Re: '01 draft revisited and O'Brien's culpability

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 6/1/03 9:31:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Tammo29@AOL.com
writes:


> Everyone and their brother knows point guard is right up there at the top
> of the Celtics wish list along with a big man- rebounder-defender type. But
> that's been the same for the last three years and we end up coming away with
4
> swingmen and an athletic but wimpy power forward with no heart.


Then apparently by your own admission it goes back to well before O'Brien
took over, doesn't it? O'Brien has only been the head coach for one draft -
2001.
Moiso was under Pitino's watch. Unless you want to put that on O'Brien as
well.


> If you will reread my post, I used the word "WANTED"---that would be past
> tense. I think even O'Brien has come to realize his experiment of Walker as
> the point forward was a failure.


O'Brien's one year "experiment" of allowing BOTH Pierce and Walker to be
point forwards was born out of necessity when the team's only legit PG was
traded
away in a "swing for the fences" deal last summer. Prior to then, Kenny was
the starting PG and O'Brien had the offense initiated through him - Anderson -
a
PG. We are talking about the draft of 2001, aren't we?


> Even If O'Brien were stubborn enough to want to stick with his philosophy,
> I think it's obvious Ainge has a different view and a little more clout than
> Wallace.


See above. You're trying to make it sound like O'Brien eschewed utilizing a
legit PG in favor of his "vision" of the offense during his entire 2 1/2 years
at the helm.



> More from just after the '01 draft:
>
>     **And, by the way, Boston is serious about playing Walker at point
> guard  next      season. "That's not a gimmick," coach Jim O'Brien said.
"From
> the  first time I      saw Antoine as a rising junior at Mt. Carmel (Il.)
High,
>  he was playing in the      summer camp, and he was playing point. And I was
>  just astounded by his      ballhandling capabilities. The difficulty is if
> we're going to go with him at the point,    then we want to go with the big
> team ... but somebody's got to play the other    team's point guards."**


That's great. Now tell us what O'Brien said BEFORE the draft that
specifically supports your allegation that it was HE - O'Brien - who didn't
want to draft
Parker (or Tinsley or a PG in general for that matter because it was counter
to a "vision") because that it what the basis from which your original
criticism stems.




> There's the #1 reason we didn't draft a point guard right there. That's
> O'Brien's vision and Wallace went along with it full throttle. A shooter on
the
> floor with point forward Walker who can guard the point guard.  That's what
> gets you players like Forte, Palacio, and Shammond Williams instead of real
> point guards.


No, the #1 reason that two years ago the C's didn't draft a PG wasn't because
of a "vision" on the part of O'Brien;  it was because of the hard, cold,
reality that the C's already had a veteran PG under contract that was still
owed
$15M over the next two years and who had little trade value coming off an
injury (broken jaw) which limited his PT and was going to get the bulk of PT
if the
C's had any hope of breaking the drought of playoff appearances.




> >"The point I'm trying to make is that looking back at the 2001 draft and
> >blaming O'Brien for drafting Forte at #21 instead of  a PG - be it Parker
> or
> even >Tinsley - conveniently ignores the fact that Kenny had two years left
> on his
> >contract and was still owed some $15M at that time and thus a rookie PG
> would >have seen little immediate PT because of that very fact. -
CeltsSteve
>
> Are you serious?
> Anderson was coming off his worst season as a pro.  He played in only 33
> games and started just 28 of them.  In the games he did play he shot just
> 38% and
> averaged less than 8 points and 5 assists a game.  So what if he was still
> on
> the roster?  What good is it if he can't play for whatever reason?
> Worse still, he was backed up at the beginning of that season by a washed up
>
> Randy Brown.  That's why we had to go out and find a Milt Palacio halfway
> through the season.


I'm completely serious. See above why his numbers the prior year were as you
indicate career lows. And you certainly don't pay somebody $15M to ride the
bench and be a malcontent. O'Brien's vision of rehabilitating Kenny apparently
proved correct in that Kenny came off the broken jaw injury and responded with
his best season since he came to Boston.



> Of course we needed a point guard, unless your going with O'Briens
> point-forward vision. That point is not even arguable. Both Anderson and
Brown were
> in the twilight of their careers and neither of them could log big minutes.
> Palacio was erratic at the least.


As I pointed out previously, the "vision" of BOTH Antoine and Paul handling
the ball and functioning as point-forwards you keep referring to was
applicable
to LAST season and was born out of necessity of the team not having a draft
pick last year, trading away their only legit PG, and Gaston's refusal to
allow
the team to enter LT territory. You're still not making any salient argument
that O'Brien did not want the team to draft a PG two years ago, though.



> >Additionally, from the POV of a GM, history tells us PGs are readily >
> available every draft. This year is no different. To blame O'Brien for not
> drafting >Parker two years ago is definitely a reach.
>
> Oh yeah, good point guards are practically growing on tree's.  That's why
> the
> league is full of All-Star point guards and why players like Andre Miller
> and
> Mike Bibby are drooled over by just about every team in the league when they
>
> have one good season.


Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth so are you
implying that the two PGs selected after #21 - Parker and Tinsley - are the
equal of Miller and Bibby? Tinsley might very well be on his way out of Indy
and while Parker has definitely shown some very good moments, he's also been
blessed to be playing with the league MVP who consistently draws double teams
and
gives Parker a lot of open looks. In fairness, Parker has terrific speed and
can create tempo but has Parker truly made any of his SA teammates better?

Is he even a legit PG or is he really a PG with a scorer's mentality? I would
say he's the latter more than the former. And your argument began with the
basis that everyone knows that the C's need a PG (not a scoring PG) and a big
man.




> My point was that O'Brien was just as responsible for the Forte pick as
> anyone else, not more so, but just as. All the media pundits in Boston want
> to blame Red.  But O'Brien was a fan of Forte's before the draft, on the
> record,  and was more than thrilled with the pick after the draft, on the
record,
> even though they had Parker listed as the best point guard on the board and
> he was still available, on the record, the trio of Wallace, O'Brien and
> Papile thought that Forte was the better player and the better fit for the
> Celtics, on the record, even going so far as to call
> it a "match made in heaven". So where's the reach?


The reach is that, on the record, by your very own original post it was a
collaborative decision: "Wallace also said it was between Forte and
Parker. `Tony
Parker was
the No.   1- ranked point guard on our list, but we (note the word 'WE') made
a decision to take the best player on the board. That's how Red Auerbach and
Jerry West did it and that's good enough for us.''

I didn't see anything about "but Jim O'Brien convinced us or made a decision
to take the player HE coveted" in that quote.

CeltsSteve