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

[Tammo29@xxxxxxx]

>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.  -CeltsSteve

Steve, you're so busy inferring that you're not reading.
I don't know if it's an intentional ploy on your part to twist what I've said
or if it's a sad  by product of a poor speed reading course.

Let me cut and paste exactly what I said this morning...since you seemed to
have missed it.

       **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".**

I not only mentioned Wallace as part of the blame but Papile also.
I'm just tired of reading how Auerbach is solely to blame.  Obviously
Auerbach is too.
I'm tired of reading how poor Jim O'Brien was only working with what he was
given when he is on the record as saying they wouldn't draft a big man,
Antoine
would play some point forward and that he wanted athletic wingmen who could
shoot three's.
In his mind that's exactly what he got in Johnson, Brown and Forte although
it hasn't exactly worked out that way.

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

You seemed to do just that in this sentence here:

>Parker is much more of a pure PG than Forte will ever be and that, as you
>say, is no a reach. But blaming O'Brien for the decision to draft Forte IS a

>reach and your attempt to defend that reach is even a bigger reach.
             
    >CeltsSteve

>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?

I've already pointed out to you how little Anderson played and how poor he
was when
he did.  No organization in their right mind would rely solely on a 32 year
old point guard who had already showed signs of decline and had a history of
injuries.
It still boggles my mind that you won't even acknowledge these points.

And no, this wasn't just a one year experiment.  It started right after
O'Briens 1st half year as coach.... yes, when Kenny was still on the team. 
Antoine talks about it in a chat which occurred in May of that year, before
the 2001 draft.
O'Brien defends it as "not a gimmick in June", right after the 2001 draft.
It was planned and talked about widely way before the draft occurred.

You will find absolutely no mention ever of Paul being a "point forward".
Ever.
That was O'Briens vision for Antoine.
It wasn't until after the 2002 season that O'Brien turned to Paul for more
help in that area, stopped referring to Antoine as a point forward and started
talking about the offense running through both.

> 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.

Well, two years at the least are documented starting in the '01-'02 season
and continuing through this last season.
Are you honestly saying he didn't?  You don't remember the fights between
Walker and Anderson for control of the ball?  Do you remember who ultimately
one
those fights?
Either this was O'Briens vision or he let Antoine do whatever the hell he
wanted.
I prefer to think the former.  Do you prefer the latter?


>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.

>That "someone" wasn't Jim O'Brien, who was the interim head
>coach and on the job all of 6 months. He didn't have the clout to make the
>>final call.   -CeltsSteve


O'Brien was the head coach, not just interim.  He signed a multi year
contract in April, a full two months prior to the draft. With that I'm sure he
had
all the clout that any head NBA coach would have with an owner that couldn't
care less and a GM who had never taken accountability for any draft in the
past.


>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

Steve, let me put this mildly....KENNY SUCKED the year prior to the draft.
Even when he wasn't injured, he sucked.
With your line of reasoning we shouldn't be looking for a replacement for
Eric Williams because he's still under contract and we still owe him over $5
million.
We certainly shouldn't look for someone to fill Bakers shoes since we have
him for 3 more years at more than $43 million.
So what if we have to wheel him out on game day and hire a full time
babysitter?
Hey, you never know.  A miracle could happen and Baker may come back and play
halfway decently, which is all Kenny ever did in '02.

>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.

As I've already pointed out you're wrong.  It started in '01 when Kenny was
still on the team and had nothing to do with necessity or Gaston, and Paul was
not part of O'Brien's point forward plans at that time.


>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?

No.
Are you saying that they aren't both better than Forte?
I think Miller is overrated and that Parker has a chance to be better than
both Miller and Tinsley.  He is after all just 20 years old.


>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.

I said the same things about Kenny, and I'd take Parker over him.  Wouldn't
you?
In fact, I would take him over a number of starting point guards.



TAM