# How come



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

When Kirk or Luol has bad game people never bash them Like they do Gordon ? They are wildy Inconsistent just like Gordon . Deng played awful last night in Cleveland people never get mad at him .


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I do...I never really get mad at Kirk because I think he'll be one of those PGs that get better the older they get.

Deng is inconsistent though, I don't really see any signs of a breakout year for him.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Kirk is way more consistant than Gordon, first and foremost because of his defense. He's also more consistant on the offensive end.

I don't think you can compare Deng's consistancy to Gordon either, he does have off games but not 2 point games, and again his defense is something tht makes him more consistant.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Racism. Deng is exempt because he isn't from America.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mr.ankle20 said:


> When Kirk or Luol has bad game people never bash them Like they do Gordon ? They are wildy Inconsistent just like Gordon . Deng played awful last night in Cleveland people never get mad at him .


After the playoffs last season, Deng was cannon fodder and Nocioni was good for 20 & 10 and a lock for MIP this season.

Gordon's expected to be the offensive leader by many, so he's naturally going to be the one most criticized.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Racism. Deng is exempt because he isn't from America.


Doesn't Gordon have dual citizenship?


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

Hustle said:


> Kirk is way more consistant than Gordon, first and foremost because of his defense. He's also more consistant on the offensive end.
> 
> I don't think you can compare Deng's consistancy to Gordon either, he does have off games but not 2 point games, and again his defense is something tht makes him more consistant.



Kirk is not more consistant than gordon . He was a none factor in the Milwaukee game. And Michael Redd totally outplayed him. His great Defense is a Myth . His defense was exposed in yhe Fiba Competion . Kirk defense has been awful this year . 

.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Gordon will be the scapegoat.

Its not going to be Nocioni or Hinrich. They are "hard workers."

Chandler, the scapegoat for last season, has been dumped. The other non-Paxson players have been dumped.

Why not Deng? Good question. The expectations are not as high on him from the general public, although I think and expect him to be a much better NBA basketball player than Gordon.

Why is Gordon the scapegoat? It is a good question. Expectations are higher for Paxson's #3 pick in the draft, and for the team in general. Why the guy on the rookie deal is the one shouldering the blame while the 16 million dollar man who has not been earning his check, the recently resigned non-star player or the 8 million dollar old man are not seeing blame is an interesting question.

Oftentimes the guy that shoots the ball a lot will be considered selfish. Consistency is also important to many people. Even if Gordon does not improve, I don’t think he should be dumped for a Pike or Othella type. But, as someone else said, Deng disappears some games, as does Hinrich. Hinrich took a 10 game vacation during the regular season last year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I was listening to some of the game last night on the radio. The Bulls have an interesting ad for their "LOVE OF THE GAME" campaign featuring Hinrich.

They ask him what he would be doing if he was not playing basketball.

He says basketball is his life... he's never thought about it... probably selling insurance or something. Aw shucks.

They also ask him what makes him successful.

He says that he may not have an edge on players based on talent, but his work ethic will keep him competitive. Expectations lowered. 

They would never run an ad like this for Ben Gordon. Why not?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

mr.ankle20 said:


> Kirk is not more consistant than gordon . He was a none factor in the Milwaukee game. And Michael Redd totally outplayed him. His great Defense is a Myth . His defense was exposed in yhe Fiba Competion . Kirk defense has been awful this year .
> 
> .


I think your on your own with that one. Coaches around the league, analysts, anyone with an opinion praise his d. Redd making shots makes Hinrich a bad defender? being in foul trouble/ taking a backseat when Gordon has a career game does not equal inconsistancy. 

Gordon's bad defense is why Hinrich has to play out of position all the time, his lack of height will make it so that never changes, Gordon is in the lineup to be the scorer and when he doesn't do it he's a liability.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

Hustle said:


> I think your on your own with that one. Coaches around the league, analysts, anyone with an opinion praise his d. Redd making shots makes Hinrich a bad defender, being in foul trouble/ taking a backseat when Gordon has a career game does not equal inconsistancy.



What superstar has ever shutdown ? Everytime the Bulls play the Wizards Arenas Just has his way with Kirk . His Defense is a Myth


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

mr.ankle20 said:


> What superstar has ever shutdown ? Everytime the Bulls play the Wizards Arenas Just has his way with Kirk . His Defense is a Myth


Superstars are not supposed to be shut down, just contained, ie. Wade, can you name someone who can shut down Arenas.

If he's such a bad defender why is it Gordon never takes the tougher man to guard.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

Hustle said:


> Superstars are not supposed to be shut down, just contained, ie. Wade, can you name someone who can shut down Arenas.
> 
> If he's such a bad defender why is it Gordon never takes the tougher man to guard.



Because the rely on Bulls rely on Gordon on offense more so he has to have some energy.
Another thing People said this was suppose to be Deng Big year since his wrist healed. I really have not seen any improvement in his game . He shoots to many Jumpers like Gordon and Hinrich .


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was listening to some of the game last night on the radio. The Bulls have an interesting ad for their "LOVE OF THE GAME" campaign featuring Hinrich.
> 
> They ask him what he would be doing if he was not playing basketball.
> 
> ...


Racism.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Deng's awful game last night was still quite a bit better than Gordon's awful game last night.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

Gordon has been hyped as a super star and a scorer. Deng may have more potential, but Gordon has the best scoring potential. When Deng sucks, he can contribute in other ways. When Gordon sucks, it seems like the rest of his game collapses along with it (although there are a few games where this is untrue). Gordon is the 'face' of our team (or was before Wallace), Deng is fighting with Noc for the best 3 on our team. There are a number of reasons.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was listening to some of the game last night on the radio. The Bulls have an interesting ad for their "LOVE OF THE GAME" campaign featuring Hinrich.
> 
> ....
> 
> They would never run an ad like this for Ben Gordon. Why not?


Gordon does have a For the Love of the Game ad. So do Duhon and Deng.


----------



## Big_CKansas (Jul 16, 2002)

mr.ankle20 said:


> Because the rely on Bulls rely on Gordon on offense more so he has to have some energy.
> Another thing People said this was suppose to be Deng Big year since his wrist healed. I really have not seen any improvement in his game . He shoots to many Jumpers like Gordon and Hinrich .


Thats a pathetic excuse. The best players in the game not only are the main option on the offensive end, but on the defensive end as well. Gordon is a scorer and that is really all he brings to this team. Deng brings this team solid defense and rebounding to go along with scoring. Hinrich bring this team the ability to run the team as well as great defense to go along with his scoring. When neither of them are scoring they are able to bring those things to the game. Gordon doesn't.

And Kirk's defense is not a myth. First off, Hinrich usually guards the 2-spot. There are more great scorers at the 2-guard spot then any other position in the NBA, and Hinrich is usually giving up 3-4 inches. And when the better scorer is at the point, he guards them. Second, those star players at the 2 position usually have to take several more shots then they usually do to get their average. That takes shot away from other teammates, and Hinrich is also great at denying the ball form getting to the player he is defending. In fact I would go as far to say he is that best at denying the ball. And Hinrich hasn't been no where near as aggressive as he usually is. He has shot over 10 times twice this season and both times have been over 50% shooting.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

thebullybully said:


> Gordon does have a For the Love of the Game ad. So do Duhon and Deng.


And Wallace. And Skiles. And Paxson. 

I think the K4E's idea is that Hinrich's is especially favorable and lenient because he's a white, boot-licking, jibtastic, yes-man.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> Gordon does have a For the Love of the Game ad. So do Duhon and Deng.



What is the content of the ad?

Does he claim he lacks talent but makes up for it with a sound work ethic?

Its more the content of the ad, not the existence of one.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I just wanted to point out that, in my experience, arguing with someone who thinks Hinrich isn't a good defender is pretty much a waste of time.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think the K4E's idea is that Hinrich's is especially favorable and lenient because he's a white, boot-licking, jibtastic, yes-man.


I would not use such colorful language.

One of the main reasons he's so popular is that he's a good, white, American basketball player, noone can deny that.

Its also the way he's sold.

Lacking talent, but making up for it with hard work. Its a built in excuse not to carry the team. Gordon is the one expected to light up the scoreboard. Hinrich is already trying as hard as he can. The heat will never fall on Hinrich. Good game, bad game, we all know Hinrich gave his all... or so we're told. He's trying his best. He's maximizing his potential. 

This lack of talent tale really isn't true.... as Hinrich's draft camp stats show. He's a very good athlete. He's the guy signed to a long term, big money deal. He's the face of the organization. He's the guy announced last. So far Hinrich has given us 16 points, 6 assists and 2 rebounds a game.... and the intangibles as well. That's not a star. That's not a guy to build a franchise around, IMO. The expectations *should* be higher on Hinrich than on Gordon.

The question of the thread was why does Gordon feel the heat and Hinrich (and others) do not. There's one theory.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think Hinrich and Deng both have been much more consistent than Gordon. You get a 1-10 night one night from Gordon and a 15-20 night the next, pretty sure historical boxscores will bear that out too. Deng isn't always having a great game but I think he has definitley not been all over the place as much as Gordon has. Hinrich is a very good defender and I think most people realize that. The idea that it is a myth is a bit ridiculous IMO. just like playing the race card is.

ACE


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

Ahh, I see the arguement now, and it may very well be true, but I'll have to recuse myself. I don't let marketing people think for me. I don't know what the content of any of those ads are, I only see them while scanning fast forward on my tivo.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

Here's my question about Gordon. How can a guy who is so deadly in clutch situations look so frazzled sometimes in the first quarter? If he doesn't get off to a hot start, he can barely stay on his feet. I seriously have wondered many times who is sweating so much that the floor is so slippery all the time.

Yet when he should be feeling the pressure, he's cold-blooded making game winning shots. It really leaves me unable to have a solid feeling about who he is as a player and what to expect out of him at all.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Don't people think the same thing about Duhon? That he's not as great of an athlete, but is a hard worker, tough defender, and smart player? Is that "lowering expectations" as well?


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Don't people think the same thing about Duhon? That he's not as great of an athlete, but is a hard worker, tough defender, and smart player? Is that "lowering expectations" as well?


True, but he has the 2nd round draft pick card in his back pocket.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> I think Hinrich and Deng both have been much more consistent than Gordon.


Any reasonable person who watches the games would agree...


----------



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

kukoc4ever said:


> I would not use such colorful language.
> 
> One of the main reasons he's so popular is that he's a good, white, American basketball player, noone can deny that.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

Gordon feels the heat because people and maybe even our coach think that he's supposed to be a 1-D machine, monster, some kind of appliance that could be plugged in at any time and expected to perform in a standard way.

But with the humanized, can't-do-it-all-but-it's-a-good-effort Kirk, he's having a bad day, as in WE (the humankind Adam and Eve we) all have bad days.

For various reasons, people view Kirk's offense from the PG position as part of the solution. The problem isn't his passing or lack of ability. The problems are anything BUT Kirk's offense: He needs a shooting guard to be effective, Gordon can't handle the ball, and there are no post options. If Skiles is not going to budge from his idea that Kirk is our most effective point guard, were going to severely limit the team's ability to maximize everyone's abilities, to trade players, and ultimately, win.

Sure you'll criticize Kirk for a bad game (just so you can look "objective"), but that's the extent of it. He doesn't have any bad habits as far as you're concerned, and if he does it's something he can work on.

I admit I view Gordon as part of the solution point guard on offense, and will organize problems around that, but that's because he's shown clutch abilities, the ability to pull out ANY game from that position. He's won us plenty of games thanks directly to his play. I just saw that we started winning once Gordon had played a significant role. 

And I try to see why people would think of Kirk as the solution point guard. He can help us win through defense which is usually a team effort, but then how does he help us on offense ? 

If people still want a white point guard to be face of the franchise but can actually handle the pressure and actually creates offense, we should trade for Jordan Farmar.*


*joke (partly)


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's the guy signed to a long term, big money deal. He's the face of the organization. He's the guy announced last. So far Hinrich has given us 16 points, 6 assists and 2 rebounds a game.... and the intangibles as well. That's not a star. That's not a guy to build a franchise around, IMO. The expectations *should* be higher on Hinrich than on Gordon.


Big money? lol

He's certainly not a superstar, but a very productive player and leader that is getting paid accordingly.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was listening to some of the game last night on the radio. The Bulls have an interesting ad for their "LOVE OF THE GAME" campaign featuring Hinrich.
> 
> They ask him what he would be doing if he was not playing basketball.
> 
> ...


I agree with you in what you're getting at but, just to be a contrarian, I wrote in a post a couple days ago that Thabo is a better ball handler and passer than Hinrich and someone called me out. I'm not sure I'm ready to retract. What does Hinrich do well? He's not a great shooter, not great at finishing the lane, passable dribbling skills, not overly athletic (though this may actually be his strong suit).

I came to the conclusion that what makes Hinrich, Hinrich is his knowledge of the game. I think he's one of the better point guards in the league and his ability to contribute stems from using his skills within a system. 

That has to be worth something; and perhaps, this is the real root of the "Love of the Game" commercials.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

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)?

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.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm going to get flamed for this, but I have become a believe that if a player with ample playing time does not breakout by the end of year 3, he will not make big strides to become a superstar. I know it's still early in the season, but I will put Deng and Gordon in this soon. Maybe for Deng, it's the system? I dunno. We read things about him working out and improving his game all offseason. I don't see him a special player. Just a role player, where honestly, a lot players could fill his role. 

Someone mentioned it in one of the several ongoing Gordon threads, Gordon may be somewhere between a C. Mobley and J. Crawford. I don't think Gordon can lead us to the top. 

The reason why I am losing faith in Deng and Gordon, and maybe a few of the other guys, is WE ARE SOFT ON OFFENSE. WHY CAN'T WE ATTACK THE RIM AND GET TO THE FREE THROW LINE.

We would still be in each game, even if we shot a low FG% if we can get teams into the penalty. But we can't do that. Hell, I don't even know if teams get 3 team fouls against us.

Say what you want, a lot of superstars shoot low FG% but they all get to the FT line to get their points. Our guys play offense like the WNBA, not the NBA. With all these rule changes favoring guards like Tony Parker, D-Wade, etc., somehow our team can't figure it out.

I know it's early in the year, but this has been an issue with us for a few years. To play teams like San Antonio and Dallas, our D won't win it all in a series. We have to be able to score too. You need to play both sides of the ball. We only play 1 side.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I came to the conclusion that what makes Hinrich, Hinrich is his knowledge of the game. I think he's one of the better point guards in the league and his ability to contribute stems from using his skills within a system.


I don't consider Hinrich a great NBA point guard.

In my opinion, he's a good combo guard that can play the point.

He does not make the players around him better the way great NBA point guards do, such as Nash, Kidd and Knight. Even Duhon is better at making his teammates better, IMO.

His ability to guard 2s and to be passable in many of the skills that good 1s and good 2s have is what sets him apart in my mind.

He's an easy guy for a coach to put on the floor. He eats up minutes, plays well, and is versatile.

Given the fire other Bulls have had to deal with, many of whom were also good basketball players, its strange to me that Hinrich basically gets a free pass as well.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> They would never run an ad like this for Ben Gordon. Why not?


Ben should get ads like this. He works extremely hard on his game and his body, and there's a good chance he's at the gym or studying film as opposed to unloading a pistol in the parking lot of a strip club at 3AM. Players are usually branded with a certain niche perception -- Hinrich's is hard work and overcoming the odds, Gordon's is his rare talent as a scorer and being a cool cat when he does it.

I don't think your valuation of Hinrich is correct.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

For some reason which I don't quite understand, Ben Gordon is expected to be this great scorer, so the expectations on him are higher than they are on Hinrich.

The reason I don't understand it is Gordon has not shown that he is consistent enough to be a top-notch scorer. One night he's 15-25 from the floor, the next he's 1-10. The top scorers in the NBA simply don't have such wild swigns in performances. When guys like Arenas, Iverson, James, Bryant, Wade, etc. are off their games, they score 10 points -- not 2.

I also wonder why the expectations aren't higher for Hinrich. He averaged a measly 1 PPG less than Gordon last season, and shot approximately the same percentage from the field. They both averaged 20+ PPG in the postseason. And so far this season Hinrich has proven to be WAY more consistent than Gordon (he's shooting 54.7% from the field -- and has been over 50% in 4 of the 5 contests; Gordon is shooting 41.7% and has been over 50% in 2 of the 5 games). Maybe if the fans started looking at Hinrich as more of an offensive threat, they'd raise the expectations -- and then, when he struggled, he'd get more criticism?

Not that he doesn't get criticized -- he does. In fact, Skiles has already called him out in the papers for a lack of energy. But I admit Gordon's play is much more of a hot button topic, both in the media and on the message boards. That's at least partially because Hinrich is portrayed as the guy who relies on effort more than on talent, while Gordon is portrayed as the guy who relies on pure talent rather than great effort. How true those portrayals are can be questioned, but there you go...

As for the whole who should play PG, the obvious answer is Hinrich. Gordon had 9 assists in one game -- big deal. Hinrich had 11 assists last night. Hinrich has had a ton of games with 10+ assists in his career. And he's a much better ballhandler (see his 3.44 A/TO ratio this season). Gordon has a CAREER A/TO ratio of 1.29:1 -- that is horrible for any guard, let alone someone who wants to play the point. He also looks way too much for his own offense for me to believe he would be effective running the team on a regular basis. He can certainly do it for stretches of time in any game, but right now I would not be happy seeing him at the PG position full-time. 

I understand Gordon feels more comfortable with the ball in his hands. But instead of making him the PG and Kirk the SG (when Kirk has ALSO stated he's far more comfortable as a PG), why not simply change some of the offensive sets so Ben can handle the ball at the top of the key more rather than playing on the wing so much? And when Ben's teaming in the backcourt with Thabo, then have Gordon initiate the offense. But the Bulls would risk weakening BOTH backcourt positions if they switch Ben to PG and Kirk to SG.

As for the criticism gap, maybe everyone should lower their expectations for Ben -- at least until he can play consistently enough to prove he deserves the lofty hopes and dreams -- adn then temper the criticism accordingly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Ben should get ads like this. He works extremely hard on his game and his body, and there's a good chance he's at the gym or studying film as opposed to unloading a pistol in the parking lot of a strip club at 3AM. Players are usually branded with a certain niche perception -- Hinrich's is hard work and overcoming the odds, Gordon's is his rare talent as a scorer and being a cool cat when he does it.
> 
> I don't think your valuation of Hinrich is correct.


What odds has Hinrich overcome? He's an above average athlete even in the NBA. And he was born to a freaking basketball coach.

Where's the YouTube clip of Bill Romanowski talking about loosing his pet fish Splashy when I need to remind myself of true hardship in sports!


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Even Duhon is better at making his teammates better, IMO.


Hmmm...interesting opinion...can't say I agree with that one at all...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sleep520 said:


> Hmmm...interesting opinion...can't say I agree with that one at all...


That's fine. 

Now that I know your stance, my opinion remains unchanged.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Players with talent polarize us. The general NBA fan does not think anywhere as poorly of Gordon as many posters on this board do. I live in CT, so I'm surrounded by Celtics/Knicks fans. They love Gordon, they think he's a star on many nights and a great player on others. Some of that may be tied to the fact that he played in the state, however.

We have very vocal posters that love gritty guys, the guys who are closer to the Rudy story than the Michael Jordan story. I mean, how can't you love the guy who's succeeding off his work ethic? None of us will ever be talented as Ben Gordon. But we can all work as hard as Kirk Hinrich!

I think it's a Chicago thing, really. It's a Chicagoan mindset. Look at your NFL team: the stars on your team are the tough, nasty, hard working gritty guys. Look at your NBA team: The guys the fans love are perceived to be the hardest workers: Hinrich, Nocioni, Duhon.

Gordon came in to different expectations than Hinrich. Unfairly, in my opinion. Gordon wasn't so amazingly better than Hinrich in college (it's debatable whether he was better than all) and his camp numbers did not blow out Hinrich's numbers at all. 

We should expect the same, if not more from Hinrich. He's our big-money guy in the backcourt now, and he's had an extra year on Gordon. But we don't. Hinrich is all hustle and muscle according to this board. He doesn't have the talent to be a dominant offensive threat.

He does. He can do it. He's just been coasting on his accolades as a jib guy for a bit. I expect the same production from Gordon and Hinrich, and both disappoint me equally. 

I bet if you didn't handicap Hinrich, you'd see that Gordon's inconsistency, while a problem, is not the cause of us losing games. This is a team game, but Chicago always has to have a scapegoat. Crawford, Curry, Chandler, now Gordon. Next is Deng, then we'll be blaming things on Tyrus Thomas (another guy with oodles of talent.)

What can I say? This is one of the reasons I don't post as much. Many people pick one person/player to blame everything on, and one-two guys to cheer, and every post throughout the season echoes that exact sentiment. Opinions are rarely, if ever, changed.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I do think expectations are too high on Gordon. Don't care what he is listed at, the guy is a 6 foot tall shooting guard. His game is not one to be at the point, despite his nice assist total in the Milwaukee game. Basically he is a shooting guard in a small point guards body. There have not been many guys his size who dominate games on a consistent basis. Iverson is one, but his lack of height leads to some horrendous shooting nights. Iverson has a much better overall game than Gordon's.

Can we really expect a 6 foot tall shooting guard to carry us? Unless you can get him to grow 5 inches it is not going to happen with someone that size. I look at Gordon and see his ideal role to be a 6th man as he was 2 years ago. A Vinnie Johnson type who can light it up off the bench against the other teams bench. Also rotate him in during the 4th quarter as we did before and look for the instant offense. He is too small in my opinion to win with playing 35 minutes a game. I think he is a 25 minute a game player off the bench. 

We do need a big guard to replace him in the starting 5. Thabo isn't ready. Is it possible to put Deng or Nocioni at the 2? Would increase our size.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

Deng has been disappointing this year. He deserved being cut some slack last year because of his injury but this is his third year now and he should show some real improvement. It looks like he did work on his body this summer but his game hasn'r shown much improvement yet. I think he was aas much to blame for the Kings loss as Duhon. Even though he scored well and had a great game going, he was the idiot that fouled Artest weakly on two late drives. When the Bulls were up that much the only way to lose was to give up 3 point plays and Deng did it twice.

The Bulls are getting little consistency from most of their players this year. I assume it can be ignored this early in the season. Ben always seems to start slowly but Kirk has been hitting his shots so he needs to shoot more when it is obvious the team is struggling to score. He is paid to take over when necessary and he hasn't done it. Ben did that against the Bucks. I think the Bulls need Thomas to be a 24+ minute a game player by the second half or we will be very unhappy with the season.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

girlygirl said:


> For some reason which I don't quite understand, Ben Gordon is expected to be this great scorer, so the expectations on him are higher than they are on Hinrich.


I don't think expectations are higher for Ben, I think he's just not living up to them and Kirk is.


> The reason I don't understand it is Gordon has not shown that he is consistent enough to be a top-notch scorer.


Thats a good point. But it doesn't make me feel better about Gordon as a player. I don't think he was expected to be a top notch scorer, but rather a guy that puts up 20 ppg. 



> I also wonder why the expectations aren't higher for Hinrich. He averaged a measly 1 PPG less than Gordon last season, and shot approximately the same percentage from the field. They both averaged 20+ PPG in the postseason. And so far this season Hinrich has proven to be WAY more consistent than Gordon (he's shooting 54.7% from the field -- and has been over 50% in 4 of the 5 contests; Gordon is shooting 41.7% and has been over 50% in 2 of the 5 games). Maybe if the fans started looking at Hinrich as more of an offensive threat, they'd raise the expectations -- and then, when he struggled, he'd get more criticism?


I don't think thats fair to Kirk at all, he plays well so we should expect more, Gordon plays poorly so we should expect less? Gordon is out there first and foremost to be a scorer, Kirk brings other things to the table. I do wish Kirk would look for his shoot and penetrate more, he's been passing up quite a few open shots this season.



> Not that he doesn't get criticized -- he does. In fact, Skiles has already called him out in the papers for a lack of energy. But I admit Gordon's play is much more of a hot button topic, both in the media and on the message boards. That's at least partially because Hinrich is portrayed as the guy who relies on effort more than on talent, while Gordon is portrayed as the guy who relies on pure talent rather than great effort. How true those portrayals are can be questioned, but there you go...


I don't think many question either guys effort, at least I don't, the lack of energy thing applies to all of our guys.


> I understand Gordon feels more comfortable with the ball in his hands. But instead of making him the PG and Kirk the SG (when Kirk has ALSO stated he's far more comfortable as a PG), why not simply change some of the offensive sets so Ben can handle the ball at the top of the key more rather than playing on the wing so much?


Because of the teams lack of scoring this might be neccesary, but I don't like it. He's not Kobe, Iverson, Lebron, Arenas.... Shooters who don't get to the line or create well for others should not be holding the ball for 10-12 seconds to make a play, especially on this team where BG can be game planned so heavily.


> As for the criticism gap, maybe everyone should lower their expectations for Ben -- at least until he can play consistently enough to prove he deserves the lofty hopes and dreams -- adn then temper the criticism accordingly.


Lowering expectations is what led me to start criticizing BG in the first place and I would assume many others. Maybe it was never fair to expect him to be the go to guy like I did, but if he's not going to be that I don't see what he brings to the table. 

I was not down on Ben until very recently, but it has become obvious to me he's not going to be a consistant go to scorer, at least on this team. Without a solid post presence his height makes it too difficult for him to get his shot while teams are game planning for him. I'd like to say it's just five games and preseason, maybe it's the new ball and he's still adjusting, but he still turns the ball over like mad and doesn't get to the line. Because of him we have one of the best point defenders in the league playing out of position on d. I think we all know he can shoot the ball, but if he isn't the go to guy for this team his spot is starting to look more and more like a part of the team that could be improved upon.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Cager said:


> Deng has been disappointing this year. He deserved being cut some slack last year because of his injury but this is his third year now and he should show some real improvement. It looks like he did work on his body this summer but his game hasn'r shown much improvement yet. I think he was aas much to blame for the Kings loss as Duhon. Even though he scored well and had a great game going, he was the idiot that fouled Artest weakly on two late drives. When the Bulls were up that much the only way to lose was to give up 3 point plays and Deng did it twice.


I can understand your frustation at the Kings game but the numbers don't bear out your conclusion. Deng is having by far his best and most consistent season:

Deng's upped his scoring average by two points to 16.2 ppg; He's upped his shooting percentage by over a half point to .524; Upped both his steals (1.0) and blocks (.8); and all this in two less minutes per game than he played last season. 

And it's not just overall numbers: Deng has only shot under .500 once (last game 5-11); His low point total of the season is 11; He has recorded at least one steal or block in every game.

How much better would the Bulls be if they could count on Gordon for 11 points game -- never mind the fact that Deng is inherently a more consistent player because of his defense and rebounding.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> What odds has Hinrich overcome?


I'm guessing you don't follow high school recruiting/college hoops a great deal. If you don't think Hinrich has overcome preconceived notions and exceeded expectations, I'm not sure I understand your line of thinking.

Every year since Hinrich was a senior in high school, people said that he had hit his ceiling (and people continue to say this today). Most analysts thought he was lucky to get an offer from Kansas. Then they said that he had no shot in the NBA. Now they're shocked that he has the distinct potential to be an All-Star, an Olympian and a member of the All-Defensive team.

See a pattern here?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I'm guessing you don't follow high school recruiting/college hoops a great deal. If you don't think Hinrich has overcome preconceived notions and exceeded expectations, I'm not sure I understand your line of thinking.
> 
> Every year since Hinrich was a senior in high school, people said that he had hit his ceiling (and people continue to say this today). Most analysts thought he was lucky to get an offer from Kansas. Then they said that he had no shot in the NBA. Now they're shocked that he has the distinct potential to be an All-Star, an Olympian and a member of the All-Defensive team.
> 
> See a pattern here?


That's not overcoming any actual difficulties. Analyst opinions don't take the court, and they don't do anything meaningful to prevent a player from achieving his potential.

Beyond that, no, I don't think your perception is accurate at all. After all, he did get an offer from Kansas. And then he got drafted in the lottery. I'm sure there are a plenty of people who thought he'd be a bust, but the intimation that he's somehow had this overwhelming majority of detractors just isn't accurate. You can find people who were down on Lebron james too. But saying it was an obstacle for him to overcome, or widely unexpected that he succeeded is a bit strange. The same is true of Kirk. Sure, there were people who thought he wouldn't amount to anything, but there were plenty who did. Building the story up the other way around is in itself a propagation of the myth Kirk as the human incarnation of Scrappy-Doo.

It's not like people were talking us taking him as if we'd just drafted Renaldo Balkman with the 7th pick. And it's not like there weren't people very high on him. Hell, he was being compared to John Stockton before he even stepped on an NBA court for chrissakes!

The facts are that he's a very good athlete with an ideal background for playing basketball. And he used those opportunities to develop himself into a very good player who was recruited to the top levels of both college and pro ball. So good for him. He certainly deserves credit for working hard to get everything he could get.

But going beyond that is confusing what he actually is to what has sometimes been said about him. One of those things has actually mattered, and the latter clearly hasn't.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> That's not overcoming any actual difficulties.


???

It's not like a sizeable percentage of NBA players suffer from debilitating diseases. 



> Beyond that, no, I don't think your perception is accurate at all. After all, he did get an offer from Kansas.


Hinrich was barely in the RSCI Top 100 before Kansas appeared on the radar screen. Even then, he was only #62 _after_ KU landed him. When KU gets a player outside the top 50, the player is viewed as a decent pick-up, someone who will provide support from the bench and may have a chance to start in four years. When Hinrich arrived in Lawrence, 8 of the 12 scholarship players on the team were top 50 recruits, and five were McDonald's All-Americans.

For NBA players, athletic ability isn't a big factor when you're talking about overcoming odds or meeting expectations. It's pretty much all mental, and the ability to deal with and alter perceptions and expectations is huge. But like you said, such behavior is not overcoming any actual difficulties because mentalities and perceptions "don't take the court".


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> ???
> 
> It's not like a sizeable percentage of NBA players suffer from debilitating diseases.
> 
> ...


High school rankings are notoriously iffy. Ben Gordon was ranked #62, and Emeka Okafor was ranked an astounding #153 in 2001. Nobody talks about those two and how they overcame difficulty.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I do think expectations are too high on Gordon. Don't care what he is listed at, the guy is a 6 foot tall shooting guard. His game is not one to be at the point, despite his nice assist total in the Milwaukee game. Basically he is a shooting guard in a small point guards body. There have not been many guys his size who dominate games on a consistent basis. Iverson is one, but his lack of height leads to some horrendous shooting nights. Iverson has a much better overall game than Gordon's.
> 
> Can we really expect a 6 foot tall shooting guard to carry us? Unless you can get him to grow 5 inches it is not going to happen with someone that size.


I agree.

Given this, why would some burn a #3 pick on this guy? Especially when Al Harrington was available via trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I don't follow college hoops very closely, but Hinrich was projected as a top 7 pick in the NBA draft and Pat Riley almost picked Hinrich over Dwayne Wade.

Seems like he was getting respect as a top NBA player when he entered the league. 

I'm not sure what obstacles he has overcome since entering the NBA. He was paid as a top 7 pick and has performed well, although not like a star or a guy to build a team around. He's going to be very highly compensated next season. 

A coaches son from the suburbs with very good athleticism is a top 7 pick in the NBA draft and becomes a multi-millionaire. Not exactly Rudy. Maybe I’m missing the hardship in this story.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> High school rankings are notoriously iffy. Ben Gordon was ranked #62, and Emeka Okafor was ranked an astounding #153 in 2001. Nobody talks about those two and how they overcame difficulty.


The percentage of NBA players who were top 25 recruits is far larger than those who were top 75-100 recruits.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Getting back to the original question, here are some reasons Ben gets more ire than Luol on a bad day:

Ben takes the most shots on the team. When he has a bad night, that generally means he's missing a lot of them. Over the last few years, Gordon has looked for his shot often while Deng often only sees shots in the flow of the game. So a "bad game" for Deng may have him scoring 6 points, but how many shots did he take? If he only took 7 shots, he's not huring the team too much, considering what else he does well. Which leads us to:

Luol is considered to be an average to maybe slightly above average defender, whereas Ben's defense, though improving, is still below average IMO. Plus, Skiles has decided that the team is better of with Ben defending point guards, so Paxson has wisely secured a backcourt rotation with three other fine defensive guards. Thabo seems like a solid pickup at this point, but he's a pick made with Gordon in mind. Luol is solid enough at the 3 that he can take care of his own business. He needs no other player next to him to hide his weaknesses. Of course, along with defense is the size issue, which we are all familiar with. We also know that Ben's ball handling and turnover prone nature make him a liability as a full time point guard, though I still think in a pinch we could still win games with him as our primary point.

A huge part of Gordon's game is the 3 pointer, and there is no greater risk-reward shot in this game. Anyone who shoots as many 3's as he does is bound for some bad days.

Ultimately, Ben is criticized the most because he has a unique role on our team -- as our primary offensive weapon -- whereas Luol's solid all around game is really somewhat reminiscent of all three of our other young forwards: Thomas, Nocioni, and Khryapa. 

Ben also has to live up the expectations he set up with his huge fourth quarters during his rookie year. When we see heriocs like that more than a few times from an athlete, we start to expect it every time. On a side note, I still grow terribly frustrated with Skiles when he leaves Gordon off the floor in the final minute of a close game. I don't care if Ben is 2-13. He has a unique ability to get it done in the clutch, and none of our other players have shown nearly so much clutch cold bloodedness. So despite the egg Gordon layed again the Kings, it's Skiles I was mad at after the game.

On another note, Ben and Luol really showed more tenacity going to the hoop during the preseason and the first regular season games. Against Cleveland, though, no one even bothered to challenge the bigs in the paint. Gordon and Deng must continue to do this.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> The percentage of NBA players who were top 25 recruits is far larger than those who were top 75-100 recruits.


Paging Horatio Alger...


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> High school rankings are notoriously iffy. Ben Gordon was ranked #62, and Emeka Okafor was ranked an astounding #153 in 2001. Nobody talks about those two and how they overcame difficulty.


To build on this a little bit, I don't think Dwayne Wade was scouted highly coming out of high school, and neither was Tim Duncan. And I'm pretty sure he was starting by his sophomore year in Kansas. Like others have said, Kirk has definitely done an excellent job of making the most out of his situation, but the perception of Kirk that keeps propagating itself in the media and with fans I think has more to do with the fact that he's white, has boyish charm, and is from Kansas. It makes for a nice angle that's easily marketable, but the myth that Kirk represents some modern day David vs. Goliath story as the gangly school kid who got picked last in Dodgeball and eventually rose to NBA stardom is pretty exaggerated.

I would actually argue that you could make a better case for Ben Gordon as the comeback kid. IIRC, he wasn't on the high school radar at all until he basically locked himself in a gym for one summer and worked on his game endlessly and came out a Div. I caliber player.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I would also add to this discussion that Deng has scored in double digits in all six games this year.


----------



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

Hustle said:


> 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)?
> 
> 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.


Did you watch that game ?

He didn't have a great start and just kept shooting the ball. Then when he was left in, he was handling the ball, finding people. He didn't knock down a 3-pointer until the 3rd quarter. He had a career high in assists ALL in the 1st half (which prior to Hinrich's 11-assist performance) --- this performance was ALL in stride. He was making plays all second quarter to PJ Brown and Ben Wallace.

The reason he didn't get 10 assists: he played shooting guard for 2nd half to make way for Kirk.

He also did this against Miami Game 1, as well, and pretty much all those games last season where we were fighting for our playoff lives. 

Like I said, he doesn't get the ball enough --- and shooting the ball and number of minutes you play doesn't necessarily mean that he's controlling the flow of the offense. I don't know if there are any stats that count how many times and the duration players handle the ball, but obviously it's not something anyone looks at. He could dramatically improve that ratio statistic if he handled the ball.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Did you watch that game ?
> 
> He didn't have a great start and just kept shooting the ball. Then when he was left in, he was handling the ball, finding people. He didn't knock down a 3-pointer until the 3rd quarter. He had a career high in assists ALL in the 1st half (which prior to Hinrich's 11-assist performance) --- this performance was ALL in stride. He was making plays all second quarter to PJ Brown and Ben Wallace.
> 
> ...


So your saying one game, or excuse me one half proves he would be a good point. He didn't play without Du or Hinrich next to him for a minute of the Heat series.

Your last arguement might hold water if he compared well as a 2 guard, which is why I added that, but he doesn't, he is very low on that list as well. More over I've watched every game of Gordon's NBA career and I know for a fact he can't handle bringing the ball up under pressure. Any arguement he should have the ball in his hand more is faulty for this reason, no other shooters in the league do, guys who do are points and bonified consistant go to scoring stars. It is absolutley horrible for the rest of the offense to have a shooter dribbling the ball for half the clock, no team does it for good reason.


----------



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

Hustle said:


> So your saying one game, or excuse me one half proves he would be a good point. He didn't play without Du or Hinrich next to him for a minute of the Heat series.
> 
> 
> > When did I say that one gave proved everything ? I gave examples --- it's up there.
> ...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> When did I say that one gave proved everything ? I gave examples --- it's up there.
> 
> My point with highlighting that game was that he was doing everything in stride. He wasn't really having the game of his life --- it was mostly within the offensive flow. He got his second half points (18 of them) off of that flow.
> 
> ...


The premise of the original post you argued with was about how Ben couldn't play the point it had nothing to do with him having the ball in his hands more, and you subsequintly questioned if I watched the game. I would take that as you saying he can play point, and what are you basing that on, a couple of very limited samples.

I state an opinion and your arguement is a sarcastic that should be published, followed by a stretch what I said which (because it was highlighted by numbers?), then lighten that fact by pretty much agreeing. 

I'm curious to any arguement as to why BG should have the ball in his hands more. I can't think of another guy who makes a living shooting, isn't consistant, doesn't score in other ways that would command having the ball in hands more than Gordon does, that's considering more than this season (when he has mostly stunk or been in foul trouble, which is the easy answer for why his time with the ball in his hands has been lessoned so far).

Then you bring up Hinrich and Duhon furthering my thought you are saying Ben would be a good point. If you aren't argueing he is a good point I don't understand your 2nd to last post. I think you need to clarify further.


----------



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

Hustle said:


> The premise of the original post you argued with was about how Ben couldn't play the point it had nothing to do with him having the ball in his hands more, and you subsequintly questioned if I watched the game. I would take that as you saying he can play point, and what are you basing that on, a couple of very limited samples.


Limited is a relative term if you consider our run to the playoffs last year "limited." 

If it's limited and it has shown to work when limited, why not try it out some more, especially if it leads to huge returns ? It's not like the offense now is great or very stable.


> I state an opinion and your arguement is a sarcastic that should be published, followed by a stretch what I said which (because it was highlighted by numbers?), then lighten that fact by pretty much agreeing.


It's almost always a waste of time to dispute hard numbers. I'm not disagreeing with the numbers, just highlighting how they are achieved and perhaps why they look so low.




> I'm curious to any arguement as to why BG should have the ball in his hands more. I can't think of another guy who makes a living shooting, isn't consistant, doesn't score in other ways that would command having the ball in hands more than Gordon does, that's considering more than this season (when he has mostly stunk or been in foul trouble, which is the easy answer for why his time with the ball in his hands has been lessoned so far).
> 
> Then you bring up Hinrich and Duhon furthering my thought you are saying Ben would be a good point. If you aren't argueing he is a good point I don't understand your 2nd to last post. I think you need to clarify further.


The reason he looks inconsistent is because he doesn't get the ball enough or handle it enough to control the offense. He is treated like an inconsistent player without much chance to redeem himself. Then he comes back in and misses more shots, so to the box score basketball analyst it looks like he's missed so many shots and had an off day --- and this easily justifies everything that those who are down him believe, saving the hassle of critical thinking. He is also not a very quick starter, so if he's having an off game and doesn't take enough shots to begin with, then he's gone for 10 minutes and forced to rejuvenate. Skiles manages like these guys are machines who can't make any mistakes, and that'll cost us.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Limited is a relative term if you consider our run to the playoffs last year "limited."
> 
> If it's limited and it has shown to work when limited, why not try it out some more, especially if it leads to huge returns ? It's not like the offense now is great or very stable.
> 
> The reason he looks inconsistent is because he doesn't get the ball enough or handle it enough to control the offense. He is treated like an inconsistent player without much chance to redeem himself. Then he comes back in and misses more shots, so to the box score basketball analyst it looks like he's missed so many shots and had an off day --- and this easily justifies everything that those who are down him believe, saving the hassle of critical thinking. He is also not a very quick starter, so if he's having an off game and doesn't take enough shots to begin with, then he's gone for 10 minutes and forced to rejuvenate. Skiles manages like these guys are machines who can't make any mistakes, and that'll cost us.


if your saying he should get the ball at the top of the key and given a few more seconds to find his own shot like he has in the past and get that opprotunity on a more consistant basis, I can go with that. I was equating handling the ball more to playing more of a point guard and playmaking role. That's where I think the numbers and my experience watching him tell me that's not a good idea. He can make some plays/passes Du and Kirk can't make, but his proness(is that a word?) to make turnovers negates that ability.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Sorry but I find this to be pretty clear cut. Ben is not known to bring anything to the table other than scoring. His most impressive career non scoring statistic to date is his paltry 2.5 assists per game. His defense is supposedly improving but still not great by any means. That means that if he scores efficiently he's had a good game and otherwise he has been uneffective. So far this season he's shooting a horrific 39%. He's had one good game, one great game, and four terrible games. 

Lu on the other hand is shooting 53%. In his worst game he shot a solid 5 for 11. He is also an oustanding rebounder at the SF position and plays above average defense. Kirk is shooting way above his career average at 50% and is a solid distributor. It's shocking to me to hear people question his defense when he's done a better job shutting down one of the premier players in basketball (Wade) than anyone else in the league. If people want to argue it's too early to jump to conclusions I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon. However, if people are going to argue that Gordon is not killing the team when he shoots one for ten or that there is some bias in effect when Deng and Kirk do not receive criticism while performing brilliantly, I am dumbfounded.


----------



## synergy825 (Apr 28, 2005)

Gordon = Jamal Crawford. Both are streaky shooters. Both are useless when they're shot is not going in. Both can hit shots in the clutch. Reason why people rag on Ben the most, is because he's the one who is expected to be the star. When he's getting 2, 5, 6 points in 3 of the 5 games.....that's not a star.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would not use such colorful language.
> 
> One of the main reasons he's so popular is that he's a good, white, American basketball player, noone can deny that.
> 
> ...


I agree that the Great White Hope angle does boost Kirk's popularity. Can't be denied.

I agree that Kirk work's hard, and that is part of his popularity.

I disagree that Kirk lack's talent.

I think that perception is merely another aspect of the Great White Hope stereotype coming into play.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

There are several causes for the “scapegoating” of Ben G and for Luol and Kirk sliding by and escaping criticism. Luol and Kirk are big parts of the master plan, yet to be fully unleashed.

Some of Deng and Hinrich’s secret supporters:










The Illuminati










New World Order conspirators










The International Zionist Conspiracy










Aliens and UFOs










The CIA (NSA and various unnamed shadow government operations)










Bert and Osama


----------



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

JeremyB0001 said:


> Sorry but I find this to be pretty clear cut. Ben is not known to bring anything to the table other than scoring. His most impressive career non scoring statistic to date is his paltry 2.5 assists per game. His defense is supposedly improving but still not great by any means. That means that if he scores efficiently he's had a good game and otherwise he has been uneffective. So far this season he's shooting a horrific 39%. He's had one good game, one great game, and four terrible games.


Again, if he played point guard, controlled the ball more, whatever you want to call it, that assist number would really go up. And of course it's hard to know how you're measuring defense.




> Lu on the other hand is shooting 53%. In his worst game he shot a solid 5 for 11. He is also an oustanding rebounder at the SF position and plays above average defense. Kirk is shooting way above his career average at 50% and is a solid distributor.
> 
> It's shocking to me to hear people question his defense when he's done a better job shutting down one of the premier players in basketball (Wade) than anyone else in the league. If people want to argue it's too early to jump to conclusions I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon. However, if people are going to argue that Gordon is not killing the team when he shoots one for ten or that there is some bias in effect when Deng and Kirk do not receive criticism while performing brilliantly, I am dumbfounded.


Unless they're injured, stars are not limited to 25 minutes or less if they don't get off to a good start. It's worse this season cause we have additional back-up help in Thabo. Gordon has been in foul trouble in exactly one game, which was the last one.

Gilbert Arenas this season had a slow start --- he shot 2/12 with 7 points in 38 minutes. The next game, he played 40 minutes and scored 44. Wonder how Gilbert Arenas would do under Skiles. 

Anyone agree that the way Skiles does things is unorthodox ? If you can agree with that, then you can agree or at least be receptive to the idea that he will get unorthodox results.

You can't win any championship if you don't get your players playing and learning how to battle. This is beyond ridiculous.

Kirk's considered great because he's good at not screwing up (most of the time). But even that catches up with us because we end up doing nothing on offense under pressure. He's showed pretty clearly, especially against Indiana where up to that point where he got that clinching 3-pointer that it's really difficult for him to create opportunities. It's like trying to get a kidney stone out for him. That clinching shot he got was off a broken play. I'd prefer that he do just that.

We won that game because Indiana has a newfound habit of choking against us when they're at the UC and Ben W. was busy intimidating the hell out of them.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I've seen several posts in this thread saying that Bulls' fans expectations for Gordon are *too high*. 

Please. 

I expect him to score 16-17 pts a game with some consistency and be a reliable cog in the Bulls machine. Thats it. 

I think that is the "expectation" that most (maybe all) Bulls fans have for him. As the #3 pick in the draft, and the starting shooting guard and primary offensive weapon for a playoff contending team, those expectations are, if anything, grossly *low*. 

It is not an unreasonable expectation that your lottery pick starting shooting guard play more than 2 good games out of 6. *In his 4 of 6 games this season (66% of the season to date), he's shot 14.7% from the floor and averaged 4 ppg.* 

And being critical of *that* means we are expecting too much from him? If so, then he should be the 4th guard in a 4 guard rotation - just ahead of Barrett. 

He's much better than that, so we expect him to be. Its a pretty basic concept. He's good. He should play good. If he doesn't, then maybe he's not good. And if he's not good, then don't play him. But don't tell me too much is expected of him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He's much better than that, so we expect him to be. Its a pretty basic concept. He's good. He should play good. If he doesn't, then maybe he's not good. And if he's not good, then don't play him. But don't tell me too much is expected of him.


For some reason, this paragraph reminded me of Raymond J Johnson, Jr.

"You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me RJ or you can call me Ray Jay...but you doesn't have to call me Johnson..."


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

Gordon gets criticized more because his job is to score. We see the potential in him and he lets us down right when we think he is getting their. When you are an expected scorer and shoot 38 percent you deserve it. Kirk and Luol aren't expected to do much scoring offensively and consistently give you 12-24 points on a nightly basis with rebounds and assists.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Again, if he played point guard, controlled the ball more, whatever you want to call it, that assist number would really go up. And of course it's hard to know how you're measuring defense.


It's not as though point guard is considered a strength of Gordon's and he's never able to play there because he is blocked by Hinrich. If the organization thought bringing the ball up the court was one of his strengths, he could fill in at PG when Hinrich is sitting. Furthermore, the number of minutes Duhon and Hinrich play together demonstrates that the team is not opposed to sliding Kirk over to the two. The 9 assist game might be reason for the team to reconsider this stance, but up until now it's pretty clear he has not been viewed as a distributor forced to fill the scoring niche on the team. I also look to the coaching staff to evaluate Ben's defense. He had a hard time staying on the floor at points early in his career because of his defense. Supposedly, it is much improved but I haven't heard anything to suggest it is elite skill as with Kirk or that he's asked to regard some of the opponent's best players as with Deng.



The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Unless they're injured, stars are not limited to 25 minutes or less if they don't get off to a good start. It's worse this season cause we have additional back-up help in Thabo. Gordon has been in foul trouble in exactly one game, which was the last one.
> 
> Gilbert Arenas this season had a slow start -- he shot 2/12 with 7 points in 38 minutes. The next game, he played 40 minutes and scored 44. Wonder how Gilbert Arenas would do under Skiles.
> 
> ...


And Ben was terrible in two of the first three games and then Skiles played him 41 in the fourth. Sounds like the exact same pattern as with Arenas to me. I think you make a decent point but the team's depth plays a big role here. Duhon has always seen substantial minutes and now Griffin and Thabo have been added to the mix. A good comparison might be Gasol. He only played 31 or 32 MPG on the Grizzlies teams that went 12 deep even though he was a bona fide star. I have no data to back this up but I have a hard time remembering many games where Gordon got off to a terrible start and then rebounded late. He seems to often stop looking for his shot after a while when it's not falling. I also have a hard time thinking of many players who have 1 for 8 or 3 for 12 games as often as Gordon, so this situation comes up much more often. You don't bench someone like Arenas if he misses shots left and right every dozen games but when a player is doing it every four or five games I think it becomes a little bit harder to throw him out there and tell him to keep shooting since that type of performance makes it incredible difficult to win the game.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

Gordon alway's start off bad in the beginning of each season so i ain't worry i know he's going to get his offense back and explode everynight.


----------

