CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Bankshot on October 08, 2012, 11:07:18 AM
-
I saw in the Boston Globe that Doc is worried about having a backup point that can handle the ball. My question is where is Dooling. I haven't paid much attention over the summer.
-
I saw in the Boston Globe that Doc is worried about having a backup point that can handle the ball. My question is where is Dooling. I haven't paid much attention over the summer.
He retired abruptly, the same day we signed Darko.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/keyon-dooling-retires-leaving-players-union-big-decision-230745889--nba.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/keyon-dooling-retires-leaving-players-union-big-decision-230745889--nba.html)
-
I still really wish we had dooling. Jamar smith or Christmas might but up a good few minutes here and there but their inexperience will hurt us if we need to count on them. They are lesser versions of etwaun Moore. Dooling veteran presence and ability to handle pressure situations would have helped greatly for when we need to spare rondo a few minutes here and their. I still think its strange he retired. He would have been perfect for us for 10 minutes of veteran presence a game while being a huge addition to the locker room.
For me personally. I'm comfortable with terry bringing the ball up the floor and I also like how green is playing the role of an Antoine walker type player and doing it well thus far.
-
I saw in the Boston Globe that Doc is worried about having a backup point that can handle the ball. My question is where is Dooling. I haven't paid much attention over the summer.
He retired abruptly, the same day we signed Darko.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/keyon-dooling-retires-leaving-players-union-big-decision-230745889--nba.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/keyon-dooling-retires-leaving-players-union-big-decision-230745889--nba.html)
I thought at first he was cut by Danny but turns out it was his decision could have used him for sure man
-
Having Rondo spoils us, he makes everybody else look really bad. His job is mainly POINT , not a combo . Guys with this mindset at few and far between.
ROndo at his level of skill is difficult to replace . Anyone Danny hires is gonna fall short of filling ROndos shoes. So I've lessoned my expectations for a fill in.
That said, I have a bottom of expectations, I'm not seeing SMith or XMAS as NBA point guards. I'm not having much faith in these guys at directing an offense. I mean :o SMITH said he FELT "LUCKY" to get the ball over half court and NOT SCREW UP ??? That type of talk doesn't give me much confidence as a fan , much less what does that inspire the TEAM to think? .
Honestly JET looked the most at home out there, his IQ and experience JUST PLAYING all these years makes him a decent choice to fill in. Lee can handle the ball pretty good too. Avery might not be a pure point guard either but he is brave, smart and quick and can make good things happen on offense. He won't get back soon enough to suit me.
XMAS and Smith frankly looked lost to me, over whelmed , they were out classed by the Euro guys even. That won't cut it in the NBA talent pool.
I think Doc & Danny needs to keep an eye open for a REAL POINT guard .
-
Dooling sucked as a back-up PG with PG responsibilities.
I personally like what Christmas brings to the table. Jet should be seeing quite a bit of PG duties too.
I don't want to waste another roster spot on a one dimensional player who's only duty will be to bring the ball up the court.
The value of Christmas is that he can handle the ball, can shoot, can penetrate, and is big enough to play 3 positions, so he's a very good safety net to have.
We have a logjam of guards as it is already.
-
I dont think we need one honestly, it looks like in the pre-season games that when rondo goes to the bench you let Terry/Green handle the ball..
which makes sense since those are going to be your go-to-guys off the bench
-
It would be great to have another Veteran back up point guard behind Rondo.
But if not, I think we also have a very easy solution:
1. Bradley can easily play back up point for 10-12 minutes a night. He filled in pretty nicely for Rondo last year over an 8 game stretch.
2. That still leaves you with Courtney Lee and Jet at the two spot - as well as Bradley - when he's not at the point.
3. Pierce can also always slide over to the two spot, for 10 - minutes a game if needed, and we can put Green at the SF, so we have ways to manage the point position should we be unable to pick up another decent vet point.
That being said, I am sure Doc and Danny will be watching closely for some vet min Keyon Dooling / Anthony Carter level player to become available off some roster before the season starts, just as insurance.
I woudln't mind them sending Joseph, Christmas and Smith back to the D-league this year and then filling out the roster with Pietrus and vet min point.
KG / Darko / Collins / Melo
Bass / Wilcox / Sully
Pierce / Green / Pietrus
Bradley / Lee / Jet
Rondo / Jet / Vet min Dooling type
"Locked" and "loaded" - that is a championship roster.
-
...
I think Doc & Danny needs to keep an eye open for a REAL POINT guard .
I've been thinking all along that I'd like a legit reserve PG on the squad. I don't know why people speak of Christmas as a PG. He's never been one. He's a 2 with a decent handle. He does have potential as a 2, and I do like him. We're fine with Terry as backup PG, but as Doc says, he'd rather have him being a scorer and not a distributor, but he can handle backup PG responsibilities. Smith is not NBA caliber. Bradley is not a PG either. Doc finally realized that last year about Avery:
“It just takes time for guys to figure out who they are, and it takes us time as a staff to figure out who he is,” said Rivers… “It does go both ways. The one thing, if we did make one mistake, it was forcing him at the point guard. That just robbed him of his confidence.”
In my mind, we're talking about PG depth should either Rondo or Terry be out for any period with injury. We'd not then have any backup PG. Granted, we can use Pierce in a pinch as a facilitator, but I don't think Doc regards that as ideal. It's the one position on the whole squad that I don't feel entirely confident in. I hope we do get a legit reserve PG in.
-
Keyon was trash last year lol iont get da love fest for dude. I like wat Dionte has done in short minutes (dont kno wat dat poster who said he was overwelmed was talmbout) not impressed wit Jamar Smith i wanna see wat Xmas will do at da 1
-
Jamar Smith sucks, i don't want him out there ever. He's a nice D-League PG who can score... doesn't belong in the NBA.
-
Keyon was trash last year lol iont get da love fest for dude. I like wat Dionte has done in short minutes (dont kno wat dat poster who said he was overwelmed was talmbout) not impressed wit Jamar Smith i wanna see wat Xmas will do at da 1
I didn't think he was trash. He started out slow (maybe getting used to the system?), but I thought he did well later in the season. I miss him.
-
We will not miss the regular season Dooling.
Playoff Dooling will be missed. That needs to be replaced by the time the playoffs roll around.
-
Does anyone have a link to the article where Doc says this? On a quick search I couldn't find it.
As for the need for a PG, I am perfectly happy with the rotation as it is. But I am now convinced that the guys at the end of the roster are not going to do the job. Smith reminds me of Smiling Gabe Pruitt (in a bad way), and I think Scal nailed it when he described Christmas as Tony Allen...without the defense.
Its a small sample size, but it is pretty clear to me why those guys were not drafted.
So, with Bradley out for a while, I do think they need to bring in one more guy who can handle the ball, in case of injuries.
-
Does anyone have a link to the article where Doc says this? On a quick search I couldn't find it.
As for the need for a PG, I am perfectly happy with the rotation as it is. But I am now convinced that the guys at the end of the roster are not going to do the job. Smith reminds me of Smiling Gabe Pruitt (in a bad way), and I think Scal nailed it when he described Christmas as Tony Allen...without the defense.
Its a small sample size, but it is pretty clear to me why those guys were not drafted.
So, with Bradley out for a while, I do think they need to bring in one more guy who can handle the ball, in case of injuries.
Here's the linnk: http://www.boston.com/sports/2012/10/07/lack-backup-point-guard-concerns-doc-rivers-celtics-finish-european-tour/TrCmdQT44PNykluargd7rM/story.html
Pruitt is exactly who Smith reminds me of, too. I can see the TA w/o the defense comparison a little on Christmas, but I do think Christmas' offense is different than TA's, TA a better slasher, but Christmas has a better shot. Overall, I think Christmas offense is probably better (but as you said, small sample size).
-
But who's available? The names I could find are:
Derek Fisher
Gilbert Arenas
Carlos Arroyo
Earl Boykins
Mike Bibby
Would any of those guys make a difference at all? I get that depth is a concern, and I wanted DA to draft a PG for that reason, but Derek Fisher is the best of that bunch, and he was terrible last year.
If Rondo goes down for an extended period of time, it doesn't matter who the backup point is, since the team's success is so dependent on Rondo. So you're looking for a contingency plan for Terry going down while AB is still out, or to just play point and forget about Terry. The latter option makes no sense, because that would mean that Terry, Lee, and AB are all fighting for minutes at only a single position. So we're worried about the first 2-3 months of the season, or about two injuries to the same position later in the season.
Accordingly, I think that the Celtics just need to sit tight, and find a PG if the need arises. There's no one out there worth getting today that will offer any improvement to the situation. Hopefully we can get through the season without a major Rondo injury (regardless of who the backup is) or without multiple injuries to JET and AB at the same time. For short stretches, the team has enough versatility to make things work as needed. A long-term solution can only be found via trade, and they should hold off on that trade until it's truly necessary.
-
I think Arroyo would be our best option. He's played with the team and he dominated the Turkish league last year. There is really nothing out there and this would strictly be for depth. The guy won't get time when we're fully healthy and didn't play that badly when he got time here in 2011.
Fisher is the best one of them all but I don't really want a long-time Laker on the team that I love.
Bibby is beyond awful on defense at this point. He brings three point shooting and nothing.
Boykins is also a defensive liability and what he brought to the table in his prime he can't do anymore.
(By the way, the three of those guys are old as frick.)
Arenas is done even if he is 30. Plain and simple.
Ditto for Allen Iverson, and people, he's 37, hasn't played NBA basketball since 2010, wouldn't like playing only spot minutes, and is not attracting anyone, not even outside the league. So please, STOP. MENTIONING. HIM.
Now Arroyo's not ideal, but he's 33, which isn't terribly old, and he has always been a back-up point guard. I'd take a flier on him again.
-
Pretty obvious. So much for Doc's foresight. You loose Moore and Dooling for Christmas and Smith. Not even close. Yes Christmas is a nice versatile player, but what they continue to see in Smith is beyond me.
-
The other thing I'd point out is that Doc may be using the media for motivational tools. I know JET is a veteran and all, but it could be as simple as a subtle request for Terry to focus a little more on running the offense when he's out there.
If Doc really wanted a PG replacement after Dooling retired, they'd have signed one instead of Milicic, or brought one into camp. They didn't, so I think they're either content enough with the situation, or calling up Orlando to try to get E'Twaun back. There hasn't been that much to choose from all offseason.
-
Pretty obvious. So much for Doc's foresight. You loose Moore and Dooling for Christmas and Smith. Not even close. Yes Christmas is a nice versatile player, but what they continue to see in Smith is beyond me.
You mean he should have planned for one of his players abruptly and randomly retiring?
-
Dooling would have been excellent insurance capable of stepping in when someone was in foul trouble or if someone got hurt. But let's not pretend for a second like he was ever going to be the backup PG here.
We already don't have enough minutes to give Terry, Bradley, and Lee even with Terry and/or Bradley getting minutes at the PG spot. Letting Dooling or anyone backup Rondo would mean that Terry, Bradley, and Lee would be stuck splitting the 48 mpg available at the 2 spot, and that's simply not going to happen.
-
Are we so certain that Dooling won't return? I know he said things to the contrary, but so did Sheed. However, if he does stay true to his word Barbosa is a name that hasn't been mentioned. I realize he isn't a true 1, but he and Terry could share ball handling duties on the second unit. Plus, his uptempo fastbreak style seems like a perfect fit to how Doc wants to play. And instead of adding one player (Terry) that can breakdown the D and create his own shot, we add two. I say give him the remaining exception and call it a day.
-
XMAS and Smith frankly looked lost to me, over whelmed , they were out classed by the Euro guys even. That won't cut it in the NBA talent pool.
I think Doc & Danny needs to keep an eye open for a REAL POINT guard .
I agree absolutely. From what I've seen XMAS is an absolute non-option at the PG spot.
Jamar Smith looks TERRIBLE out there. Not only does he look uncomfortalbe handling the ball and running the offense, but he never seems to want to do anything but jack up bad shots early in the shot clock.
To be honest I wasn't too impressed by any of the young guys outside of Melo and Sullinger.
Ironically Joseph was probably the one I liked best simply because he didn't do anything, and not doing anything is better than doing terrible things.
In short I think we have more than enough youth on our roster right now. I'd I would much rather ditch all of those unproven young guys, pick up one proven veteran PG with solid IQ, and leave any other roster spots free for later.
People are giving Dooling a hard time about how he played the point. He's not a pure point guard, but he did a pretty reasonable job considering he's a combo-guard and was injured a couple of times throughout the season.
He was reasonably quick, handled the ball well enough, was a bearable passer and played solid defense. He was never a fantastic playmaker, but combo-guards rarely are.
He was about 10,000x better at the role than any rookie currently on our roster, and even if he was average as a PG at least he was proven and consistent...you knew what you were going to get.
Lee and Bradley are no better at PG than Dooling was and I don't know if Terry is really much better either - all are predominantly SG's who can bring the ball up.
Carlos Arroyo is a HELL NO. We had him for a little while if you guys remember, and he was utterly useless. He might be a superstar in international leagues, but his game doesn't seem to translate at all to the NBA because he was garbage when he came here.
Out of the guys in that list I'd definately take Derek Fisher. He may not be ideal but he's experienced and he spent years playing as the starting PG on playoff teams - yes I know this was in the Triangle offense (where the PG handles the ball less) but fact remains he held down the position, he's tough mentally, he plays hard, and come playoff time he's one of the most clutch shooters of the last two decades. For a 1 year vet min contract we could do a LOT worse.
For example we could sign any of the young guys we're working out right now...that would be worse.
If (by mid season) a better PG becomes available, let him go...or sign someone to the spare roster spot, and let Fisher ride the bench until his contract expires at the end of the season.
As I said it sure as hell isn't ideal, but it will do the job and has practically zero risk. The 'ideal' option right now does not exist.
Also Barbosa is not an option because:
1. He probably wouldn't sign for vet min
2. He's a shot jacker
3. As a playmaker he'd make Dooling look like John Stockton
-
Are we so certain that Dooling won't return? I know he said things to the contrary, but so did Sheed. However, if he does stay true to his word Barbosa is a name that hasn't been mentioned. I realize he isn't a true 1, but he and Terry could share ball handling duties on the second unit. Plus, his uptempo fastbreak style seems like a perfect fit to how Doc wants to play. And instead of adding one player (Terry) that can breakdown the D and create his own shot, we add two. I say give him the remaining exception and call it a day.
Respectfully, I don't think Barbosa makes much sense. We have more than enough combo options (JET/Lee/Bradley), as well as Pierce. Barbosa is just a lesser option of what we already have.
-
Dooling was horrible for most of the regular season then turned into a key contributor in the playoffs with his defense and shooting. He was never a passing point guard however. The Celtics have enough guys who can run a team after Rondo. Pierce didn't just do it for the first time in Rondo's absence last year. He controlled more of the offense than Rondo did in the championship season. He's more than capable. Terry is very offensively aggressive but he has extensive experience playing point guard. Garnett is one of the best passing big men of all-time. I don't get this need for a backup point need.
-
Dooling was horrible for most of the regular season then turned into a key contributor in the playoffs with his defense and shooting. He was never a passing point guard however. The Celtics have enough guys who can run a team after Rondo. Pierce didn't just do it for the first time in Rondo's absence last year. He controlled more of the offense than Rondo did in the championship season. He's more than capable. Terry is very offensively aggressive but he has extensive experience playing point guard. Garnett is one of the best passing big men of all-time. I don't get this need for a backup point need.
I am not that concerned with who "runs the point". This team has enough quality passers and guys who can create shots, that they could get by (as well as any team could without their best player) for short stretches. \
My problem is that they currently have only 2 guys who can defend the PG spot until Bradley returns...at least anyone who I believe they will trust enough to put on the floor. So, that puts them in a bit of a delicate position if Rondo or Terry get hurt in the first couple months.
In the grand scheme of things, it is a very minor issue. But the beauty of the team this year, is that is the kind of issue we get to worry about (at least at this point).
-
Dooling was horrible for most of the regular season then turned into a key contributor in the playoffs with his defense and shooting. He was never a passing point guard however. The Celtics have enough guys who can run a team after Rondo. Pierce didn't just do it for the first time in Rondo's absence last year. He controlled more of the offense than Rondo did in the championship season. He's more than capable. Terry is very offensively aggressive but he has extensive experience playing point guard. Garnett is one of the best passing big men of all-time. I don't get this need for a backup point need.
I am not that concerned with who "runs the point". This team has enough quality passers and guys who can create shots, that they could get by (as well as any team could without their best player) for short stretches. \
My problem is that they currently have only 2 guys who can defend the PG spot until Bradley returns...at least anyone who I believe they will trust enough to put on the floor. So, that puts them in a bit of a delicate position if Rondo or Terry get hurt in the first couple months.
In the grand scheme of things, it is a very minor issue. But the beauty of the team this year, is that is the kind of issue we get to worry about (at least at this point).
This may be a reason why they're giving Smith a nice, long look hoping that he may be better suited to defending PGs than Christmas.
-
Dooling was horrible for most of the regular season then turned into a key contributor in the playoffs with his defense and shooting. He was never a passing point guard however. The Celtics have enough guys who can run a team after Rondo. Pierce didn't just do it for the first time in Rondo's absence last year. He controlled more of the offense than Rondo did in the championship season. He's more than capable. Terry is very offensively aggressive but he has extensive experience playing point guard. Garnett is one of the best passing big men of all-time. I don't get this need for a backup point need.
I am not that concerned with who "runs the point". This team has enough quality passers and guys who can create shots, that they could get by (as well as any team could without their best player) for short stretches. \
My problem is that they currently have only 2 guys who can defend the PG spot until Bradley returns...at least anyone who I believe they will trust enough to put on the floor. So, that puts them in a bit of a delicate position if Rondo or Terry get hurt in the first couple months.
In the grand scheme of things, it is a very minor issue. But the beauty of the team this year, is that is the kind of issue we get to worry about (at least at this point).
This may be a reason why they're giving Smith a nice, long look hoping that he may be better suited to defending PGs than Christmas.
I think you are exactly right. I think they see him as a guy who can be a quality defender and spot shooter. And I wouldn't be surprised if he does it in practice. The problem is, he looks like a deer in headlights when he steps on the court, and rushes everything.
In a lot of ways, he reminds me of Bradley his first season offensively (but he is nowhere near the defender). It took Bradley a season and a half to calm down. I am not sure they are going to wait that long for Smith.
-
I think it'd be a mistake to evaluate Christmas on how he guards the PG position. The value I see in Christmas over other PG candidates is his size, a size that would allow him to guard the bigger guards, while our undersized PG's like Terry, Bradley, and Rondo can focus on the smaller ones (though Bradley can sure cover bigger guys than him).
So for Christmas' sake, I hope Doc isn't making the mistake on solely evaluating Christmas for his defensive capabilities at the PG position. I don't envision him in that role in the first place.
-
This is something new - the Cs looking for a backup PG.
-
Again, insurance would be nice with another vet. But no one the C's have a shot at landing actually will be the primary backup PG when the C's are healthy.
There aren't enough minutes for the guards we have WITH Terry getting backup PG minutes. Take that away from him and we have an even bigger crunch. And there's no way they are going to give Terry, Bradley, and/or Lee and everything they bring to the floor a combined 10-15 minutes fewer per game in the interest of slightly upgrading the ball handling and playmaking in the backcourt.
-
We will not miss the regular season Dooling.
Playoff Dooling will be missed. That needs to be replaced by the time the playoffs roll around.
Jason Terry can't do it??? I suppose there will be a reliable journey man available around the trading deadline / playoff roster deadline. When is Avery Bradley (the DJ type point guard) coming back.
-
We will not miss the regular season Dooling.
Playoff Dooling will be missed. That needs to be replaced by the time the playoffs roll around.
Jason Terry can't do it??? I suppose there will be a reliable journey man available around the trading deadline / playoff roster deadline. When is Avery Bradley (the DJ type point guard) coming back.
I think he means they need to replace the savvy veteran who can sit at the end of the bench, but when needed, play quality defense at the 1 and 2, and make a couple big plays, if there are any injuries or foul trouble.
That is what they need to replace before the playoffs. Maybe one of the young guys will prove to be able to play that role...but more likely, they will have to watch the waiver wire for an opportunity.
-
We will not miss the regular season Dooling.
Playoff Dooling will be missed. That needs to be replaced by the time the playoffs roll around.
Jason Terry can't do it??? I suppose there will be a reliable journey man available around the trading deadline / playoff roster deadline. When is Avery Bradley (the DJ type point guard) coming back.
I'm not looking for AB in an actual game till Xmas or Jan , unless there is a disaster of health issues.
I suspect a guard added or subtracted before the seasons out.
Mostly likey DA is in a wait and see how this new Celtics look is working out , give em a chance to figure it out as team and all.
-
We will not miss the regular season Dooling.
Playoff Dooling will be missed. That needs to be replaced by the time the playoffs roll around.
Jason Terry can't do it??? I suppose there will be a reliable journey man available around the trading deadline / playoff roster deadline. When is Avery Bradley (the DJ type point guard) coming back.
I think he means they need to replace the savvy veteran who can sit at the end of the bench, but when needed, play quality defense at the 1 and 2, and make a couple big plays, if there are any injuries or foul trouble.
That is what they need to replace before the playoffs. Maybe one of the young guys will prove to be able to play that role...but more likely, they will have to watch the waiver wire for an opportunity.
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
If we're thin anywhere is at the SF spot, which essentially be the Pietrus/Pavlovic/Daniels replacements. One of those gets replaced with Green, the other gets replaced because we're carrying additional bigs (a trade off I'm comfortable with) and the other remains to be see... not sure if Joseph is up to the task, but it would be essentially be the Pavlovic/Daniels spot, and forgive me if I don't lose too much sleep over it.
Anyways, I'm not much to in favor of arguments that centered around "we had X player last year, we MUST replace him to succeed" particularly from an ineffective bench player who managed to hold is own when playoffs came around after Avery Bradley got injured. And with our current make-up, Dooling wouldn't be getting on the floor even with Bradley being injured...as mentioned, we've upgraded with the Terry/Lee combo, it's the SF spot we need to figure out more than anything. We have Lee who can slide over, and that's about it. It's one of the reasons I like the versatility Christmas brings regardless of doubts towards his competence for the NBA, particularly on the PG spot.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
I disagree, I think it's the opposite actually ... that Courtney Lee is a much better PG than SF.
I am comfortable with Courtney Lee playing PG minutes if required.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
I disagree, I think it's the opposite actually ... that Courtney Lee is a much better PG than SF.
I am comfortable with Courtney Lee playing PG minutes if required.
Well, I define these positions by who they defend (because you can always shift around who handles the ball, etc.), and I think Lee is more capable of defending most SFs than he is most PGs.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
I am not comparing to last year, I am comparing to this year, before Dooling retired.
Comparing to last year is too complicated, because of all the injuries messing everything up.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
I am not comparing to last year, I am comparing to this year, before Dooling retired.
Comparing to last year is too complicated, because of all the injuries messing everything up.
That's cool then, I was actually directing my response more to the initial worry from wdleehi, who was referring to Dooling's role during the playoffs. Which I think we've upgraded upon with someone higher in the depth charts.
I actually didn't like Dooling's supposed role for this year, am actually glad he retired. And that indeed needs to be replaced. I'm more comfortable with Christmas in that role than that of Dooling, we can disagree on that. I'm more curious what we'll do with Joseph though.
He doesn't strike me like he'll have any impact for us, and I'd be willing to find another ball handler (not a small PG mind you) in favor of cutting him. We can talk all about youth and all that, but as it is, we've got quite a young team at the moment.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
I am not comparing to last year, I am comparing to this year, before Dooling retired.
Comparing to last year is too complicated, because of all the injuries messing everything up.
That's cool then, I was actually directing my response more to the initial worry from wdleehi, who was referring to Dooling's role during the playoffs. Which I think we've upgraded upon with someone higher in the depth charts.
I actually didn't like Dooling's supposed role for this year, am actually glad he retired. And that indeed needs to be replaced. I'm more comfortable with Christmas in that role than that of Dooling, we can disagree on that. I'm more curious what we'll do with Joseph though.
He doesn't strike me like he'll have any impact for us, and I'd be willing to find another ball handler (not a small PG mind you) in favor of cutting him. We can talk all about youth and all that, but as it is, we've got quite a young team at the moment.
I think the idea though, is that Dooling during the playoffs was a very valuable player. And to have that kind of guy deep on your bench is immensely valuable.
It is a security blanket, and a luxury. But as soon as you have a couple injuries, and have to throw out undrafted rookies, rather than game tested veterans, it is missed.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
I am not comparing to last year, I am comparing to this year, before Dooling retired.
Comparing to last year is too complicated, because of all the injuries messing everything up.
That's cool then, I was actually directing my response more to the initial worry from wdleehi, who was referring to Dooling's role during the playoffs. Which I think we've upgraded upon with someone higher in the depth charts.
I actually didn't like Dooling's supposed role for this year, am actually glad he retired. And that indeed needs to be replaced. I'm more comfortable with Christmas in that role than that of Dooling, we can disagree on that. I'm more curious what we'll do with Joseph though.
He doesn't strike me like he'll have any impact for us, and I'd be willing to find another ball handler (not a small PG mind you) in favor of cutting him. We can talk all about youth and all that, but as it is, we've got quite a young team at the moment.
I think the idea though, is that Dooling during the playoffs was a very valuable player. And to have that kind of guy deep on your bench is immensely valuable.
It is a security blanket, and a luxury. But as soon as you have a couple injuries, and have to throw out undrafted rookies, rather than game tested veterans, it is missed.
We can worry about just having vet presence though, and I'm fine with that. I just dislike the notion that we're missing Dooling in the depth charts as a PG because we really don't. He sucked in that role. With him we couldn't take Rondo off the floor because he couldn't manage those responsibilities, and the few breathing minutes we gave Rondo, it wasn't Dooling doing the ball handling. He was great for us off the ball, and showed good energy defensively... that was his contribution. And when Dooling did any ball handling, our offense suffered.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
I am not comparing to last year, I am comparing to this year, before Dooling retired.
Comparing to last year is too complicated, because of all the injuries messing everything up.
That's cool then, I was actually directing my response more to the initial worry from wdleehi, who was referring to Dooling's role during the playoffs. Which I think we've upgraded upon with someone higher in the depth charts.
I actually didn't like Dooling's supposed role for this year, am actually glad he retired. And that indeed needs to be replaced. I'm more comfortable with Christmas in that role than that of Dooling, we can disagree on that. I'm more curious what we'll do with Joseph though.
He doesn't strike me like he'll have any impact for us, and I'd be willing to find another ball handler (not a small PG mind you) in favor of cutting him. We can talk all about youth and all that, but as it is, we've got quite a young team at the moment.
I think the idea though, is that Dooling during the playoffs was a very valuable player. And to have that kind of guy deep on your bench is immensely valuable.
It is a security blanket, and a luxury. But as soon as you have a couple injuries, and have to throw out undrafted rookies, rather than game tested veterans, it is missed.
We can worry about just having vet presence though, and I'm fine with that. I just dislike the notion that we're missing Dooling in the depth charts as a PG because we really don't. He sucked in that role. With him we couldn't take Rondo off the floor because he couldn't manage those responsibilities, and the few breathing minutes we gave Rondo, it wasn't Dooling doing the ball handling. He was great for us off the ball, and showed good energy defensively... that was his contribution. And when Dooling did any ball handling, our offense suffered.
Well, I should also be clear that I think Dooling got a bum wrap for his play. I think he played solid defense, and while his shooting was not what it has been in the past, he still provided a valuable asset, as a guy who Doc could count on when called upon. The problem was that they were asking him to be part of the rotation for much of the season, which was beyond what he was capable at that point in his career.
I felt the same thing about Scal, who could go from 14th man, to starting when KG was down with an injury, and basically shutting Dirk down for stretches.
Those types of guys are very valuable at the end of your bench. They are not guys you ever want playing on a regular basis, but they are immensely valuable at the end of the bench, so you are not forced to play guys who don't know the system, or just aren't NBA players, when there are short term injuries.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
Again, if we're talking in comparison to depth chart, Dooling's role from last year has been replaced by that of Jason Terry. The only thing is that Terry is higher on the depth chart than Dooling. But as far as being covered by potential injuries, we're in a better place this year than we were last year in the 1/2 spots, unless you want to give Moore more importance than deserved.
With Bradley currently injured, we're pretty much in the same situation we were during the playoffs, and Dooling as it is would find it difficult to get on the floor this year under this circumstances, and that should tell you something. And if he would get playing time, it would be at the expense of Terry, Lee, or Rondo, and I don't like that trade-off. During the playoffs we needed Dooling, so that should tell you how our make-up differs to that of last year.
That said, Dooling was horrible as a PG. He was good for us off the ball, and I think that's more easy to replace than the concerns towards PG play everyone is fussing about.
So towards the argument, Dooling has been replaced and improved upon. The hypothetical role Dooling was going to fill for this season yet remains to be seen. Terry already has the preaching covered, and I'm actually more comfortable with Christmas with PG duties, limited as they are, than that of Dooling. So I'm not concerned about not having Dooling, we can do better for cheap.
I am not comparing to last year, I am comparing to this year, before Dooling retired.
Comparing to last year is too complicated, because of all the injuries messing everything up.
That's cool then, I was actually directing my response more to the initial worry from wdleehi, who was referring to Dooling's role during the playoffs. Which I think we've upgraded upon with someone higher in the depth charts.
I actually didn't like Dooling's supposed role for this year, am actually glad he retired. And that indeed needs to be replaced. I'm more comfortable with Christmas in that role than that of Dooling, we can disagree on that. I'm more curious what we'll do with Joseph though.
He doesn't strike me like he'll have any impact for us, and I'd be willing to find another ball handler (not a small PG mind you) in favor of cutting him. We can talk all about youth and all that, but as it is, we've got quite a young team at the moment.
I think the idea though, is that Dooling during the playoffs was a very valuable player. And to have that kind of guy deep on your bench is immensely valuable.
It is a security blanket, and a luxury. But as soon as you have a couple injuries, and have to throw out undrafted rookies, rather than game tested veterans, it is missed.
We can worry about just having vet presence though, and I'm fine with that. I just dislike the notion that we're missing Dooling in the depth charts as a PG because we really don't. He sucked in that role. With him we couldn't take Rondo off the floor because he couldn't manage those responsibilities, and the few breathing minutes we gave Rondo, it wasn't Dooling doing the ball handling. He was great for us off the ball, and showed good energy defensively... that was his contribution. And when Dooling did any ball handling, our offense suffered.
Well, I should also be clear that I think Dooling got a bum wrap for his play. I think he played solid defense, and while his shooting was not what it has been in the past, he still provided a valuable asset, as a guy who Doc could count on when called upon. The problem was that they were asking him to be part of the rotation for much of the season, which was beyond what he was capable at that point in his career.
I felt the same thing about Scal, who could go from 14th man, to starting when KG was down with an injury, and basically shutting Dirk down for stretches.
Those types of guys are very valuable at the end of your bench. They are not guys you ever want playing on a regular basis, but they are immensely valuable at the end of the bench, so you are not forced to play guys who don't know the system, or just aren't NBA players, when there are short term injuries.
If our roster circumstances were different, say Avery Bradley was a more capable PG, I'd be more than happy with Dooling and the role he could play for us. I just think we need more ball handlers than what Dooling actually brings.
The only thing I'd be wary about is Doc putting Dooling on point, regardless of better options in that position. I don't trust Doc to make the correct call under those circumstances.
Assuming we have two open roster spots, our needs as I see them is adding a ball-handler who has some length (which is why I like the prospect of Christmas, who can play 3 positions) and adding another player who can fill in as a SF as needed (even better if he can slide to the 2 when needed too). I think looking for a PG for the sake of looking for a PG, or a veteran for the sake of getting a veteran it's a mistake if they don't fit those parameters I envision.
As for Scal, I think much the same as you. The only thing is that I loved Scal as a starter when he played alongside KG. When he started in favor of Perk, it's one of the few times I've really seen our offense clicking like it should. The defense intensity was kept, and the floor spacing was phenomenal.
That biggest problem with Scal, is that Doc insisted in giving him SF responsibilities. He was a good stretch four for us, I just don't believe Doc put him in situations to succeed often, particularly with the guys he put on the floor to surround him.
-
If our roster circumstances were different, say Avery Bradley was a more capable PG, I'd be more than happy with Dooling and the role he could play for us. I just think we need more ball handlers than what Dooling actually brings.
The only thing I'd be wary about is Doc putting Dooling on point, regardless of better options in that position. I don't trust Doc to make the correct call under those circumstances.
Assuming we have two open roster spots, our needs as I see them is adding a ball-handler who has some length (which is why I like the prospect of Christmas, who can play 3 positions) and adding another player who can fill in as a SF as needed (even better if he can slide to the 2 when needed too). I think looking for a PG for the sake of looking for a PG, or a veteran for the sake of getting a veteran it's a mistake if they don't fit those parameters I envision.
OK, we are not that far off here. I also would prefer a better ballhandler than Dooling. But, if it came down to a proven veteran, who can defend and knock down shots...and a completely unproven young player who may be a better ball handler...then I choose the Dooling clone. And right now, that might be the choice.
As for Christmas. I just have lost all faith in him already. It is a tiny sample size (although I am also biased by the fact that he hasn't caught on to the NBA thus far, which suggests to me, he probably isn't nearly as good as some suggest), but so far, he has just looked like a guy who is not an NBA talent. Especially if you are going to potentially ask him to have the ball in his hands.
I have much more confidence in a guy like Joseph being able to come in, and basically just be a defensive specialist SF, where they can hide him on offense if they need to. It is harder to do that, if you need to break the glass for a PG.
I like the idea of Christmas (long combo guard, who can handle the ball, and defend 3 positions), I just don't think he is actually that player at the NBA level. Which is why I have a problem.
-
If our roster circumstances were different, say Avery Bradley was a more capable PG, I'd be more than happy with Dooling and the role he could play for us. I just think we need more ball handlers than what Dooling actually brings.
The only thing I'd be wary about is Doc putting Dooling on point, regardless of better options in that position. I don't trust Doc to make the correct call under those circumstances.
Assuming we have two open roster spots, our needs as I see them is adding a ball-handler who has some length (which is why I like the prospect of Christmas, who can play 3 positions) and adding another player who can fill in as a SF as needed (even better if he can slide to the 2 when needed too). I think looking for a PG for the sake of looking for a PG, or a veteran for the sake of getting a veteran it's a mistake if they don't fit those parameters I envision.
OK, we are not that far off here. I also would prefer a better ballhandler than Dooling. But, if it came down to a proven veteran, who can defend and knock down shots...and a completely unproven young player who may be a better ball handler...then I choose the Dooling clone. And right now, that might be the choice.
As for Christmas. I just have lost all faith in him already. It is a tiny sample size (although I am also biased by the fact that he hasn't caught on to the NBA thus far, which suggests to me, he probably isn't nearly as good as some suggest), but so far, he has just looked like a guy who is not an NBA talent. Especially if you are going to potentially ask him to have the ball in his hands.
I have much more confidence in a guy like Joseph being able to come in, and basically just be a defensive specialist SF, where they can hide him on offense if they need to. It is harder to do that, if you need to break the glass for a PG.
I like the idea of Christmas (long combo guard, who can handle the ball, and defend 3 positions), I just don't think he is actually that player at the NBA level. Which is why I have a problem.
I'm cool with that assessment. In some manner I have more distrust in how Doc would use Dooling than anything against Dooling.
As for Christmas, I just wish there was a better candidate I could be confident about, but as I'm not seeing it yet, then I'm willing to roll the dice with him for the time being. As it is, I only want Doc to give him a good opportunity, in game, during these coming games to make a proper evaluation.
I really don't want to hear about how practices are going, his defensive problems in practices, etc., etc. I don't think that's a good enough manner to go about evaluating players. The first step is to remove Smith from the equation. And for that matter, stop playing him alongside the rejects, that's a poor way to evaluate worth/value too.
At the moment though, I don't know why you're so confident in Joseph over Christmas... he hasn't shown me anything yet, other than what he showed in Summer League, which I enjoyed watching. So curious over you confidence in him, and nothing to show for Christmas.
I have a theory that Scal's comment about TA contaminated your perception a bit :P
-
If our roster circumstances were different, say Avery Bradley was a more capable PG, I'd be more than happy with Dooling and the role he could play for us. I just think we need more ball handlers than what Dooling actually brings.
The only thing I'd be wary about is Doc putting Dooling on point, regardless of better options in that position. I don't trust Doc to make the correct call under those circumstances.
Assuming we have two open roster spots, our needs as I see them is adding a ball-handler who has some length (which is why I like the prospect of Christmas, who can play 3 positions) and adding another player who can fill in as a SF as needed (even better if he can slide to the 2 when needed too). I think looking for a PG for the sake of looking for a PG, or a veteran for the sake of getting a veteran it's a mistake if they don't fit those parameters I envision.
OK, we are not that far off here. I also would prefer a better ballhandler than Dooling. But, if it came down to a proven veteran, who can defend and knock down shots...and a completely unproven young player who may be a better ball handler...then I choose the Dooling clone. And right now, that might be the choice.
As for Christmas. I just have lost all faith in him already. It is a tiny sample size (although I am also biased by the fact that he hasn't caught on to the NBA thus far, which suggests to me, he probably isn't nearly as good as some suggest), but so far, he has just looked like a guy who is not an NBA talent. Especially if you are going to potentially ask him to have the ball in his hands.
I have much more confidence in a guy like Joseph being able to come in, and basically just be a defensive specialist SF, where they can hide him on offense if they need to. It is harder to do that, if you need to break the glass for a PG.
I like the idea of Christmas (long combo guard, who can handle the ball, and defend 3 positions), I just don't think he is actually that player at the NBA level. Which is why I have a problem.
I'm cool with that assessment. In some manner I have more distrust in how Doc would use Dooling than anything against Dooling.
As for Christmas, I just wish there was a better candidate I could be confident about, but as I'm not seeing it yet, then I'm willing to roll the dice with him for the time being. As it is, I only want Doc to give him a good opportunity, in game, during these coming games to make a proper evaluation.
I really don't want to hear about how practices are going, his defensive problems in practices, etc., etc. I don't think that's a good enough manner to go about evaluating players. The first step is to remove Smith from the equation. And for that matter, stop playing him alongside the rejects, that's a poor way to evaluate worth/value too.
At the moment though, I don't know why you're so confident in Joseph over Christmas... he hasn't shown me anything yet, other than what he showed in Summer League, which I enjoyed watching. So curious over you confidence in him, and nothing to show for Christmas.
I have a theory that Scal's comment about TA contaminated your perception a bit :P
Yeah, at this point, I think there is no choice but to let Christmas try his hand for a couple months. We have to pay him for half the season anyways.
But I think the chances of him remaining on the roster after January are very slim, because they will likely try to pick up a veteran for that position as insurance for the playoffs.
As for Joseph over Christmas. I just think Joseph has shown that he can be an above average defender. And I have yet to see any above average skills that Christmas offers.
-
I don't get the Christmas playing PG suggestion. He probably isn't good enough to play even his natrual position in the NBA (SG) much less learn and be productive in a new position.
In that it appears that the Cs are not going to pick up another PG, they must feel as though they can get by with who they got until Bradley comes back. When Bradley is back, they are fine. Bradley, Terry, and of course Rondo can all play PG plenty well enough.
Until Bradley gets back, we are thin with only Rondo and Terry as established PGs. Yeah sure, maybe Lee could in a pinch bring the ball up but if he played PG, he would be playing out of position.
We are also thin at SG when you figure that we only have Lee and Terry. I am less worried about that becasue I think Pierce can play SG as much as needed if someone gets hurt. If that happened, Green would just play more at SF to cover for Pierce.
The real exposure I feel is if Rondo or Terry get hurt, suspended, or are otherwise out before Bradley is ready. We would likely need to resort to a quick signing at that point.
We are vulnerable if Lee were to get hurt also but I think they would cover that with Pierce at SG.
It is definitely a risk to wait for Bradley it is only a problem if someone gets hurt
-
I don't get the Christmas playing PG suggestion. He probably isn't good enough to play even his natrual position in the NBA (SG) much less learn and be productive in a new position.
In that it appears that the Cs are not going to pick up another PG, they must feel as though they can get by with who they got until Bradley comes back. When Bradley is back, they are fine. Bradley, Terry, and of course Rondo can all play PG plenty well enough.
Until Bradley gets back, we are thin with only Rondo and Terry as established PGs. Yeah sure, maybe Lee could in a pinch bring the ball up but if he played PG, he would be playing out of position.
We are also thin at SG when you figure that we only have Lee and Terry. I am less worried about that becasue I think Pierce can play SG as much as needed if someone gets hurt. If that happened, Green would just play more at SF to cover for Pierce.
The real exposure I feel is if Rondo or Terry get hurt, suspended, or are otherwise out before Bradley is ready. We would likely need to resort to a quick signing at that point.
We are vulnerable if Lee were to get hurt also but I think they would cover that with Pierce at SG.
It is definitely a risk to wait for Bradley it is only a problem if someone gets hurt
I dont think (havent researched) that Terry, Lee or Rondo have much of a serious injury history. I am sure Rondo doesnt. Only Bradley falls in that category so hopefully we dont have to fight an injury situation.
Pretty sure everyone would love a young PG added to the roster for grooming by the big three. I know that if one becomes available, even a solid journeyman, then Danny will not hestitate to cut one of these to make room.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
I disagree, I think it's the opposite actually ... that Courtney Lee is a much better PG than SF.
I am comfortable with Courtney Lee playing PG minutes if required.
Well, I define these positions by who they defend (because you can always shift around who handles the ball, etc.), and I think Lee is more capable of defending most SFs than he is most PGs.
I still disagree. I think Courtney Lee is a very good defensive player against PGs but consider him below average against SFs.
I also consider him a good rebounder at PG but very weak against SFs.
-
Christmas reminds me of Tony Allen with a better shot and a little less athleticism. The fact that Doc actually considered using Toney Allen at PG suggests he is willing to try anything; but as we have seen in the past with very limited results.
Don't know where the idea of Lee at PG is coming from. Somebody please clue me in. This is new to me.
-
Don't know where the idea of Lee at PG is coming from. Somebody please clue me in. This is new to me.
Stan Van Gundy used him at both guard positions during training camp as a rookie and was complimentary about Lee's capacity to play there.
-------------------------------------------
Courtney Lee also has a very good history of defending smaller guards at a high level.
Courtney Lee is also a good ball-handler and solid passer (skill-level). He has good composure with the ball and decision making skills (right mental characteristics). He wouldn't be able to create for anyone else but he could initiate an offense. Similar to Avery Bradley's PG play for most of last year. Only with a better jump-shot.
Given all of that, I believe Courtney Lee has the right skill-set (as a natural two guard) to be used as a make-shift point guard if necessary.
-
Other than as far as depth charts go, the addition of Terry (with the assumption of Lee being a Ray Allen replacement) is actually the Dooling replacement. Just because Terry is not bad enough to be an end of bench player doesn't mean we should ignore the upgrade.
All I am talking about is depth chart. Dooling was valuable, because he gave us an extra body, who could play the 1 or 2 in case of injuries.
With Bradley out, we are now 2 deep with NBA players who can play PG (Rondo and Terry). It will be less of an issue when Bradley comes back, but even then, given that Bradley is also the backup SG, it isn't a ton of depth.
That is an issue. I think Lee is much more capable of playing SF, than he is of playing PG. So, we are 3 deep at SF (Pierce, Green, and Lee), which isn't bad.
I disagree, I think it's the opposite actually ... that Courtney Lee is a much better PG than SF.
I am comfortable with Courtney Lee playing PG minutes if required.
Well, I define these positions by who they defend (because you can always shift around who handles the ball, etc.), and I think Lee is more capable of defending most SFs than he is most PGs.
I still disagree. I think Courtney Lee is a very good defensive player against PGs but consider him below average against SFs.
I also consider him a good rebounder at PG but very weak against SFs.
Agree, he has the capability to defend PG's but not the size against SF.
Not sure he is a good enough ballhandler to bring the ball up as a PG though.