<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blur)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Gordon is a volume scorer, he scores points, but he takes plenty of shots to do so. Although, I have defended him over the years, its becoming more event each year, that the only way he affects the game is with his points. When his shot is off we are basically playing 5 on 4. His defense although improved can still use work. Deng had an efficiency rating of 23.8 in the playoffs last yr, while Gordon's was just a little over 16 a game. Gordon might be a better socrer, but he doesn't affect the game in any other aspect.</p> </div></p> </p> While Gordon is a volume scorer, he isn't a volume scorer in the same sense as Allen Iverson. He doesn't chuck up shot after shot to get his average. Ben Gordon is such an efficient scorer. I don't think the casual fan realizes this. It took ELEVEN NBA seasons for Kobe to get up to the level of scoring efficeincy that Ben is at now.</p> I don't see why Gordon is this huge liability. Like looking at those few guys that can score at Ben's efficiency, one guy sticks out. Michael Redd. Ben is an equal rebounder to Redd, better passer/ballhandler, and a better defender. Yet people don't call Redd a liability. The reason is, is because people don't know how to react to Gordon. At the end of the day, Gordon is going to end up as the best small scoring guard in NBA history. Unlike Iverson, he will be scoring a lot, but at a very efficient rate.</p>
Michael Redd is a liability. If people don't call him one, its because they don't watch him play enough. I agree with Blur. Ben Gordon's a hell of a scorer, but at the end of the day that's the only way he can have an impact on the game. He's not much of defender. Can't be a full-time playmaker. And basically needs the ball in his hands to be effective. And on top of that, he still makes stupid decisions when it comes to recognizing the double team and passing out of it. Not only does Luol Deng have more potential, but he has much more complete game right now. He can fill up the stat sheets and makes his presence felt on both sides of the floor. Those are the players that are much easier to build around.</p>
I agree with Blur and Chutney. Gordon is a tremendous scorer. Aside from that though, he doesn't contribute much. He's at best an average defender and an above average ballhandler and passer. His defensive deficiencies are just masked by the fact that the Bulls play great team defense. However, I won't go to the point to say he's a volume scorer. He's actually rather efficient. Last year he shot what, around 45% for the floor, 41% from the arc and around 85% from the line? I'd say that's relatively efficient.</p> However, if it comes down to it, I want Deng. He's the overall better player. He's got the potential to be, not just a great scorer, but an All NBA defender. He's got tremendous length and is, in general, much better in most every aspect of defense compared to Gordon. He's already got a very solid mid-range and post game. The only facet of his offense he really needs to develop more on is his three point shot, but even then, with how good he is everywhere else, that's not too much of a worry. So, at the end of the day, if I have to choose who I'm building this Bulls franchise around, no questions asked, it's Deng. He may not be the better scorer, but he's the better player.</p>
Gordon took 1.4 more shots per game than Deng, so I wouldn't say he's a volume shooter by any stretch. At a little over 16 FGA/game, he was 21st in the league.</p> As someone who's seen all but a handful of Bulls games (thanks to NBALP) the last decade-plus, I think the Bulls would win a lot less games without Gordon. We've seen them win a lot of games without Deng (and without Curry at the same time, I might add).</p> His defense has been knocked, but sites like 82games.com show he's been a very good defender all along. He is part of the Bulls' defense being as good as it is.</p> All that aside, his knack for scoring is a rare thing in the NBA, which makes him quite a special player in his own right. I'd also suggest that defenses have to focus on him with double and triple teams enough that it frees up the rest of the Bulls to get better looks. This is not a quality I've seen in Deng, or anyone else on the Bulls since Jalen Rose.</p> This is not a knock on Deng. I am a huge fan of Luol, and thought he was a brilliant draft pick from the getgo. There was a lot of talk about Deng needing to up his game to be "The Man" on the Bulls, and for good reason. Right now, "The Man" is Gordon, and the Bulls have had a remarkable record in his first three years with the team.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Michael Redd is a liability. If people don't call him one, its because they don't watch him play enough. I agree with Blur. Ben Gordon's a hell of a scorer, but at the end of the day that's the only way he can have an impact on the game. He's not much of defender. Can't be a full-time playmaker. And basically needs the ball in his hands to be effective. And on top of that, he still makes stupid decisions when it comes to recognizing the double team and passing out of it. Not only does Luol Deng have more potential, but he has much more complete game right now. He can fill up the stat sheets and makes his presence felt on both sides of the floor. Those are the players that are much easier to build around.</p> </div></p> "All Around" players are overrated. Gerald Wallace can fill up a stat sheet, but that doesn't correlate to winning basketball at all. Not saying Luol Deng is a stat stuffer like Gerald Wallace, since Deng is better than that, and has an impact on winning, but Gordon is being underrated. As said, he's the only Bull to draw a double and triple team, and open thing up for his teammates, or just go out and score on those. Luol Deng has yet to prove he can do this. Everytime he got doubled in preseason, he choked up, and couldn't score anymore. I am missing the Luol Deng is a first option correlations drawn on summer league. He was doing a great job scoring in the first quarter, in single coverage, in the first quarter. Eddy Curry did that too. But that doesn't make him a first option.</p> With the Bulls, you can't build around Deng. You can't build around Gordon. I think building around one of them the team would just be hovering in the 40's every year, and maybe winning 50 when the balls bounce the right way. The only correct option, is to build around both of them. Pay them their money, keep your stars happy. The only way we are paying high into the luxury tax is if Aaron Gray breaks out as a player, and we have to pay him big money....but that could also mean Joakim Noah busted, which would take his salary projections out of the picture....once again, taking us out of the luxury tax. We could go up to 70 million for both Deng/Gordon and sneak under the luxury tax.</p> People who think that Gordon does little to help the team when he's not on are badly mistaken. Just by drawing his double and triple teams, he is helping the team tons. This is the Gordon effect, best seen in the playoffs.</p> Ben Gordon had the highest +/- of anyone in the league during the playoffs, at +42.6. And don't think that was all from the Miami series. Gordon had a playoff +/- of +32.9 going into the Pistons series. Coming out, it was at +42.6. In the series in which he played "poorly", he raised his +/-, just more proof of the Gordon effect on the team. In comparison, Luol Deng had a +/- of +20.2 going into the Pistons series, and came out with a +6.9.</p> Getting rid of either is crazy. Both are clearly more valuable than Kirk...and should be paid quite a bit more too.</p> </p>
