# Who is Gordon gonna be like, really?



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Having watched Ben Gordon in the pre-season and now 4 games into it, I'd like some opinions on who his game compares to from the past or present.


Right now, I'm thinking he's the next Lindsay Hunter, if he can ever get his shot to fall consistently.


:gopray:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to me is more like a stronger jason terry, forever destined to be pulled beween 2 positions because he plays like a 2 in a 1's body but talented enough to play anyway once he gets the hang of the nba to play regardless.

18-20 point a game scorer on a bad team in a few years.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

He'll be like Bobby Jackson or Earl Boykins, except better. Gordon will be the best 6th man in the league, but too much of a liability to start because he plays like a shooting guard with all the physical attributes of a point guard.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Why did the Bulls draft him so high?


----------



## MagnusPinus (Aug 27, 2003)

Steve Francis..


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ray Allen, Michael Redd....lite.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

A quicker Hersey Hawkins?


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

chauncey billups.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Just something about Gordon that reminds me of Andrew Toney, one of my favorite players of all time.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> Who is Gordon gonna be like, really?



who knows and that makes threads like this dumb and useless..

can anyone here say that gordon WILL NOT avg 30ppg for the rest of the season?

can anyone also say that HE WILL?

no one knows,so stop worrieing about it..he has all the gifts to become great and unlike some of our past busts he has the drive and the willinness to get there so sit back and enjoy the show..


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Who is Gordon gonna be like, really?*



> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> 
> can anyone here say that gordon WILL NOT avg 30ppg for the rest of the season?


Yes, I can. I can say that he WILL NOT average 20ppg for the rest of the season. 

And I thought J. Crawford had bad shot selection. Ben just isn't playing team ball right now.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Who is Gordon gonna be like, really?*



> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I can. I can say that he WILL NOT average 20ppg for the rest of the season.
> ...


You don't like Gordon's shot selection? I think it has been pretty good...his shot has just been off. I guess thats the damning thing, your shot selection is ALWAYS good if you make the shots and always bad if you miss em.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Gondon is rushing everything in his game and this is the problem. He needs to let the game come to him.

david


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Who is Gordon gonna be like, really?*



> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I can. I can say that he WILL NOT average 20ppg for the rest of the season.
> ...


ok since you can predict the future,what year does the CD Media(dvd,cd,hddvd,brdvd) become outdated?

yours is a dumb reply,no man can tell the future(duh)so no one can say what BG will or will not do.so you can only make a "most likly" forecast but not a set in stone prediction,just like if someone smokes you can say that most likly they will get cancer but you cant say for sure...

so with that being said what is the use of this thread? for starters i can tell you for sure that ben gordon will 100% be like a ben gordon... *now here's ya sign*


----------



## Snuffleupagus (May 8, 2003)

Despite his mediocre play, I think Gordon has shown why he was the 3rd pick. He is AMAZINGLY quick off the dribble, similar to Crawford, but he considers going to the basket an option, dissimilar to Crawford. I think this will eventually make him quite valuable, since he's pretty much always able to get a good shot he's a guy who can bail the team out when the shot clock's running down.

He's definitely been "off" though. He misses a lot of shots that I expect him to make given how he played at UCONN. He also has a lot of trouble dribbling, making passes, and especially catching passes. In fact, I'm wondering whether there's something wrong with his vision, like he needs contacts or something. That's really how he looks out there, a talented player with a vision problem. It's probably just nerves that fry his concentration, but maybe the Bulls need to get him to an optomatrist.

I think Steve Francis is a decent, if optimistic, comparison.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is Gordon gonna be like, really?*



> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> 
> 
> ok since you can predict the future,what year does the CD Media(dvd,cd,hddvd,brdvd) become outdated?
> ...



This is just silly and extreme. Anyone who has watched two NBA games in the last ten years can tell you Ben Gordon will not average 30 pts. But your point is taken, he can go as far as his skills and his desire take him. 

Based on everything said about Ben pre- and post-draft, I have just been SHOCKED by how bad he is ( I didn't see him much at UCONN). He looks like a second round pick to me.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Snuffleupagus</b>!
> In fact, I'm wondering whether there's something wrong with his vision, like he needs contacts or something. That's really how he looks out there, a talented player with a vision problem. It's probably just nerves that fry his concentration, but maybe the Bulls need to get him to an optomatrist.


:laugh: This is the most apt description of Ben's play I have heard thus far.


----------



## Snuffleupagus (May 8, 2003)

I mean, I've seen at least a half-dozen passes go right through his hands. He's probably thinking too much about what he's going to do after he gets the ball that he fails to watch it all the way in. But it still makes me wonder...


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)




----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm wondering how Gordon will shoot in the NBA long-term. His early struggles remind me of Jay. I thought Jay was a good, but not great, shooter in college, but he couldn't hit the side of a barn for months in the NBA, whether he was open or being mauled. What I realized was that he had a very violent shot - what I mean by that is that unless the shot went in without touching the rim at all, it seemed to bounce violently off the iron and rarely dropped in. Other shooters, such as Toni Kukoc, seem to have a touch for shooting where they get some kind bounces. I'm not sure why that was - Jay's form looked natural enough. I don't know if it was the kind of spin he put on the ball or what. I have more hope for Gordon because he seemed to have an absolutely feathery shot at UConn. I'm hoping that once he gets calibrated to the game and the players, his shot will fall. And as long as he finds the right balance between patience and aggressiveness, I think he'll be a heck of a player.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> chauncey billups.


The answer has been obviously stated:

Chauncey Billups.

Gordon and Billups play an EXACT style of ball, have the exact same body, and got off to the exact same start to their NBA careers.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> The answer has been obviously stated:
> ...


lets hope he becomes a finals MVP one day too


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

its to early to write him off , it may turn out to be a great player in the future


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> 
> 
> lets hope he becomes a finals MVP one day too


Ditto.

I think what makes the Billups-Gordon comparison so frightening is that Billups had college seasoning and was always a solid shooter, yet he needed a few years to develop himself into a point guard. 

Unfortunately I think Ben will need to follow a similar path. As a 2-guard, Ben will always be a bench player IMO. As a point guard, he has a chance to eventually be something special.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

Being a UConn grad, I of course loved Gordon as a Huskie but as I have stated in earlier threads I don't think he is going to be a great pro. He simply is not a PG and I don't think he is big enough in today's NBA to be a SG.

The reason he is struggling with his shot is that he now has to shoot over much taller players than he did in College.

Can he make himself into a scoring type PG, maybe? I think if he can become an offensive minded PG than he can be a player in this league. However he is not off to a good start. 0.8 Assists per game in 21.5 minutes per game are not good numbers. Even a scoring type point guard must be able to distribute the ball fairly well.

It's still early and I really hope he does make it big. I of course love all former UConn players.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> Being a UConn grad, I of course loved Gordon as a Huskie but as I have stated in earlier threads I don't think he is going to be a great pro. He simply is not a PG and I don't think he is big enough in today's NBA to be a SG.
> 
> The reason he is struggling with his shot is that he now has to shoot over much taller players than he did in College.
> ...


his assist number is misleading because right now hes asked to score, hes playing as a shootnig guard not a point guard. he's been told to have the shooter's mentaliity. in his mind, all he has to do is shoot and score whenever he gets the ball. thats his job.

but if kirk is traded, and we let ben run the point, even though he might still be a scoring PG, then hes gonna have the "point guard" mentaliity , hes gonna pass and score when he can. i think thats the only way for ben to bcome a good player. trade kirk +curry for a all star and a serviceable big man .


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

At Best: Allen Iverson(HONESTLY)
At Worst: David Wesley


----------



## Pure Scorer (Jul 20, 2002)

Ben gordon is never going to be the player allen iverson is, but he will be good. He's going to be somewhere around steve francis ability, with worse explosiveness/pg skills but a better outside shooter imo. 

Top 20-25 player in the league at one point, but not much better than that. Not a #1 option by himself, but with a good interior presence could be one. 

I see no reason why anyone should think he's (going to be) better then dajuan wagner(who people are giving up on way too early).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

In the two games I watched in the Regular season, I have yet to see him attack the rim even once. He'll beat his man, but if his man isn't completely BEHIND HIM, he'll stop for some strange reason and settle for his (for now) poor jumpshot.

It's too early to say, but he is FAR from francis, iverson, or even baron davis at this point.

Oddly enough, nobody here seems willing to take him to task for the same things that we crucified JC for over the course of the last 3 seasons......

Go figure.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pure Scorer</b>!
> Ben gordon is never going to be the player allen iverson is, but he will be good. He's going to be somewhere around steve francis ability, with worse explosiveness/pg skills but a better outside shooter imo.
> 
> Top 20-25 player in the league at one point, but not much better than that. Not a #1 option by himself, but with a good interior presence could be one.
> ...


That's true, but he still needs to learn the point guard position to reach the league's elite, just how Chauncey Billups did it. He'll never be more than a 6th man unless he learns to distribute. That's not to say he doesn't have the tools, however. His low assist numbers are mainly due to the fact that he barely has the ball in his hands yet. But that's intentional because he really needs to cut down on the turnovers.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

After seeing him a few times, I notice he just absolutely loses his guy on offense, and can create a wide open shot for himself. He is nearly unstoppable at creating his own shot. But then he clanks a jumpshot. Once the jumper falls he will be a very deadly weapon.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KL Dawger</b>!
> Why did the Bulls draft him so high?


To save money, by dumping or trading Kirk after his contract season 

They did that with Brand, Artest, Miller, Jamal, Fizer...and they will do that with Tyson and Curry too !


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> 
> 
> lets hope he becomes a finals MVP one day too



Let's also hope he doesn't take as long as Chauncey did to find his place in the NBA.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> Oddly enough, nobody here seems willing to take him to task for the same things that we crucified JC for over the course of the last 3 seasons......
> 
> Go figure.


I agree, as I already posted, 

"And I thought J. Crawford had bad shot selection. Ben just isn't playing team ball right now."

But, Ben is still finding himself and figuring out his role on this team. Four years or so and Jamal either refused to or wasn't able to adjust. Hopefully Ben can.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

I'vd said this about 67 times on this baord - he will be the next Ronald Murray. Bookmark it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madox</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, as I already posted,
> ...


Nobody crucified Jamal his rookie season. Nor his 2nd, and really not even his 3rd. Ben's a rookie, and he deserves some patience to adjust.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> 
> 
> To save money, by dumping or trading Kirk after his contract season
> ...


That's a mighty fine theory, but the REAL reason Ben went so high is because he's a top notch athlete with a sweet jumper. His draft stock was soaring throughout the league right before the draft, and there were several teams that wanted him. I still think he can be a great player, but he needs to become a scoring 1-guard, and not simply an undersized 2-guard. Somehow I think the Lakers would be a better fit for him right now. I wonder if they're interested?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Nobody crucified Jamal his rookie season. Nor his 2nd, and really not even his 3rd. Ben's a rookie, and he deserves some patience to adjust.


Yeah but Jamal was a freshman coming from colege who only played 2 years of HS ball. Ben Gordon was a 4 year player at UCONN and has played basketball since he was knee high. Gordon is a LOT further along as a rookie than Crawford was. STill, I think Gordon will be fine once he adjusts to the speed and size of the NBA and his shot starts dropping.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah but Jamal was a freshman coming from colege who only played 2 years of HS ball. Ben Gordon was a 4 year player at UCONN and has played basketball since he was knee high. Gordon is a LOT further along as a rookie than Crawford was. STill, I think Gordon will be fine once he adjusts to the speed and size of the NBA and his shot starts dropping.


3 years at UCONN.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Its 2 ends of the spectrum

He could be in the Rodney Monroe or Khalid Reeves (who I matched up against in college a couple of times) camp or he could be Joe Dumars-Jeff Hornacek. But one thing is for sure in my opinion. He with either be quite a stud, or he will be a tremendous flop. The Hersey Hawkins comparisons are valid, but he was a mediocre player. I just think Gordon is hit or miss, and alot of the final outcome will be about the situation that he is in. He just isnt good enough to succeed anywhere


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> The Hersey Hawkins comparisons are valid, but he was a mediocre player.


Not to bust your onions, but mediocre? The guy made an All-Star team and had a pretty nice 6-7 year run to start his career.

You would hope as a #3 pick that Ben does better than that, but Hersey's body of work is nothing to sneeze at.

Hersey Hawkins


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to bust your onions, but mediocre? The guy made an All-Star team and had a pretty nice 6-7 year run to start his career.
> ...


those early years in Philly were better then average. But he always a terrible defender and I didnt see a player who could make much of a difference. His career really tapered off after being dealt from Philly


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Its 2 ends of the spectrum
> 
> He could be in the Rodney Monroe or Khalid Reeves (who I matched up against in college a couple of times) camp or he could be Joe Dumars-Jeff Hornacek. But one thing is for sure in my opinion. He with either be quite a stud, or he will be a tremendous flop. The Hersey Hawkins comparisons are valid, but he was a mediocre player. I just think Gordon is hit or miss, and alot of the final outcome will be about the situation that he is in. He just isnt good enough to succeed anywhere


If a guy is good enough to be a star, shouldn't he be good enough to be a star anywhere?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> If a guy is good enough to be a star, shouldn't he be good enough to be a star anywhere?


No. There are countless examples of guys who were tremendous players in one systems and then so so players in other systems. Scottie Pippen comes to mind. Left the Bulls for Houston and turned average very quickly. Other players have had similar drop offs. I believe Gordon is a system player. I dont believe he has the skill level to transcend a system/team all by himself. Doesnt mean he cant be a star, just means he cant be on the level of a Kobe or a KG.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> No. There are countless examples of guys who were tremendous players in one systems and then so so players in other systems. Scottie Pippen comes to mind. Left the Bulls for Houston and turned average very quickly. Other players have had similar drop offs. I believe Gordon is a system player. I dont believe he has the skill level to transcend a system/team all by himself. Doesnt mean he cant be a star, just means he cant be on the level of a Kobe or a KG.


Pippen? Honestly? 

Do you think his advanced age and poor health had anything to do with his drop-off in Houston, or the fact that he was playing with two low-post ball-dominating possession hogs?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Pippen? Honestly?
> ...


He went from a motion offense in the triangle, as one of the 10 best players of the game, to pretty irrelevant in one year. Sure his injuries had something to do with it, but not nearly as much as the system. Here is a list of other guys who were simply system players who couldnt adjust to other teams, or who became stars on other teams

Shawn Kemp
Dale Ellis
Tom Chambers
Kevin Johnson
Jeff Hornacek
Hersey Hawkins
Ralph Sampson
Glen Robinson 

And the list goes on and on. There are only a handful of players who could be truly successful anywhere. Either you have to be a true star, like Jordan OR you could be the consumate role player, like Rodman, who could have made it anywhere


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Pip's back was a total mess his last year in Chicago, he only played like half the season, right?

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, rlucas. That last year he even when he came back he was pretty miserable looking (at least compared to his former self).


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Very good points by all. The reason I said Allen Iverson, is because if his shot starts to drop (and I see no reason it won't), he has the speed and agility to lose people. My only concern is whether he'll ever be the defender AI is. Many people forget how good AI is on defense, I like that Joe Dumars comparison a lot now that I think about it and Joey D was a good player.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Pip's back was a total mess his last year in Chicago, he only played like half the season, right?
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, rlucas. That last year he even when he came back he was pretty miserable looking (at least compared to his former self).


pIPPEN BASICALLY PLAYED THAT SEASON IN HOUSTON WITHOUT INJURY HOWEVER


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> pIPPEN BASICALLY PLAYED THAT SEASON IN HOUSTON WITHOUT INJURY HOWEVER


Okay, even assuming he was totally unimpeded by injury, which is imo a stretch, he still turned 34 during that lockout season. Not a lot of players, especially wing players, don't start to drop off at that age. It even happened to the saintly MJ.

And looking at the numbers, anyway, Pippen's Houston season was just about as successful as his last year in Chicago. He shot the ball a little more poorly and a lot less, and he scored about 4.5 points less per game. Force-feeding the Dream and Chuck Wagon had more to do with that than Pippen's not being able to function outside of a system.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Okay, even assuming he was totally unimpeded by injury, which is imo a stretch, he still turned 34 during that lockout season. Not a lot of players, especially wing players, don't start to drop off at that age. It even happened to the saintly MJ.
> ...


DUH, THAT WAS THEIR SYSTEM AND THAT IS WHY HIS GAME FELL OFF


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think Rlucas is making a valid point but I don't know if Pippen was the best example to use since he had a lot of mitigating factors other than the change in system. Still, doesn't change Rlucas argument which I think is a valid one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think Rlucas is making a valid point but I don't know if Pippen was the best example to use since he had a lot of mitigating factors other than the change in system. Still, doesn't change Rlucas argument which I think is a valid one.


RLucas's argument is that a 34-year-old Scottie Pippen had a 5 ppg drop-off from his previous season in Chicago (and the 5 ppg drop-off neatly corresponds to a similar reduction in shot attempts).

He is arguing that Pippen could not have flourished outside the triangle. All that the Houston situation "proves" is that he didn't do as well in a particular, plodding, half-court, post-up oriented offense.

I'm just not buying that a young, healthy Pippen wouldn't have put up similar or better numbers on another team in ANY system than what he did as a Bull. There just isn't sufficient evidence to back that up. Pointing to his Houston and Portland years is meaningless.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> RLucas's argument is that a 34-year-old Scottie Pippen had a 5 ppg drop-off from his previous season in Chicago (and the 5 ppg drop-off neatly corresponds to a similar reduction in shot attempts).
> ...



WHAT ABOUT BJ ARMSTRONG? OR IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, DALE ELLIS?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> RLucas's argument is that a 34-year-old Scottie Pippen had a 5 ppg drop-off from his previous season in Chicago (and the 5 ppg drop-off neatly corresponds to a similar reduction in shot attempts).
> ...


Maybe I am misreading things. I thought that rlucas was arguing that some players have to be in certain systems to be effective and he was citing Pippen as an example of a player who changed systems and became less effective. He cited Pippen as an example which I think isn't a very good case because of all of the mitigating circumstances. Still, I believe his premise is sound and he has cited several other examples to make his point.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT ABOUT BJ ARMSTRONG? OR IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, DALE ELLIS?


So you're conceding Pippen's not a great example?

If you read what I've posted on this thread, I've never said there aren't examples of guys who can't function outside of a system. My point was that your point doesn't really apply to Pippen.

You're a lot closer to the mark in using guys like B.J. or Ellis as examples rather than Kemp, Chambers, K.J., Hornacek, and so on. The former two needed teammates to set them up. The latter group were all, in one way or another, slowed a lot more by age, injury, or weight gain than they were by their new system. 

Back on topic, I don't think Gordon being in one system or another will dictate his future. I think how far he goes will be determined by how quickly he gets moved to the one. He is a notch below the Iversons and Wades who can overcome the size disadvantage at the two with quickness and explosiveness.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe I am misreading things. I thought that rlucas was arguing that some players have to be in certain systems to be effective and he was citing Pippen as an example of a player who changed systems and became less effective. He cited Pippen as an example which I think isn't a very good case because of all of the mitigating circumstances. Still, I believe his premise is sound and he has cited several other examples to make his point.


I'm not going to waste time tracing what happened to each guy, but if you look at the Chambers, Kemp, K.J., etc. list, I think you'll find that what Rlucas is attributing to a reliance on a particular system can just as easily be blamed on old age and declining athleticism.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> So you're conceding Pippen's not a great example?
> ...


IM NOT CONCEDING ON PIPPEN. HE COULDNT PLAY IN A POUND IT INTO THE POST OFFENSE. IF AGE WAS A CONCERN, WHY WAS HE A FAR MORE EFFECTIVE PLAYER THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN PORTLAND ON A WIDE OPEN TEAM? JEEZ, COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE SYSTEM?

AS FOR GORDON, ITLL DEPEND ON THE SYSTEM FOR HIM. HE IS BY NO MEANS A GOOD ENOUGH PLAYER TO TRANSCEND A SYSTEM. FEW PLAYERS ARE. I DONT KNOW WHAT SYSTEM WILL WORK FOR HIM, BUT IT INDEED MIGHT HAVE TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE HE WILL SERVE AS A PRIMARY HANDLER, RATHER THEN AN OFF THE BALL ROLE.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Just as an aside, you may be able to find help for the broken Caps Lock HERE. 



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> IM NOT CONCEDING ON PIPPEN. HE COULDNT PLAY IN A POUND IT INTO THE POST OFFENSE. IF AGE WAS A CONCERN, WHY WAS HE A FAR MORE EFFECTIVE PLAYER THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN PORTLAND ON A WIDE OPEN TEAM? JEEZ, COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE SYSTEM?


I'm not sure by what measure you feel Pippen was a better player in Portland, let alone "far more effective." The numbers are all pretty much the same, and while Portland's offense was more free-flowing than Houston's, Portland was not running any triangle. Furthermore, once you got to the Portland years, Scottie was 35+ and in every respect a shadow of himself at his prime. 



> AS FOR GORDON, ITLL DEPEND ON THE SYSTEM FOR HIM. HE IS BY NO MEANS A GOOD ENOUGH PLAYER TO TRANSCEND A SYSTEM. FEW PLAYERS ARE. I DONT KNOW WHAT SYSTEM WILL WORK FOR HIM, BUT IT INDEED MIGHT HAVE TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE HE WILL SERVE AS A PRIMARY HANDLER, RATHER THEN AN OFF THE BALL ROLE.


The key thing is that he ends up as a one somewhere, not the system they run. I simply don't see a scenario where Gordon plays the one in two different offenses and is a superstar in one case but a bust in the other.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

You in a bad mood today Andre? The caps lock thing is a bit off-putting


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

At best: Jason Terry









At worst: Trajan Langdon










My Prediction: B.J. Armstrong of 94' ... 14.8 ppg.....about 4 ast pg maybe a bit better but in that area


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT ABOUT BJ ARMSTRONG? OR IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, DALE ELLIS?


bj had a pretty good year that 1st year away from the bulls.

look it up , there was real dropoff when he changed teams and systems.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

as i said at our draft party, i think Gordon is a rich man's Jason Terry/poor man's Steve Francis.

i also think he was taken too high at the #3 pick. but then i wasn't really happy with the Deng pick at #6 either, so what the hell do i know? :whoknows:

i'm just hoping Ben proves me wrong... :wait:


----------

