Posted by sebstar:

Given your signature, you seem to have some sort of an agenda, so whatever.

[Edited by - sebstar on 08-10-2008 9:09 PM]

he is just as much a reminder of isiah's reign of error as Steph but at least Steph's days are numbered.

as the backcourt goes the team goes

i strongly believed when the trade was made crawford would only make the backcourt and henceforth the team worse due to his ball hog piss poor decision making ways he displayed as the guy on the bulls the year prior and he has proven this feeling correct

[Edited by - McK1 on 10-08-2008 9:54 PM]

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Cookdcokehop:

Posted by sebstar:

he sucks. Crawford without the highlights

whoa buddy your buggin. Ben Gordan is WAY better than Jamal Crawford. Check the stats and efficiency.

The shooting efficiency from both practically mirrored each other last year.

. when you consider gordon is 5 in shorter

5 inches shorter?

Jamal's 6'7", didn't u know? stop being such a homer.

all kidding aside i agree w/u, i don't think Gordon's way better than Jamal either... some things he's better at & some things Jamal's better at... fundamentally Gordon probably wins out but talent & ability-wise i say Jamal tops him.

Posted by djsunyc:

since the thread has sidetracked into a jamal/ben comparison:

since jamal has been a knick, he has only 4 out of 24 months where he shot over 43 fg%. in contrast, gordon, has shot over 43 fg% in 13 of 24 months.

gordon averages slightly more rebounds. they average roughly the same # of fta's per game. the only category crawford has an advantage is in assists per game where he averages 1.5 more.

crawford averages 36 mins a game, while gordon has averaged 30. and gordon's teams have drastically out performed crawford's.

gordon > crawford, by a decent margin.

that's statiscally speaking.

in my own opinion, just watching basketball, i think you win more games with gordon than you can with crawford b/ gordon's skill of jumpshooting outweighs anything crawford brings to the table.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 08-11-2008 1:31 PM]

I agree with this DJ.

I believe Gordon averages 25 a game on close to or around 48% shooting in a D'Antoni offense.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Cookdcokehop:

Posted by sebstar:

he sucks. Crawford without the highlights

whoa buddy your buggin. Ben Gordan is WAY better than Jamal Crawford. Check the stats and efficiency.

The shooting efficiency from both practically mirrored each other last year.

. when you consider gordon is 5 in shorter

5 inches shorter?

Jamal's 6'7", didn't u know? stop being such a homer.

all kidding aside i agree w/u, i don't think Gordon's way better than Jamal either... some things he's better at & some things Jamal's better at... fundamentally Gordon probably wins out but talent & ability-wise i say Jamal tops him.

I dont know, seems like we're alone on this one, my man. I just dont see the Gordon fascination in an overall sense.

And you have to remember his post presence has been ben wallace, tyson chandler, pj brown the past few years not exactly opening up the flow for him.

Why is david lee not getting the most minutes on our team? The nba doesn't always use the right rotations

Despite his lack of height and his lack of D, Gordon would be a star on a D'Antoni team. He loves to shoot and Mike loves shooters. At the clip he'd likely be shooting, it would make up for his lack of D. His efficiency would likely improve.

I like Jamal, but he's been a low % shooter, tho I do expect him to improve on that under Mike. I think Mike make Jamal a better player and perhaps come closer to his potential than he's ever come. Just remember this before you write Jamal off, Nash was NOT the MVP player he became until he got with Mike! People tend to get that twisted and tend to give more credit to Nash than to Mike for how the team did, but Nash as an individual was obviously helped immensely by Mike's coaching. As did many other players. They were good for each other no doubt, but even Nash admits that Mike helped him take that giant leap to the top level.

having crawford, which pax shown own draft day 04, is not never a reason not to acquire ben gordon.

the only reason on this roster not to pursue gordon is b/c maybe under d'antoni the light bulb goes on in Nate b/c he can likely be a very efficient scorer placed in a similar role as ben.

Posted by djsunyc:

nate has shown that given time and shot attempts, that he's a better player than crawford...

I agree

Posted by EnySpree:

Ben Gordon is a good player. Thanks Team Obvious!

So........if ben doesn't re-sign in Chicago, who will sign him?

Do the Knicks have a shot at getting Ben? Is he worth the money he wants? aka what monta ellis got or more?

i don't think the knicks are a match. he wants deng money but i don't know if he'll get it...

It's possible that he signs a one year contract with Chicago or with another team and then tests the market when he's unrestricted.

Posted by djsunyc:

nate has shown that given time and shot attempts, that he's a better player than crawford...

Nate given more time has shown his height limits his production........ let's be fair, nate isn't a better player then Jamal.

And Jamal and BG are on the same level. BG is a better shooting guard, but JC has more point guard skills. It would depend on what kind of point guard you have which one you want. half of the great point guards in the league can't play with BG because of his height, I would rather have Crawford.