FW: [Celtics' Stuff Josh's latest column - HOOPSWORLD

[JB <jimmetz@xxxxxxx>]

"Personally, I don't like inside-out basketball, and think our talent better
suited! to a motion offense structured around Antoine Walker's passing; with
lots of fast breaks, back cuts, and weak-side penetration. But then what do
I know? Everyone seems to feel that the Celtics need low-post scoring, and
there's no doubt that a little will go a long way."

Josh
****************
    Everyone?   Not where I come from Josh. The talk at "Celtics Stuff" is
all about "motion," or the lack of and the total folly of the; dribble over
half court, pass the loaf of bread to Antoine, to shoot, or isolate Paul on
the left wing offense, that O'Brien rode into the sunset of a late round
playoff loss, when they were beaten by a team that did run and got way too
many easy baskets, for our moribund offense to outscore, when we weren't
hitting 60% of our threes.
   If Antoine was truly looking to create for his teammates, why do they all
stand around, when he gets the ball? Walker never wanted to run the wing and
only a point guard who controls the ball on the move, can generate a motion
offense. Sure, you might see a few missed assignments, but the zone defense,
once it sets up, won't allow those easy baskets, unless the point guard is
moving that defense, with his own motion.
   No, I loathe that mentality and hate the trade. My biggest anxiety is
over the next five years, when to stay under the luxury tax, we will be
jettisoning more and more talent to acquire more rejects and "practice
players," to fill out the squad, pregnant with the three maximum contracts,
with the likelihood, that only two of them will be worthy and that our style
of play is sealed, even as the trend in the league will be to follow the
Kings and the Nets, towards the exciting style that is most likely to
overcome the more and more complex zones that will be devised.
   No, I despise the fact, that not only didn't we acquire the needed back
up point guard to keep what little motion we had to our offense from
disappearing when Anderson went to the bench, but now we don't even have
one. This could get pretty ugly and we'd be back to the M.L. era and the
un-tradeable contract, of Baker, hanging around the next coaches neck.
   No, I don't prefer the "inside out" game, to motion, but at this point,
after the mortal wound of that  franchise wrecking draft and the potentially
fatal trade for Baker, our only hope seems to be that we get some easy
baskets somehow and that Baker, who never liked playing center and who
shies, more and more from contact, will prove to be, at least some
diversion, from the smell of the rotting flesh.
   Don't you just love these annual pre-season rants? Put me down for 54
wins this season; Snoopy and NCC!


                JB 


                                                    Unchain My Heart!

----------
From: CeltsSteve@aol.com
Reply-To: Celticsstuffgroup@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 13:34:26 EDT
To: Celticsstuffgroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Celtics' Stuff Josh's latest column - HOOPSWORLD



The Celtics Report 

 Josh Ozersky <mailto:josh_ozersky@yahoo.com>
HOOPSWORLD.com 
Aug 30, 2002, 11:17pm


These are slow days in Celtic nation. There doesn't seem to be anything for
us to do but hope Paul Pierce doesn't get injured, wait for word on Kenny
Anderson's minimum-wage replacement, and desperately parse every little bit
of Celtics news for meaning. Had I the means and the access, I would be
writing feature stories on Antoine's pickup games, and collecting anecdotes
about Eric Williams' days as a juvenile delinquent. At the very least, I
would write a feature on Paul Gaston's ongoing problems in buying good
Moroccan slaves. But failing all that, I've been thinking about Vin Baker's
place in the offense.

Not a few Celtics fans took alarm last week when Fred Kerber of the New York
Post interviewed Paul Pierce recently. "On paper the Nets will be the team
to beat ," Pierce said, echoing nearly identical remarks made two weeks
earlier by Antoine Walker. Fans were up in arms, asking each other
rhetorically why Pierce was conceding the season to a division rival. I for
one couldn't tell what the fuss was about. On paper, the Nets do have the
most talent in the division. More alarming to me were Pierce's not-so-veiled
anxiety about exchanging Rodney Rogers for Vin Baker. "You have to find out
how the chemistry is going to work and how our players are going to get
along," The Truth said. "I thought we had something special last year. Maybe
we should have come back with the same team but obviously we had to get
better." Now Pierce knows perfectly well that Rogers wasn't lost because the
Celtics needed to get better; but what I find worrisome is his caution about
playing with Vin Baker. Part of it is just ! common sense -- Pierce and
Walker would have to be stony stupid to say that they are positive that Vin
Baker will be better than Rogers. They've been to war with Rogers, and don't
know Baker from Adam, except what they've heard through the League
grapevine, most of it probably bad. But beyond that, I wonder if they
suspect that their game and Baker's might not mix.

And maybe they're right.

We won't know until the season begins, but I for one am a little concerned.
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 post man. Will
the Celtics regularly feed Baker on the box? The magic 8-ball basically has
more options that the Celtics offense as it's currently constituted: it
mostly consists 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. 

Paul and Antoine like that system, because the other players basically got
whatever scraps are left over from their very free-flowing, improvisational
games. But 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? Baker will need to get a lot of touches, game in
and game out, or he will surely revert back to the glum underachiever he was
in Seattle. Will Jim O'Brien, the least imaginative offensive coach in
organized basketball, be able to solve this problem? I've heard it suggested
that Baker, who is a good jump-shooter out to about 20 feet, might give the
Celtics some Rogers-like offense against big centers; but that would surely
be a waste of his talents in all but a few specialized situations. The
Celtics used to have a legitimate 20-10 low-post threat, in Dino Radja, and
he didn't help the cause particularly. Personally, I don't like inside-out
basketball, and think our talent better suited! to a motion offense
structured around Antoine Walker's passing; with lots of fast breaks, back
cuts, and weak-side penetration. But then what do I know? Everyone seems to
feel that the Celtics need low-post scoring, and there's no doubt that a
little will go a long way. But if Vin Baker is to be a major part of our
offense, Paul and Antoine are going to have to accommodate him. It's not all
about whether Baker can "return to form."

Strickland in the Squeeze-Box

There's a lot of questions about Erick Strickland. He's not really what the
Celtics need now. His skills are duplicated by Tony Delk to a certain
extent. He really can't handle the ball against pressure that well; he's not
a natural three-point shooter. But the way the Celtics are treating him
right now just isn't right. If a player of his absolute dedication and
flawless professionalism plays a year for you at the minimum wage, he
deserves something better at contract time. If the Celtics don't believe
that Strickland is what they want, they should let him go; if he is the man
they want for their final roster spot, they should offer him at least a
significant raise. You don't pay a man like that the same amount as the CBA
pickups who fill out most rosters. Part of the Celtics' strategy is to take
advantage of the great 2002 salary squeeze, and wait for the next Strickland
to fall into their laps; but what message does that send to players? The
Celtics will exploit you, and then insult you when it comes ! around to
contract time? Everyone knows it's the owner's fault, but that doesn't make
Boston any more attractive. And it's not like anyone is going to come there
for the climate, the lifestyle, or to get a lot of shots.

The Celtics, I suspect, think a lot in terms of their past successes. They
found Bruce Bowen, and made him a productive player; they did likewise with
Adrian Griffin; maybe that's how they are thinking now about J.R. Bremer.
But there's a difference between scouting and developing young players, and
exploiting veteran ballplayers. Just because you can get away with it,
doesn't mean you should. Are the Celtics really going to go over the luxury
tax if they offer Strickland an even $1 million, rather than the bare-bones
minimum wage? They basically gave away a gifted, serious-minded,
fundamentally sound player in Joe Forte to save a million dollars, but at
least that didn't send the message that they were disloyal to professional
free agents who trusted in them; although it couldn't have made us look very
legitimate around the league. Now things stand to get worse. I guess if the
speculation is right, and Gaston is looking to sell the team, a
ten-to-twenty million dollar loss will hurt the selling price; b! ut that's
not a classy way to run a team. Paul Gaston should take a page out of
Strickland's book, and take a charge for the team.





Josh Ozersky is Senior Editor, Boston Celtics. You can visit his other sites
at www.TheBoob.com and www.Joshozersky.cjb.net---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

CeltsSteve 
 
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Boston Celtics' fans; looking for inspiration,intellect and humor.

Subscribe:       Celticsstuffgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticsstuffgroup

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .