Why do they all seem to fail here?

[celts55]

I will say right now, that I believe strongly that Nate will have at least one great game in the playoffs, where he will get hot, and really help the team win.  And really, I don't know if you can really expect much more from someone like him.

Ultimately, I think the problem isn't the players, it is the expectations some people have of them.

So do you think it's unreasonable to expect that when trading 3 players to bring in a "missing piece" on a playoff team that the player should do more than have one great game?

[rickyfan3.0...]

Hahaha did someone in here say Nate was a great addition? Hahahaha (breath) hahahahahaha

[BballTim]

  I think that Nate's biggest problem is that he's trying too hard to fit in and prove that he's not the jerk he was made out to be. Doc wants him to be more aggressive on offense but he's trying to be less selfish and more of a facilitator.

[lon3lytoaster]

Because Doc kills point guards?

I remember when we used that one to explain why Marcus Banks sucked.

[KCattheStripe]

  I think that Nate's biggest problem is that he's trying too hard to fit in and prove that he's not the jerk he was made out to be. Doc wants him to be more aggressive on offense but he's trying to be less selfish and more of a facilitator.

Sounds like Starbury.

[BballTim]

  I think that Nate's biggest problem is that he's trying too hard to fit in and prove that he's not the jerk he was made out to be. Doc wants him to be more aggressive on offense but he's trying to be less selfish and more of a facilitator.

Sounds like Starbury.

  It's probably truw for both of them, although Marbury was working off of a long layoff. Clearly, Cassell didn't suffer from this.

[Chris]

I will say right now, that I believe strongly that Nate will have at least one great game in the playoffs, where he will get hot, and really help the team win.  And really, I don't know if you can really expect much more from someone like him.

Ultimately, I think the problem isn't the players, it is the expectations some people have of them.

So do you think it's unreasonable to expect that when trading 3 players to bring in a "missing piece" on a playoff team that the player should do more than have one great game?

Well, Nate has had several excellent games since coming over. 

He just has struggled lately.  And I don't think they gave up very much to get him.

  I think that Nate's biggest problem is that he's trying too hard to fit in and prove that he's not the jerk he was made out to be. Doc wants him to be more aggressive on offense but he's trying to be less selfish and more of a facilitator.

I think this is certainly part of it, although he isn't quite as bad as Marbury.

Really, this is what I expected.  The C's have a very difficult system to learn.  It takes a while.  He did great at first, because Doc was not expecting him to know the system that well, and even put in a play specially for him, from the Knicks system.  Now that he has been here a while, he has been expected to be integrated into the system, and it is clear that he is still thinking everything through, rather than just playing. 

[celts55]

So my question is still, is Danny a poor evaluator of players that fit here, or is Doc bad at intergating them into the system?

[BballTim]

I think it's more than just the PG situation.  it's almost everyone Danny has brought in since the Ray/KG trades.

The only players that have really worked out were Posey, PJ (marginally--yes, a big shot at a key time but there were a number of games he didn't do a lot), House (for a limited time), TA (for part of this year) and Finley.

There have been a lot more busts than contributors: Sheed, Daniels, POB, Pollard, House (this year), TA (last year), BBD (this year--I count this year since he's no longer on a rookie contract), Giddens/Walker (even on rookie contracts I'm including them and I don't think they got a fair shake from Doc, they still didn't contribute), Landry, Nate, Cassell, Marbury and Mikki "Don't come around here no" Moore. 

Shelden's in nowhere land.  doesn't see much time, not spectacular when he does play but what do you expect for a vet min player.  Scal sadly gets a pass since he pre-dates those trades.

The question is, is it Danny's fault that he's not evaluating talent very well OR is it Doc's fault for not getting the players in a position to contribute OR both?

  For one thing, I don't think that you can blame Danny's talent evaluation for injury related issues. Secondly, I don't think that all of those end-of-the-bench types were expected to be contributors, at least not in the timeframe that we had them.

[35Lewis]

When Danny traded for Nate the team needed something different.  When Eddie was here he used to bring an energy to the second unit...at least that is what he brought his first two years.  When he kept the energy under control he was a very effective player.  Eddie was an x-factor for this team when he got hot because a small lead would often expand to 20+ points and the other team would concede.  For some reason or another Eddie stopped being Eddie and wasn't as energetic on the floor at times.  I think Danny was looking to re-create some of that energy on the second unit and have it carry over to the first unit.
Ultimately it still falls on Danny because he should have created a strong bench chemistry in the off season.  Rasheed has been lethargic and Marquis has never been the type of player to pump up his teammate although he is usually a sound basketball player.  Rasheed just gets energetic when he is arguing calls or non-calls.
I still think Nate can be a great player coming off screens but not necessarily in the same form as Ray Allen.  Maybe instead of the screens we utilize him in a similar fasion to Pierce where we run a couple of iso's and allow him to create.  Doc will tell him to be agressive and then get mad when he doesn't play within the role he expects and then bench him for not being aggressive.  Doc likes specific qualities in pg's and I can't say that he has been wrong in his choices.  He did choose Rondo over Telfair and West over Banks.  As for other positions I think his track record is a little weak.

[Chris]

So my question is still, is Danny a poor evaluator of players that fit here, or is Doc bad at intergating them into the system?

I think neither.  I think Danny's biggest problem is that he has relied too much on bringing guys in at mid-season, when it is incredibly hard to integrate them into a system.  But other than that, I think they both have done as well as can be expected.

Lets remember, in order to bring in Sam Cassell, Stephon Marbury, Mikki Moore, Nate Robinson, Michael Finley, and PJ Brown, all the C's have given up is Eddie House, and two guys who had no role with this team. 

I actually think he has done a pretty remarkable job of bringing talent in here, given the limited resources he has had since uniting the Big 3.

[MBunge]

I'm not sure there's a lot of blame to go around, but a piece of it does fall on Doc.  He's just not very adaptable as a coach and I think that extends to handling players who don't fit neatly into what Doc wants to do.

Mike

[More Banners]

So my question is still, is Danny a poor evaluator of players that fit here, or is Doc bad at intergating them into the system?

I think Danny is a pretty good evaluator of *talent*.  There have been very few folks he's brought in, through the draft, trades, or signings, that didn't have any talent at all.

Danny, without a doubt, is a bit of a gambler.  The Sheed signing, I thought at the time (prior to CB, for those who would actually look up posts), was a high risk/high reward scenario.  Sheed is that sort of player, and the upside was another banner, but I think he underestimated the downside (that his approach to the game might be contageous, especially with KG not at full strength to provide his style of motivation, which, ironically, is why Sheed was such a priority).

I think Marbury was a gamble, too, that may have paid out handsomely (he thought), but instead ended with eating Vaseline?  But that's the way gambles go.

So I guess my answer is that sometimes Danny's signings don't pay off, but the signings in question have been gambles, rather than errors in evaluating talent.  Could it be that Doc hasn't been able to push the right buttons or use players in a way that improves their payoff?  Sure, but I'm not sure any other coach could get anything more from Sheed or Marbury at this stage of their careers, Larry Brown included.  That said, Doc's style is probably a wretched fit for Sheed...but that's another thread.