RE: responses to ravi, gene, etc.

["Ravi Singh" <kelticsfan@xxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies on cross posting. My bad. Thanks for the response. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-celtics@igtc.com [mailto:owner-celtics@igtc.com] On Behalf
Of Kim Malo
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:18 AM
To: 'celtics list'
Subject: RE: responses to ravi, gene, etc.


At 09:07 AM 7/17/02 -0700, Ravi Singh wrote:
>It amazes me to no end what people think they read.

Yup. However, pot/kettles BTW, given your response question on Bremer
below.

>  It was never said
>that  failing to gush all over Cook meant that someone didn't know what

>a point guard was supposed to do. It was said that Cook possessed some 
>outstanding pure point guard skills and if one couldn't  see them then 
>they didn't understand much about the position. Those are two entirely 
>different statements.

Entirely different, no, although perhaps not identical - since that is 
merely tacking a bit of hyperbole (as you also seemed to be doing) with
the 
word 'gush' onto the underlying theme of what you were saying: if Cook 
didn't impress someone then it's gotta be because they don't understand
the 
position (vs Omar just not being real impressive). I also noted that
Cook 
did show some skills.

>Kim what did Bremer show you that Cook didn't?

Basically what  said - maturity. Bremer seemed to have a better 
understanding of his role (which I'd be the first to admit is not the
one 
that we've been lead to believe Cook could fill) and to make less
mistakes 
is all. The good old playing within himself thing. I certainly didn't
say 
Bremer impressed me to any degree any more than I said Cook was a
complete 
negative. *shrug* I was at court level behind the Washington bench and 
maybe that difference in perspective over TV view emphasized some of
this 
to me.

>The reason why Cook will not make it in Boston is because he is pure 
>point guard and requires the ball in his hands.  With the ball in his 
>hands he has the potential to make those around him better.  However, 
>on the Celtics, the coaching staff would rather have Pierce and Walker 
>running the offense with the point guard being nothing more than a 
>shooter once he delivers the ball to the co-captains.

Now this I think is nonsense. Never understood a tendency here and 
elsewhere by people to decide they know what the staff is thinking/doing

outside the public eye and that it's always something wrong and stupid. 
Clearly exactly what the Cs do need is a floor general type point guard 
rather than another shooter. I've seen Tony Delk run the offense and it 
wasn't pretty. And I also note that the coaching staff didn't go out of 
their way to make sure he got as many opportunities as possible to do so

beyond necessity. While a lot of my whole post was about how that's
exactly 
what Cook didn't do - make those around him better. Lord knows there was

room for improvement.

>No doubt Cook is more about POTENTIAL. He is NOT a polished player yet 
>as has been stated by me and many others on numerous occasions.  But 
>there is great potential.

Which is fine, but people can and do say that about a ton of guys
without 
going so far as to say the many things he might be but is not now mean
you 
don't understand the position he's supposed to play. Especially common
with 
would be point guards and big guys whose best asset is their height.

He can handle, he can pass, defense is at best fair, and decision making

needs a lot of work, while leadership needs even more. The last two are 
what make teammates better and are the sort of things I expect to see
more 
signs of with a PG who gets the sort of comments Cook's had in the past.

BTW, isn't it a bit unfair/bad netiquette to crosspost this to a list I 
don't belong to (the yahoo group) without even asking?

Kim