Re:Who's this Duncan guy?

[Tammo29@xxxxxxx]

>In some alternate universe, if you believe in quantum theory, the C's won 
game 1 >last night led by Billups and Duncan over the Kings. Yet, luckily in 
this universe my >years in San Antonio and meeting David Robinson several times 
makes their victory >>over the Nets was quite satisfying. If the C's can't win 
- I'll take the Spurs brand.

It was great to see David Robinson play so well last night.  In my mind he is 
the ultimate team player.  
I would love to see him go out a winner.


>As to the draft, I'm not a follower of much college ball, but I watch the 
Madness >come March and I will say I'm convinced Heinrich is yet another 2 guard 
that >happened to play PG in college. I saw little to demonstrate he can make 
his >teammates better - especially in the halfcourt sets (he was better on 
the break). In >fact, most sets HE was receiving the passes coming off screens - 
if your PG is >being set up by someone else as your offense that should be 
your first warning >>sign. So I'm pretty glad he likely won't be available for 
the C's.

   Ummm, Scotty, maybe Hinrich was playing like a shooting guard because 
that's the position he was playing?
I've been through this before, but here it goes again.  Hinrich was the only 
shooter on last years KU team.  He was it.  The one and only.  There were no 
other shooters.  Miles can play the point pretty well.  Langford can slash with 
the best of them. Collison is as fundamental around the basket as they come.  
Simien can be a beast down low.  Graves did pretty well taking over Simien's 
duties when he went down.  The bench was as depleted as any Kansas bench in 
history.  But in all that, there was only one guy who could shoot the ball and 
that was Hinrich.  Therefore, Hinrich played the shooting guard.
That's why you saw him coming of screens etc.  Necessity.
The fact that he never complained when he was moved from the bench (freshman 
year) to starting point guard (sophomore year) to starting small forward 
(junior year) to starting two guard (senior year), should tell you something about 
him as a player.
But he was never as comfortable in any of those roles as he was at the point. 
 I can guarantee you that.
My one and only complaint about Hinrich is that he would hesitate to pull the 
trigger.
He was always looking for a better shot.

When Hinrich was playing the point he controlled the game.  His backup was a 
pretty good point guard himself with a year more of experience, but when 
Hinrich would have to leave because of foul trouble (which unfortunately was pretty 
often his freshman year), the team just lost all focus.
A case some of you might remember was Hinrich's freshman year against Duke in 
the NCAA Tournament, second round.
KU went into that game as an #8 seed.  Duke was the #1 seed.  Hinrich played 
brilliantly against Jason Williams.  He held Williams to 6 points on 2 of 16 
shooting, six assists and eight turnovers.  Hinrich had six assists in 28 
minutes and shot 4 of 7 for 12 points with 2 turnovers.
KU was winning the game late, when Kirk got called for his fifth foul.
Kirk goes to the bench and our lead goes with him.  Duke won the game when 
they hit a bucket with a few seconds on the clock and Kansas turned the ball 
over on their last possession.  
And that's the way it was for KU all through Kirk's four years.
Even when he wasn't playing the point, he had an ability to control the tempo 
and give the rest of the team extra confidence.  We were not the same team 
when he wasn't on the floor, and it didn't matter how he was shooting.

The only people questioning his point guard abilities are the casual fan and 
NBA writers who don't follow college, like Peter May. The writers who get paid 
to talk about college ball and follow it throughout the season, people like 
Andy Katz, Mike DeCoursy, Dennis Dodd, and Frank Burlison, none of those guys 
have any doubts.
Nor do you hear any doubts from the NBA scouts themselves.  
Hinrich is a point guard who can also shoot the ball.  That's a good thing.
That's why I think he would be perfect for the Celtics.  He fills the three 
point shooting requisite of an O'Brien, yet he can also run an offense just as 
well.  And Danny Ainge would have to be happy with the way he pushes the ball 
all game long. Opposing teams fans would call him Harry Poter, but among 
Kansas fans he was known as Zoom-Zoom, like the Mazda commercials.  When he is on 
the floor the rest of the team will HAVE to run if they want to see the ball.
    

>Collison is probably not a bad pick if he is dedicated to rebounding and can 
use his >good fundamentals in the pros to compensate for his lack of "ups" 
and quickness. >He is a risk pick though due to his lack of athleticism - he 
could go either way. At >>pick #20 he's a pretty safe "risk" though.

I disagree about risk.  Collison is one of those guys that will do whatever 
needs to be done, very much like Battier.  He will help whatever team picks him 
up.
He will never be a superstar, however.  
If you need a superstar, you better look somewhere else.


>As far as another wing player...ummm..okay. We can then just legally change 
our >name to "Boston Hot Wings" since we have 40 of em already (39 of em one 
trick >ponies - Waltah, EWill, Kedrick, Bruno (hey, the "7' Hot Wing" promotion 
has >promise as an ad campaign),Delk, Bremer, etc, etc ).  Does that mean the 
Hooters >>girls becomes the official mascots? Am I being too sexist with my 
humor?

I'm all for becoming better and we could definitely use an upgrade at the 
small forward.  But that means saying good-bye to either O'Brien's favorite 
player or Heinsohn's favorite player, if not both.  If we are just going to 
stockpile them then what's the use?


TAM