RE: Dana and VP

["Patterson" <apatt@hawknet.com.au>]

I am sorry but this is going to sound really stupid to some but makes
perfect sense to me.
I don't get the chance to see many games and john may be right, Dana may be
a liability in some aspects such as his height and defense but the reason I
am writing this is to point out that a team does not always need a true
point guard in order to win, team play overcomes this and the offense does
not need to go through one player. The classic example is one of the
greatest teams ever with no 'true' point guard - Chicago Bulls with Ron
Harper and MJ occupying the guard positions. Pippen and his ball handling
skills were used to bring the ball up and settle into an offense. I would
love to see the Celtics develop a fluent team passing game rather than a
monotonous, one man controlled offense.

Another thing, why didn't we make a run for Stephon Marbury or even Tim
Thomas. I know this may contradict my last point but he worked wonders in
Minnesota, mainly through his quickness and athleticism as well as a true
understanding for the game that few have.

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-celtics@igtc.com [mailto:owner-celtics@igtc.com] On Behalf Of
John Lyell
Sent:	Friday, 12 March 1999 3:50
To:	'Josh Ozersky'; celtics@igtc.com
Subject:	RE: Dana and VP

I have to disagree, Dana is a terrible point guard and the reason they
chose Billups in the draft.  He can not orchestrate an offense and make too
many stupid passes.



On Thursday, March 11, 1999 10:41 AM, Josh Ozersky
[SMTP:josh_ozersky@yahoo.com] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dana is actually a pretty good point guard.  Don't hold his scoring
> ability against him. He's a better defender than Kenny Anderson, who
> is still one  of the best in the game despite his recent bad play.
> You guys have to tough this stretch out.  Hard to do after what Pitino
> calls the worst loss he's had in 25 years, but there it is anyway.
> For my part, I don't really understand the VP desire on Rick's part.
> I guess  he looks at the guy as a cop, someone to batter the Charles
> Oakley's of the world.  Then why not go out and get some minimum wage
> goon?  I don't understand the attraction of a center who cant rebound
> or block shots.  What is it that Potapenko is supposed to do for us?
> It's not like he can pass out of the post, either.  (Which would suck
> anyway -- I hate that kind of basketball, unless it is done with great
> speed and crispness, which it never is.)  Everyone should go home and
> watch the Orlando game.
>
>
>
>
> ---Phe Meas  wrote:
> >
> > The Lakers waived Blount and Armstrong. I think the C's should pick
> them
> > both up for the minimum. Blount is another big body who is an all-star
> > compared to the broken nose guy the C's have on the IR. Armstrong is
> > more of a point guard than Barros will ever be. I'm not taking a
> shot at
> > Barros because he can play ball but not as a PG. What do you think?
> >
> > ..................................Where do you want to go tomorrow?
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>