Why aren't we running the offense thru AG?

[fendilim]

How many players cant be shut down when your team is not good enough? Lakers have goat candidate and they were not even close to playoffs. Question is how hard is to shut down a player and if its worth it. On our team hardest player to shut down was Vucevic, then Ross, then Fournier, then Dj, then Gordon. Most of Gordon big games are when others create for him or transition offense/ put backs. Raptors gameplan more for Fournier than for Gordon imo. Aaron is getting better but he didnt get as much respect as our other guys. He hit more open shots and thats good for him, but he still has a long way to be on Fournier or Vucevic level offensively.

I think Weham go in a different direction this year. We can't go to far with Vuc and Fournier as our featured offensive players.

I think Orlando ran plays for Vuc and Fournier as much as teams game planned for them. Not sure if they ran plays for anyone other than Vuc, Fournier, and Ross.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I agree we cant go far with Vucevic and Fournier as our only featured players. Thats why Weltman and Hammond are hyping Fultz and he cant even shoot right now. Thats says a lot and its scary. We run plays for Vuc, Evan and Ross becouse they are our best offensive players, no secret here. I think we need More good players not less, and we certainly have enough young players. I am certain Weltman will negotiate hard on Vucevic and Ross deals. Its not like we dont have other options, but you build success by expanding possibilities not decreasing them.

The biggest mistake the front office will make is banking on Fultz' recovery.

Fultz' comeback should be the icing on the cake BUT not the cake.

[fendilim]

Oh, we're back to the Rudy Gay comparison? Great. Gordon obviously played too well to continue calling him Thad Young, so now we've upgraded to Gay?

Meanwhile, only a month ago someone admitted Gordon was Millsap-like. Why the sudden change in narrative? Oh, right, because the agenda this time is to hang **** on Gordon and the Gay comparison does a better job of that.

Doesn't change the fact the Vuc and Fournier suuuuucked all series and Gordon outplayed the both of them. I can tell that's really got under the skin of some haters who are now working double time to discredit it.

Talking about personal agenda, comming from guy who had meldown, left forum , got exposed by other posters and other moderators for blocking people who don't agree with him, went hiding for a year, when Vučević had great season, just to return when he sucked ?Agenda filled much ?

As for comparisons, Rudy Gay- Gordon comparisons are clear

http://bkref.com/tiny/ZEFSS

Millsap was allstar once.

Evan and Vuc sucked ?And who is arguing that ?

Gordon outplayed them ? How can you outplay own teammates if you all play together and getting waxed ? He played better than them but much like them ,didn't get job done.

Also he did not take game to next level with playoffs, he just played like he did before playoffs.

15 ppg ( below his season average )
54% TS ( idential to season average)
52% FTs ( below season average)
40% for 3 ( 34% in regular season)

You still act that he had amazing playoffs, in reality he averaged 10 points in two close games ( shooting 7-20), and 25,20 and 11 in blowouts. But you didn't return to talk with any objectivity, but to push agenda ,again.

Who da f**** ever said, during this playoffs that Evan played well ? That person only exists in your world so you can accuse people and attack them for something nobody ever said.

Try harder. OR go MIA again.

...

And dude, you must have missed my post when I confessed that I was posting as BadHombre. ....

And lol. No wonder BadHombre compared AG to Kawhi. lol

[JF5]

Ben is an AG homer through and through...

Unless he was banned during the last year its pretty pathetic to post under another name just to add more fan support for AG. He only posted when AG was playing well and never contributed anywhere else.

Can't blame him though... He would lose his mind when nobody would agree with the assertion/belief that AG would/will be a Star.

[Rainwater]

Ben is an AG homer throug[*]h and through...

Unless he was banned during the last year its pretty pathetic to post under another name just to add more fan support for AG. He only posted when AG was playing well and never contributed anywhere else.

Can't blame him though... He would lose his mind when nobody would agree with the assertion/belief that AG would/will be a Star.

I agree, people need stop claiming that they are objective. I think most are objective to a certain point but everybody has a bias and there is nothing wrong with that. Its just hypocritical to say you are objective when your post display otherwise. Some posters dislike certain players others like certain players and that is ok. That is part of being on a fourm. Just own it instead of trying to hide behind or pass it as this fake sense of objectivity.

[SD2042]

As much as I like AG and his efforts to play, I have come to accept him as a solid complimentary player at this point. He's been playing for the team I think five years now. He has continue to do his best to improve his game game in and game out. My take on him is that he lacks a certain level of dominance that says he's willing to take the team on his back daily. Perhaps like a strong competitive streak that drives him greatly that not only teammates knows he's that damn good. He would have his opponents on their toes at the same time. AG is definitely solid. He just not the player I would build my team around as he's a complimentary player.

[Bensational]

Saying my agenda is to have objective discussion isn't a proclamation that my opinion is objective. But I at least attempt to approach the topic as if the book isn't closed on AG. That's the difference. When you've got the same chorus of posters stating that AG hasn't improved over the years, despite very visible evidence in a complete reform of his game, it's pretty obvious that their refusing to acknowledge the growth in his game and are just trying to confirm an opinion they formed years ago.

Apparently, being a poster who's more interested in identifying the positives in AG's game upsets posters here. Who would have thought that good things could be so offensive?

[MagicStarwipe]

[fendilim]

Saying my agenda is to have objective discussion isn't a proclamation that my opinion is objective. But I at least attempt to approach the topic as if the book isn't closed on AG. That's the difference. When you've got the same chorus of posters stating that AG hasn't improved over the years, despite very visible evidence in a complete reform of his game, it's pretty obvious that their refusing to acknowledge the growth in his game and are just trying to confirm an opinion they formed years ago.

Apparently, being a poster who's more interested in identifying the positives in AG's game upsets posters here. Who would have thought that good things could be so offensive?

No one is denying he’s been better this year, because he mostly played to his strengths, which have always been his base skills. The problem in previous years was AG was trying to do more than that, there were even reports last year about the front office being disappointed with him trying to do a lot more.

Your views on AG (ie comparing him to Kawhi) is not offensive but rather bias that’s why its being a point of discussion.

What’s offensive are the names you’ve called several posters in the past. Lol

[Bensational]

Saying my agenda is to have objective discussion isn't a proclamation that my opinion is objective. But I at least attempt to approach the topic as if the book isn't closed on AG. That's the difference. When you've got the same chorus of posters stating that AG hasn't improved over the years, despite very visible evidence in a complete reform of his game, it's pretty obvious that their refusing to acknowledge the growth in his game and are just trying to confirm an opinion they formed years ago.

Apparently, being a poster who's more interested in identifying the positives in AG's game upsets posters here. Who would have thought that good things could be so offensive?

No one is denying he’s been better this year, because he mostly played to his strengths, which have always been his base skills. The problem in previous years was AG was trying to do more than that, there were even reports last year about the front office being disappointed with him trying to do a lot more.

Your views on AG (ie comparing him to Kawhi) is not offensive but rather bias that’s why its being a point of discussion.

What’s offensive are the names you’ve called several posters in the past. Lol

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that the Kawhi comparison is simply to establish a precedent potential trajectory. That's not a claim that AG will become him. I've said that a dozen times but it never seems to sink in with you. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between where AG is now, and Kawhi's level. Just because the only interpretation you can imagine is Kawhi is your own shortcoming, not mine.

The only names I use are trolls and trash. Those pertain to the provided content of the poster. Or in other cases, they're calling out a poster on falsified data and context, and provoking them to either admit that they're doing it on purpose, or admit the alternative that they're not smart enough to understand that. Why do I need to dress up language when dealing with someone like that?

[JF5]

Saying my agenda is to have objective discussion isn't a proclamation that my opinion is objective. But I at least attempt to approach the topic as if the book isn't closed on AG. That's the difference. When you've got the same chorus of posters stating that AG hasn't improved over the years, despite very visible evidence in a complete reform of his game, it's pretty obvious that their refusing to acknowledge the growth in his game and are just trying to confirm an opinion they formed years ago.

Apparently, being a poster who's more interested in identifying the positives in AG's game upsets posters here. Who would have thought that good things could be so offensive?

No one is denying he’s been better this year, because he mostly played to his strengths, which have always been his base skills. The problem in previous years was AG was trying to do more than that, there were even reports last year about the front office being disappointed with him trying to do a lot more.

Your views on AG (ie comparing him to Kawhi) is not offensive but rather bias that’s why its being a point of discussion.

What’s offensive are the names you’ve called several posters in the past. Lol

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that the Kawhi comparison is simply to establish a precedent potential trajectory. That's not a claim that AG will become him. I've said that a dozen times but it never seems to sink in with you. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between where AG is now, and Kawhi's level. Just because the only interpretation you can imagine is Kawhi is your own shortcoming, not mine.

The only names I use are trolls and trash. Those pertain to the provided content of the poster. Or in other cases, they're calling out a poster on falsified data and context, and provoking them to either admit that they're doing it on purpose, or admit the alternative that they're not smart enough to understand that. Why do I need to dress up language when dealing with someone like that?

You know exactly what you do when you make that sort of potential comparisons to current Elite Star players.

If you were more objective of his trajectory/potential you would've also made comparisons to guys like Kenyon Martin/Lamar Odom/Kenneth Faried/Rudy Gay/Serge Ibaka, hell Shawn Kemp/Shawn Marion. But you ALWAYS went straight with elite wing players like Jimmy Butler/Kawhi Leonard/Paul George for the last several years (Even though those guys and AG even at base level had COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES). On top of that YOU didn't really even mention a Paul Millsap comparison until the last year or so.

Seriously Ben, it was YOUR OWN and handful of AG fans trajectory/potential for him that he'd be this star wing player.

Now for you he doesn't clearly have the skill-set/ability to be Kawhi... NOW he has Paul Millsap potential all of a sudden... Its just obvious that since you've mentally pegged him to be an eventual star that he HAS to become a star to prove yourself right and prove us wrong. It just seems that you and Soul have taken it too personally... So much so that you've hated other players success on a team you claim to be a fan of.

Edit: for myself I thought Oladipo would be the guy for 3 years up until he was traded. Realized it wouldn't happen here or he'd be average player and left it alone and didn't try to fight for him so much because he wasn't doing anything to warrant my unwavering support for him. Granted he became the Star wing I thought he'd become it just wasn't meant to be here. You've been at it for 5 and it seems a lot more ridiculous at this point as it seems he's settling into becoming the player he'll be for the rest of his career as he's playing more to his strengths and not developing much skill wise offensively outside of shooting.

I'm just saying accept him for what he is now and if he becomes a star player than great. But taking this so personally is ridiculous.

[fendilim]

Saying my agenda is to have objective discussion isn't a proclamation that my opinion is objective. But I at least attempt to approach the topic as if the book isn't closed on AG. That's the difference. When you've got the same chorus of posters stating that AG hasn't improved over the years, despite very visible evidence in a complete reform of his game, it's pretty obvious that their refusing to acknowledge the growth in his game and are just trying to confirm an opinion they formed years ago.

Apparently, being a poster who's more interested in identifying the positives in AG's game upsets posters here. Who would have thought that good things could be so offensive?

No one is denying he’s been better this year, because he mostly played to his strengths, which have always been his base skills. The problem in previous years was AG was trying to do more than that, there were even reports last year about the front office being disappointed with him trying to do a lot more.

Your views on AG (ie comparing him to Kawhi) is not offensive but rather bias that’s why its being a point of discussion.

What’s offensive are the names you’ve called several posters in the past. Lol

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that the Kawhi comparison is simply to establish a precedent potential trajectory. That's not a claim that AG will become him. I've said that a dozen times but it never seems to sink in with you. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between where AG is now, and Kawhi's level. Just because the only interpretation you can imagine is Kawhi is your own shortcoming, not mine.

The only names I use are trolls and trash. Those pertain to the provided content of the poster. Or in other cases, they're calling out a poster on falsified data and context, and provoking them to either admit that they're doing it on purpose, or admit the alternative that they're not smart enough to understand that. Why do I need to dress up language when dealing with someone like that?

Here`s your post Ben

Who is? All people are saying is he's not done getting better. Hell, we thought Vuc was done getting better after he stagnated for a few years and he kicked it to another level this year.

CHECK previous pages. Even comparing him to guys like Kawhi, Paul George etc. lol

Oh and about Vuc, only haters didnt see it. Guys like Doc Rivers or Durant even said he was allstar caliber waaay back. Vuc has always had these skills, just so happens he gets the blame for all the losing.

They were lengthy posts, but I made the point several times that the comparisons aren’t to set expectations for AG to become Kawhi/George, but that development can come on late for some players.

If you can find me a SF/PF who entered the league being labelled a PF, with no real noted handling or playmaking ability, who later added that to their game, then I’m happy to run with that.

Or you can just keep being an AG Hater.

You said they arent to set expectations. Now you`re saying potential trajectory? Isnt that the same as expecting Gordon to be the same? Why would you compare his potential trajectory to Kawhi if its not to set expectations? Not only that, but all the players you compared Gordon to (Butler, George, Kawhi, Tobias, Blake, Siakam viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1804747&start=80#p72833659 ) have way different skillsets. What development are you talking about Ben? Gordon has been working hard on his offensive game every offseason, but the players you mentioned are still better than him. Gordon in 5 years, have been a better shooter. But his scoring ability has only improved a little, and not even at par with the players you mentioned at the same age. Not to mention Gordon came in the league younger, which means he`s had more professional help than the other guys you mentioned.

Like I`ve asked several times before, until when are we going to give Gordon the benefit of the doubt? Its been 5 years and this ``potential trajectory`` still exists. WOW!

Believe it or not but Siakam in his 2nd year already had better scoring ability that Gordon is in his 5th year (Rookie Siakam small sample size, but still better percentages)..

I’m not discounting his improvements as a shot maker, he has improved a little, but to have a “potential trajectory” to these guys?

Ben, I`m pretty sure you`ve used more terms than that.

[MagicStarwipe]

I find some of this talk really silly. When people mention people like Oladipo or Kawhi, they are simply using them as examples of guys that developed a lot since they came into the league. They don't mean that the player will develop to the same extent as them. They don't mean they are destined for stardom. They're simply saying... it's possible to get better! It's only a discussion in the first place because people like to talk about certain players like they are finished products and can't improve.

At least that's how I look at it.

[Bensational]

You said they arent to set expectations. Now you`re saying potential trajectory?

Not potential trajectory, a precedent potential trajectory. The trajectory of someone else's potential, who came on later in his career with a lot of his present levels of ability. And as I said, it's not to set the expectation of that, if I wanted to I'd just say "AG will become Kawhi".

Yet again I've got to explain it to you because the only way you want to interpret it is as a direct comparison. Why is this so hard to grasp? Kawhi is the ceiling, and Gordon could land anywhere between there and where he currently is. That's a spectrum, not a guarantee he'll land at any fixed point.

[fendilim]

You said they arent to set expectations. Now you`re saying potential trajectory?

Not potential trajectory, a precedent potential trajectory. The trajectory of someone else's potential, who came on later in his career with a lot of his present levels of ability. And as I said, it's not to set the expectation of that, if I wanted to I'd just say "AG will become Kawhi".

Yet again I've got to explain it to you because the only way you want to interpret it is as a direct comparison. Why is this so hard to grasp? Kawhi is the ceiling, and Gordon could land anywhere between there and where he currently is. That's a spectrum, not a guarantee he'll land at any fixed point.

What i’m saying is your opinion of him having Kawhi as the ceiling is bias, and unrealistic.

I’m not saying you said he is Kawhi.

Gordon doesnt have the potential of a Kawhi because Kawhi has improved his offense dramatically every year until he grew into his role as an offensive option.

Gordon was literally gifted the same role but he still has shown no sign of major improvements from 3 years ago.

Only his catch as shoot numbers have improved dramatically. And I’m not sure how you can say his ceiling is Kawhi if his off the dribble game is not even close to someone like Kawhi at the same age.

[MagicStarwipe]

I'd say AG's off the dribble game is getting better. He used to have to settle for fade away jumpers every time. Now he's able to actually get to the rim and put up some kind of an attempt. Next step is finishing under control on his drives.

[pepe1991]

With zero dribbles Gordon shoots 47% overall and 35,8% for 3.
With 1 dribble he shoots 45,5% and 36% for 3
With 2 dribbles 43% FG and 27% for 3
3 to 6 dribbles 42% FG and 31% for 3
With 7 dribbles 39% FG and 28% for 3



His eFG% in situations where he scores with less than 2 sec with ball is 56%.
With ball in hands for 2 to 6 sec - 45,8%
With ball in his hands more than 6 sec- 35% ( all percentages are effective FG% not average FG).

Not hard to put 2 and 2 together and figure he is best used in spotups and when he doesn't have ball in his hands for too much.

Same stats, Kawhi Leonard, season 2015-16
Age 23, experience: 4 years

with ball less than 2 sec : 65% eFG
2 to 6 sec 53%
6 or more 51%


With 0 dribbles 51% FG , 45% for 3
with 1 dribble : 56,7% fg, 33% for 3
2 dribbles : 46% FG,21% for 3 ( sucked )
3 to 6 dribbles 52% FG, 53% for 3 ( crazy good )
7 or more dribbles: 58% FG, 40% for 3

Where comparisons come from? Leonard is complete robot, more he dribbled, better he shot a ball. And that was season where he "only "averaged 16,5 ppg ( 20 in playoffs).

In bonus, Aaron Gordon in isolations this year : 36,8% eFG.
Leonard in 4th year, 46,8% eFG.

You make whatever you want from it.

In short, for somebody who doens't have time to compare it, with 8 different shot metrics , Leonard did things better in all 8 ,at same age, with less experience.

[Rainwater]

Saying my agenda is to have objective discussion isn't a proclamation that my opinion is objective. But I at least attempt to approach the topic as if the book isn't closed on AG. That's the difference. When you've got the same chorus of posters stating that AG hasn't improved over the years, despite very visible evidence in a complete reform of his game, it's pretty obvious that their refusing to acknowledge the growth in his game and are just trying to confirm an opinion they formed years ago.

Apparently, being a poster who's more interested in identifying the positives in AG's game upsets posters here. Who would have thought that good things could be so offensive?

And it's the same chorus of supporters, no offense but you included, that try to twist our words and try to claim we don't think he has improved. The guy has improved, he had his most productive season this year becoming a very good defensive player. And I think he will continue to improve.

However, the point of disagreement is will he ever improve to the point where he makes the jump and becomes a star, someone that should be considered untradable and should be built around. And sadly my answer is no, he is a role player, a complementary piece. Every offseason since AG has been in the league, especially in some kind of AG prediction tread in the off season, everyone says this is the year AG breaks out and becomes an all-star but half way through the season it's quite clear that is not going to be the case. That is what upsets me. My question is when does reality just set in that in a league where the avg life span is 4.5 years and AG has been in the league for 5 going on 6 years and has yet to show star skills, at what point do you just say this jump is just not going to happen. Yes, there are a FEW late bloomers but that list is quite small. And I just don't see it happening for AG.

A guy like Siakam is a clear example of extreme improvement and stardom, AG is just not.

[j-ragg]

As much as I like AG and his efforts to play, I have come to accept him as a solid complimentary player at this point. He's been playing for the team I think five years now. He has continue to do his best to improve his game game in and game out. My take on him is that he lacks a certain level of dominance that says he's willing to take the team on his back daily. Perhaps like a strong competitive streak that drives him greatly that not only teammates knows he's that damn good. He would have his opponents on their toes at the same time. AG is definitely solid. He just not the player I would build my team around as he's a complimentary player.

I think most on this board agree with this. I don't think it's a negative thing (toward Gordon specifically). We have a team full of role players.

[ChosenSavior]

Reading through this last page was definitely interesting to say the least. People are going to have their differing opinions about AG and that is okay because both sides make good points. I get why posters would say that AG could get to a "Kawhi level" on offense because of the natural athleticism and work ethic Gordon has displayed since being in a Magic uniform. He has certainly started to transform himself from his days when he was at Arizona when he was a freshman there. People need to understand that Kawhi did not just become an uber-efficient offensive player over night. The innate skills were there but the mechanics and mental aspect of his game had to be reformed. Kawhi got to be drafted by arguably the greatest organized professional team in sports in the San Antonio Spurs who have a way of developing players to perform better than they are capable of. With Kawhi however, he has an elite sense of work ethic. He trained his butt off with Chip Engelland to perfect his jump shot. Spent the long hours with Chad Forcier when he was doing the player development for the Spurs at the time. Had the benefit to have a stable organization behind him to develop him physically along with mentally by learning from Pop, Timmy, Manu, and Tony. IMO all of this is what made Kawhi the assassin that he is today.

AG did not get the same benefit and I think that is honestly overlooked whenever his development is talked about. We have not been stable at all up until this year. He has played under 5 different head coaches since being drafted by the Magic. That instability is going to have a major affect on his development as different coaches tried to pigeonhole him into different roles that did not suit his overall game at all. It wasn't until Steve Clifford got here that he got AG to play on the perimeter much more effectively while getting him to finally buy in consistently on the defensive end. He actually showed this season that he can play SF in the NBA IMO. The next step now is becoming a much better shooter while developing a better post up game as Cliff used him effectively on the block when he was matched up against smaller defenders.

For the people who think that the best that Gordon will amount to is a high level role-player, that is understandable as well given that he has already been in the league for 5 years and has not shown that dramatic growth in his game offensively. I just say to exercise patience given that he is still very young and has not hit his prime yet. The Magic having stability in both the front office and in the coaching staff is going to be great for our young talent and this will only help AG in the long run. This debate about AG certainly is not going to die anytime soon and I do look forward to how this conversation changes in the coming years.

[tiderulz]

Reading through this last page was definitely interesting to say the least. People are going to have their differing opinions about AG and that is okay because both sides make good points. I get why posters would say that AG could get to a "Kawhi level" on offense because of the natural athleticism and work ethic Gordon has displayed since being in a Magic uniform. He has certainly started to transform himself from his days when he was at Arizona when he was a freshman there. People need to understand that Kawhi did not just become an uber-efficient offensive player over night. The innate skills were there but the mechanics and mental aspect of his game had to be reformed. Kawhi got to be drafted by arguably the greatest organized professional team in sports in the San Antonio Spurs who have a way of developing players to perform better than they are capable of. With Kawhi however, he has an elite sense of work ethic. He trained his butt off with Chip Engelland to perfect his jump shot. Spent the long hours with Chad Forcier when he was doing the player development for the Spurs at the time. Had the benefit to have a stable organization behind him to develop him physically along with mentally by learning from Pop, Timmy, Manu, and Tony. IMO all of this is what made Kawhi the assassin that he is today.

AG did not get the same benefit and I think that is honestly overlooked whenever his development is talked about. We have not been stable at all up until this year. He has played under 5 different head coaches since being drafted by the Magic. That instability is going to have a major affect on his development as different coaches tried to pigeonhole him into different roles that did not suit his overall game at all. It wasn't until Steve Clifford got here that he got AG to play on the perimeter much more effectively while getting him to finally buy in consistently on the defensive end. He actually showed this season that he can play SF in the NBA IMO. The next step now is becoming a much better shooter while developing a better post up game as Cliff used him effectively on the block when he was matched up against smaller defenders.

For the people who think that the best that Gordon will amount to is a high level role-player, that is understandable as well given that he has already been in the league for 5 years and has not shown that dramatic growth in his game offensively. I just say to exercise patience given that he is still very young and has not hit his prime yet. The Magic having stability in both the front office and in the coaching staff is going to be great for our young talent and this will only help AG in the long run. This debate about AG certainly is not going to die anytime soon and I do look forward to how this conversation changes in the coming years.

no offense, and this is not an attack on you, but we need to stop lauding a player as having "great work ethic" and expect that that means someone develops more than they can. 90-95% of the players in the NBA have great work ethic. otherwise they wont last past their existing contracts. Work ethic does not mean someone can develop skills they dont have or cant create. Head coaches dont spend a majority of their time developing players anyways, that is done with the asst coaches. So while AG has had 5 head coaches, the number of asst coaches he has worked to develop with is much smaller. for all this talk of slow development of Leonard, he was still shooting 3's at 38% from his rookie year. and shown he was a defensive star that same rookie year.

Sometimes players just cant become stars, there is no shame in that.