new hoopsworld column

["Josh Ozersky" <jozersky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

No new insights, but strongly worded anyway:

The Celtics Report
by Josh Ozersky
Hoopsworld.com

I hope Hoopsworld readers will forgive me the long lapses between appearances
of The Celtics Report this season. The Ozersky household has been subject to
chaos and displacement; and like most of my readers, I am on a series of
10-day contracts, while the Peter Mays of the world angle for max deals. And
yet I feel bad. But luckily something happened the other day which cheered me
up: Brandon Hunter got his first start.

I know that there are more important topics in Celtics Land: the dismal play
and worse leadership of Paul Pierce, the search for a new coach, various
personnel decisions. But I've been lobbying for Hunter all season, and
wondering why an aggressive, athletic power forward who led the NCAA in
rebounding couldn't get minutes on a team starved for that very thing.
(Naturally, Hunter was pulled at the last minute of the Milwaukee game to run
a play for Walter McCarty, but the evil of Obieball will not be banished
overnight.) Hunter's 17 and 9 came mostly in the first half, and Celtics fans
have every reason to believe that the guy will be a much-needed wrecker in the
games that remain. The question now remains - what the hell was he doing on
the bench all that time? It's driving me crazy. He is strong and fast and
rugged and plays as hard as any Celtic since Danny Fortson. He can score off
the dribble at least as well as Clarence Weatherspoon. He draws fouls. What
else do you want from the guy? And what were the coaches thinking? It's not
just an academic point. The league is full of talented players who only
require minutes and shots to flourish. Darius Songaila couldn't find a roster
spot on the Celtics, and now he's averaging 13 and 7 as a reserve in
Sacramento (over the last five games). How many of the players on our roster
can do more than they've shown? Happily, John Carroll won't be around for long
to stifle the Celtics' growth; but who will the next guy be, and will he make
the same mistakes?

It's a serious problem. Take the case of Paul Pierce. Pierce is playing some
of the worst ball of his career, and needs a tough, detail-oriented coach as
badly as any player in basketball right now. Pierce is what he is: an all-NBA
talent with a sulky temperament and no capacity for leadership. Left to his
own devices, he'll walk the ball upcourt, drive blindly into a triple-team 23
feet from the basket, and then make faces when he doesn't get a whistle. He'll
quit trying hard for weeks at time, whine to Peter Vescey about the front
office, and so on. Those things are going to happen when Pierce isn't in a
strict system, with a sternly paternal figure like Roy Williams or Jim O'Brien
taking the burden of command. And it's clear that the Celtics, as a team, need
a real coach, someone with lots of experience and a set way of doing business.
The problem, though, is that coaches like that tend to be poor developers of
young talent. A developing young player like Kendrick Perkins or Marcus Banks
is only going to have a limited role in a system predicated on high basketball
IQ and orthodox decision-making. (Only Jim O'Brien, in the history of the
world, managed to combine gimmick coaching with an overreliance on sturdy but
untalented veterans.)

So let's say the Celtics go the Memphis route and bring in an old-school guy
like, say, Cotton Fitzsimmons or Bill Fitch. I'm not saying that they will; I
don't even know if those guys are alive. But if they go in that direction,
what are the chances that a Brandon Hunter, and the Brandon Hunters of next
year's draft, will get a chance to play and play well? The Celtics have been
abominable in their player development over the last decade, not because they
haven't drafted well, but because they haven't had coaches capable of finding
the right roles for the talent they have. On the other hand, if the team goes
out and gets an imaginative, non-traditional coach like Paul Westphal, I don't
think he will be able to steer this young and unformed team through the rocky
waters now before us. If the guy loses Pierce, he will lose the team; and that
can't happen. Trading Pierce for anything less than another full-fledged
superstar would be a disaster for the franchise; and that won't happen if he
gets devalued by losing, or if we are trading him under duress.

It's a major crossroads. Ainge didn't want it to come to this; he thought he
could build on what O'Brien built. But Obie took his ball and went home rather
than change his crazy ways, and now the team has been blown up. The saving
grace, however, has been Ainge's talent acquisition. Hunter is one such find;
another is Ricky Davis, who actually has the fiery personality to be a leader
on a young team like the Celtics. Marcus Banks has still untapped potential,
and the same is true for three or four other players on the roster, to say
nothing of next year's draft picks. That's one reason I was so happy that the
Celtics didn't trade for Juwan Howard. He's not the kind of guy we need; and
if a coach prefers to play him to someone like Brandon Hunter, than that's not
a coach the Celtics need.

I guess at the end of the day, the Celtics need someone running the show who
is both tough and flexible, who knows his Xs and Os and yet can still find a
way for his best 8 players to do their best. Finding that guy is Ainge's
challenge now; and if he make the wrong choice, things can go badly. I'm all
for going into the tank this season, and Carroll is plainly just the man to
take you there. It's the guy who replaces him that matters most right now.



Celtics Quote of the Week:

Danny Ainge on the Evil of Obieball:

"One of my biggest concerns, as much as I like Walter McCarty and Mark Blount,
was letting them play 40 minutes against Kenyon Martin while Chris Mihm,
Brandon Hunter, and Kendrick Perkins sit. It's not only shortsighted, it's
obstinate. And not playing Marcus Banks more than 10 minutes is unproductive
to our vision."

Tell it, Danny.  And make it stick!