Author Topic: Horford's passiveness worries me  (Read 6527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2016, 10:22:45 AM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
Play Mickey.
Jerebko has been terrible.
Jerebko and Crowder can sometimes play real clunky. They don't have the most natural looking shot.

I still see a ton of value in both players since they play with great intensity but there are valid concerns with both of these players going through tough shooting droughts. They just don't have natural shooting mechanics.

Crowder is a great player.
In the preseason the second unit played much better with Mickey.

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2016, 10:34:17 AM »

Offline coco

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2682
  • Tommy Points: 146
Doesn't surprise me.  Everything he does goes unnoticed.

I like Horford's game.  He is a steady force.  Never been the scoring type.  IMO he is here to give us a steady, no mistake big, who happens to be an excellent defender, passer, screener, descent scorer and will never try to do something beyond his capabilities.

I think he is still a top 5 big....and will win a few games for us.


Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2016, 10:35:37 AM »

Offline Celtic_Pride777

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 325
  • Tommy Points: 35
Play Mickey.
Jerebko has been terrible.
Jerebko and Crowder can sometimes play real clunky. They don't have the most natural looking shot.

I still see a ton of value in both players since they play with great intensity but there are valid concerns with both of these players going through tough shooting droughts. They just don't have natural shooting mechanics.

Crowder is a great player.
In the preseason the second unit played much better with Mickey.

To be honest, I'm not all that confident that Stevens knows how to develop young players. Terry Rozier wasn't getting regular minutes until the playoffs, and that was only after Bradley went down with his injury.

It was quite frustrating that he waited till the most crucial moment to put Rozier out on the court. Likewise, it makes me wonder if Stevens doesn't like what he sees in Mickey. Am I missing something here?

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2016, 10:46:24 AM »

Offline coco

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2682
  • Tommy Points: 146
Play Mickey.
Jerebko has been terrible.
Jerebko and Crowder can sometimes play real clunky. They don't have the most natural looking shot.

I still see a ton of value in both players since they play with great intensity but there are valid concerns with both of these players going through tough shooting droughts. They just don't have natural shooting mechanics.

Crowder is a great player.
In the preseason the second unit played much better with Mickey.

To be honest, I'm not all that confident that Stevens knows how to develop young players. Terry Rozier wasn't getting regular minutes until the playoffs, and that was only after Bradley went down with his injury.

It was quite frustrating that he waited till the most crucial moment to put Rozier out on the court. Likewise, it makes me wonder if Stevens doesn't like what he sees in Mickey. Am I missing something here?

It's a numbers game.  There isn't enough minutes for everyone.  I like TRozier but finding minutes for him behind IT, AB, MS and ETurner was just not going to happen.  Now, this is a new season and TRozier is getting his minutes on year 2.  Not bad.

As for Mickey, I like him and probably deserves a bigger role if Amir keeps playing so poorly.  Stevens will have to pick between TZeller and Mickey when KO gets back.  There just isn't enough minutes.  Mickey will have to earn it in practice....and maybe he already has.  We'll see.

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2016, 10:58:54 PM »

Offline mr. dee

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7866
  • Tommy Points: 601
Bump.

5 FGA the whole game won't win us many games. He should be taking more shots than Smart and Crowder.

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2016, 11:02:03 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Lamarcus Aldridge took time to adjust in SA, then went bonkers for a few games in the playoffs. Granted Al is no LMA, I'm sure he'll figure it out.  He's also hardly even played here yet.  We honestly just need more help if we want to really compete. 
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2016, 11:19:39 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36894
  • Tommy Points: 2969
Only his 8 or 9 game as a Celtic...not much practice in getting used to playing on court with teammates.   

Crowder , KO , Smart all coming back from injuries. 

May take a another 4-6 weeks to get to where they would,like to,have been at the start.


Still .....we lack another scoring big star to pair with Al.     

George or Cousins would help push them past this type of game.

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2016, 11:24:40 PM »

Offline alldaboston

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Tommy Points: 324
Bump.

5 FGA the whole game won't win us many games. He should be taking more shots than Smart and Crowder.

Brad and Crowder said the same thing post game. Wasn't a knock on Horford though, moreso that they as a team need to do a better job of finding him shots to take
I could very well see the Hawks... starting Taurean Prince at the 3, who is already better than Crowder, imo.

you vs. the guy she tells you not to worry about

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2016, 12:09:21 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Bump.

5 FGA the whole game won't win us many games. He should be taking more shots than Smart and Crowder.

Brad and Crowder said the same thing post game. Wasn't a knock on Horford though, moreso that they as a team need to do a better job of finding him shots to take

Great that Brad and Crowder mentioned that imo.  I swear Crowder may be the leader of that locker room. 
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2016, 06:50:00 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7515
  • Tommy Points: 743
TP for the bump.

I missed the game last night but am puzzled by the box score. 5 shots all game in 32 minutes? Bizarre.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2016, 06:58:07 AM »

Online The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1197
  • Tommy Points: 597
The C's have a 113.4 offensive rating with Horford on the floor.  As a team only the G.S. Warriors have a better Off. Rat. than that with a 114.6 rating.  His "passiveness" has worked out amazingly well for the C's offensively so far.

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2016, 07:33:34 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7515
  • Tommy Points: 743
The C's have a 113.4 offensive rating with Horford on the floor.  As a team only the G.S. Warriors have a better Off. Rat. than that with a 114.6 rating.  His "passiveness" has worked out amazingly well for the C's offensively so far.
I love Horford. But what is this 5 shots business? When other starters aren't shooting well, I'd like to see him get more aggressive than this.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2016, 07:52:15 AM »

Online Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30922
  • Tommy Points: 3766
  • Yup
The C's have a 113.4 offensive rating with Horford on the floor.  As a team only the G.S. Warriors have a better Off. Rat. than that with a 114.6 rating.  His "passiveness" has worked out amazingly well for the C's offensively so far.
I love Horford. But what is this 5 shots business? When other starters aren't shooting well, I'd like to see him get more aggressive than this.

I didn't see him on the perimeter as much last night.  He was shown in the post more and Drummond's presence was forcing him to kick it out.
Yup

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2016, 07:58:09 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7515
  • Tommy Points: 743
The C's have a 113.4 offensive rating with Horford on the floor.  As a team only the G.S. Warriors have a better Off. Rat. than that with a 114.6 rating.  His "passiveness" has worked out amazingly well for the C's offensively so far.
I love Horford. But what is this 5 shots business? When other starters aren't shooting well, I'd like to see him get more aggressive than this.

I didn't see him on the perimeter as much last night.  He was shown in the post more and Drummond's presence was forcing him to kick it out.
I missed the game last night but assuming that's true, then maybe its a question of coaching. I would've thought that, against Drummond specifically, Horford would've been more valuable out on the perimeter, drawing the big guy away from the rim and working on him on the perimeter, where he has more of an advantage.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Horford's passiveness worries me
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2016, 11:38:32 AM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
Horford is the least of this teams worries.