"Ben Gordon has been doing that for years for the Bulls," said Noah. "Ben has been getting us out of deficits and helping us stay in leads since I've been here. We count a lot on Ben and he came through and it was a great team effort." http://blogs.bulls.com/chicago_bulls_blog/2009/02/streaking-bulls-yes-streaking-bulls.html
What point are you trying to make about Ben Gordon? No one has denied that Gordon is a scorer that knows how to light up every now and then.
Ben also has been putting us into holes by playing crappy defense for years too...Joakim forgot to mention that part.
Bulls were the top defensive team in the NBA with Ben Gordon as a starter...so his defense can't be that much of a team destroyer.
As has been stated previously, that team had good shot blockers inside who covered up most of BG's deficiencies. BG was still the liability, just not as exploitable. When Ben Wallace dropped off so did the defensive ratings. BG isn't a good defender.
To me, that's why all the hemming and hawing over Gordon's defense is irrelevant. He's demonstrated he can be fine on a very good defensive team. If you can have a great defensive team with him, I'm fine with him. However, Bullshooter is absolutely right that he depends on good bigs. But the thing is, you will absolutely never have a good defensive team without good defensive bigs who don't just block shots but cover for perimeter players that get beat. Which, at the end of the day, makes the "Gordon's defense" issue a non-issue. Replace Gordon with someone you think is a better perimeter defender, and we're still a crummy defensive team. Replace our bigs with kick ass big defensive bigs and we're a very good defensive team with Gordon or someone else.
I disagree. BG is really that bad and there are still ways you can exploit him even if you have shot blockers. And I disagree that you can't get better on the perimeter and see a difference. Look at Utah, they don't have any shotblockers, AK is there best guy and he doesn't even start. I will agree that BG with shot blockers behind is probably good enough to be a solid playoff team. But is the goal going to the playoffs or winning a championship? Personally, I wouldn't want to root for a team like the Pacers used to be that was always in the playoffs and always going out by the second round. Sure, if they got a couple of breaks they'd get to the conference finals, but they were never a real contender. If your goal is the championship, then BG isn't your starter.
Not sure what you're referring to, but Ray Allen has been both a better offensive and defensive player than BG. If BG were a better offensive player I'd have less trouble with him getting heavy minutes even given his defensive deficiencies.
