I disagree on both points, winsomme.
I think Gordon can be a very good player (eventually all-star level), but he's not as ready as guys like Rose, Beasley, Gallinari, Love or Rush (my top5 in readiness). I think he has 2 major flaws:
- dribbling. Terrible.
- Doing cuts. Even worse.
Also, he's just not a pg. Lacks the ballhandling, the creativity and the natural instincts. OTH, he can be great, really great, defending point-guards in the league.
people said the same things about Chauncey.....i'm not sure where people are getting this idea that Gordon can't handle the rock. i have seen him play a lot and it simply is not accurate at all. it's like one scout said it and then everybody started to think it was the truth.
while he will not be a pure PG, like i said before, on a team with a guy like Wade who handles the ball a lot of the time, he would have no time playing the point.
and as for readiness, i think he will be good from the get-go.
i think people slept on him because of his wrist injury and the coaching problems at Indiana, but this kid is the goods.
Well, I've said I can see him becoming an All-Star, so it's not like I'm sleeping on him. The fact that he has flaws doesn't mean he's not going to be very good. He can be a rich man House with defense even if he doesn't correct those flaws at all. But one can't assume every rookie is going to correct his flaws. It's not the way it works.
Don't you agree with my assessments on his dribbling and cutting? Also, he really doesn't have the ballhandling and the creativity of a pg. He doesn't have that "protect the ball" nature, that even shooting points like Billups have. He's more like Wade, a wild guy.
Also, a Gordon-Wade backourt... Gordon is really not that good playing without the ball, at least yet (it's a very coachable flaw). I can re-watch a couple of his games and point out the exact moments where he proved to be a subpar cutter. I'm very comfortable prediction: he'll produce a lot of interceptions in the passing lanes when his teammates try to pass him the ball in cuts and offensive fouls by charching screeners. But of course he can have an impact since the very beginning. But playing SG, as a PG Chalmers is better than him (Chalmers is the kind of point guard I like next to Wade, a guy who can defend, a facilitator that protects the ball, doesn't play risky and a good spot-up jump-shooter.)
Beasley and Rose have flaws too. i'm not sure how much pointing out the fact that Gordon has flaws really tells you about his readiness as it relates to the other rookies.
i think if you go back and take another look at Gordon's handle you'll find that his handle is VERY good. while not that of a pure point, certainly in the ballpark of a Chauncey. he goes equally well left and right, he has great balance and he has terrific stop and start ability. those are things that will serve him very well in terms of the help defenses he will face in the pros and should prevent the problem charges.
and the range on his shot and his quick release are electric. having a shooter like that alongside Wade would do wonders for clearing the driving lanes. add to that my original idea of Brand (one of the few legit low post players out there) and you have a very balanced attack.
that and all three of those guys play hard on the defensive end.
i like Chalmers a lot too, but think if you could bring him off the bench. with Chalmers, you could have him play with either Wade or Gordon (let Gordon get some minutes as the scorer too).
i think you have lots of problems with a combo of Wade, Marion and Beasley. the first of which is that Marion is just not the same threat when not playing the run and gun...
anyway, to get back to Gordon's deficiencies, don't you think that the amount that Wade handles the ball would mitigate any problems with Gordon's handle?
Topic: Would Baron davis sign with C's for less money, but a ring ???? (Read 14036 times)