Re: No Subject

["pmaurice" <damekmo@teleport.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: James A. Hill <jahill@leasingservice.com>

> Isn't the winning percentage relative to what teams they have played to
> date?  Is there a team they've beat that they shouldn't have?  Have they
> played a team yet that you sit back and say "Geez, they just don't have
the
> talent to compete with those guys."?  Have they even won every game
against
> teams they should beat?

Does this team have the talent to compete with Milwaukee or Toronto, Jim?
Both of those teams were picked to go deep into the playoffs. Aside from
Walker and Pierce who else on the Celtics match up with anybody on those two
teams. The only loss I've been disappointed in this year was the Hawks game
in Boston. The Celtics have more talent than Chicago, Washington, Cleveland
and Seattle and they won those games, as they should have. I was pleasantly
surprised with the Indiana game. The first game in Atlanta, the Hawks were
deperate for a win. New Jersey? I'm not sold and we'll see what happens when
the Celtics play them in New Jersey. When Jason Kidd goes 2-12 from the
floor like he did in one of their previous losses...we'll see. The Celtics
are still a team without a center, have zero depth up front, don't have a
real point guard, and are depending on a rookie to be their third scoring
option. This is a recipe for, at least, very inconsistent play, if not
disaster. And when it's not disaster I figure they've done all right. So the
bottom line is, 5-5/29-29 is all right.

It's late. I'll have more to say later. As Homer Simpson might say, "Too
much eating. Must pass out."

Paul M.