Has Ben Gordon been Exposed?

by Knowledge32 on May 21, 2007 10:37 AM CDT

While reviewing some of the possible trades that might be taking place this summer with the Bulls, I have changed my view on Ben Gordon. Where I once considered him the best player on the Bulls, I now view him as an undersized shooting guard that cannot play defense.
I think Ben has been exposed.

Game 6 was an exclamation point on this principle. No matter who Ben was on, that's where the Pistons lead their attack. Now I know the Pistons are a "big/tall" team. However, this strategy can work for a lot of teams in the East. Not to mention the Pistons will be around for awhile. I was also watching the Spurs game yesterday and while looking at the Spurs I did not see one person Gordon could guard. Think about it! With the immergence of Deng and the Pistons exposing Ben on d, I wouldn't mind seeing him gone. I think he is great and can shoot the lights out. He just will never be an Allstar because his game becomes limited to strictly jumpshots.

With that being said, send BG along with anyone else besides Hinrich, Deng, Rooks, and Wallace. We can get something good with BG, it's just the Pistons has shown everyone where the weak link is. Now everyone knows how to beat us: Solution-get rid of the problem.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

Tweet Comment 46 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

hmmm...

I'm not sure if this speaks to Ben Gordon's abilities as a basketball player, or to the author's abilities as a rabble-rouser, but this diary could have been written in 2004.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 10:57 AM CDT reply actions

That might suggest

that the same problems are presenting themselves.

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 21, 2007 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions

on both fronts,

but I expect Gordon to improve. He isn't just a shooter, he's a great shooter (.513 eFG%, 25.9 PTS/40, 7th in the NBA in points scored). The 'ceiling' crowd took a big kick in the nuts this season; Gordon's PER jumped from 14.9 and 14.5 to 18.2. If his passing, handling, and fouling improve he could be a more consistent scoring threat. He isn't going to get taller, but you aren't going to find a taller scorer who's interested in defense anyway.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions

forgot to mention

Gordon's struggles against the Pistons can be chalked up to being a 3rd year player, and I doubt it will happen again.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions

interesting points pax

but can he improve his defense? It is one of those areas where there is just not much he can do if someone like RIP is posting him up. And, out of the core, would he not be the one you would part with?

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 21, 2007 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions

there's no reason

to get rid of Gordon, Deng, Hinrich, or Wallace (new core member!). Why plug the hole at power forward by weakening another position? Gordon's defense is passable, and Skiles has to make adjustments when other teams single out a Bulls defender (see Deng, Luol: Game 6).

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions

liability?

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 21, 2007 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Who's the answer?

Where will you replace 21.4 ppg? If you could get a big that does that, you're still looking at a scoring deficiency, but now at SG. You could say Hinrich and Deng and Thomas will all increase scoring totals, but that won't be enough. FA Vince Carter? I dunno. But when you're trading your leading scorer, you can't just assume it's addition by subtraction, which is what you've implied.

What's your answer? Besides "get rid of him".

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on May 21, 2007 11:29 AM CDT reply actions

In my 5th study hall of the day

I think BG is valuable because of his scoring. Hopefully he can learn to drive more and not just be a jump shooter. It is only his 3rd year in the league hopefully he will improve next year.

by SRQman on May 21, 2007 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions

you can't

learn height. Some have it, some don't. He cannot handle the ball well enough to be dangerous like an A.I. for example

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 21, 2007 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions

two completely different players

Iverson's ugly career .450 eFG% is enough proofiness for me, but he also wasn't scoring a lot of points until he figured out how to draw fouls at a prolific rate. Gordon doesn't have to do as much dribbling to score.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Look,

Ben Gordon had already been exposed . . . as the best rapper of his generation! Myoplex 4EVA!

by Petor on May 21, 2007 11:48 AM CDT reply actions

Duh BG7 aka the Rain maker is the best

It makes me want to buy Myoplex NOW.

by SRQman on May 21, 2007 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Hahaha

by paxson43 on May 22, 2007 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Gordon was awful in game six.

Just terrible. Poor shooting, turnovers, and lax defense. Hamilton abused him in the first half, just as Chauncey had abused him in earlier games.

Defensively, he was a horrible liability the entire series.

Sam Smith suggested in today's Tribune that Memphis would be willing to part with Gasol if they got Oden in the draft. In that scenario, perhaps we could trade Gordon plus our pick to Memphis for Gasol. With Gasol, we would replace Gordon's offensive production and create a very balanced team. Inside scoring would come from Gasol. Outside scoring would come from Deng and Hinrich. Thabo could start at shooting guard, which would alleviate some of our defensive vulnerability on the perimeter (i.e. we would have some to match-up with longer guards). Meanwhile, Gasol's defensive shortcomings would be ameliorated by the presence of Big Ben and Tyrus off the bench.

The trade would also allow Memphis to rebuild. They would get Oden, a young guard in Gordon, and whoever they took with the ninth pick. They would be able to remold their entire team and attract new fans.

This is just rambling on my part. I am just (wishful?) thinking out loud.

I doubt that, in reality, Paxson and Skiles will trade Gordon.

by 1958ChiTown on May 21, 2007 11:54 AM CDT reply actions

I don't know

I think Pax and Skiles are smart and obv. saw this too if we are talking about it. It would not surprise me to see him out.

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 21, 2007 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that management will give the

Core one final season to grow together before discarding any one player.

That's just my gut feeling.

Everything can change with tomorrow's draft lottery, of course. Somehow landing one of the top two picks would be a far better development than just beating Pistons. It's a long shot, though.

by 1958ChiTown on May 21, 2007 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions

If people haven't read this article, they should.

Paxson's comments certainly indicate that it would take something spectacular to prompt him to break up this team.

He even seems to hint that he'll likely keep Noce:

''We've got some decisions to make with Andres, and he has some decisions to make, too, being a free agent,'' Paxson said. ''But I anticipate that things will work out there.''

Full article:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/395307,CST-SPT-bull22.article

by 1958ChiTown on May 22, 2007 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions

similar stuff here

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-070521bulls,1,739582.story?coll=c s-bulls-headlines

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 22, 2007 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Any thoughts on Garnett

He will be going somewhere. Why not here? I think he still has quite a few good years in him. Who knows what he could do with a supporting cast. I personally would be willing to give up alot to get Garnett. I dont think it would be worth giving up this years draft pick for Gasol.

by DABUFFS50 on May 21, 2007 12:28 PM CDT reply actions

They aren't going to get

as much as the Bulls offered last time, so I don't think KG will be coming here.

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 21, 2007 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions

KG

I am afraid, may be headed to LA

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 21, 2007 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions

True on both counts.

Like someone just said, you cant learn height, which is by far bg's biggest weakness. Defense is something that every nba player KNOWS how to do, just alot of them DONT WANT TO do it. Ben Gordon probably can play defense, but he would probably suffer what hinrich suffers through, which is tired legs, thus his offense would be affected.

Ben Gordon is far from expendable right now though, he is the easiest to get hot in the game, unlike deng he wants to hit the big shots (it doesnt matter if you miss them, just wanting them is enough that one day you will hit them), he is in essence the perfect yang to hinrichs ying. It would help if he were taller though.

Also how many times do you see ben gordon get a sceen? I think the bulls rely on his ability to get his own shot too much.

Im not a huge ben gordon fan, but even i can see that we would not have gotten into the playoffs in 05 and in 06 without him.

im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.

by piccolomair on May 21, 2007 2:13 PM CDT reply actions

every single time BG touches the ball

he gets a screen, that's the first step in the motion offense. He also curls off of a free throw line extended screen a lot too. It's his inability to successfully get around the big man that jumps out at him on the screen that is so frustrating. And another problem is missing the pass from Hinrich on the curl, although sometimes he doesn't get the best pass.

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 21, 2007 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions

the thing for me

is that BG doesn't shoot enough, IMHO. He is clearly a gifted shooter and he should put it up more. He's said that he wants to be the guy to put up the important shots, but he's also the guy who said he doesn't want to shoot if he's not in a rhythm because he'll miss. So which is he, the fearless, gifted scorer, or the barely able to dribble, high turnover rate guy?

I am also not sure that this is the best situation for BG. He has clearly taken the whole Skiles accountability thing to heart, and I commend him for that. But I also think he hesitates to shoot because he's worried about being perceived as taking bad shots and getting pulled. But if that's the thing you're great at doing, you've got to do it. If you're going to be a great scorer, you can't have a conscience. If you're not a great defender, then you have to outscore you're guy, and 21 pts/game isn't doing that on most nights at shooting guard.

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 21, 2007 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree Bullshooter

as I mentioned, I love BG. I think he is great, but this may not be the best situation for him here. He needs a star...and we don't have one...yet!

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 22, 2007 7:33 AM CDT up reply actions

really?

"Defense is something that every nba player KNOWS how to do, just alot of them DONT WANT TO do it. Ben Gordon probably can play defense, but he would probably suffer what hinrich suffers through, which is tired legs, thus his offense would be affected."

I think the opposite is probably true. Most of these guys were never challenged on defense in highschool and college. They could make up for mistakes just by being bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, etc. The success of the Spurs over the years has plenty to do with being sneaky on defense, and that's not that natural of a gift.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 2:50 PM CDT reply actions

Im not taking back my statement

Ive played ball with enough guys who just suck at defense, not because they dont know how to play defense, but they are really lazy at it. They rather be on the other side of the court hitting a shot.

Ben Gordon defense is highly criticized, and it has less to do with his size, but more his inability to play defense.

"I think the opposite is probably true. Most of these guys were never challenged on defense in highschool and college. They could make up for mistakes just by being bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, etc."

In high school basketball, more than anything is defense stressed, you dont learn offensive gameplays until you hit the varsity level. Plus most guys spend at least a year in college, where they dont always play guys who are smaller and weaker than them.

Plus, defense is very basic, in terms of technique. Most of it just comes from experience of being on a court, and then your willingness to play defense. Its about being patient, in control, and aware. Not falling for fakes and shakes.

And i never said defense was something natural, but these are nba players right, they are guys who have played basketball before hand right? These are guys who breathe basketball day in and day out, so it should be LIKE natural to them. Its simple, most people like being on the offensive end of greatness rather than the defensive end.

Take kirk, he is one of the best defensive gaurds in the league, he was recognized this year as a great defender, but his defense was actually worse this year. Last year he got no recognition, thats because defense is one of those things that is hard to recognise unless you have a bunch of steals and blocks, which are parts of defense, but not the main parts of defense.

By the way, shot blockers have the desire to shot block, so they do. Gary Paton had quick hands and could get steals, so he really wanted to keep doing that so he did. Its that desire that makes you a good defender, most shooters are not good defenders, because its a tedious task that without a steal or a block goes unnoticed. Scoring is noticed every time someone does it. Gordon is one of the many who just rather be shooting his threes and conserving his energy to buzz past his guy, rather than put in the time and effort to just keep the ball from going into the rim on his side of the court.

Also, the spurs, are the most boringest (is that even a word) team in the nba. Why you ask, cuz there offense lacks flashiness, but yes there defense is incredible, because they put alot of time into that end of the court. They take what the other team gives them on offense, and try thier best to give the other team nothing.

A guy who cant play defense in the nba, is a nothing, ben gordon is not a nothing, especially being in skiles camp. It has nothing to do with some natural talent, but it has EVERYTHING to wanting to play defense. Letting a man get past you many times, is not because you suck on defense, its cuz you refuse focus on defense.

Paxjax, you know more than me in terms of names and numbers in the nba, or maybe all basketball realated matter, hands down. Im sure you know more than me about basketball in general, but i have to say that was one of the dumbest comments you've ever made. I know you like ben gordon, but his defensive weakness are not because of "i dont know how" its because of "i dont want to" and this is true for most, if not all nba players. Hell basketball players in general.

im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.

by piccolomair on May 21, 2007 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions

well, I did say "probably"

I don't know the nuts and bolts of defense, and I'm inclined to believe you, but many of Gordon's fouls seem to come from needless bumps and grabs on the perimeter. It's like he has trouble staying in front of guys, or he's almost at the right spot and needs to cheat a little bit. It's a struggle for me to question his desire, focus, or willingness to play defense when there's evidence that he is trying and struggling. There are quite a few offensive nuances he hasn't been able to 'get' as well. I won't pound on the experience rock too much (promise!), but I think Gordon is going to be a polished, better all-around player in the next few seasons.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 21, 2007 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions

good Knowledge of the game!

KG, come back to Chicago

by Knowledge32 on May 22, 2007 7:36 AM CDT up reply actions

That's a stretch

to lay Gordon's defensive problems on a lack of desire to play defense. At the NBA level, desire isn't enough to make someone a good defender. It takes knowledge like understanding positioning and tendencies. It takes physical abilities like lateral quickness, lower body strength, and length. Save the "want to" cliche for HS and college, and guys like Carter and McGrady, who have all the ability and no desire to use it.

While Gordon is physically gifted, he isn't physically gifted in areas I listed. Gordon isn't great laterally. His upperbody is well developed, but he can't anchor down in the post the way other small guards with a stronger base can. Even for his size, Gordon isn't very long. He can get better at the knowledge part of defense, and he already has. Both his on the ball defense and team defense has really improved over the last three years. The next step is learning to fight through screens better off the ball. Gordon's physical limitations will prevent him from being great defensively, but he's already at worst average. Too much is being made of a hot night by a streak shooter. Gordon also guarded Hamilton in game 5. Hamilton shot 5 for 14.

by Scotter on May 22, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Huh

At first i thought i should yell at you, but your statement did like a u turn in the second paragraph. I just really agree with alot of things in the second paragraph...

Though it is true that having length and athleticism help alot to make a good defender, its not the only thing. If you want to compare kirk hinrich and ben gordon physically, they are very much the same. I think hinrich might have an inch or so on gordon, but gordon is alot more built, and quicker, and has alot more hops. So whats the difference between the two? Why is hinrich better than gordon on defense?

"Even for his size, Gordon isn't very long. He can get better at the knowledge part of defense, and he already has. Both his on the ball defense and team defense has really improved over the last three years. "

EXACTLY, because gordon has really wanted to showcase his talents (and remain in games ) by playing defense along with offense.

"Gordon also guarded Hamilton in game 5. Hamilton shot 5 for 14." huh, where were gordons physical limitations then huh?

Its true that you need to be physically apt in order to play defense. I mean if i tried to guard A.I., it doesnt matter how much I WANT TO stop him, hes gonna blow by me every time. But no one would really critique my defense for that. Maybe my lack of physical strengths but not my defense. Gordon was/is constantly insulted on his poor or rather lack of defense.

PaxJax, i think you said something about gordon grabbing and bumping, and that being the reason he is called a bad defender. I agree with you. But i think bumping and grabbing usually takes place after your man has almost barely beaten you. A last resort kind of thing. If you play defense right, you should (ideally) never be brought to such a situation. And of course, the will to play great defense must be there, in order to play great defense.

im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.

by piccolomair on May 23, 2007 3:41 AM CDT up reply actions

I think we understand each other.

Yes, Hinrich is partially a much better defender than Gordon because of desire. But even if they had the exact same desire to play defense, Hinrich would be the better defender. Because Hinrich is quicker laterally. Hinrich's short shuttle time at the combine was 10.98 one of the quickest at the combine. Gordon's was 11.28. For comparison's sake. Gordon is much closer to being as quick as Deng (11.46) than he is Hinrich.

The Hamilton part wasn't directed at you, but the diary in general, which stated that game 6 proved Gordon sucked. It was a point about drawing conclusions from a single game.

My overall point wasn't that Gordon's a bad defender because of his physical limitations. My point was that Gordon is at least an average defender, but he'll never be a really good defender because of physical limitations.

by Scotter on May 25, 2007 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions

I see what you are saying as well

And i agree with you, if your stats on that shuttle run is correct. I just wanted to make clear the fact that its not always just about the physical, and that everyone understands that a bad defender has less to do with "not knowing how to play defense". But yes, obviously two guys with equal desire, the one who is more physically gifted comes out on top.

Like wise i would hope you agre, if two people (in the nba of course) were to have the same physical abilities, the one with the more desire to play defense would come out on top (defensively).

...yea i think we get each other...

im trying hard to become the next kirk hinrich, therefore im doing nothing more than being the next chris duhon.

by piccolomair on May 25, 2007 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Must be the shoes

I'm glad to see fans finally address BG's inability to handle the ball, and poor choices as a playmaker make him a poor choice to run your offence.As a SG it seems a least once per game as he slashes through the lane the shoes give out and it looks like he's going to second base, not the hoop! Once Kirk starts no assert his offence on defenders and Thabo further develops, look for Ben to be sixth man of the year again!

by A Train Afro 53 on May 22, 2007 12:12 PM CDT reply actions

7th in the NBA in points scored,

and you want him on the bench? If Gordon doesn't start the Bulls should trade him. He's going to get a 10+ million dollar a year extension, and that's a waste if he's sitting down.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 22, 2007 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions

I Agree

Ben Gordon should not be benched. I believe that when we get a low post presence that can pass out It will make Ben Gordon's life easier. If the low post presence can draw a double team BG can get an easier shot and not have to dribble around, just spot up and shoot.

by SRQman on May 22, 2007 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Coming off of the bench

he can still get 30+ minutes a game. There are 96 minutes between the 1 and 2 to be had. And he's not getting 10+ mil/year if he signs an extension this summer. You can take that to the bank. He's only getting that if he plays it out and comes back with a much more rounded game next year.

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Hinrich got $9.5 million per year in his

extension.

So it's certainly within the realm of possibility that Gordon could negotiate for $10MM + extension this summer.

by 1958ChiTown on May 22, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions

I still think he gets more than Hinrich,

but even if he doesn't I don't want to wait for the good lineup to come in the game. That has been the most annoying part of the Skiles era, and there's no reason to play a guy 30+ every night if he isn't starting.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 22, 2007 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions

There is only one scenario where Gordon

coming off the bench makes sense. That one scenario is if Thabo really develops and is playing 25+ minutes in the backcourt. Then it might make sense to start the game with a big guard for those first six minutes or so. That's alot different than Skiles starting little Duh over Gordon for parts of three seasons. Even in the Thabo scenario there isn't any great need for Gordon to go to the bench. But, I think it could help the Bulls the way Manu helped the Spurs by coming off the bench.

by Scotter on May 22, 2007 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Sure there is

you want consistent scoring. You don't want to go through 5 minute droughts where you're two best guards are on the bench with foul trouble, or ineffective because they are not aggressive for whatever reason.

As much as it might sound like I want to get rid of BG, I think he is more than effective against 75% of the league. It's only against some of the the elite teams like the Pistons where his shortcomings hurt the Bulls. And this whole thing about starting is overrated anyway. If he's getting 30 minutes, who cares if he plays the first 6-8?

Don't Lose. Ever.!

by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Ginobili

comes off the bench

It's Go Time Pax!

by Knowledge32 on May 23, 2007 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Agree with knowledge32

It would be ideal if the Bulls could obtain a reasonable low-post scorer for Gordon and draft pick(s). The Bulls must not weaken their PG and SF positions; otherwise no low-post scorer can save them, seeing how the KG's Twolves have been doing... Thabo had played great whenever he got "extended" min, and we have no clue why the coach can't see it... During the regular season, we kept hoping that Skiles would use Thabo more at SG position because the Bulls were beaten by the opposing tall SGs a lot more often than by their post player; most of teams don't have that dominant low-post player anyway (the Bulls lost to the Center-less Nets THREE times!). If he did, the Bulls could be the #1 or at least the #2 seed.
From what we observed in the Bulls-Pistons series, the Bulls could beat the Pistons (4 out of 7) if they had a Hamilton-like SG. The Pistons don't have a real low-post scorer either (R Wallace spent most of time shooting jump shots). When BG was out there, it created mismatch (to the disadvantage of the Bulls) on both ends of the floor. On defense end, Hinrich was less effective to guard Hamilton than Billups (because unlike Wade, Hamilton is too much taller than him); Gordon couldn't guard Billups or anyone else (and gave up significant more points to Billups/ Hamilton than he scored except 1 game). On offense end, because BG is short, the Pistons could afford to have Billups guard him effectively and use the tall Hamilton to guard Hinrich. If Thabo were the SG, Hamilton would have to guard Thabo. Billups would be less effective than Hamilton in guarding Hinrich (partly because Hinrich is faster than Billups who is not taller than Hinrich), so Hinrich would likely have better offense outcome. We were surprised that the coach couldn't see this (isn't a head coach supposed to use his head better?). Sometimes he even put Duhon out there at the same time (the size of the team is like a college team). We wonder whether Skiles understands that the size/length of the backcourt is as important as that of the frontcourt (after all, this is the basketball game, not soccer). More importantly, by partially shutting down both of their elite guards, you are not just minus some pts from them, you disrupt the offense rhythm of the whole team because their guards initiate a lot of offense (this is the case for many other good teams).

by smton on May 22, 2007 5:32 PM CDT reply actions

The beginning!

This is my first post here. Long time Bulls fan. I think this thread is barking up the wrong tree. It was the Bulls defense that failed them. It was their unable to hit the open shot. In their three losses they shot 34% in their wins they shot close to 50%. Had Gordon hit his shots in the Games they lost this person starting this thread would be praising Gordon as a deadly asset. Such is the fickleness of us fans. The Bulls are the most efficient defensive team in the NBA. Clearly the problem is not defense. The problem being is this team lacking a go to scorer or post player has little to no margin of error. When their perimeter players have a down game they lose.

A dominate post player helps on so many fronts. 1) Higher percent shots in the post 2) Said player most often will be in position to rebound (along with Wallace) when the ball is kicked out to an open shooter giving more second looks. 3) Double teaming or sagging zones will give the current perimeter players more freedom and expend less energy creating space. It also opens up room for Deng and others to make back door cuts for open layups.

Is trading Gordon their highest scorer the solution? For a team in need of better offense trading their top scorer wouldn't seem to be part of the solution. Unless you are getting back a difference maker it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Gordon for Boozer/KG/Oneil I am board Gordon for Nick Collison not so much.

The point not made by the author of this thread is that replacing scoring on the perimeter is much easier than finding a scoring big man who rebounds and plays above average defense.

Just and off the beat question but how good would Eddy Curry or Elton Brand look with this Bulls team?

by Rankdog on May 23, 2007 7:55 PM CDT reply actions

welcome

just a tip, don't be afraid to use a comma every now and then. Also, the Bulls did fail them in that in the games the Bulls lost they failed to force the Pistons to play the game the way the Bulls wanted them to. Again, welcome.

Don't Lose. Ever.!

by bullshooter on May 23, 2007 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions