Re: Why not Hunter?

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:43 PM 3/29/2004, Jim Hill wrote:
> If there was ever a match up waiting to be made, it was Hunter defending
> Rogers.  I knew I wasn't the only one wondering what the heck Hunter has
> done to upset Carroll for him to ignore this match up.  Come on Walter
> against Rogers?  Geesh.
>
> >Why not put Hunter on Rodney Rogers? NJ doesn't have a shotblocker without
> >Kenyon. This is the perfect game to play Hunter. Wake up, Carroll!....

I actually agree that this is a time and matchup when Hunter should have 
gotten real minutes (I don't always agree when people are screaming for 
him). But FWIW, most of the posts wondering why Carroll doesn't play him 
assume that Carroll doesn't see the things he can do that we do. I don't 
think that's the problem. it's that Carroll doesn't see his percieved 
negatives about playing him as worth those positives. Carroll's said the 
lack of PT has more to do with his not integrating as well into the team on 
the court because of comfort level/understanding of what he should be doing 
and his offensive limitations. Which IMO are valid points, although I think 
Carroll has gone overboard in setting them up as major roadblocks vs just 
factors to consider among others re: PT. Still the offensive one has an 
even more valid corrollary Carroll has mentioned where the opponent 
(largely with justice) feels he can ignore him, freeing up a man on defense 
for double teams, roaming for steals, etc. And even though tonight's 
matchup with the bulky, slow Rogers looked made in heaven, Carroll may have 
been even more concerned about getting players he thought offered more 
offense like Walter on the court because of Pierce's foul troubles.

Kim