Cordobes, feel free to state your 'precise' argument if you're so certain I've missed or misconstrued it. The fact that you failed to restate it leads me to believe that you aren't even sure of what you think it is. And if you do, I highly doubt you understand the implications of it.
Ok, let's try it this way: I started a sentence by using the expression "this is the reason why...". I'd invite you to read the previous sentence, the one that states "One can't just throw a bunch of players who can produce together and hope the team to produce". Now, let me know:
1) Can you understand that sentence?
2) Do you agree or disagree with it? If you disagree, why?
Please, answer these questions in order to allow this discussion to proceed.
Cordobes,
If only your attitude was equal to your intellect, then this discussion might be able to proceed. Unfortunately, you hide a lot of good insight in some stunningly disrespectful language. Disrespecting someone might feel good, but it's a disservice to your intellect. How can you hope to persuade me if don't even deign to respect me?
To recap, it seems to me that your 'precise' argument is that all types of players, Ramon Sessions for example, can put up good numbers when they get minutes.
Nope. You just invented that. I'll explain once again: MANY times the logic that "player X can produce given minutes" is flawed because what happens is that player X is only given minutes when he is producing. It's very simple: some guys are inconsistent from game to game, from matchup to matchup, and coaches take them out of the floor when they aren't playing well. Of course Ramon Sessions can't produce 10/10/5 every time he is given minutes. If that was case, he'd be the starter. Like Powe wouldn't be a 18/10 if he was given minutes, Villanueva won't average a double-double if he plays +30 minutes every game, etc. So, the argument that "he has proved he can productive when given minutes" is not really enough to "end a discussion". Now, allow me to ask this:
1) Can you understand the difference between what I wrote and what you said it was my precise argument? Can you understand it is precisely the opposite?
2) Do you disagree with my argument? To the core of it, can you agree that many times some players will stay on the floor as long as they are producing but the coaches will bench them when they aren't playing well?
Please, answer these questions in order to allow this discussion to proceed.
Listen, I understand your precise argument, but what does that have to do with Tony Allen? In the mythical era of 15 games where Tony finally fulfilled his potential, he was more or less going to get those same minutes regardless of how well he played. It wasn't that he was playing well, so Doc decided to play him; it was, 'we might as well throw him out there 40 minutes a night and see what happens.' And frankly, the same thing happened with Sessions. It was the end of the season, they didn't have any other options, they threw him out there for big minutes, and he produced. End of story. So, your precise argument isn't exactly germane because it wasn't a matter of Doc picking and choosing the nights when Tony had it going on or that the other team was specially susceptible to Tony's game; it was simply--they had nobody else. And Tony responded by consistently producing for 15 games or so until he was tragically injured.
But thanks for doing me the courtesy of revealing your precise argument in all it's glory. But I wonder: do players get PT because they're producing or do they produce because they're getting PT? Hmmm.... Ponder that if you will.
Sarcasm aside, you make a good point about the scenario where younger players get PT only when they've got it going on and how we shouldn't take that production and extrapolate it to starter's minutes and expect the same level of production. As I mentioned above, I don't think that applies specifically to Tony Allen. He produced consistently, night-in and night-out, until his horrific knee injury.
So, I ask you, what exactly is your problem with Tony Allen?
Ok, what exactly does this mean? What's a "problem with Tony Allen"? I like Tony Allen. When Posey signed with Nawlins, I said Ainge should sign Tony Allen as his replacement. I think your perspective of this discussion is quite... I can't find the exact word... personal. I'm not used to discuss basketball like this.
Well, I guess we're in agreement on this one. I like Tony Allen too. I was right there with you, even before Posey was resigned, saying that if Posey wasn't resigned that Tony Allen was the best, cheapest, and most logical replacement for him. So, we've got that in common. Next time, however, you should look at the context from which you pull out my quotes. The "what exactly is your problem with Tony Allen," wasn't a real question; it was rhetorical, thinking-out-loud type of question as I was attempting to tease out what exactly you thought about Tony Allen. And I think I got it right, as you admit below.
It seems that you argue Tony hasn't shown he can't play off the ball effectively
For once, yes, I argued that. Do you agree or disagree?
Strictly speaking no, unless we want to go back to his rookie year, where he did on occasion. That's part of the challenge for Tony this season and I think you saw today the tension he's facing between being, on the one hand, ultra-aggressive and, on the other hand, operating within the confines of the offense and moving the ball. Today, especially, I thought he tended more towards the latter and his play suffered. He was able to make some nice dump down passes, but even with those, he was playing a step behind all day. If I were Doc, I'd tell Tony to quit thinking out there. When he's not playing well, it because he does too much thinking. What he needs to do is be aggressive at all times, both on offense and defense, and continually attack. So, getting back to the question, playing off the ball for Tony will be a challenge. He has the skills to do it, now he just has to trust his instincts. Like I closed my last post, I don't think it's going happen overnight. There will be good games followed by not-so-good games, probably until mid-season.
that he needs the rock in his hands to be productive
Look, as I made clear, I hate straw man arguments. I don't know if Tony Allen needs to play on-the-ball to be productive - again, I don't know, I'm not saying that he can't. What I said is that playing in the strongside is what better suits his style. From my view, that's quite obvious to anyone who has ever seen TA playing. Then, I said that Tony has never proved he can be consistently productive playing off of better players. This is a historical fact. Do you disagree with anything stated in this paragraph? I'd appreciate clear answers.
I'm not sure where your boogeyman, the straw man, exists, buddy. As you wrote in a previous post on this thread: "in my view Tony is the kind of player whose style is better served when he can play on the ball, in the strongside." That seems to imply that 'he needs the rock in his hands to be productive,' unless you think Tony's going to stand on the strong side and never touch the ball. You're feigned hurt feelings aside, I agree with you and I said so
in my last post. To reinterate, I don't think Tony will play as much with the Big 3 as Posey did. The reason? Because their games are different. Tony thrives with the ball in his hands, going to the hard to the hoop. That doesn't exactly mesh with Paul and Ray, so I expect we won't see those three in the game that much (unless TA's at point or Paul's at 4). It's stupid to try to make a player into something he's not and that's not what Doc is going to do. He'll use Tony strengths and not try to convert him into a spot-up jump shooter; that's just not his game. Even though we somehow have gotten into a disagreement over this, I suspect you agree with me.
I also agree with you again to the extent that I don't think I can say that Tony can't play off the ball. In fact, I think he's going to get better at it as the season goes by and hopefully Doc will bring him along in this regard. To me, Tony can do all the things required to play off the ball, but for some reason he hasn't been able to put it together on the court. Part of it is injury related, part of it head related; I think that if he can build confidence as the primary scoring threat on the 2nd team he may be able to transfer that confidence to playing off-the-ball for the 1st team. That's my hope, anyway. We should know by mid-season.
Contrary to you've stated, you're judging this team based on last year's model. Since Posey was able to defer to the big 3, Tony must be able to as well. While you state that don't subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy, you're using last year's standards to predict this season's outcome. What I'm saying is that there are many ways to skin a catfish. The way we won last season doesn't necessitate winning that same way this season. Perhaps that's what you meant by saying it'll come down to "Doc creativity." In that respect you're right, and I suspect Doc is not stupid enough to expect Tony to play Posey's role this season. So, contrary to your assessment, we are not 'screwed' if Tony can't play off the ball; we're simply going to be different. And as you admit, we can be different and still be champions.
I really don't follow your logic: I was the first to say that the team will need to play in a different way, and try some new things, due to the composition of the roster. Now, you are saying I'm judging this team based on last year's model? I'm sorry, but there's not much to say - it simply doesn't make sense and you're basically arguing with yourself and using me as a proxy. Be sure of one thing, though: during the play-offs, Ray and Pierce will play as much as possible, limited by the usual factors.
I enjoyed your turns of phrase, Cordobes, but again I think you missed my point because you were so busy feigning offense at something you thought I said. You're right, we'll need to play in a different way. No argument here. Congratulations at being the first to utter that. However, and this is where we differ, I do think you're judging this year's team based off the manner in which last year's team won. Here's why: you wrote that we're screwed if Tony can't learn to play off the ball and you argued that Posey was a better fit for us than say a Maggette or a Tony Allen. I don't agree with those two sentiments. My argument is two-fold: (1) while it'd be nice if Tony learned better how to play off-the-ball, it's not necessary for him to do so. (2) we're actually a better team because Posey has been replaced by Tony, even if Tony has trouble or never fully learns to play off-the-ball. And here's how I support those arguments: last year we were jump-shooting heavy basketball team which sorely lacked athleticism, especially on the perimeter. Posey's strengths, in fact, pushed this team towards certain inefficient basketball habits. This season, we've balanced our team much better. With Posey's absence, certain efficient scorers like Powe and Tony Allen should get more minutes and that will help to quell our over-reliance on jump shooting. Additionally, our overall athleticism has improved, which should help us against the athletic teams that have given us problems in the past (like Charlotte or Atlanta). Best of all, TA actually can play well when the big 3 aren't on the court, and thus gives Doc the option of further limiting their minutes. Unlike Posey, who was hit and miss on the 2nd team, Tony should provide a stable scoring threat on the 2nd unit, and allow Doc the luxury of getting Ray's and Paul's minutes down to around 32-33 minutes a night. Now, would I like Tony to play better off-the-ball? Yes. Do I think he can or will? Yes, and possibly. Is it necessary for him to do so? No. And I think that's where we differ, though I'm sure you'll come back and say that's what you think too
The problem with being different is that when you are running the kind of thing Doc has been running this off-season, you are going to be very, extremely, radically different - and you are not being different by your own option, but because the limitations of your personnel are forcing you to adopt unorthodox tactics. There's a reason why basically nobody in the NBA runs the 14h. And this is never a good thing.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you restate what you mean? Thanks.
I'm fully aware that "there are many ways to skin a catfish". The problem is that some of them are better than others, less risky, etc.
Allow me to assume that that's why you think we're screwed if Tony can't learn to play off the ball (because that particular way of skinning a catfish would be risky to our overall chances of winning). If that's the case, then this is where we really disagree. I think replacing Posey with Tony was vital to our long-term dynastic aspirations. We would have been hamstrung with an aging role player whose very strengths played into the team's overall weaknesses. By moving on from Posey, we have a chance to diversify our attack while maintaining long-term viability. This was the smartest direction to move, in my opinion.
I believe that any decent coach could take these qualities and weave them into an overall team game plan. In fact, I expect Doc to do just that.
Good, let us know your opinions about the stuff Doc is experimenting this pre-season. What do you perceive as strengths and weaknesses? And what would you do? What kind of sets and offensive systems would you run? Do you thing a 4out/1in may work? Do you think we will be running more often DDM sets this season? Or triangle sets, especially with the 2nd unit?
Well, I'm not enamored with the Pruitt/House backcourt at all, even though it has produced great results so far. I think Pruitt has been an absolute revelation and I'm very excited to see him continue to develop. However, I think the Pruitt/House backcourt is way too reliant on long-distance jump shooting to be a very good long-term 2nd unit configuration. House is currently shooting 50 percent from 3 for the preseason! That's not going to continue. And when House hits the inevitable 10 to 15 game patch where he can't hit anything, I hope Doc has the foresight to remove House and let Pruitt be the backup point. He's earned it and he's a better point for this team, better on defense, better a pretty much everything except launching 3s.
As for the rest of the stuff you cite, the 4out/1in or the DDM set or the triangle set, I'd end up guessing about what those are, so I won't respond. You'd probably accuse me of constructing a straw man anyway
Feel free to explain what those are, and maybe I'll respond.
In short, though, one thing I'd do would be to create situations where Rondo plays more with the 2nd team, perhaps getting an early rest in the 1st quarter. His skills get wasted when he's always playing with the Big 3. And when he's playing with the 2nd unit, I'd try to get him involved in as many pick and rolls as possible. Nobody can stop him, especially the other team's 2nd string.
Topic: Tony Allen, Under-appreciated? (Read 8726 times)