FW: Wallace has a short memory

["James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JB,  I agree in the need for a PG.  I so much prefer the more traditional
style PG like Stockton/Kidd.

Move Walker to SF, Baker to PF, PP to SG and get me a real PG any day.  This
is one reason I thought they should trade for Fortson and pick up Best.
Then you have Best at 1, PP at 2, Walker at 3, Fortson at 4, Baker/Battie at
5.  This is a team that I could love.

Until then?  A real shooting PG may be what we need for now until we can get
a top flight guy at the 1.

Have a great day!  <Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: JB [mailto:jimmetz@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 10:41 PM
To: James A. Hill
Subject: Re: Wallace has a short memory


	Yeah, Jim, I see what you are saying, but in my mind, any point guard
is better than none. I don't like the reins of the offense in the hands
of a player (Walker) who loves to shoot.
	As I've written in the past, as great a player as Tommy Heinsohn was,
they had Cousy to get him the ball, in the right position on the floor
and at the right time, when they needed him to  score. If they had left
the decision to shoot, or not to shoot, in "Tommygun's" hands, I doubt
there would have been so many titles, or Tommy would have been in the
Hall of Fame.
	When Antoine, or Paul can shoot at a % closer to 50% than 40%,without
a true point guard, I might change my tune, but until then, I want to
see the play maker make plays and the shooters shoot. I want to see all
of our scoring options explored and more easy baskets than I see this
type of offense generating.

> JB
>
> 	Unchain My Heart !

On Saturday, October 5, 2002, at 04:57  PM, James A. Hill wrote:

> But Joe has a valid point when you consider that a "great" point just
> isn't
> available to us right now.
>
> There is only 4-5 anywhere in the NBA and they won't be traded here
> unless
> Pierce or Walker + others is included in the trade.
>
> Another year or two is my guess.  If they keep winning it will be
> easier to
> get that free agent who wants a run at the ring.
>
> Wouldn't you just love to see a Stockton/Kidd/etc..  run these guys?
>
> <Jim
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 06:31  PM, hironaka@nomade.fr wrote:
>
>> The correct thing for management to do was to go get
>> someone who would stay the heck out of the way: play
>> defense, shoot without hesitation when open, and never
>> fiddle and diddle extra seconds off the clock before
>> giving the stars the damn ball. Spend your cap money
>> someplace else.
>>
> 	Joe H.
> *******************
> 	I'm not buying it, Joe. We watched that plan last season, when Palacio
> had the role. As good as Walker and Pierce are, as capable of "getting
> their own shots off," they can be stopped.  A great point guard would
> make it harder to stop them, by making threats out of the other
> players.
> 	Yes, with the score tied and ten seconds left, you give the ball to
> your "go-to-guy," to work his man and/or, go to the hoop, to look for a
> foul, but if you don't balance your offense, to keep the defense honest
> and allow your star to be strong for the 4th quarter burst, the team
> suffers.
> 	I'll also contend, that very few players are able to keep on their
> toes, defensively, if they are playing flat footed on offense.
> 	Yes,many of  the early Celtic championships came with Sam Jones at the
> point, but he/they learned movement and unselfishness from Cousy. Sure
> the mid eighties Bird teams had D.J. at point, but it was "Tiny"
> Archibald that taught Bird team play.
> 	I've heard so many times,that because of Jordan or Shaq, winning
> championships without a point guard, that it may be better not to have
> one. Rubbish, I say and particularly, if you don't have Jordan or Shaq,
> that distributing, unselfish, leader of the offense, can come in mighty
> handy.