Re: how baker will fit in

[lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx]

It does concern me that O'Brien doesn't seem any more 
thrilled about the Baker acquisition than Pierce or 
Walker.  He desperately wanted to keep Rogers.
If Baker doesn't show an ability to dominate down low 
from the very first practice, will O'Brien even 
consider making him a featured part of the offense?
I don't know.  He's never gone out of his way to make a 
big man a part of the offense before, unless you're 
talking about the pick and pop, which doesn't 
lend itself to Bakers strengths.>>Tammo

Ah, yes, just another Ode to Paul, where we learn of 
his wondrous feats in Kansas, even though Roy Williams 
refused to let him control the ball and thus stifled 
Paul the Epistle from scoring 60 per night.

Yeah, I saw PP last night, and those Romper Room kids 
they played against.  I'm surprised he didn't just 
shoot backward from the top of the key considering the 
boredom these guys felt against the Horror-atio Algiers.

You call those assists?  I call them 3-on-1 attacks.  
Paul likes to shoot, then likes to play hero, but never 
works to draw defenders WITH the eye to free someone 
up.  Haven't seen it in two years.

Meanwhile, did Obie regret losing Rogers?  Sure, who 
else would score 14 per night while taking shots only 
when deigned by the captains?  Don't think Baker will 
be happy receiving the ball with 4 seconds left as the 
last, rather than third option.  Unless Paul gets a 
dose of reality (or 12 reruns of the NJ series) he 
won't give up the rock, and I don't think Twan wants 
Vin to dictate the shots from the block.  This is 
Obie's biggest nightmare, that the captains don't run 
the offense from the top.  Stay tuned, and print up 
those "#34--"I Need to Have the Basketball" bumper 
stickers.  Just don't make them blue-on-white.
> >I wonder.
> >Generally, solid low-post scoring works best from the inside out -- that is, 
> when you >send the ball into the post, and a good scorer has the option of 
> shooting or >passing. That means the offense starts with the postman.  Will 
> the Celtics regularly >feed Baker on the box?  It seems to me that most of 
> the offense has consisted of >one-on-one stuff for Pierce and Walker,and 
> beyond that, the two-man game.  Other >guys get shots when Paul and Antoine 
> are overdefended.  What with Paul and  >Antoine do when Baker is working down 
> low?  They're both players who need to >dominate the ball; do they become 
> spot-up three point shooters too? I'm just having >a problem figuring what 
> the newoffense will look like.
> >Josh
> 
>    
>   The old "Chicken or the Egg ?".
>    Is it the captains dominating the ball because that's the only way they 
> know how to play?  Or is it the coach asking the captains to dominate because 
> he feels that's their best chance to win?
>   Yours seems to be the dominate theory with Celtics fans and one I've argued 
> against more than once.
> 
>   I can't speak as much for Antoine because I didn't watch him play outside 
> the Celtics "system" very often.  I few college games.  A couple all-star 
> games.  That's it.
> But I can speak to Pierce.
> He played in a college system that did indeed center on feeding the ball into 
> the post.  The big man has always been the main focus in the 
> "Carolina-Kansas" system.  
> Those of us that have seen him play since high school knew he could hit from 
> anywhere on the floor, yet it seemed like it was a surprise to most Celtics 
> fans his rookie year.
> Why?  Probably because he wasn't the main offensive focus in college so 
> unless you watched him every game it never stood out.  The big man was the 
> centerpiece, almost to a fault. 
> He touched the ball on just about every possession.  And they had a true 
> distributing point guard.  
> But Pierce still flourished in that system.  We all knew what kind of a 
> talent he was.  
> 
> I know that he doesn't need to control the ball to be effective because I've 
> seen it.
> Not only in College, but in the few games he's played since being with the 
> Celtics that Antoine has missed. 
> Just look at the World Chapionship game last night.  He not only led the team 
> in points with 22, he also led them in assists with 6.  All in about 18 
> minutes. Less than half the game. 
> And you know that if George Karl had thought for a second he was being the 
> least bit selfish he would have been sitting on the bench.  Instead he was 
> the last player to be substituted for in the first half and played the second 
> half until Karl called off the dogs  for good in the third quarter.
> I honestly believe that the offense the Celtics have played the last few 
> years starts with O'Brien, not with the players.  Not only because of what 
> I've said here, but because of what O'Brien has said himself. Over, and over 
> and over again.
> Even Steve Bulpett reported that he was present during the regular season 
> when the coaches came to Pierce and told him he had to take more 
> responsibility for the offense, which meant more shots.  I know for a fact 
> that they've had this conversation more than once. Isn't it possible they've 
> had the same conversation with Walker?
> I'm willing to give him the benifit of the doubt.
> 
> Well, maybe now with a healthy, refreshed Baker (hopefully) O'Brien will take 
> a new tact.  
> It does concern me that O'Brien doesn't seem any more thrilled about the 
> Baker acquisition than Pierce or Walker.  He desperately wanted to keep 
> Rogers.
> If Baker doesn't show an ability to dominate down low from the very first 
> practice, will O'Brien even consider making him a featured part of the 
> offense?
> I don't know.  He's never gone out of his way to make a big man a part of the 
> offense before, unless you're talking about the pick and pop, which doesn't 
> lend itself to Bakers strengths.  
> Is this because of his offensive philosophy, or because of the talent he had?
> Once again, the Chicken or the Egg?
> If nothing else, this should be interesting.