The myth that the Celtics need a backup to Rondo who is a "true PG"

[kozlodoev]

Eddie House was most effective when we pushed the ball upcourt and he got his shot early in the ball rotation. When we walked the ball up, he was not as effective. I most enjoyed that Eddie forced the oppposition to change their defensive set against him because he was a lights out 3pt shooter period.

Wrong. Everyone seems to look at House as a shooter, but he was actually very effective hitting open cutters and rollers in pick and roll situations. He did create numerous layups and dunks for our guys.

His main problem offensively is that he has no game within 15 feet of the basket. This means his footwork is bad when driving to the rim, and obviously when you're 6'1 you can't shoot pull-up jumpers off the dribble in the paint, since you'll get blocked every time.

[cmburrill]

 EVERY team needs a "true" back up PG. You will never find a team without one. There is no myth. The use is situational but still a need. If your PG is hurt. Your back up is not a point guard what happens say...he gets hurt,ejected or foul trouble. You need a a true back up with out a doubt. Im not too sure why someone would toss this question out there                     
 House is a one year contract man for life. Security for the C's last year. They grabbed him cheap and gave the Celts time to see if Pru would develop. If he does, you may not see another pg signed. If he doesn't...we will.
  Pruitt, by the way is a "true" point guard.I keep seeing people say he is a two, but I know he was recruited to play point at USC. His problem is learning how to run a team. I dont believe the Celtics need him to run the team, more then they need him to bring the ball up and play D on the bigger point guards.
    He has better ball handling skills then House. He can D better too. Don't believe me, ask Kevin Durant and Dj Augustine, he had to cover them both during the NCAA's a cpl years back.

[Jon]

They need a backup who can dribble the ball up against pressure. Do you think they signed Cassell for his good looks?

They signed Cassell because going into the postseason with 2 PGs is a risk. Rondo or House go down, you get to choose between Tony Allen at the point, or Ray taking up the backup PG duty and playing 45 minutes every game. You can get away with this during the regular season, but not in the playoffs.

Actually, most of the time that Eddie House is in the game, Ray Allen is the point guard. 

That's why they signed Cassell. 

All that being said, I think that the backup point guard is less important than it was last year.  Rondo obviously proved he can handle being the man.  While I'd prefer someone who can do more than Eddie House can at point guard, barring foul trouble and injury, whoever is the backup PG should face very little meaningful minutes come playoff time. 

[goCeltics]

I never worried about house backing up rondo for 10-15 minutes, it was the times where rondo was hurt or in foul trouble that I felt we needed another person on the roster that was able to give the team direction. 

Hopefully now with rondo becoming an established starter he get more respect an get into less foul trouble

[kenmaine]

Agree with OP.
Seems so obvious that House did just fine last year. IMO his ball-handling difficulties are blown way out of proportion, much like "Rondo can't shoot", "KG needs to take it to the basket", etc.
Sure, it may be the weakest part of his game, but not a huge problem.
And Rondo should be getting a consistent 35-40 minutes at least next year, so backup pg is not a huge problem.
Anyway, here's hoping the C's can still sign both Posey and House. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[billysan]

Eddie House was most effective when we pushed the ball upcourt and he got his shot early in the ball rotation. When we walked the ball up, he was not as effective. I most enjoyed that Eddie forced the oppposition to change their defensive set against him because he was a lights out 3pt shooter period.

Wrong. Everyone seems to look at House as a shooter, but he was actually very effective hitting open cutters and rollers in pick and roll situations. He did create numerous layups and dunks for our guys.

His main problem offensively is that he has no game within 15 feet of the basket. This means his footwork is bad when driving to the rim, and obviously when you're 6'1 you can't shoot pull-up jumpers off the dribble in the paint, since you'll get blocked every time.

I agree and disagree with you on this.

Eddie made some nice passes to cutters and did ok on running pick and rolls I agree. He has very little inside game and is not too accomplished with moves in the lane I agree. He did create more than he is credited for, I agree.

I disagree about his outside shooting. IMO his 3pt shot was such a threat that opposing players had to D him up at the 3pt line and couldnt sag into passing lanes like they try to do against Rondo. I think this very real threat of being an accurate 3pt shooter helped open up our offense and helped Eddie be a more effective PG. It forced opposing teams to change their spacing defensively and opened up the paint for those cutters.

Regardless, thanks for the feedback and I want to resign Eddie as Rondo's back up.

[no kidding]

House isn't an adequate back-up at point guard. His handle's too poor and he creates nothing off the dribble.  Pruitt's not a point guard either, but perhaps he can dribble well enough under pressure to get the job done. I would consider resigning House just as a back-up shooter at the two guard, but I imagine Ainge is strongly hoping J.R. Riddens can backup Ray Allen. Riddens has the potential to give a much stronger defense. However, Riddens might have a difficulty in producing if House is on the bench.

So I Ainge to sign Ty Lue as insurance in case Pruitt isn't up to task of being Rondo's backup/

[Bankshot]

I agree with the OP.  Would love to have Eddie back.

[kozlodoev]

They need a backup who can dribble the ball up against pressure. Do you think they signed Cassell for his good looks?

They signed Cassell because going into the postseason with 2 PGs is a risk. Rondo or House go down, you get to choose between Tony Allen at the point, or Ray taking up the backup PG duty and playing 45 minutes every game. You can get away with this during the regular season, but not in the playoffs.

Actually, most of the time that Eddie House is in the game, Ray Allen is the point guard. 

That's why they signed Cassell. 

All that being said, I think that the backup point guard is less important than it was last year.  Rondo obviously proved he can handle being the man.  While I'd prefer someone who can do more than Eddie House can at point guard, barring foul trouble and injury, whoever is the backup PG should face very little meaningful minutes come playoff time. 

FWIW, with or without Cassell, plenty of the team's  sets start from the 2 and the 3 position. I didn't see Cassell playing a much different role than Eddie Hoouse as far as PG duties were concerned. He's a worse spot-up shooter, but he can post smaller guys, and that's about it.

[Roy Hobbs]

Cassell joined the team on March 10.  Prior to that game, we had a 49-12 record (.803).  Obviously, it's possible to win without a "true" point guard, because we did just that.

(Heck, to be accurate...  Sam Cassell showed he's not a really a "true" point guard, either, at least not during his time with us.  During the regular season, Cassell led the team in shot attempts per minute.  Yet, we won a championship with House and Cassell as Rondo's backups.)

[no kidding]

We need an upgrade over either House or Cassell.  Yes, we won a championship with them, but we could use more at that back-up spot to help get another title.

Pruitt might be the answer, though I'm open to a better solution.  I'm thinking Pruitt will give us better defense than either House or Cassell, a better handle than House, some penetration, and a decent outside shot. I'd be happy to settle for that much.  The other thing is, if they give Riddens a major shot at backup 2 guard, then hopefully Pruitt can slide over and fill in for him when Riddens is having a poor night.

I'd rather we bring in another big guy, which Ainge says we won't do (at least not until the latter part of the season), then another guard.

[no kidding]

Geez, what an idiot.  I used the name "Riddens" a half dozen times on this thread. If I think he should be given major minutes this year, then I probably should learn that his name is "Giddens".

[kozlodoev]

We need an upgrade over either House or Cassell.  Yes, we won a championship with them, but we could use more at that back-up spot to help get another title.

Pruitt might be the answer, though I'm open to a better solution.  I'm thinking Pruitt will give us better defense than either House or Cassell, a better handle than House, some penetration, and a decent outside shot. I'd be happy to settle for that much.  The other thing is, if they give Riddens a major shot at backup 2 guard, then hopefully Pruitt can slide over and fill in for him when Riddens is having a poor night.

I'd rather we bring in another big guy, which Ainge says we won't do (at least not until the latter part of the season), then another guard.

What _exactly_ do we need to upgrade on? House is an underrated defender and rebounder at the 1 spot. We already know he can shoot. I'd be happy if we can get all that and a ball handling upgrade in another guy, but I don't think it will be available for LLE money. In view of the fact that we have plenty of offensive sets that are initiated by the Big 3, I am fine with resigning House for LLE money for 2 or 3 years. I don't think any of the free agents on the market right now is a reasonable upgrade.

[billysan]

I think a lot of people are gearing up to say we should have taken Mario Chalmers at the number 30 pick instead of Giddens. I wonder if he would have silenced the backup PG critics. I hope Giddens proves to be the better player, but it could have been a bad choice by Danny. History will tell us.

[no kidding]

Mario Chalmers?  Heck, I'm still thinking Ainge should've taken Taurean Green last year, instead of Gabe Pruitt.  But the fact is, it's still way too eary to know who would've been the better choice, Green or Pruitt, much less Giddens or Chalmers.