[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Leave Obie alone!!

At 08:01 PM 5/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Guess you don't watch Fox news...

You guessed correctly...



>What offer was the BT supposed to make to Kenny? He was already under
>contract for whose expiration the Celtic Nation had been waiting for years.

In the last year of his contract many people felt that Kenny was finally
coming to terms with the notion that his job was to distribute the ball,
not shoot it himself.  Was he a GREAT PG?  No.  But he was quite literally
better than no PG at all, which is what the C's ended up with.
I agree with the last part, but I don't think extending Kenny's contract was ever considered. For most of Kenny's stay here, it was considered a disaster of Bakerian proportions. Only in his last season did he somewhat play up to it.



I recall comments from back then indicating that O'Brien was one of the
people who tried to get Rogers to stay for the piddling amount that Gaston
was willing to part with.
He asked him to stay and play for the $1M, but that's wholly different from negotiating Rodney's contract with him. I don't think he'd want to meddle in it, even if he could. He's a coach, not a coach/GM.


Look at their record--not just the stats, but the games themselves.  They
almost never won a game because they outscored their opponent.
I think they outscored their opponent every time they won (and vice versa) :>
Seriously, though, they tended to win when the threes were going in (duh!) or when Pierce was sizzling. This season, the defense really slipped and accounted for far fewer of their wins (to the extent that one can parse such things at all).

It was
almost inevitably because they outdefended their opponent.  To achieve what
they did without a solid offensive capability and relying on the three
point shot was directly due to their superior defense.
The '01-'02 season, sure, they were a good defensive team. This season, as the 52 and 46 point blowout attest, not so much. The implications of such losses really bothered me. They also have slipped in the opponent FG% department, and were bottom of the pile in rebounding. The latter is directly attributable to the Obie doctrine and his "coaching" of Toine.


>  And this is the one that really cracks me up: "A running game was
> pointless because they had no one to dominate the inside at either end.".
> Of course, it's so obvious (slapping my forehead) - if you have no one to
> dominate the low post, you shouldn't run either. What are the Mavs, the
> Bucks, the Nets thinking? You should walk it up, give it to a 32% 3PT
> shooter, and let him chuck threes early in the shot clock.

I imagine the Mavs are thinking "Gee, we really need Dirk Nowitzki to come
back and play or our butts are toast in the playoffs."; and the Nets are
thinking "Mutombo's looking better nowadays."  I don't think anyone knows
what the Bucks think, including the Bucks.
Well, that's kind of funny, but seriously now... Don't you think that lack of a low-post scorer should make running even more imperative? The Bucks have gone fishing and the Mavs may join them sometime this weekend, but certainly not BECAUSE they run.


>Lastly, who are the people on the list are trying to "shove Obie and his
>best two players out the door"?  Unless you count Walker and Baker as the
>Celtics' best two players, I don't see how you came up with that one (I
>guess the same way you did with the others - vivid imagination). I haven't
>seen anyone, save for some troll months ago, say that we should dump Pierce.

I refer you to the recent post by Stephen Beauregard, entitled "Bad timing
once again...why did we re-up OB?" , in reply to the news that Larry Brown
had resigned as Sixers coach.

Walker has been a common suggestion as trade bait, with the occasional
comment to the effect that teams would likely want Pierce instead of
Walker.  I'm not going to review every post for the last few months just to
reinforce a point.
Many people, including me, have advocated getting rid of both Walker and Obie, or at least one of them, for the reasons that have been rehashed on this list many times. But no one has suggested getting rid of Obie, Walker AND Pierce. My point still stands.

By the way, I'm not sure why you felt impelled to make a few cracks at me
directly, or maybe you just got overwhelmed by a bout of sarcasm.  Happens
to most of us at one time or another.  All I'm doing--when you come down to
it--is offering my point of view.  That it happens to contrast with yours
is a potential for some interesting discussion--preferably without making
it personal.  That leads to "suff-er-ing", as Yoda said; because sooner or
later, I'd have to dazzle you with my command of English and my sterling
wit.  That's a fate worse than death, according to several friends of mine
who know I'm not as clever as I'd like to think I am.  :>)))
I'd rather you dazzle me with more convincing arguments of why keeping Obie and Walker is so essential to the well-being of this team. I don't dismiss all the good things these two have done in the past, and have praised certain aspects of their performance many times. But I believe that the Walker-Obie dynamic is unhealthy for this team and has caused it to stagnate after some initial post-Pitino gains.
Kestas