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

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 6/1/03 11:11:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jahill@leasingservice.com writes:

> I don't see any reach except in pretending O'B wasn't part of the decision, 
> and therefore having culpability.


Nowhere in this thread has there been an attempt to defend the selection of 
Forte. Hindsight being what it is, of course. 

The original quote made by Tammo re: the selection of Forte was this: 

"I'm not letting Wallace off the hook, especially after the disastrous Baker 
trade, but anyone who doesn't think this team was set up exactly how Jim 
O'Brien wanted it has their head in the sand." 

The inference clearly being, without coming right out and stating it, was 
that the selection of JF ultimately was either heavily influenced by or fell 
directly on O'Brien.

I don't know if you had the opportunity to read the May column that Egg cited 
today but if you did you no doubt read the following response on this topic 
from Red: 

"It was a collective pick. I advocated for Joseph Forte. I liked him a lot. 
If I had to do it all over again, I'd do it the same way. The guy led his 
conference in scoring. He could pass. With a little work, we thought we could make 
him into a point guard. He could shoot. Then he came up here and did a lot of 
crazy things and his teammates never liked him. He turned out to be a mess, 
you know what I mean? Always in trouble. Bad attitude. Things like that.''

Was O'Brien part of the draft decisions? Obviously.

Did he provide his input? Of course. I haven't read anyone suggest anything 
to the contrary. 

But you also know good and well that the final decision on who the C's were 
going to take with that #21 pick did not rest ultimately on O'Brien, someone 
who had been named only as the interim head coach and been on the job all of 6 
months at that point.                 
    
CeltsSteve