[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I wonder...
> ---------- Initial message -----------
> ... What does Wallace honestly think NOW of his three
1st-round draft
> choices -
>
> #10 Johnson - .348 FG%, 2.1 APG, 7.4 PPG
(.315 3P%)
> #11 Brown - .333 FG%, 0.5 APG, 2.5 PPG
(.056 3P%)
> #21 Forte - .385 FG%, 0.2 APG, 1.4 PPG
(.000 3P%)
>
Well in fact we KNOW what Chris Wallace thinks of Joe
Johnson and Joe Forte! ;-)
Joe Johnson, FWIW, is again at double-figures in January
including an evenly distributed 55 points in the last
three games (18.33 ppg), which included a win over Dallas.
As for Kedrick, let me first preface everything by saying
the guy SUCKS! ;-)
At the same time, through 11 January games, he is now
contributing 4.3 boards.
That may "suck" for many of us, but among the Celtics
regular guard rotation its more production than Delk
(2.6) or Walt (3.5) or Bremer (3.0) and so on this month.
EWill, a starter at small forward, is also at 4.3 this
month. The tables are SLOWLY turning.
It might be that Kedrick is just getting started. We all
hope so. I'm sure you do as much as I do.
To wit, despite the 2-8 shooting game, Kedrick is 9-19 on
field goal attempts in the past three outings. He needs
to build on that. There is a basis there for him to build
on his confidence taking shots.
His ESPN page quotes him today in the Herald saying he's
hitting 10 to 15 shots in a row in practice, only to
screw up in games. Maybe its some kind of mental block.
But when you look at and write off "clueless" athletes
with hops, you don't expect them to have certain
fundamentals down. In his Juco freshman year, Kedrick
among other things recorded a 79.1 FT% (87/110). When you
can hit up around 80% freethrows as an 18-year-old,
that's often a sign of innate ability (or dedication,
which is just as positive). It takes years of reps (or
talent) to get to be an 80% shooter.
If the Celtics hadn't muffed the 21st pick (Gilbert
Arenas averages more points this year than Richard
Jefferson) I think we'd all be satisfied with how Chris
Wallace did. He got the best long-term defensive prospect
I've seen (compare that to Radman or Murphy), he got to
the Eastern Conference Finals, he got our third leading
scorer in Delk. I don't want to blame all of our draft
angst on Red, but the reasons we chose Forte over Tony
Parker were made pretty explicit in the days after that
draft.
I know, dear Egg, it sounds like I'm directly trying to
disagree with you. Or supporting Wallace, when we
shouldn't care less about his ultimate fate.
I have to say then that you are fair and accurate in what
you wrote in your post. But your post is still a snapshot
of where the 2001 kids are right now. A year from now, or
12-months ago (Brendan Haywood, Shane Battier etc.), the
list of 2001 draft "success stories" will be and was
evolving. Joe Johnson was a Rookie of the Year candidate
at one point last year. Who knows where he'll be in 12-
months?
The one thing we can all collectively wail on Wallace
over is Richard Jefferson. My recollection is that Chris
Wallace worked out Richard Jefferson and Joe Johnson head-
to-head. He may have even worked them out twice like
that.
In retrospect, its clear Chris Wallace didn't give
Jefferson enough credit for his Final Four lockdown
defense (on Jason Richardson etc.) and his production
under all that pressure. I can also see how Joe Johnson
could have outpointed Jefferson in the entire range of
shooting and dribbling drills. Find me one mock draft
that rated Joe Johnson behind Richard Jefferson.
The other guys we passed on (Radman) can't play much
defense. And they log their minutes for losing teams
(maybe a correlation). Boston is not going to win a 17th
banner with this roster (Walker/Pierce) unless they get
to the top-three in FG% defense again. Maybe I'm just
rationalizing things.
I thought Troy Murphy was terrific last night. Great
maturity too.
-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?