Re: musings

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

Good points Joe and Kestas.

The combination of physical ability and drive is the perfect formula when
drafting where the Celtics are, Kestas. I agree with Joe that if you can add
in productivity, that's great, but if the guy has the physical ability, the
drive and the proven numbers, he's probably long gone by 10.

If the Celtics come up with two guys at 10 and 11 who have the physical
ability to play in the NBA and the drive to work hard, I'll be pleased. I
just don't want them to take a chance on the physical question marks. A guy
like Forte, for example... he's about 6-3 and not exceptionally athletic. He
has been very productive in college and high school, but let's face it, he'd
be a huge exception if he becomes a star. There's a physical limit to what
he'll be able to do.

That's why I'm willing to take chances on guys like Zach Randolph, who has
the body and physical skills to play power forward, and a drive that makes
him a great offensive and defensive rebounder. As for productivity, he only
averaged 10 ppg last year, but I think you can project him as a major impact
guy in a year or two. Same with a guy like Gerald Wallace, who is an
absolute physical freak and, by all accounts, a fanatical worker who plays
all-out all the time. But he averaged less than Randolph last year. It's why
a Pau Gasol is a hot commodity-he has the ball skills to play small forward
even at 7-1. If he proves to be the kind of driven athlete Kestas is talking
about, that rare package of physical gifts eventually could make him a star.
Better to take a chance on a guy who might not have produced yet, but could
put the physical ability together and be a star (Kevin Garnett, Tracy
McGrady, Shawn Kemp) than on a highly productive guy who will always battle
physical limitations (Danny Fortson, Randolph Childress, Corliss
Williamson).

As for Bird... the idea that he didn't have a physical advantage is only
partly true. He wasn't as fast or quick as most guys who guarded him, but he
almost always was bigger and stronger. And that's really the bottom line in
the NBA. Teams and players can compensate for speed/quickness, but if you
have a size advantage, you're halfway there. Isn't anyone else tired of the
Celtics always being undersized? Make Pierce your SG, Walker your SF and
Randolph/Gasol/Moiso your power forward, and you're well on your way to
physically dominating the other team. Throw in a Brendan Haywood at center,
and that's a pretty physical team.

Joe's point about Bird steers me again to a rant about Antoine Walker's
role. Bird played small forward. He wasn't athletic or fast or much of a
leaper, but he had a size and strength advantage on most small forwards. (So
would Toine) Did those Celtics lose sleep over the idea of Bird chasing
small forwards around picks? No. Granted, he had McHale around to take the
toughest defensive assignment among the forwards, but even if McHale only
could have guarded power forwards, do you think it would have changed the
Celtic lineup? I think Toine could be the same kind of roving, passing lane
defender Bird was at small forward, but instead he's always locked into a
mismatch with someone else's power forward. The bottom line... if Bird
wasn't too slow to defend small forwards, Antoine Walker certainly isn't. I
keep coming back to this because this "Antoine is our power forward"
thinking is holding this team back big-time. Until that thinking changes,
the Celtics will continue to be a soft, poor rebounding, poor defensive team
that relies too much on the perimeter game.

Mark