<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> No, its just disgusting with the media's ineptitude.</p> The Luol Deng hype is out of control. Every media outlet is feeding to it on and on. </p> Ben Gordon has been the leader of the Bulls the last three years, and will most likely be for the 4th in a row. </p> How are we supposed to depend on Luol Deng? The guy that can't hit a shot in the 4th quarter. The same guy who missed all his game winner attempts, causing us to lose games against teams like Memphis. Luol Deng is being made into this guy on the verge of being a superstar, when he's clearly not, and not even the best player on his own team. </p> </div></p> </p> So that's why Ben was the one who was invited to the Team USA trials, especially with of the team's dearth of shooting.</p>
Enough already.</p> Nothing wrong with the man crush. It's what being a fan is all about.</p> And for you, BG7 - you make your bed, you have to lie in it. Meaning, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to be serious.</p> My take is that Deng is a mighty fine player already. There really are a handful of SFs I'd take instead. He may even be top 5 of all SFs. That's a far cry from being a top 5 player in the whole NBA. He's probably in the 30th best player range. </p> I am a HUGE HUGE HUGE fan of Gordon's, but he has serious flaws - starting with his height for a SG. I am not even convinced that the Bulls are going to re-sign him if someone makes a big enough offer. It's just not in the cards for him in Chicago, as they've committed to Kirk Hinrich for better or worse (worse, IMO).</p> I think there is merit to Gordon being a clutch player and Deng being less so. I'd hate to think of the Bulls without Deng all game long, though, as his shot can be as near automatic as anyone's and he's a glory to behold when he gets near the rim.</p> The whole point of the article is that Deng ISN'T a top 5 player, that he has the drive to be one, that he has identified a number of areas to work on that could make him become one of the game's best. He's not there yet, and I won't annoint him as one until he proves it. That said, he has to get his scoring up to 26 PPG or so, make the 2nd team or 1st team all-nba defense, and hit a few game winners. If he does these things, the bulls may find Gordon to be further expendible.</p> </p> </p> </p> </p>
ya right guys...kirk hinrich's the best guy on the bulls anyways. he's been the leader since he got there. they wouldn't have won one fucking game without him.</p> </p> btw, (OT) why did hinrich leave team usa?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'> Nothing wrong with the man crush. It's what being a fan is all about.</p> </div></p> </p> That's not being a fan when you wildly overrate one player and derail threads just to talk about him. That's being a homer.</p> By that logic, I guess VC fans are the biggest Nets fans. Not the case, by a looooooooooong shot.</p> </p> Seen plenty of that with all the VC homers on the Nets' boards. Not a fun thing to have going on.</p>
Luol Deng has the potential to be a top player in the NBA but i dont think top 3 ever. Lebron,Amare,Howard, and Wade will likely always be better then him throughout his entire career. That being said, he may become a very good player and i could definately see him becoming a top 10 nba player at some time if he reaches his full potential. He is nearly putting up 20/8 and he's not even 22. The guy is going to be great, maybe even a hofer. Who knows?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>How many NBA players THINK they are top 5 players?</div></p> 30*12 = 360... or thereabouts. </p>
And by the way, I don't imagine thee's much chance for getting to top 5. I can think of probably ten other fairly young guys who I'd gladly trade Deng for straight up, and that's not even considering older guys like Kobe or Duncan who are clearly top 5 now. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC)</div><div class='quotemain'> And by the way, I don't imagine thee's much chance for getting to top 5. I can think of probably ten other fairly young guys who I'd gladly trade Deng for straight up, and that's not even considering older guys like Kobe or Duncan who are clearly top 5 now. </p> </div></p> Who are the guys? Using 2003 as the cut off (guys drafted after that) the list I can come up with is:</p> Lebron JamesCarmelo AnthonyChris BoshDwyane WadeDwight HowardEmeka OkaforBen GordonJosh SmithDeron WilliamsChris PaulTyrus ThomasAndrea BargnaniBrandon RoyGreg OdenKevin DurantMichael Conley JrBrandan Wright</p> Thats only 17 players there. Wade, Okafor, Paul, Roy, Oden, and Wright might not be able to stay at a high level for any long period of time (aka become Baron Davis's) and will not be consistently better than Deng because of their injury problems.</p> I think Lebron is the only one who will be clear cut better than Deng pretty much no matter what. I could see Deng being better than Anthony, Bosh, Howard, etc. (also could see them being better than him).</p> I think the established hierarchy of the NBA of: Garnett, Duncan, Kidd, Nash, Kobe, Nowitzki, James (he is young as well), will be harder to replace. When those guys from the 96, 97, and 98 draft begin to decline, we will see the changing of generations (obviously James and a healthy Wade has already established themselves in this generation as well). 99, 00, 01 drafts really won't put too much mark on the NBA....and with 2002, with Yao being injured and lacking a killer instict somewhat, and Jay Williams ruining his career, it seems like there will be a little cross time between these generations of players, where the old guys (Duncan, Nash, Nowitzki, Kobe) are able to compete for championships longer than they should have been able to (well not Kobe : D ), and the young guys from the 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 drafts will be able to skip ahead and compete earlier than they should have (Wade, Gordon/Deng/Thomas, Lebron, Howard, Williams)...hell some of them have been able to compete early on (Wade/James) because of a concentration of those 96, 97, 98 playeres being out in the Western Conference, creating that generation gap created by the 4 no superstar drafts (Arenas/Yao are only allstars). 1999 draft was just second fiddle heaven. (Even then Francis, Miller, Brand, Artest, Marion all found their way out West). So I tink 5 years from now, when Deng is 26 only still (Gordon 29) they could possibly in those top spots in the league, with more experience and success than they should have created by the 4 bad drafts in a row. </p>
If he doesn't strive to be top 5, then he'll never make top 50. </p> What starting player that scores over 15ppg doesn't think they could be top 5? </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'> ya right guys...kirk hinrich's the best guy on the bulls anyways. he's been the leader since he got there. they wouldn't have won one fucking game without him.</p> </p> btw, (OT) why did hinrich leave team usa? </p> </div></p> Bulls only went 23-59 in Hinrich's first team, with him as the leader. It didn't work.</p> Ben Gordon came in and led the team to 47 wins and their first playoff berth with his clutch play.</p> Hinrich is hardly the best player. He is 3rd best as of right now (behind Gordon/Deng), and potentially 5th best behind Nocioni/Wallace depending on how each perform this coming season.</p> Also, Bulls can win games without Kirk. They're 7-1 in games without him. The one loss was a game tha the Suns won 97-96. Ben hit what could have been the game winner, but Barbosa had to hit a shot to give the Suns the win. That would be 72-10 over the course of a season without Hinrich. : D</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC)</div><div class='quotemain'> And by the way, I don't imagine thee's much chance for getting to top 5. I can think of probably ten other fairly young guys who I'd gladly trade Deng for straight up, and that's not even considering older guys like Kobe or Duncan who are clearly top 5 now. </p> </div></p> Who are the guys? Using 2003 as the cut off (guys drafted after that) the list I can come up with is:</p> Lebron James Carmelo Anthony Chris Bosh Dwyane Wade Dwight Howard Emeka Okafor Ben Gordon Josh Smith Deron Williams Chris Paul Tyrus Thomas Andrea Bargnani Brandon Roy Greg Oden Kevin Durant Michael Conley Jr Brandan Wright</p> Thats only 17 players there. Wade, Okafor, Paul, Roy, Oden, and Wright might not be able to stay at a high level for any long period of time (aka become Baron Davis's) and will not be consistently better than Deng because of their injury problems.</p> I think Lebron is the only one who will be clear cut better than Deng pretty much no matter what. I could see Deng being better than Anthony, Bosh, Howard, etc. (also could see them being better than him). </p> I think the established hierarchy of the NBA of: Garnett, Duncan, Kidd, Nash, Kobe, Nowitzki, James (he is young as well), will be harder to replace. When those guys from the 96, 97, and 98 draft begin to decline, we will see the changing of generations (obviously James and a healthy Wade has already established themselves in this generation as well). 99, 00, 01 drafts really won't put too much mark on the NBA....and with 2002, with Yao being injured and lacking a killer instict somewhat, and Jay Williams ruining his career, it seems like there will be a little cross time between these generations of players, where the old guys (Duncan, Nash, Nowitzki, Kobe) are able to compete for championships longer than they should have been able to (well not Kobe : D ), and the young guys from the 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 drafts will be able to skip ahead and compete earlier than they should have (Wade, Gordon/Deng/Thomas, Lebron, Howard, Williams)...hell some of them have been able to compete early on (Wade/James) because of a concentration of those 96, 97, 98 playeres being out in the Western Conference, creating that generation gap created by the 4 no superstar drafts (Arenas/Yao are only allstars). 1999 draft was just second fiddle heaven. (Even then Francis, Miller, Brand, Artest, Marion all found their way out West). So I tink 5 years from now, when Deng is 26 only still (Gordon 29) they could possibly in those top spots in the league, with more experience and success than they should have created by the 4 bad drafts in a row. </p> </div></p> </p> Deron Williams and Chris Paul should be a lot hgher on that list...</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC)</div><div class='quotemain'> And by the way, I don't imagine thee's much chance for getting to top 5. I can think of probably ten other fairly young guys who I'd gladly trade Deng for straight up, and that's not even considering older guys like Kobe or Duncan who are clearly top 5 now. </p> </div></p> Who are the guys? Using 2003 as the cut off (guys drafted after that) the list I can come up with is:</p> Lebron James Carmelo Anthony Chris Bosh Dwyane Wade Dwight Howard Emeka Okafor Ben Gordon Josh Smith Deron Williams Chris Paul Tyrus Thomas Andrea Bargnani Brandon Roy Greg Oden Kevin Durant Michael Conley Jr Brandan Wright</p> Thats only 17 players there. Wade, Okafor, Paul, Roy, Oden, and Wright might not be able to stay at a high level for any long period of time (aka become Baron Davis's) and will not be consistently better than Deng because of their injury problems.</p> I think Lebron is the only one who will be clear cut better than Deng pretty much no matter what. I could see Deng being better than Anthony, Bosh, Howard, etc. (also could see them being better than him).</p> </div></p> Well yeah, but that's still 17 guys! A lot of really bad thing will have to happen to that list for Deng to bypass at least 13 of them. Plus you've got guys like Yao, Boozer, Marion and Amare who aren't that old, and a couple guys who haven't been drafted yet that are likely to be good in the next couple years. Then you've got slightly older guys who probably have a few good years in the tank - Kobe, TMac, Joe Johnson, Dirk... you add all those guys up and the odds of Lou making the top five are pretty slim in my book. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> Bulls only went 23-59 in Hinrich's first team, with him as the leader. It didn't work.</p> Ben Gordon came in and led the team to 47 wins and their first playoff berth with his clutch play.</div></p> </p> That's an erroneous statement. </p> They didn't replace Hinrich with Gordon. Gordon was added to the team, that Hinrich was already on, of course when you add a top 3 pick to a team it's going to get better. </p> The teams were way different, too. Hinrich had Jamal Crawford, Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams, and Kendall Gill.</p> The 04-05 team also had improved versions of Curry & Chandler, while adding Luol Deng & Nocioni. They lost Gill and Crawford.</p> Ben Gordon was only one of a long line of improvements on that team, and nowhere near the sole reason that they improved, as you make it seem.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> Bulls only went 23-59 in Hinrich's first team, with him as the leader. It didn't work.</p> Ben Gordon came in and led the team to 47 wins and their first playoff berth with his clutch play.</div></p> </p> That's an erroneous statement. </p> They didn't replace Hinrich with Gordon. Gordon was added to the team, that Hinrich was already on, of course when you add a top 3 pick to a team it's going to get better. </p> The teams were way different, too. Hinrich had Jamal Crawford, Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams, and Kendall Gill. </p> The 04-05 team also had improved versions of Curry & Chandler, while adding Luol Deng & Nocioni. They lost Gill and Crawford.</p> Ben Gordon was only one of a long line of improvements on that team, and nowhere near the sole reason that they improved, as you make it seem. </p> </div></p> Post dynasty, the Bulls were always able to somewhat compete with their opponent. They'd be riding well, and then they'd hit that 4th quarter and fall apart. They were the ultimate teases. They were in so many games, and then just fell apart in the 4th quarter.</p> Bring in Ben Gordon. 22 double digit 4th quarters for the Bulls his rookie season. Bulls finally had a go to guy. He wasn't the go to guy that he is now, giving you 22 a night, but he was a go to guy in the sense that down the stretch fo the game, when the going got tough, the Bulls finally had a guy to lead them through the charge. Elton Brand never could do that. Ron Artest could never do that. Jalen Rose, no go. Kirk Hinrich, nope. Before they'd fall apart and lose in the 4th quarter. Now Gordon comes in, and just leads the team. Everyone looks to him on the court (and they still do) when the going gets tough, and they just gave him the rock and expected him to get them the win, and he delivered. He was the clutch, 4th quarter player that was able to pull them out. It was really somewhat of a perfect storm situation, since the veterans (curry/chandler) didn't have the overinflated I'm a superstar egos, and the rest of the team was young (except Antonio Davis, who was the PERFECT old vet).</p> I'll never get the Kirk Hinrich love. He's a good player and all, I like him, but some people go out of their way to try to make it seem like Kirk was the reason for the Bulls' turn around, when he clearly wasn't. Even going back to that 04-05 season, if anyone was "secondly" responsible for the turn around, it would be Tyson Chandler with his lockdown 4th quarter defense, and his ability to grab every important rebound (that Seattle game is one that comes to mind right away). </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> Bulls only went 23-59 in Hinrich's first team, with him as the leader. It didn't work.</p> Ben Gordon came in and led the team to 47 wins and their first playoff berth with his clutch play.</div></p> </p> That's an erroneous statement. </p> They didn't replace Hinrich with Gordon. Gordon was added to the team, that Hinrich was already on, of course when you add a top 3 pick to a team it's going to get better. </p> The teams were way different, too. Hinrich had Jamal Crawford, Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams, and Kendall Gill. </p> The 04-05 team also had improved versions of Curry & Chandler, while adding Luol Deng & Nocioni. They lost Gill and Crawford.</p> Ben Gordon was only one of a long line of improvements on that team, and nowhere near the sole reason that they improved, as you make it seem. </p> </div></p> Post dynasty, the Bulls were always able to somewhat compete with their opponent. They'd be riding well, and then they'd hit that 4th quarter and fall apart. They were the ultimate teases. They were in so many games, and then just fell apart in the 4th quarter.</p> Bring in Ben Gordon. 22 double digit 4th quarters for the Bulls his rookie season. Bulls finally had a go to guy. He wasn't the go to guy that he is now, giving you 22 a night, but he was a go to guy in the sense that down the stretch fo the game, when the going got tough, the Bulls finally had a guy to lead them through the charge. Elton Brand never could do that. Ron Artest could never do that. Jalen Rose, no go. Kirk Hinrich, nope. Before they'd fall apart and lose in the 4th quarter. Now Gordon comes in, and just leads the team. Everyone looks to him on the court (and they still do) when the going gets tough, and they just gave him the rock and expected him to get them the win, and he delivered. He was the clutch, 4th quarter player that was able to pull them out. It was really somewhat of a perfect storm situation, since the veterans (curry/chandler) didn't have the overinflated I'm a superstar egos, and the rest of the team was young (except Antonio Davis, who was the PERFECT old vet).</p> I'll never get the Kirk Hinrich love. He's a good player and all, I like him, but some people go out of their way to try to make it seem like Kirk was the reason for the Bulls' turn around, when he clearly wasn't. Even going back to that 04-05 season, if anyone was "secondly" responsible for the turn around, it would be Tyson Chandler with his lockdown 4th quarter defense, and his ability to grab every important rebound (that Seattle game is one that comes to mind right away). </p> </div></p> </p> So what you are basically saying is that the Bulls would always be competitive to the point where it was close in the 4th quarter, and Ben Gordon is single-handedly responsible for winning them 24 games?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> So what you are basically saying is that the Bulls would always be competitive to the point where it was close in the 4th quarter, and Ben Gordon is single-handedly responsible for winning them 24 games?</p> </div> Yep, that's about the truth.</p> Not only did he hit an amazing number of clutch game winners at the buzzer, he also had a number of 20pt 4th quarters. When the bulls don't need a game winner and win, a lot of the time, he has like 8 of the team's last 10 points.</p> 21.4 PPG, 3.6 APG, 45.5% FG, 41.5% 3PT and good defense.</p> I think it's pretty fair to say that Hinrich needs Gordon and Deng, to win, more than the others need Hinrich. Not that Hinrich is a bad player or anything. He's just not a #1 guy.</p> </p>
Pretty much.</p> This explains it best...especially on the Benefactor page.</p> </p> <font><font size="3">Click here now for the complete Bulls Fource saga.</font></font> </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bulls.com)</div><div class='quotemain'></p><div style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold">Crunch Time</div> Bulls rookie sensation Ben Gordon has a way of heating up quickly in the fourth quarter. The 6-3, 200-pounder scored 10+ points in the fourth quarter 21 times this season, including a 22-point outburst in a 102-99 comeback win for the Bulls at Charlotte (03/30) – the second most 10+ point fourth quarter performances in the NBA this season. In those 21 games, Chicago went 13-8. LeBron James lead the NBA in 4th quarter heroics, scoring 10+ points 22 times. Other leaders include, Gilbert Arenas with 20 such performances, Kobe Bryant has 19 and Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury and Amare Stoudemire have 17.</div></p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> So what you are basically saying is that the Bulls would always be competitive to the point where it was close in the 4th quarter, and Ben Gordon is single-handedly responsible for winning them 24 games?</p> </div> Yep, that's about the truth.</p> Not only did he hit an amazing number of clutch game winners at the buzzer, he also had a number of 20pt 4th quarters. When the bulls don't need a game winner and win, a lot of the time, he has like 8 of the team's last 10 points.</p> 21.4 PPG, 3.6 APG, 45.5% FG, 41.5% 3PT and good defense.</p> I think it's pretty fair to say that Hinrich needs Gordon and Deng, to win, more than the others need Hinrich. Not that Hinrich is a bad player or anything. He's just not a #1 guy.</p> </p> </div></p> </p> So you are saying that the acquisitions of Deng and Hinrich meant nothing, if BG was single-handedly responsible, correct? So the Bulls would always be competitive, but just needed a clutch scorer to take over in the 4th? So, if we eliminate Hinrich and Deng, the team would still be just as good?</p>
