And I say that believing that Hinrich is the player to keep, and Gordon the player to trade in the long term. Ben is definitely -not- a better point guard than Kirk, but I think having Ben at PG and Hinrich at SG maximizes their talents. For example, Hinrich is really good at the catch and shoot. Ben is not. ...Hopefully we see more of the Sefolosha/Gordon backcourt as well. 

Give credit to Cleveland, too. They packed the lane and played really solid defense. They were obviously ready to play.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

I love Ben Gordon, but his inconsistency is maddening. I wish I got to see more games, so I could see what is different in games he goes off and in games he goes 1-10 and gives little to nothing else. Then I could say "Hey, gotta get him involved early" or "Hey, gotta run this play" or "Hey, gotta get him to take his man off the dribble early so that he has more breathing room on the jumper."

Gordon was somewhat inconsistent his freshman/sophomore year of college. We used to say he disappeared in big games. He completely changed that his junior year. What was different? Honestly, I don't know.

I think this teams success hinges on Gordon's consistent scoring more than anything else. HOWEVER, Gordon is gonna need to score 40 if this team gives up over 55% FG and is outrebounded by more than 15. We win with defense and rebounding, not explosive offense. You cannot blame Gordon for this loss, even though yes, he did not perform the way we needed him to.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

I don't think Skiles even played a Sefolosha-Gordon backcourt tonight. Which I can't believe after how well it worked in the Milwaukee game...why not give it a shot again?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

HKF said:


> Rasheed, McDyess and Prince aren't post scoring threats? Also Diaw played in the paint quite a bit. The Bulls best offensive in the paint in Michael Sweetney.


Look up the numbers on points in the paint for those guys. Rasheed and McDyess are jump shooters and Diaw is a slasher. 

Of course the Bulls would be better off with a post player. But they would also be better off if their guards and forwards didn't settle for jumpers so often.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

I would really, really love to see Gordon stay and let him develop as a PG, especially after watching what I think was the best game of his career on Monday where he primarily played the point guard role. 

I like the suggestion that we shift over hinrich to SG. However I don't think Skiles (or Hinrich) would really be comfortable with this, and realistically I see Gordon getting traded. If we do pursue this course of action, I hope we can get some sort of a post player in exchange. But right now the only option that comes to mind is garnett and they won't take gordon straight up, they will probably demand the 1st round pick for next year and one of deng/nocioni.

I think what it boils down to though, more than anything, is that we have too many players in our rotation. The other thing about the milwaukee game was that skiles didn't play allen, thomas, or duhon more than 5 minutes each the entire game. in fact, he didn't even play thomas. and we won with only 8 players having significant time on the floor.

Steve Kerr took note of this, and sure enough that goddamned 10-man rotation reared its ugly head again and sure enough, we lost.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He's double and triple teamed constantly.


I guess I have been watching a different team, a different player...


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> The Pistons haven't had a post scoring threat and neither did the Suns last season.


Yeah, that was an inaccurate statement. There's guys like Ray Allen and Joe Johnson who have no trouble scoring points without a post threat.

Gordon's gotten ample opportunity in each game to provide the Bulls scoring. Skiles can't be blamed for his inconsistencies anymore.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> Look up the numbers on points in the paint for those guys. Rasheed and McDyess are jump shooters and Diaw is a slasher.
> 
> Of course the Bulls would be better off with a post player. But they would also be better off if their guards and forwards didn't settle for jumpers so often.


truth of the matter is, there isn't alot of good post players to begin with. alot of the big men are jump shooting big men these days..

you've got to wonder though, a player who is a tireless worker on the offseason such as gordon just totally stinking it up in 4 games out of 5. some games, i remember skiles saying, you just know his not ready to play from a few mintues on when his on the court. from what i saw from the first quarter he just didn't seem into it at all, he seem lethargic and just not into it. 

and yes, we didn't see thabo and ben tonight. i think we should just trade duhon, so we rely more on hinrich, gordon and thabo to play better and get some chemistry between those three. having duhon there is giving skiles too many options..


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Maybe there's another PJ Brown type player and contract for which we can trade away gordon


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

Anyone think that the Bulls are planning something big for the trading deadline?

They got Thabo who can replace Gordon (for now) and can trade either Deng or Nocioni. Throw in a draft pick, and you got great leverage for a nasty trade. The Bulls have too many of some things and almost nothing of others, it can only be like this for one reason.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

UMfan83 said:


> Anyone think that the Bulls are planning something big for the trading deadline?
> 
> They got Thabo who can replace Gordon (for now) and can trade either Deng or Nocioni. Throw in a draft pick, and you got great leverage for a nasty trade. The Bulls have too many of some things and almost nothing of others, it can only be like this for one reason.


If we can get a SCORING PF like KG, Gasol or JO, something like that...Thabo at starting at SG wouldn't be a problem at all...I think he'll become a much better offensive option as the season goes on also...

I'd personally like to get a player as mentioned above and move Tyrus to SF.

C Wallace
F Gasol or KG or JO
F Tyrus
G Thabo
G Hinrich


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Gasol would be my first choice, even over KG or JO.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Gasol would be my first choice, even over KG or JO.


Agreed. KG is too old and JO has been banged up a lot.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I think Memphis is also the most likely to want Gordon.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

Interesting thoughts here. So if you guys think post scoring is a problem, and would want to move Tyrus to SF, then trading Deng wouldn't be a bad idea, along with Gordon of course. I like Sefalosha at SG _(if not trading for a better scoring version of him)_ because of his "length"---very Pippen-esque---, height and perimeter D. With Hinrich and Gordon, the starting Guards are way too small, and our Center is undersized as well _(I thought keeping Chandler here would have been a good match with Ben in the paint)_.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Well what I noticed tonite is that Ben dint have the ball in his hands all that much tonite, I have to believe that Ben Gordon played his best game so far this year when he had the ball in his hands for a good majority of the time. I mean I cant complain because Kirk did a great job tonite dishing out the ball, but Ben just lit up the Bucks when he had the ball in his hands. Tonite it looked like he just ran around someone and then he got the ball and just shot it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

See Sham's new thread.

Yeah, Gordon is inconsistent as hell but that's not why we lost. And we didn't lose for not having "post scoring". Our defense was terrible, and Cleveland capitalized by hitting every shot in sight.

Like I said, see Sham's thread.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't feel like posting this again, so I'll link my thoughts about Ben Gordon from another thread.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4165681&postcount=7


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

It wasnt just Gordon. Deng was not hitting as well. That made it easier for them to key on Gordon.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

The ROY said:


> If we can get a SCORING PF like KG, Gasol or JO, something like that...Thabo at starting at SG wouldn't be a problem at all...I think he'll become a much better offensive option as the season goes on also...
> 
> I'd personally like to get a player as mentioned above and move Tyrus to SF.
> 
> ...


Right now, Tyrus doesn't even come close to having the skillset of a SF. He's not an above average ball handler or shooter. He can take slower 4s off the dribble on occasion but even then he looks awkard with the ball. I certainly wouldn't call him a starter on a championship-level team.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Frankensteiner said:


> Right now, Tyrus doesn't even come close to having the skillset of a SF. He's not an above average ball handler or shooter. He can take slower 4s off the dribble on occasion but even then he looks awkard with the ball. I certainly wouldn't call him a starter on a championship-level team.


i agree, there is noway Tyrus can play small forward on a permenant basis in the nba right now. maybe in the future once he improves and refines his small man skill sets. but untill then his a power forward, who can switch to small forward and shooting gaurd for short periods mainly on the defensive end.

as he progresses, i do definitly see him as a power forward that switches to the small forward position often, but he just doesn't have the skills to do so at the moment, mainly his lack of shooting ability and ball handling skills. but he does have the raw tools to be able to play small forward its just whether he'll put in the work to refine and work on these skills. 

but i much rather him bulk up and keep his *** down low in the post..


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Right now, Tyrus doesn't even come close to having the skillset of a SF. He's not an above average ball handler or shooter. He can take slower 4s off the dribble on occasion but even then *he looks awkard with the ball*. I certainly wouldn't call him a starter on a championship-level team.


When Tyrus has the ball on a fast break he looks so uncoordinated if he's not swooping in for an uncontested dunk. He's shown some terrible footwork on his fast break finishes when there's a defender in the lane and he tries to lay it in. There was one play in particular against Sacramento where he made a fast break layup. I was shocked he didn't get called for traveling, and even more shocked he didn't injure himself with how awkward he went up with it and landed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe there's another PJ Brown type player and contract for which we can trade away gordon


Maybe the Lakers will trade us Jim Jackson for Gordon?

Wait, we don't have to pay Gordon until the season after next. 

Put these thoughts on hold for 1 year.


----------



## calabreseboy (Nov 17, 2004)

I've been hoping for a Ben Gordon trade every since mid-last season. This kid is not going to win you a championship. He is too inconsistent, too small and does not have the ability to lead a team like Hinrich, or even Deng and Nocioni, have. 


Could we maybe aim high and try a Gordon, NY Pick and Duhon for a leading SG, or maybe swap Duhon for Nocioni or Deng and go for a legitimate SF? I don't really know financially or whatever, but is that a possibility?

I just can't see Gordon leading this team anyway, or the Bulls team being successful with Gordon as our main offensive weapon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

calabreseboy said:


> I've been hoping for a Ben Gordon trade every since mid-last season. This kid is not going to win you a championship. He is too inconsistent, too small and does not have the ability to lead a team like Hinrich, or even Deng and Nocioni, have.
> 
> 
> Could we maybe aim high and try a Gordon, NY Pick and Duhon for a leading SG, or maybe swap Duhon for Nocioni or Deng and go for a legitimate SF? I don't really know financially or whatever, but is that a possibility?
> ...


Gordon played PG two games ago, scored 37 points, had 9 assists, and the bulls won in a blowout.


----------



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

HKF said:


> The Bulls need an actual offensive threat in the post. Until then, how can anyone expect Gordon to be a consistent offensive player? No one on the Bulls perimeter is consistent, because there is nothing consistent down low. It's not like any of these guys are as good as Kobe, who can get his regardless.


I've watched enough of Ben to know that he could get his regardless of who else is playing in the post. He's what got PJ and Ben involved. And as you can see with Ben not having the ball, Ben Wallace appeared to have a "Tyson Chandler-like" day on the stats board (but it's OK because that's been balanced out by his and PJ's intangibles). It seems like every time something good was happening Ben G. needed to be replaced by Sef. 

The thing about Ben G.: it's not how you start, it's how you finish. I argue that if he has a poor start, he's never given any time to gain momentum and finish. He certainly gets replaced quite easily relatively to ANYONE else in the NBA that scores as much as he does. He really wasn't doing that well when he started out against the Bucks. He needs the ball in his hands, controlling the ball, the offense --- all of which can't really be measured in minutes and shots taken. Even though he's a good shooter, he isn't a catch and shoot guy. And when he doesn't, it'll be tough for him to have a good game.

Giving the ball to Ben is not "babying" Ben. It's about winning the game and maximizing effectiveness. I see giving the ball to Ben as the stretching and warm-up jog to get the heart rate going before you go for a long run. You can start without doing those things, but you won't be that effective. 

It's really THAT simple, but what seems to stop him is that he has way too many options, with Du and Sef, and probably has to see some more extraordinary performances from Ben at the PG position before he finally gives up the idea/solution of Kirk as THE point guard, thus THE leader, THE captain. Skiles has always has a knack for sticking with lesser talents, but it's stuff like this that makes people wonder if he can develop or coach a star.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Ben Gordon was ineffective last night and his inconsistency is incredibly frustrating (by the way, for all the "point guard" stuff, in the first half last night Gordon was running point much of the time - Hinrich was bringing it up and then handing it to Gordon at the top of the offense.)

But this is not why the Bulls lost. The Bulls don't need Ben Gordon's scoring to win - though obviously it helps. 

Steve Kerr absolutely nailed it last night in my opinion. The Bulls need stops and rebounds. In their two blowout wins, they were getting stops, rebounds and runouts all night long. That is the key, not Gordon (who had 24 points in a blowout loss to Orlando). 

Another thing, Gordon notoriously starts out slow. He's NEVER been this wildly inconsistent. I suspect he'll balance it out soon enough.

Another think I'd like to dispell, though. Cleveland did NOT "focus" on Gordon nor was he double teamed. Larry Hughes just put the absolute clamps on him and locked him up. I've never seen a defender do such a good job on Gordon.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

> The Chicago Bulls seem reluctant to make the long-term commitment to Ben Gordon he deserves.


This from the Denver Post today ??


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Gordon played PG two games ago, scored 37 points, had 9 assists, and the bulls won in a blowout.


i could be the only gordon fan left on this board, with the way fans jump ship and look for a way to "quickly" turn the team into their personal fantasy, by attempting to fashion deals acquiring KG, kobe, howard kevin "the stud" martin or their latest flavor of the month. 

HOWEVER, while i won't make excuses for ben coming up "short" (i'm as frustrated with his play as most), it seems to me that when a player is asked to be/play a position that requires a different approach to be effective, inconsistency *may* very well be the result. in other words, IF ben's been a pg his entire basketball career (some don't feel he's a very good one, but that's a different thread) and has been shifted to playing off the ball, coming off screens, spotting up shooting, that requires a different mentality/approach than having the ball, moving with it and creating for himself and others; games like 37 and 9 aren't necessarily an aberration, just an indicator of what his true position may be. gordon may be in the mold of the stephon's (bad example, but) or baron davis types that do damage by scoring *then* distributing. i could be wrong, 

THEREFORE, and i'll preface what i'm about to state by stating THE BULL SHOULD KEEP GORDON; however, there are teams who could value what he brings to the table; a "shoot first" pg with playmaking ability and should a team like say boston sour on the offensively challenged telfair and rondo (a player who, imo wasn't a first rounder, but again a different talk show) or others who i haven't really analyzed up to this point, i could see paxson possibly making a move with gordon since he's got two other traditional pg's in hinrich and duhon.

i suspect that by the time ben's deal is done, pax will have made his decision about keeping ben; 5 years is plenty enough time to determine if a player with upside will ever reach his potential. all (with the exception of brand, a krause mistake) have been players whose time had come to be moved; and i'm ok with that. though i'll still be a fan of gordon, i will be ok again if ben continues to be a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

What would be the cost of getting Jason Richardson? And Golden State will even consider trading him for Gordon and plus?

Gordon + Noc (or Deng) + filler = Jason

PG: Hinrich/Du
SG: Jason/Thabo
SF: Deng (or Noc)/etc.
PF: Tyrus or 2007 pick/etc.
C: Big Ben/etc

Looking good, no?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> What would be the cost of getting Jason Richardson? And Golden State will even consider trading him for Gordon and plus?


Who exactly would even want him here?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

The ROY said:


> Who exactly would even want him here?


Uh, Hello?

I am talking about Jason Richardson, NOT Q. Richardson. (you got the right Richardson?)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> Uh, Hello?
> 
> I am talking about Jason Richardson, NOT Q. Richardson. (you got the right Richardson?)


Oh, I know EXACTLY who you're talking about.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I would do that trade in a second(with Noc, Deng I'd have to think about) if I knew his knee was okay. Doubt GS would. I was going out of my mind when we selected Curry over him. always been a huge fan.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

How about ........Gordon, PJ, and alphabet for Ray Allen

Seattle wouldn't be getting fair value, but at least they'd have more direction.I have no idea what that GM is doing with that team.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

The ROY said:


> Oh, I know EXACTLY who you're talking about.


So obviously you are not a fan of Jason Richardson, I guess. Well, I am.

As much as I like Ben in Bulls uniform, if there is a chance to get Jason I will do this trade in a heart beat. Even if we are going to lose either Noc or Deng.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Anyone want to chime in on this thought.

It is going to be very hard to contend with Gordon as our starting SG with the current makeup of the team, because he is a matchup away from being a liabilty in a complete series. It takes 4 series to win a championship, is it likely that at least one of those series is going to include a matchup problem for Gordon that would cost the Bulls the series.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Hustle said:


> Anyone want to chime in on this thought.
> 
> It is going to be very hard to contend with Gordon as our starting SG with the current makeup of the team, because he is a matchup away from being a liabilty in a complete series. It takes 4 series to win a championship, is it likely that at least one of those series is going to include a matchup problem for Gordon that would cost the Bulls the series.


I think thats an excellent point. But I'm hopeful that by the end of the season, that Thabo can help significantly with this.

For example, based on Larry Hughes' complete domination of Gordon on defense, I don't care if he plays more than spot minutes against the Cavs next time. Thabo, in this situation, may prove to be the appropriate guy to play 35 minutes.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *TripleDouble*
> 
> The Pistons haven't had a post scoring threat and neither did the Suns last season.


Rasheed Wallace is one of the best low post artists in the league and can score in the post all day when he decides not to chuck threes. Tayshaun is very active and always scoring inside. Chauncey is one the better post up point guards in the league. And everybody else cna drive too. The Bulls dont really have any good slashers.

As for the Suns, they play a different style. They spread the floor and instead of having post up players they have cutters and slashers.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Wow, wow. What's the deal?

We know that hard work and working out yields results. We know that Gordon has already had his first "on" night. We know that Gordon is not Dion Glover, that he is a legit player, and that the league knows it.

A poor effort, for sure, going 1-for-10. You like to see great players start looking for other ways to contribute... and that he did not do. That's what I would criticize the most: miss that many shots, zero free throws attempted, 3 assists, and no defensive step-up.

So I'm not that sad that BG7 didn't come and produce in the role that he's got as scorer. But I am sad that he's not showing to be a complete player, the player that crashes boards, looks to create for his teammates, amp up his defense, or get to the free throw line. It's essentially the biggest difference between Gordon and Hinrich.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

Here's my take on BG, I think he has chance to be either another Billups or Bdavis down the road, but I don't think he will be that with the bulls. He's under way too much pressure to be the only scorer on this team. I hope he gets traded and blossom somewhere, it's the best siatution for both parties.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

Well, IMO, I think ben Gordon will eventually be in the same position as Cuttino Mobley. He'll be a nice 3rd or 4th option but shouldn't be relied on to be go to scorer. He should actually be the recipient and feed off of a go to scorer. His inconsistency is maddening. When you don't know what you're going to get from him night in and night out, it's really tough to figure out a rotation or set up plays for him.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

(double post but I should've put it here)

I don't know how anyone can say that the team is better off with Gordon at point. Talk about people needing to put one game into context. Is he going to shoot 60% from the field(like he did in Milwaukee) if he's kept there. Is he going to have a career high 9 assists consistantly(w/ 5 to's= 1.8 assist/to ratio)?

He doesn't have the ballhandling ability to bring it up the court under pressure, he constantly makes bad decisions when trying to make a play . Last season had a 1.33 assist to turnover ratio, this season so far it's the same. The only other point that does that, oh wait there isn't one. Iverson was better than that in his worst year. In fact last season he ranked 5rth worst among starting guards(1+2's) behinde only SJackson, Wells, Stevenson, and Dixon(who only started half the season). The starting PG with the worst ratio, Arenas at 1.63, next up Parker at 1.85. Is a change in position going to make Gordon that much better at handling the ball and making plays?

Gordon cannot play point guard for a winning team unless he's the exception.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Gordon cannot play point guard for a winning team unless he's the exception.


this could be true.....however, since he's only been a 2 for the bull i'm not buying it as a unilateral statement.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Well I don't intend to defend Gordon and I think he'd be a horrible point guard,but when you look at guys like AI and Arenas you are talking about guys who combine the duties of a point guard with those of a primary scorer.Players who play either role have lots of turnovers and when you play both you almost have to turn the ball over.It's better to look at the advanced numbers froms knickerblogger.net for turnover rate which gives a number(turnover ratio) for turnovers based on how much you're actually handling the ball.

There's a big difference between turning the ball when you hardly ever touch it(Tyson Chandler last year for example) and turning it over the same number when you are constantly handling it and trying to make plays.In actual fact Gordon's turnover rate was quite acceptable for a player in the role he was playing for the Bulls last year.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_TOR.htm


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Gordon as PG would be like Iverson/Davis as PG.

The Baron Davis comparison may be apt, but that won't ever happen with the Bulls under PaxSkilesHinrch.

That style of play often does not win in the NBA.

The only guy I've ever seen win the NBA (get to the Finals) with that kind of score first PG, best player on team mentality was Iverson.

When is the last time a Baron Davis team was successful?

And Baron Davis is no Iverson.

And Ben Gordon, IMO, is no Baron Davis.

Arenas is another great player that has this style.

But, I've never seen Ben Gordon play that way for a prolonged stretch. Perhaps he can pull it off. But, even if he can, do we want to be the Wizards or Warriors?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon as PG would be like Iverson/Davis as PG.
> 
> The Baron Davis comparison may be apt, but that won't ever happen with the Bulls under PaxSkilesHinrch.
> 
> ...


One of the reasons I want Ben to play PG is to increase his trade value and hopefully swindle another GM. I completely agree that building around a Francis, Marbury, Davis, or Arenas type of player is not optimal, and does not often lead to a lot of wins or championships. 

That doesn't mean that Ben couldn't play a Jason Terry role for us, though.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon as PG would be like Iverson/Davis as PG.


I've always thought Jason Terry was a good comparison, even back to before the draft. On the brighter side Terry eventually figured out how to play pg at a high level when many thought he never would get the hang of it.

On the downside it took him seven seasons and a trade from the team that drafted him to do it.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

LamarButler said:


> Rasheed Wallace is one of the best low post artists in the league and can score in the post all day when he decides not to chuck threes. Tayshaun is very active and always scoring inside. Chauncey is one the better post up point guards in the league. And everybody else cna drive too. The Bulls dont really have any good slashers.


I believe the Pistons were dead last in points in the paint last season. Skiles mentioned this a few times in training camp whenever reporters would throw the "low-post" scorer question at him.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SALO said:


> I believe the Pistons were dead last in points in the paint last season. Skiles mentioned this a few times in training camp whenever reporters would throw the "low-post" scorer question at him.


Yup . . . and the Pistons were also near the bottom of the league in FTAs. 

Where they excelled last year was shooting the 3 (3rd best % in the league), assist-to-turnover ratio and just not turning it over, period (1st in the league in ATO and 1st in the league by a wide margin for fewest turnovers), and keeping the opponent off the free-throw line (1st in the league by a wide margin in both fouls and free-throw attempts against).

An offense can succeed without a lot of inside baskets, but it significantly reduces your margin of error. The current Bulls don't shoot with enough accuracy or keep the opponent off the line enough to follow the model of last year's Pistons.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Gordon isn't selfish, like a Baron Davis is. Maybe in terms of ability they are comparable, but their mindset is a lot different.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Yup . . . and the Pistons were also near the bottom of the league in FTAs.
> 
> Where they excelled last year was shooting the 3 (3rd best % in the league), assist-to-turnover ratio and just not turning it over, period (1st in the league in ATO and 1st in the league by a wide margin for fewest turnovers), and keeping the opponent off the free-throw line (1st in the league by a wide margin in both fouls and free-throw attempts against).


Good stuff, I didn't know they were also near the bottom in terms of FTAs. To be so poor in points in the paint combined with lack of free throws means they rarely scored "easy" baskets. I'm amazed they won 64 games when you consider those stats. Pretty impressive. 



> An offense can succeed without a lot of inside baskets, but it significantly reduces your margin of error. The current Bulls don't shoot with enough accuracy or keep the opponent off the line enough to follow the model of last year's Pistons.


Yeah, the whole "silly fouls" argument that Skiles moans about. We fouled the most last year, Detroit fouled the least. I'm curious where Detroit ranks at the end of this season in terms of fouls called against them. I would think losing Big Ben and his DPOY credentials causes a significant drop in their overall ranking.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Yup . . . and the Pistons were also near the bottom of the league in FTAs.
> 
> Where they excelled last year was shooting the 3 (3rd best % in the league), assist-to-turnover ratio and just not turning it over, period (1st in the league in ATO and 1st in the league by a wide margin for fewest turnovers), and keeping the opponent off the free-throw line (1st in the league by a wide margin in both fouls and free-throw attempts against).
> 
> An offense can succeed without a lot of inside baskets, but it significantly reduces your margin of error. The current Bulls don't shoot with enough accuracy or keep the opponent off the line enough to follow the model of last year's Pistons.


Excellent post.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I'm a BG7 fan, but in the offseason I wondered if Skiles would really guarantee him a starting job, didn't really earn it yet, and when I mentioned it, I got blasted that it was a nodoubter

Love the things he did in the offseason and that he had been more active, but if he is always going to be inconsistent (add that to his size) I'm not so sure he'll ever be an all star or impact calibar player. Is he any better than Crawford right now?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon as PG would be like Iverson/Davis as PG.
> 
> The Baron Davis comparison may be apt, but that won't ever happen with the Bulls under PaxSkilesHinrch.
> 
> ...


I agree with every word.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yup . . . and the Pistons were also near the bottom of the league in FTAs.
> 
> Where they excelled last year was shooting the 3 (3rd best % in the league), assist-to-turnover ratio and just not turning it over, period (1st in the league in ATO and 1st in the league by a wide margin for fewest turnovers), and keeping the opponent off the free-throw line (1st in the league by a wide margin in both fouls and free-throw attempts against).
> 
> An offense can succeed without a lot of inside baskets, but it significantly reduces your margin of error. The current Bulls don't shoot with enough accuracy or keep the opponent off the line enough to follow the model of last year's Pistons.


Very interesting. Good post. Here's hoping the Bulls can move that direction. Several of the Skaxson points of emphasis this summer were decreasing fouls, increasing FTAs and cutting down on turnovers.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Gordon has gotten off to slow starts in each of his other two seasons, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that it's happening again this year. He can't have Michael Redd guarding him every night, but he's a great jump shooter if he gets a little room, and he seems to have developed a bit of a driving game. 

Some of Gordon's problems are really Bulls team problems. As the Bulls learn to play together better he'll get more open looks and get the ball in rhythm more often. When that happens, his shooting percentage will improve and become more stable from game to game. 

I have a feeling that Gordon is going to have a great year this year, and it won't be long before he gets started. In fact, I bet he has a very good game against Indiana tonight. 

I'll have to remember to bring some of these Gordon-doubting threads back two months from now.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

So far this season :

J.R. Smith > Ben Gordon
Brandon Roy > Ben Gordon


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

McBulls said:


> I have a feeling that Gordon is going to have a great year this year, and it won't be long before he gets started.


Hopefully you're correct about this, but I'm not sure I can feel as confident aboutthat. I think the most likely scenario is that Gordon has another up-and-down but ultimately frustrating year for the Bulls, who could really use a breakout scoring year from him. I've never really trusted his inconsistency and don't really like him in the starter's role. Even in his rookie year, I was a little doubtful -- why wasn't he able to do much in the first 3 quarters?

I just don't think Gordon will ever be the solid 20+ PPG scorer the Bulls want (or need) him to be. In my opinion, and in an ideal situation, Gordon would be coming off the bench as the 6th man in a mini-Microwave role. That's the role I feel he's been the most consistent and dangerous in. If he comes out popping, then great, ride his scoring all game long. If he looks like crap, like the other night when Skiles felt right from the start that he had no energy, then just put him back on the bench and move on.

Incidentally, assuming the 6th man role isn't completely stupid for him to begin with, I don't think Gordon would ever accept coming off the bench again. So I don't know how realistic that scenario would be in the long term anyway.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

So far this young season, Gordon has point totals of 6, 24, 5, 37, 2 and 3 on 39% FG and 20% 3PT shooting.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

If BG is not playing well starting at the 2 then why not bring him off the bench and let a guy like Thabo or Duhon start? BG came off the bench his rookie year and played well, 6th man of the year. Playing against 2nd unti guys should make life easier for him as he won't be guarded by the opposing team's bigger player. Thabo has shown he can be a good player and I think he can hold down the starting spot.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

We can't have Ben Gordon keep on doing this to us. He needs to demand the ball if he really wants to be that go-to-guy. I just about had it with his inconsistencies.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

If Skiles has Nocioni coming of the bench so he has some fire power, I think it's getting close to the time to put BG in that role, start Du and Noc.


----------

