The Krakken

IMHO, we simply cannot have TWO black holes on this team. AT LEAST one of them must go. I wish I could count how many times in these games, they have held the ball, and either forced a tough shot, or passed the ball FINALLY, but with 3-6 seconds left on the shot clock, forcing someone else to take a ridiculously tough shot. Having one black hole is bad enough, but two? No dice.

And yes, I must acknowlege that they have been making HUGE shots in these series, but they oftentimes undo their good possessions with equally poor ones, with all the holding of the ball you do.....

truebluefan

And what about Hinrichs over dribbling? Although Kirk had a nice first half with scoring.

I want to keep both guys if we can. Gordon is the perfect compliment to Rose, someone that can drill a three. Salmons gives us good back up at both the sf position and sg.

__________________
UFC 112: Invincible

Smez86

One of them should only go if we have a suitable offensive replacement (or at least somebody who can create their own shot). Tyrus, Noah, Deng...Rose needs at least one person alongside him who is offensively capable of taking over a game if he is cold.

BULLHITTER

......yes, the bulls simply MUST try harder to get shots for their poorer, less efficient, less clutch and less talented teammates. moving the ball around, peppering it back and forth; that's a certain way for the ball to end up in the proper player's hand; one who's adept at taking and/or making a good decision with the ball, and/or making a MAKEABLE shot.

outside of gordon and salmons, just who on the bulls could be identified as such?

krakken, i agree they hold the ball too long on certain posessions; that's clearly evident. but let's ask ourselves this; how much of a problem would the fans have if [insert superstar name here] was holding the ball, bouncing it and looking for a mismatch, open lane to the hoop, etc? your problem seems to be it's gordon and salmons, as opposed to kobe and lebron. the guys the bulls have are who they have; they've been more successful than not. i don't have a problem with "playmakers" not being successful 100% of the time; no one is. gordon's performed at a near all-star level on BOTH ends this go-round. as a reasonable viewer and knowlegeable fan, i'm certain you see this as well. a questionable play by an all-star as opposed to a gordon is still a questionable play. i just wonder would you be making the same assertion.

as such, gordon and salmons AREN'T the problem with this team. obtaining an all-star level player will actually lessen those two's ability to dominate the ball as they do. it doesn't mean they can't co-exist with the lessers on the team.

The Krakken

I'm not advocating that.

The alternative is also true. Being the most talented shot maker on the team, doesn't make every shot you take, a good shot.

As what, exactly?

I would. Because I want to WIN. Can you name the last championship team that had a black hole on offense? Let me help. Not Kobe. Not when they were winning. Kobe became a black hole in that last run with shaq and they were blown away. Not Tim Duncan. Those players pass. They recognize that they aren't ALWAYS going to be the best option. And they are accountable. You could argue Dwayne Wade......and you'd be right. I'd then turn around and argue the refs.

Iverson is the classic example of the black hole not being able to win.

Wrong. Teams defend Kobe and Lebron differently than they defend Gordon and Salmons. So the comparison is incongruous.

I don't. I see his offensive genius. I see his boneheaded defensive play. Like refusing to step in and help on penetration because he was scared of Tony allen. Or leaving Derrick Rose on an Island with Rondo on the fast break, stepping away to guard an imaginary offensive player. Not hustling to loose balls, even when he's the closest one to it (this preceeded his injury, by the way), NOT fighting through screens AT ALL in games 2, 3 and 4. He's been a near all-star on the offensive end. He's been dreadful like Rose, (who I somewhat excuse being a rookie) Tyrus, et al. Everyone sees the big stuff they do, which is why Gordon LOOKS like he's actually playing better than he is, when the ball isn't in his hands. But honestly, he (along with the majority of his teammates), has been woefully unacceptable on the defensive end.

I would and I do.

Actually I never said GORDON and SALMONS were the problem on this team. I said Gordon AND SALMONS are a long term issue with team success. And its absolutely true.

And I still contend that they cannot co-exist with the "lessers" as you call them on this team. Not unless never getting out of the first round qualifies as "coexistings".

BULLHITTER

ok, which teams don't have players who take bad shots? i'm not advocating a team of bad shot takers, but expecting the best scorers to focus on quality shots every time down the court is unrealistic.
players who'll make shots in any situation. the bulls don't have a surplus of those types of players.

are you comparing gordon/salmons to iverson? that's a stretch in every sense of the idea, imo. also, i'm not getting the wade comparison; he controls the ball on every heat possession. the bulls aren't constructed like the heat; nor do they get the calls wade gets. if they had, the series would be 3-2 bulls. just sounds like you're exaggerating for effect.

how so? are you stating you don't see gordon getting doubled and/or trapped? salmons doesn't have the rep gordon does, but on almost all salmons' drives the D is collapsing, and he seems to be willing to give the ball up. maybe gordon/salmons aren't triple teamed, but the point of defenses being geared to stop what they do is a valid one.

ohhhhhhh!!! so you want an all-star offensive player, a lockdown defensive player, and one who'll defer to his teammates, all while being the most productive player on the team......who the EDIT - don't avoid the filter doesn't dude......

gordon's outperformed his counterpart at the two by a considerable margin; the stats support this. tony allen is a non-factor, and bringing him up in any context is borderline ridiculous. not to mention playing through injury; good luck waiting for the perfect two guard cause you want to win....... i think he retired in 1998.

The Krakken

Who said that? They need to focus on quality shots MORE OFTEN. Period. Arguing against that is lunacy, and shows a clear man-crush on ben gordon (which we already knew anyway). The problem isn't having ONE player who takes bad shots. Its having TWO...as I've alluded to OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

It could be argued that they only have one. It could also be argued, and has been, that he gives up as much as he takes.

Good, because I'm not making that comparison. But I'll go out on a limb right now and say that Gordon will NEVER win a title as the starting SG and primary scorer on his team. He doesn't do enough on the defensive end to win. You don't win by outscoring you opponent, shot for shot. You win by STOPPING your opponent when you have to. Gordon plainly doesn't do that.

I'm not comparing Gordon to wade. I'm glad you are not either.

Nope.

Sometimes. And just as often, not.

Once again, you take liberties with what I said. I'd like a player at the two who plays like Hinrich did last night. VERY good on the offensive end (maybe not MJ or Kobe like), AND VERY good on the defensive end.

Bottom line: You best player needs to be GREAT on both ends to win a title. Ben Gordon is VERY GOOD offensively. He's VERY BAD defensively....unless he's guarding the ball.

gordon's outperformed his counterpart at the two by a considerable margin; the stats support this. tony allen is a non-factor, and bringing him up in any context is borderline ridiculous. not to mention playing through injury; good luck waiting for the perfect two guard cause you want to win....... i think he retired in 1998.[/quote]

Ragingbull33

Agreed, one of them has to go.While they are both very good "bad" shot makers, you can only excuse the makes. Actually, I would love to know what Del Negro said to Ben after he took that horrible leaner at the end of the game, yeah he made it, but cmon!!!!! He should have worn down the clock and took the last shot, make we win, miss, overtime. What about the pass for rose he stepped in front of. I am tired of Salmons and Gordon freezing out Rose.

HKF

Rose had some pretty bad turnovers in the 4th quarter (I think 3) and has been a turnover machine due to his indecisiveness. Also, when Gordon "stole" the pass for Rose, it was a broken play with less than 3 seconds on the shot-clock. Are you really going to nitpick a play like that? Seriously?

__________________
Favorite NBA players: Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Ben Gordon, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Josh Smith, Dwight Howard, Chauncey Billups, Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay, Roy Hibbert, Jerryd Bayless, Greg Oden, Kevin Martin, Eric Maynor, Jeff Teague

2010: Jordan Crawford, Evan Turner, Demarcus Cousins, Ekpe Udoh

The Krakken

That's basketball IQ............

BULLHITTER

ahhh yes, let's revert back to that generic, global, blanket term for all that ails the bulls......

we'll never agree on gordon, and you don't use any statistcal or even factual data to support your assertions (and they are easy enough to disclose), just random plays in the course of a 53 minute game, so this back and forth is old. i suppose the proof will be in the pudding this offseason, when or if he's not retained.

never mind that the opposing pg is averaging a triple double while the 2 guard match is statistically in the bulls favor.....gordon's taking bad shots and losing his man on D.....OCCASIONALLY!! look up the matchups, and you can see for yourself; your eyes are deceiving you.

never mind gordon had 6 assists, even IF he had a sub par shooting game.....he's a black hole.....

it'll be interesting to see how they replace his impact; and what your response will be then when "steady" kirk hinrich or old azz raja bell, play opposite rose, who's nickname should be "cinders" because how burnt he's getting at this stage of his career; he's the "star" of the team!

i agree championship teams need to play on both ends of the court, what a revelation. but if you think getting rid of the team's best offensive player in the hopes that the bulls can find one who's AS good, or even close to as good BUT will play lockdown defense.....as i stated good luck with that. also, winning championships.....personally, we'll be damn lucky IF the bulls win another in your lifetime; putting together a contender isn't that far off; IF they keep their best players, not single them out for random deficiencies; i don't see that happening.

btw, the jamal crawford/ben gordon reference......please, stop watching basketball, for your own good.

Cager

I just don't understand why either should go. Both have been largely responsible for the Bulls success. I would much rather lose Kirk and let Salmons be the defensive alternative for Ben. Deng can play some PF so Salmons gets minutes at the 2 and 3. We need a big man that can score and rebound. Miller doesn't look like he is playoff capable. Hands are just too quick for him.

Philomath

I actually love having two people as cold-blooded as they are on the court at the same time at the end of games. I thought Salmons should have gotten more looks at the end of game 5, rather than constant clearouts for a hobbled Gordon. And, Salmons is one of our only half-decent options to guard Paul Pierce at the moment - he's the only guy between Hinrich and Tyrus in height (with Deng out), so he's really one of our only options to guard SFs. I wouldn't mind keeping them both. Both are solid pros with ice in their veins.

By the way, I did not think Rose had ice in his veins at the end of game 5. With the exception of the terrific steal/layup in traffic, I thought he got very tentative and he was nothing but glad to have Gordon take the burden of the offense. He was not attacking and I thought he looked nervous. I expected Marbury to shoot before Derrick. Understandable for a rookie, but still.

TheDarkPrince

Keep both, lose Deng.

The Krakken

It isn't a generic term. Gordon doesn't make good decisions.

2 things: a) Just because I don't provide statistical data (which can easily be skewed to support a particular position, or debunk one), doesn't make my opinion an less based in fact than yours. Gordon doesn't pass the eyeball test on defense. Particularly as a HELP defender. Period.

b) I'm actually hopeful that we re-sign gordon....for the right amount. I took a look over the FA list for the next two years, and its pure LUNACY for us to do something to jeapordize our cap space for the sake of signing him. There will simply be too many ways to make ourselves better in the next 14 months to risk overpaying him. But whether we re-sign him or not, has no bearing on which one of us is right.

Like I said, stats can be skewed to say whatever. Rondo is a TEAM defense problem. Not just a Derrick Rose problem. When he beats the entire team down the floor for a layup or Derrick is the only one back and he gets schooled....that's a TEAM D problem. Again, my issue with Gordon is his HELP Defense...which again is woefully inadequate and doesn't quite show up in stats....surprise surprise......

As for my eyes......NO they aren't. And this isn't about Rose......a rookie. Fact is, nobody is surprised that he is getting schooled in his first playoff series. But Gordon is in his 4th playoff series.


He is. That people happen to score off the few times he actually gives the ball up doesn't make him anything else.

Actually, I'm an advocate of acquiring Joe Johnson. ANd why do you keep bringing up Rose? This isn't about Gordon vs Rose long term. If it was, it wouldn't even be a discussion.

It doesn't have to be lock down. Just better.

We shall see.

Who mentioned Jamal Crawford? Certainly not me....so please stop. Again.