Thoughts on Eric Bledsoe's career thus far?

[Sonne]

Seriously, the Suns are one of the most chronically overlooked teams in the NBA. People will remain ignorant of them until they make the playoffs again.

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

i have one question for you, why do you care so much about the suns?

[bwgood77]

Seriously, the Suns are one of the most chronically overlooked teams in the NBA. People will remain ignorant of them until they make the playoffs again.

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

You are right to some extent...they have a very good reason to be overlooked not making the playoffs for some time, although 3 seasons ago while projected to win 17 games, they won 48, the same as the 3 seed in the east, so they haven't been THAT bad for that long, even though they had no chance to get anywhere that season. Luckily the ended up with T.J. Warren in that draft who looks like the real deal and for us Suns fans they are now exciting to watch. I think they will be among the bottom teams in the west, but nothing would surprise me, other than winning a playoff game or two.

That should be enough to say, but I don't want people to hang onto those last words, because that is not something I expect at all, but this thread has gotten off topic, and it should get on topic.

Though I would like to hear more about what people think about Bledsoe other than "he has been injured' and would like to hear about what they think about his abilities and potential when he does play.

[MrMiyagi]

Seriously, the Suns are one of the most chronically overlooked teams in the NBA. People will remain ignorant of them until they make the playoffs again.

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

It's not that simple. Media coverage is still steeped in markets, which is why the Knicks and Lakers, no matter how good or bad, get media coverage. Just about the only thing memorable in the media about the Suns last season was Chuck going on rants about how bad we were. No one really even talked about how our 4 leading scorers were injured or traded. All of a sudden it became "Why is Phoenix bad? They had Dragic and Bledsoe and won 40+ games the year before last. Now their awful. Must be bad management." I bet when Derrick Rose gets injured or Joakim Noah, every time the Knicks lose it will be "They're a great team when healthy. They just need to get healthy." Or if they're not great but in it for the 8th seed it'll be "This team has a lot of veterans, they'll be dangerous come playoff time - all that experience." Despite having 38 wins.

I mean, Charlotte almost won 50 games last season - why didn't I get to see more of Kemba Walker instead of being bombarded with Porzingis (sure, he's good, but the Knicks weren't) or hearing about D'Angelo Russell "snitching" on a man who calls himself Swaggy P?

[whocurrz]

Seriously, the Suns are one of the most chronically overlooked teams in the NBA. People will remain ignorant of them until they make the playoffs again.

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

It's not that simple. Media coverage is still steeped in markets, which is why the Knicks and Lakers, no matter how good or bad, get media coverage. Just about the only thing memorable in the media about the Suns last season was Chuck going on rants about how bad we were. No one really even talked about how our 4 leading scorers were injured or traded. All of a sudden it became "Why is Phoenix bad? They had Dragic and Bledsoe and won 40+ games the year before last. Now their awful. Must be bad management." I bet when Derrick Rose gets injured or Joakim Noah, every time the Knicks lose it will be "They're a great team when healthy. They just need to get healthy." Or if they're not great but in it for the 8th seed it'll be "This team has a lot of veterans, they'll be dangerous come playoff time - all that experience." Despite having 38 wins.

I mean, Charlotte almost won 50 games last season - why didn't I get to see more of Kemba Walker instead of being bombarded with Porzingis (sure, he's good, but the Knicks weren't) or hearing about D'Angelo Russell "snitching" on a man who calls himself Swaggy P?

Because large media markets even whe terrible get more views and clicks than smaller teams. Even their failure gets more viewership that small market teams that start to make something of themselves. Just like no matter how terrible the Knicks or Lakers are they will get rumors all year long how the next free agent is looking to join their team. It gets clicks, views and people paid. Even thigh KD never even set up a meeting with either team both media markets pushed the possible story. Just stop mistaking coverage for success. Even after they upset the Spurs, made the WCF and looked like a legit contender the Grizzlies barely got any coverage. Spurs get coverage but never are in the top echelon of it. If your team doesn't have a superstar or isn't in a city with top population you will have to seek out coverage. Coverage wasn't every easy to find in major media for the warriors in 2015 when they had clearly the most wins and eventually won the title. Like I said media coverage and success don't work hand in hand.

***Sorry dude I mostly read your last paragraph. You get it and we are very much in agreement. I had just made a post and am gonna agree rather than delete

[bwgood77]

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

It's not that simple. Media coverage is still steeped in markets, which is why the Knicks and Lakers, no matter how good or bad, get media coverage. Just about the only thing memorable in the media about the Suns last season was Chuck going on rants about how bad we were. No one really even talked about how our 4 leading scorers were injured or traded. All of a sudden it became "Why is Phoenix bad? They had Dragic and Bledsoe and won 40+ games the year before last. Now their awful. Must be bad management." I bet when Derrick Rose gets injured or Joakim Noah, every time the Knicks lose it will be "They're a great team when healthy. They just need to get healthy." Or if they're not great but in it for the 8th seed it'll be "This team has a lot of veterans, they'll be dangerous come playoff time - all that experience." Despite having 38 wins.

I mean, Charlotte almost won 50 games last season - why didn't I get to see more of Kemba Walker instead of being bombarded with Porzingis (sure, he's good, but the Knicks weren't) or hearing about D'Angelo Russell "snitching" on a man who calls himself Swaggy P?

Because large media markets even whe terrible get more views and clicks than smaller teams. Even their failure gets more viewership that small market teams that start to make something of themselves. Just like no matter how terrible the Knicks or Lakers are they will get rumors all year long how the next free agent is looking to join their team. It gets clicks, views and people paid. Even thigh KD never even set up a meeting with either team both media markets pushed the possible story. Just stop mistaking coverage for success. Even after they upset the Spurs, made the WCF and looked like a legit contender the Grizzlies barely got any coverage. Spurs get coverage but never are in the top echelon of it. If your team doesn't have a superstar or isn't in a city with top population you will have to seek out coverage. Coverage wasn't every easy to find in major media for the warriors in 2015 when they had clearly the most wins and eventually won the title. Like I said media coverage and success don't work hand in hand.

***Sorry dude I mostly read your last paragraph. You get it and we are very much in agreement. I had just made a post and am gonna agree rather than delete

While reading I'm thinking "Why does this guy sound like he's arguing when he's saying pretty much the same thing?"

[DusterBuster]

Seriously, the Suns are one of the most chronically overlooked teams in the NBA. People will remain ignorant of them until they make the playoffs again.

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

i have one question for you, why do you care so much about the suns?

Where did I say I care about the Suns? I'm an NBA fan and I like to talk about scenarios and situations around the league that interest me or I may not know as much about and would like to know more of. Bledsoe is one given his time coming up with the Clippers and being an 'it' player that people were tripping over themselves to talk about, then him getting traded to Phoenix and breaking out a bit, then him kinda falling off the NBA map.

As for my second post regarding the Suns (which apparently constitutes me caring "so much about the Suns"), I was simply making a point that good teams get covered nationally and bad teams don't. Being that the poster was specifically referencing the Suns, I figured they'd be an apt example of how my point is true. However, the point is true of any team, regardless of who they are for the most part.

[DusterBuster]

Seriously, the Suns are one of the most chronically overlooked teams in the NBA. People will remain ignorant of them until they make the playoffs again.

Chronically overlooked? Suns in the Nash and Amare era got plenty of attention. Suns aren't overlooked. Good teams get attention and bad teams don't. Suns have been a bad team over the past 5 years, hence no attention/overlooked.

It's not that simple. Media coverage is still steeped in markets, which is why the Knicks and Lakers, no matter how good or bad, get media coverage. Just about the only thing memorable in the media about the Suns last season was Chuck going on rants about how bad we were. No one really even talked about how our 4 leading scorers were injured or traded. All of a sudden it became "Why is Phoenix bad? They had Dragic and Bledsoe and won 40+ games the year before last. Now their awful. Must be bad management." I bet when Derrick Rose gets injured or Joakim Noah, every time the Knicks lose it will be "They're a great team when healthy. They just need to get healthy." Or if they're not great but in it for the 8th seed it'll be "This team has a lot of veterans, they'll be dangerous come playoff time - all that experience." Despite having 38 wins.

I mean, Charlotte almost won 50 games last season - why didn't I get to see more of Kemba Walker instead of being bombarded with Porzingis (sure, he's good, but the Knicks weren't) or hearing about D'Angelo Russell "snitching" on a man who calls himself Swaggy P?

Obviously market size has some say in that, you're not wrong with that point. However, the NBA only has 2 teams who that's really applicable for. Outside of the Lakers and Knicks, every other NBA team tends to fall into my point of being covered when they're good and dropping into obscurity when they're below average.

So I do agree with the point you're making, but I also think you're pointing out the exceptions to the rule.

[Zasterror]

The next Eric Gordon

[tsherkin]

Late 20s, kind of established who he is already. Three healthy seasons, two of which came as a bench player. Inconsistent shooter and non-elite at the foul line. Decent but unremarkable playmaker. Hasn't had a season where he was impressive for more than 45 games yet, has been pretty average-ish in fact.

He can score. He's got the touch from three... nothing special, but he can hit it, and he's flashed some ability to get to the line. Terribly inconsistent from year to year from basically everywhere, and that's certainly been influenced by the injuries. Nothing really stands out, though he's had a couple of years where he's been good when he gets all the way to the hoop.

I think he's best used as a 6th man with moderated minutes and some attention paid to mitigating his health concerns. If he wasn't frail like a hollow egg, I think he'd have more potential. He's certainly flashed the ability to post around 20/6 PER36 on 55%+ TS, though he's turnover-prone and not really a super-cerebral player in general. He's old enough that I'd be surprised if he really took it anywhere different from here, but he's under 30 and has lots of lay-offs and inconsistency from injuries, so I wouldn't write it off entirely.

Really, though, he's an athlete with a bit of touch who has never been able to put it together. He's missed a lot of development time, so any kind of talk about him sort of needs to be tempered with the reality of his age and injuries. As to the OP, which was about his career thus far... He's kind of nobody. He can't stay healthy. He's played 43 games or less twice in the last three years, and when he did stay healthy, it was a nice season but nothing remarkable. 17/6 in 35 mpg, basically. Efficient, turnover-prone, pretty good, but nothing that really screamed out for more attention. He's disappointing because he has the physical tools to be a very interesting player, but he's missed 39+ games three times in the past half decade, and he's only getting older.

[MrBaynes]

He averages under 60 games per year, I think he is a very talented player (probably top 10 PG) but its hard to imagine him living up to his potential if his body keeps betraying him. He probably would do best on a contender, as a 3rd option to limit his minutes (platooned with another vet PG, maybe?), instead of as a 1st option on a lottery team.

[RoyceDa59]

Bledsoe is the player I put on the opposing 3 on 3 street team on NBA live so I don't feel guilty about not giving the computer 'a great player', but also knowing he won't dominate.

That's the best way I can describe my opinion of him.

[neno]

Scary is that he is injury prone even with the vaunted Phoenix medical staff

[Darren]

Great player in Monta Ellis's shoe. I can't still see a trade between Mavs and Suns if all it takes for his service is DWill (and Harris) with a top-10 protected pick. Literally, I am offering expiring and a pick for him. In post-Dirk era, I have no idea how high the Mavs pick is. I just make it top-10 protected for that reason.

[TeamTragic]

Good player though injury prone. We will see after this upcoming season.

[GMATCallahan]

When healthy, hes better than what most people give him credit for, he is a really good combo guard.

People thought Ty lawson was a really good combo guard, Eric, if healthy, is a better prime lawson.

Bledsoe has never shown the playmaking ability that Lawson displayed in his final two seasons in Denver. During his final two years as a Nugget, Lawson averaged 9.2 assists per game over 137 contests, including 9.6 assists in his last season in Denver with a spectacular 3.89:1.00 assists-to-turnover ratio. Although playmaking was not Lawson's initial strength in the NBA, he was always a true point guard in my opinion.

Lawson ranked third in the NBA in assists per game in each of his final two years as a Nugget, whereas Bledsoe has never averaged more than 6.1 assists per contest. His assists-to-turnover ratios have proved perennially awful for a starting point guard (never topping 1.80:1.00), as his decision-making and ability to command an offense have been in constant question. Although he can make some impressive passes due in part to his leaping ability, long arms, and strength (sort of like a mini-LeBron James), Bledsoe forces too many passes and plays, gets indecisively caught in the air too often, and fails to open passing lanes through ball fakes, head fakes, and eye fakes. Bledsoe frequently forces passes, telegraphs passes, and makes poor reads, and while very explosive, he fails to penetrate with the control and poise of Lawson.

Bledsoe is a somewhat better scorer than Lawson and obviously a much better defender, so one might still take him as the total player. But Bledsoe is not the guy that you want leading your offense; he fails to consistently make the game easier for his teammates, and he is not a noteworthy shooter, either (although he has become respectable in that realm). If you can consistently create offense from another "position," Bledsoe may be acceptable or attractive as your starting point guard, much as LeBron James' facilitating presence renders Kyrie Irving acceptable as a "point guard." But Bledsoe is not nearly a franchise point guard even when healthy, which has often not been the case due to periodic knee surgeries.

[GMATCallahan]

Scary is that he is injury prone even with the vaunted Phoenix medical staff

His injuries have virtually all been related to cartilage (meniscus) defects in his knees; I do not know that any amount of training and sports science can prevent those defects. Indeed, Bledsoe is just one of those players with problematic knees, although none of his surgeries have been reconstructive in nature (i.e. torn ACLs), nor has he needed Microfracture surgery thus far.

[GMATCallahan]

He shined bright while sharing the spotlight with another PG in Dragic and is very good. I just don't think he'll ever reach his potential or have longevity with that recent knee surgery he just had. I think he could have been a clear cut top 5 PG before those injuries but now we'll have to see. Doesn't help that the team went to tank mode immediately after the 2 PGs in Thomas and Dragic and the 2 Morris' were traded so that tanked his value.

I do not believe that his greatest drawback has been injuries, nor do I believe that Bledsoe's potential is that great. As I noted in my first post in this thread, he just lacks the decision-making ability and overall passing acumen needed to constitute a premier point guard, especially given his lack of outstanding shooting ability. Even with great athleticism and defense (Bledsoe's help defense is better than his individual defense), a point guard who is a problematic passer and an unremarkable shooter is going to be limited in his upside.

Basically, take Kyrie Irving and give him more athletic explosiveness yet lesser ball-handling skill. Make him a shorter by an inch or two. Then remove his virtuoso shot-making ability and give him less intelligence yet greater defensive tenaciousness and an instinct for the ball on defense.

That, more or less, is Eric Bledsoe—a good player with no upside to be a great player. But you are correct that playing with another dynamic ball-handling guard in Goran Dragic helped him, as that alignment reduced the impact of Bledsoe's liabilities or vulnerabilities. Unfortunately for the Suns, Bledsoe and Brandon Knight failed to gel in the same manner.

[Statlanta]

I do not believe that his greatest drawback has been injuries, nor do I believe that Bledsoe's potential is that great. As I noted in my first post in this thread, he just lacks the decision-making ability and overall passing acumen needed to constitute a premier point guard, especially given his lack of outstanding shooting ability. Even with great athleticism and defense (Bledsoe's help defense is better than his individual defense), a point guard who is a problematic passer and an unremarkable shooter is going to be limited in his upside.

Basically, take Kyrie Irving and give him more athletic explosiveness yet lesser ball-handling skill. Make him a shorter by an inch or two. Then remove his virtuoso shot-making ability and give him less intelligence yet greater defensive tenaciousness and an instinct for the ball on defense.

That, more or less, is Eric Bledsoe—a good player with no upside to be a great player. But you are correct that playing with another dynamic ball-handling guard in Goran Dragic helped him, as that alignment reduced the impact of Bledsoe's liabilities or vulnerabilities. Unfortunately for the Suns, Bledsoe and Brandon Knight failed to gel in the same manner.

I thought his potential to be high because I thought his athleticism would allow him to make Westbrook-like plays on both sides of the ball to make up the gap for Kyrie especially since I think he can shoot better than Westbrook. I think Kyrie has caught up due to understanding more how to use his ball handling ability to impact the other parts of his game and learning how to finish more(he to me was always a lights out shooter). I'm not sure if Kyrie has more BBall IQ than EB since I don't watch EB as much but I always thought he could surpass Irving if he learned how to harness his athletcism especially since Kyrie isn't stunning as a passer as well.

Do you think he will always need a playmaking guard around him or do you think he can grow in that area before his prime is over?

[GMATCallahan]

I know I have gone off topic here but wanted to lay it out because it appears some don't know what they view Bledsoe as, and he is firmly the starting PG for now. If he gets injured, that is another story, because I don't think Knight is right for a starting PG. I personally hope they select someone in the next draft in the deep pool of PG's to succeed Bledsoe and be there in case of injury.

Ulis is probably better than people think, and a much better true PG than Knight, but probably not a future starter on a contending team but I certainly wouldn't count him out completely..I think he could hold the fort down for a while if need be...especially for a rebuilding team.

TL;DR, Bledsoe no question is the starting PG and Booker, a true SG starts next to him.

The only major question with Ulis, in my opinion, is whether his size limits him to being a backup. Either way, I believe that he will play in the NBA for years to come. On a basic or generalized level, he possesses the natural point guard "makeup" and fluidity of Kevin Johnson or Steve Nash, and Ulis is the Suns' best playmaker since Nash. That is not to say that he will ever perform on the same level as Johnson or Nash (two of the greatest point guards in history). After all, Ulis' lack of size probably means that he will never score nearly as effectively as either of those two players, and his lack of size will also limit him a little as a playmaker compared to those guys (shorter arms will mean that he cannot quite make some of the same passes). But Ulis delivers good passes routinely and reads the court very well, he is quick and elusive with a sort of perpetual half-in-and-out dribble (sort of like Johnson or Kyrie Irving), he moves smoothly and with control, he knows where he has to go on the floor in order to execute, he offers quick hands and commitment on defense, and he seems to possess enough shooting ability to either keep defenses honest or make them pay in pick-and-roll situations (not the shooting ability of K.J. or Nash, but better than, say, Jason Kidd's capacity in that area).

I would much rather have Ulis run the Suns' offense than Bledsoe; the question moving forward is whether Bledsoe's scoring ability and defense make him the more valuable point guard, especially given the economic disparity. For now, though, Bledsoe is clearly the starter, as he should be.

[MrCheerios]

A healthy Bledsoe is like a mini-Westbrook: a physical freak that can affect the game in multiple ways. But his game won't age well and not just because of the knee surgeries. He's not a pure shooter, not a pure playmaker, and is turnover prone. Once his insane athleticism wanes he''ll really need to adjust his game.

I expect cerebral PGs like CP3 and Conley to age very well, in contrast. Even though they've both lost a step, they're still extremely effective on the court.