Why aren't we running the offense thru AG?

[Rainwater]

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.

I really do question how many people really think he is just a role player and nothing more.

But I do completely agree with the exception of Fultz, Mo, and JI (due to their youth and not knowing their projection) this team is really nothing but role players.

[JF5]

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.

You've hit it right on the head IMO. Just to add as well not every player you draft is going to be a star.

What I have a problem with is that there was ever an assertion that AG had a perceived higher ceiling at ANY point of his career. What we were hearing about him since the pre-draft days was he was a player who couldn't shoot/dribble/shoot/no offensive game/ what-so-ever and if you watched him in College he was an energy guy. He was compared to guys like Kenneth Faried and when he got to the NBA, guys like AK47 during his first year.

Also, when you make the argument that AG had/has a Kawhi Leonard trajectory, you could say that Jonathan Issac has a Anthony Davis trajectory, Mo Bamba has a Joel Embiid trajectory, Dennis Smith Jr has a Derrick Rose trajectory, Seth Curry has Stephon Curry Trajectory and etc. That's not based on actual analysis of a players/prospect skill-set which is what I feel Bensational has refused to look for whatever reason. I understand bias but that shouldn't make you think of not only the absolute best scenario of a player but also the worst, the medial, and projected consensus of a player's ceiling.

[SOUL]

There is a lot of player bias going on lately from both sides, IMO.

I went and compared Aaron Gordon's most recent season (age 23) to Vuc's two seasons before this (age 26, 27) in basketball-reference. We obviously know what Vuc turned into this year on offense, but nobody expected the year he had. Hence why we drafted Bamba when we saw Vuc basically just turn into an average offensive option as he got older the last few years, exactly what Gordon is right now.

This wasn't that long ago. I remember getting in pages and pages and pages of debate with the very same posters who have issue with Gordon prospectively being the "first option" or a default first option (and putting my two cents out there, I don't he should be that either, that's not his role). But if we're going to debate the "merits" of first options, AG has much of an argument as Vuc did a few years ago.

This year's AG vs 2016-2017 Vuc:

AG had better ORTG, True Shooting, less usage, more offensive win shares, more defensive win shares, more total win shares, better VORP, basically any advanced metric had Gordon with a better year than Vuc's 2016-2017 year.

This year's AG vs 2017-2018 Vuc:

AG had better ORTG, True Shooting, less usage, more offensive win shares, more defensive win shares, more total win shares, the same VORP. Again, most advanced metrics have Gordon with a better year. Vuc took slightly more categories from him, so it's probably about a wash when it all comes down to it, but objectively, Gordon has a great argument for still having a better year.

I post this because on one side, the prospects of AG completely revamping his offensive game and becoming a player he never really was expected to be on offense is a long shot. If you're arguing for AG running the show, you're basically arguing for Vuc's offense the last few years with a higher tempo. So it's hypocritical in a sense if you were against Vuc. I won't doubt that just like Vuc, he can add pieces to his game, become more efficient and eventually one year be as offensively great as Vuc was this singular year, but if I didn't expect that out of Vuc, it's hard for me to think Gordon can just replicate that as well. It's hard to do. Not impossible, but you need to be in the right environment and have the faith of the team behind you.

On the other side, some posters who are arguing until they're blue in the face about how AG will never be first option material, can't lead a team, can't do this, can't do that, when he literally had similar if not better stats than Vuc the past few years. Similar offeseason arguments I was having with people in this thread about how Vuc NEEDED to add a better three point shot and get to the FT line for us to excuse the usage that we're giving him, and there was massive pushback on that by posters here about how he "doesn't need to do that" and his offense is "fine". The same posters in this thread against AG. That to me, shows either people need to eat crow and admit that Vuc before this year was extremely replaceable and average, or that there is an innate bias against Gordon (or for Vuc) because you need to take a logical leap to paint one guy's offense as "fine" and the other's as "needing a lot of work".

And again, I didn't want Vuc to be first option 2 years ago and don't want Gordon to be now either. I'll bite the bullet in a "down" year like I did for Vuc with Gordon, but realistically, no way.

So yeah, it's just weird seeing opinions flipping depending on who the player is. Are any sides willing to eat crow?

[pepe1991]

With all due respect Soul, this is garbage.

AG had better ORTG, True Shooting, less usage, more offensive win shares, more defensive win shares, more total win shares, better VORP, basically any advanced metric had Gordon with a better year than Vuc's 2016-2017 yea

All things mentioned are tied with W-L column,therfore they are usless to argument because your sample size from Vučević numbers is taken from 29 wins team, and you compare it to Gordon's sample, made on 42 wins team. Also, convincingly enough "missing" on part where Vučević was best player of that 42 wins team, where Gordon "improved" by taking step back from previous year, where he had YOLO season on offense, being worst ISO scorer in a league .

Not to mention that this team (2016-17) had to deal with Biyombo being forced into games, Ibaka drama, Ross trade, Jeff Green being part time starter,Cj Watson and his shady injuries, white board fiasco and fact that Magic rotated 19 players that year, including Damjan Rudež and ZImmerman getting playing time in regular season.

It's like comparing OG Anunoboy's rookie year to Deaaron Fox and claiming OGA is superior player because all his advance stats are superior. Just failing to mention that one team won 60 games, and other won 27 . But hey, as long as it fits agenda ....

I thought that we all agreed 2 years ago that Gordon will be third best player on great team... Not sure what changed

[SOUL]

All things mentioned are tied with W-L column,therfore they are usless to argument because your sample size from Vučević numbers is taken from 29 wins team, and you compare it to Gordon's sample, made on 42 wins team.

Wins aren't indicative of efficiency though. Many players can look really good in losing teams (Chris Bosh, Kevin Love) and keep the efficiency up while putting up numbers and have their numbers look worse in winning teams. Hell, Vuc just a year or two before that was putting up 19 point a game on a bad team as well. So are you saying that we can't use Vuc's numbers before this year because the team wasn't as good? Yourself and others have said that if we didn't have Vuc this year, we'd be a 25-30 win team and that's probably true. Actually, probably 100% true.

That's the answer in itself -- Vuc. If Vuc had better years previously, this wouldn't be an argument. It can't be "If Vuc wasn't on this team, it would suck!" and then be "If Vuc had better teammates and more wins then you can compare them!" But it's literally Vuc upping his game and adding those wins himself.

Also, convincingly enough "missing" on part where Vučević was best player of that 42 wins team, where Gordon "improved" by taking step back from previous year, where he had YOLO season on offense, being worst ISO scorer in a league.

Huh? How can you look at that and care if that's added or not? We are not talking about this Vuc year. I said it 2-3 times in that post this has nothing to do with Vuc's current year It's not missing, it has zero to do with the argument. It's saying that everybody up in arms about Vuc criticism the previous 2 years and then criticizing Gordon for literally having the same impact as Vuc of the previous 2 years, then that's hypocritical.

It's like comparing OG Anunoboy's rookie year to Deaaron Fox and claiming OGA is superior player because all his advance stats are superior. Just failing to mention that one team won 60 games, and other won 27 . But hey, as long as it fits agenda ....

Uh, what? What does this comparison have to do with anything? AG and Vuc's comparison makes sense because this is taking sample sizes from both players playing 4-5+ years in the league, both having usage rates between 20-25% in those comparisons, both playing similar minutes, and ultimately, both being "meh" 1st options besides this year's Vuc, which was already prefaced.

You can't have it both ways with defending Vuc as a 1st option PREVIOUSLY to this year. Saying he was on "bad teams" and then saying he was the reason this year's team is so good. You realize if Vuc was as good as he was this year, those years would have had better records. And ultimately, I'm arguing FOR your case. Gordon is a 2nd and 3rd option, just like Vuc of previous years were.. but people didn't want to admit that a big man going further and further away from the basket, not shooting many threes, not drawing fouls, and shooting mid-range shots was a "good option" and somehow Gordon is "terrible".. that's delusional.

Again, NOT talking Vuc of this year.

[Bensational]

Funny, I don't recall Rudy Gay being the 3rd option on a great team. Or Thad Young.

But I do recall Kawhi once being the 3rd option on a great team... And Draymond. Presently Harris and Butler fluctuate as 3rd options on one of the strongest East teams.

But any comparison to the developments of those players is taken literally and shut down immediately. So there's no real consistency in the arguments against Gordon.

[JF5]

Funny, I don't recall Rudy Gay being the 3rd option on a great team. Or Thad Young.

But I do recall Kawhi once being the 3rd option on a great team... And Draymond. Presently Harris and Butler fluctuate as 3rd options on one of the strongest East teams.

But any comparison to the developments of those players is taken literally and shut down immediately. So there's no real consistency in the arguments against Gordon.

You're so full of crap ... So when you compared Gordon to Kawhi's potential/trajectory you were talking about Borderline All-Star Won Finals MVP in 2014 Kawhi.

Or

were you talking about Top 5-10 Player 1st team All-NBA Kawhi from the last few seasons as Gordon's Projection/Trajectory. I would love to see the answer.

Because when you were comparing Gordon's trajectory to George/Leonard/Butler those guys were ALL AT LEAST TOP 10-15 players at the time which was 2-3 years again and were either 1st or 2nd options on winning teams.

Ben man, you can't get your way out of this one...

BTW most people regard those guys as 3rd-4th options which is dependent on how strong offensively your first two options are... Rudy Gay got a lot of flack because he was featured as a 1st or 2nd option in Memphis/Raptors and those teams didn't go anywhere (because he clearly wasn't either a 1st/2nd option). You put him on a team like the Spurs where they have Demar and LaMarcus and he's a nice 3rd/4th option depending on whose hot.

[Rainwater]

There is a lot of player bias going on lately from both sides, IMO.

I went and compared Aaron Gordon's most recent season (age 23) to Vuc's two seasons before this (age 26, 27) in basketball-reference. We obviously know what Vuc turned into this year on offense, but nobody expected the year he had. Hence why we drafted Bamba when we saw Vuc basically just turn into an average offensive option as he got older the last few years, exactly what Gordon is right now.

This wasn't that long ago. I remember getting in pages and pages and pages of debate with the very same posters who have issue with Gordon prospectively being the "first option" or a default first option (and putting my two cents out there, I don't he should be that either, that's not his role). But if we're going to debate the "merits" of first options, AG has much of an argument as Vuc did a few years ago.

This year's AG vs 2016-2017 Vuc:

AG had better ORTG, True Shooting, less usage, more offensive win shares, more defensive win shares, more total win shares, better VORP, basically any advanced metric had Gordon with a better year than Vuc's 2016-2017 year.

This year's AG vs 2017-2018 Vuc:

AG had better ORTG, True Shooting, less usage, more offensive win shares, more defensive win shares, more total win shares, the same VORP. Again, most advanced metrics have Gordon with a better year. Vuc took slightly more categories from him, so it's probably about a wash when it all comes down to it, but objectively, Gordon has a great argument for still having a better year.

I post this because on one side, the prospects of AG completely revamping his offensive game and becoming a player he never really was expected to be on offense is a long shot. If you're arguing for AG running the show, you're basically arguing for Vuc's offense the last few years with a higher tempo. So it's hypocritical in a sense if you were against Vuc. I won't doubt that just like Vuc, he can add pieces to his game, become more efficient and eventually one year be as offensively great as Vuc was this singular year, but if I didn't expect that out of Vuc, it's hard for me to think Gordon can just replicate that as well. It's hard to do. Not impossible, but you need to be in the right environment and have the faith of the team behind you.

On the other side, some posters who are arguing until they're blue in the face about how AG will never be first option material, can't lead a team, can't do this, can't do that, when he literally had similar if not better stats than Vuc the past few years. Similar offeseason arguments I was having with people in this thread about how Vuc NEEDED to add a better three point shot and get to the FT line for us to excuse the usage that we're giving him, and there was massive pushback on that by posters here about how he "doesn't need to do that" and his offense is "fine". The same posters in this thread against AG. That to me, shows either people need to eat crow and admit that Vuc before this year was extremely replaceable and average, or that there is an innate bias against Gordon (or for Vuc) because you need to take a logical leap to paint one guy's offense as "fine" and the other's as "needing a lot of work".

And again, I didn't want Vuc to be first option 2 years ago and don't want Gordon to be now either. I'll bite the bullet in a "down" year like I did for Vuc with Gordon, but realistically, no way.

So yeah, it's just weird seeing opinions flipping depending on who the player is. Are any sides willing to eat crow?

To be completely honest Vuc is a role player too, he just plays for Magic, lol.

[fendilim]

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.

Have to agree with this, if I'm not mistaken we have retained Jay Hernandez, the development guys from the Vaughn era until the Vogel regime.

[pepe1991]

When was Leonard 3rd option on great team?
While he was playing his 3rd year he won : championship, was finals MVP and was named on all nba defensive team.

Averaged 17,8 ppg in nba finlals ( behind only Parker, who averaged 0,2 points per game more). So is that your 3rd option?
Or you refering to his SECOND year, where he was same age as Isaac ( 21) and averaged 13,5 ppg in playoffs on 61% TS .

For comparison, Gordon at 21 averaged 12,7 points on 10,8 FGA, vs Leonard's 11,9 ppg on 9,1 FGA). That's 0,8 points less on 1,7
FGA less.
Gordon's BPM was negative (-0,7), with 53% TS. Leonard BPM was +3,9 with 61% TS.

Did i mention that through this all comparisons, Gordon always had 1 year in nba more than Leonard , so we compare their age because it fits Gordon's defenders narrative?
How about 5th vs 5th nba season
21 ppg, 6,8 rpg, 2,8 apg , DPOY, all nba first team, 61% TS, 8,3 BPM vs
16 ppg , 7,4 rpg, 3,7 apg, never won anything, never selected anywhere , 53,8% TS, 1,0 BPM

This one of most bull*** comparisons ever.

[Bensational]

When was Leonard 3rd option on great team?
While he was playing his 3rd year he won : championship, was finals MVP and was named on all nba defensive team.

Averaged 17,8 ppg in nba finlals ( behind only Parker, who averaged 0,2 points per game more). So is that your 3rd option?
Or you refering to his SECOND year, where he was same age as Isaac ( 21) and averaged 13,5 ppg in playoffs on 61% TS .

In Kawhi's 3rd year, when the Spurs won the championship, he averaged 9fgas a game behind Parker (13) and Duncan (12), with Manu also averaging 9. In the playoffs, he averaged 10fgas, Parker averaged 15, Duncan 12, and again Many 10.

That seems like a 3rd option on a great team to me.

Why did you have to pick his finals numbers, out of an entire season's worth of data? That would be like me pointing to Gordon being our team's top scorer in the playoffs and claiming him as our #1 option.

Not sure why you say you believe Gordon is a 3rd option on a great team, then when a 12.8ppg 3rd option of Kawhi is referenced you suddenly jump back off the comparison.

[zaymon]

We still compare Gordon to Kawhi ? Can we stop this madness... Maybe try to compare him to MJ... Just let him develop and cherish what we have in him

[BadMofoPimp]

AG has had a healthier career than Kawhi.

[tiderulz]

We still compare Gordon to Kawhi ? Can we stop this madness... Maybe try to compare him to MJ... Just let him develop and cherish what we have in him

how long does the development take? we are going into year 6

[Bensational]

We still compare Gordon to Kawhi ? Can we stop this madness... Maybe try to compare him to MJ... Just let him develop and cherish what we have in him

how long does the development take? we are going into year 6

I would say by age 25 Gordon will be what he will be. Over the next 2 seasons he will see if he can take his on-ball game to any further levels, whilst continuing to improve his shooting. Where he ends at that point will indicate what he will be bringing through his prime years.

[fendilim]

We still compare Gordon to Kawhi ? Can we stop this madness... Maybe try to compare him to MJ... Just let him develop and cherish what we have in him

how long does the development take? we are going into year 6

I would say by age 25 Gordon will be what he will be. Over the next 2 seasons he will see if he can take his on-ball game to any further levels, whilst continuing to improve his shooting. Where he ends at that point will indicate what he will be bringing through his prime years.

Just curious, why 25?

[MagicMatic]

We still compare Gordon to Kawhi ? Can we stop this madness... Maybe try to compare him to MJ... Just let him develop and cherish what we have in him

how long does the development take? we are going into year 6

People need to let it go.

AG is not Kawhi, PG13, Durant, Butler, etc. AG is AG. What that means to me is a 25 year old face up forward that relies on his athleticism first and foremost. He is a situational player depending on who he is surrounded by and the system in which he is taking part.

He has weaknesses to his game, more than a lot of those players I just listed. Is that the end of the world? No. However, the best thing we could hope for is putting him in the best situation to be the best possible version of himself.

AG could possibly become an allstar one day depending on his situation. Slim chance, but possible given his circumstances. This coming from the true and original AG doubter.

[pepe1991]

When was Leonard 3rd option on great team?
While he was playing his 3rd year he won : championship, was finals MVP and was named on all nba defensive team.

Averaged 17,8 ppg in nba finlals ( behind only Parker, who averaged 0,2 points per game more). So is that your 3rd option?
Or you refering to his SECOND year, where he was same age as Isaac ( 21) and averaged 13,5 ppg in playoffs on 61% TS .

In Kawhi's 3rd year, when the Spurs won the championship, he averaged 9fgas a game behind Parker (13) and Duncan (12), with Manu also averaging 9. In the playoffs, he averaged 10fgas, Parker averaged 15, Duncan 12, and again Many 10.

That seems like a 3rd option on a great team to me.

Why did you have to pick his finals numbers, out of an entire season's worth of data? That would be like me pointing to Gordon being our team's top scorer in the playoffs and claiming him as our #1 option.

Not sure why you say you believe Gordon is a 3rd option on a great team, then when a 12.8ppg 3rd option of Kawhi is referenced you suddenly jump back off the comparison.

Just a fact that you can't compare Gordon's 5th year to Leonard's 5th year makes a great argument-against your argument.
In same time you can't even compare Gordon's age, 23 to Leonard's production at same age, because again, it kills your argument.
So you have to reach out and make nonsene of comparison using 3rd season of Leonard to compare it to Gordon's 5th season . But even when you reach out, you still can't explain why Leonard was finals MVP and took his game to another level when it mattered the most, where Gordon kept being in playoffs his old 15- ppg self, despite being left wide open whole series.

4 different people called you out on this Leonard crap, just give. Nobody expects you to man up and admit it's wrong , just let it go.

[pepe1991]

how long does the development take? we are going into year 6

I would say by age 25 Gordon will be what he will be. Over the next 2 seasons he will see if he can take his on-ball game to any further levels, whilst continuing to improve his shooting. Where he ends at that point will indicate what he will be bringing through his prime years.

Just curious, why 25?

Because it gives him 2 more leaway years in hope people here will forget this ... just like it was with Payton arguments and is he better than Tony Parker or Lowry. I guess now we know answer , don't we?

[fendilim]

We still compare Gordon to Kawhi ? Can we stop this madness... Maybe try to compare him to MJ... Just let him develop and cherish what we have in him

how long does the development take? we are going into year 6

People need to let it go.

AG is not Kawhi, PG13, Durant, Butler, etc. AG is AG. What that means to me is a 25 year old face up forward that relies on his athleticism first and foremost. He is a situational player depending on who he is surrounded by and the system in which he is taking part.

He has weaknesses to his game, more than a lot of those players I just listed. Is that the end of the world? No. However, the best thing we could hope for is putting him in the best situation to be the best possible version of himself.

AG could possibly become an allstar one day depending on his situation. Slim chance, but possible given his circumstances. This coming from the true and original AG doubter.

Gordon can be an allstar in the right system.