Tony Allen apologists, please stop

[BillfromBoston]

Can we please stop with the excuse making and blaming of Doc for jobs not done by the bench. I had this same discussion last year about Eddie House early on in the playoffs. Eddie was brought in cold and missed shots and somehow that was Doc's fault for not using him. But later in the playoffs when it was clear Sam wasn't doing it, Eddie was brought in cold and delivered.

Point being, bench players are paid millions of dollars to come into a game cold and produce. That is their career. It's what they get paid to do. To blame Doc because Tony wasn't mentally prepared to play at his 100% best when he was called upon is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.

Why is it when Leon is called upon he seems to make immediate impacts? Same for Baby when he was coming off the bench. Players across the league do it game and and game out. But Tony comes in, isn't prepared mentally for the speed of the game, falls behind Gordon and allows him to get the ball and great position and that's Doc's fault for not playing him??

Now I have heard everything?

Ok, lets get a couple things clear:

1. It is NOT Doc's fault for the result of the play
2. Tony Allen was NOT good when in the game
3. Doc and the staff have reams of data on TA's game impact
4. That data suggests TA is most effective in extended minutes
5. TA is an overrated defender, but can play excellent man defense at times.

This whole thread is another in the long line of overstatements back and forth in an endless quest to state one's intractable opinion and then never be swayed by anyone else's.

TA has tons of faults - he's TO prone, can't shoot effectively, inconsistent offensively and defensively, and shows no aptitude for situational usage, which is probably his ideal role in the NBA.

But he has also shown enough positive play to be considered a decent two-way option at the wing as a 6th man/1st wing off the bench.

Could the team do better? Yes - and they began that process by drafting two talented rookie wings. Could they use a more senior wing? Only if they deem the value to be there relative to their building plans. I'd imagine that TA will be moved and that a veteran replacement will be brought in at his 2.5 million dollar roster slot - that price tag limits the options though available.

It is more likely that the team will spend the main dollars on C/F to replace Mikki Moore, (this being a huge off-season market for vet F/C.) They will also likely look to retain Marbury or add and impact guard who can provide leadership and scoring punch consistently to  the bench.

Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were not playing heavy minutes until the injury bug hit. Ray backed up Paul at the 3 and the team used its guard depth to balance out the lack of a vet 3, which worked fine and actually became a team strength once Marbury learned the offense and ran the 2nd unit with aplomb.

TA or no TA, if this team has a quality backup 5 to go along with Davis/Powe at the 4 and they get quality PG play out of the backup 1 with Eddie at the 2, the team can afford to develop their younger wings with upside while still keeping Pierce/Ray's minutes under control.

I'd take Grant Hill for 1 year if he'd come cheap, but I wouldn't spend big money on a multi-year deal for a backup wing to play 15-20 mpg when there are better value players at the other need positions.

Bring in Sheed and bring back Marbury and this team can afford to replace TA with a minimum salary, one-year wing vet or evaluate Walker/Giddens development over the summer and make a decision then.

[nickagneta]

Can we please stop with the excuse making and blaming of Doc for jobs not done by the bench. I had this same discussion last year about Eddie House early on in the playoffs. Eddie was brought in cold and missed shots and somehow that was Doc's fault for not using him. But later in the playoffs when it was clear Sam wasn't doing it, Eddie was brought in cold and delivered.

Point being, bench players are paid millions of dollars to come into a game cold and produce. That is their career. It's what they get paid to do. To blame Doc because Tony wasn't mentally prepared to play at his 100% best when he was called upon is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.

Why is it when Leon is called upon he seems to make immediate impacts? Same for Baby when he was coming off the bench. Players across the league do it game and and game out. But Tony comes in, isn't prepared mentally for the speed of the game, falls behind Gordon and allows him to get the ball and great position and that's Doc's fault for not playing him??

Now I have heard everything?

Ok, lets get a couple things clear:

1. It is NOT Doc's fault for the result of the play
2. Tony Allen was NOT good when in the game
3. Doc and the staff have reams of data on TA's game impact
4. That data suggests TA is most effective in extended minutes
5. TA is an overrated defender, but can play excellent man defense at times.

This whole thread is another in the long line of overstatements back and forth in an endless quest to state one's intractable opinion and then never be swayed by anyone else's.

TA has tons of faults - he's TO prone, can't shoot effectively, inconsistent offensively and defensively, and shows no aptitude for situational usage, which is probably his ideal role in the NBA.

But he has also shown enough positive play to be considered a decent two-way option at the wing as a 6th man/1st wing off the bench.

Could the team do better? Yes - and they began that process by drafting two talented rookie wings. Could they use a more senior wing? Only if they deem the value to be there relative to their building plans. I'd imagine that TA will be moved and that a veteran replacement will be brought in at his 2.5 million dollar roster slot - that price tag limits the options though available.

It is more likely that the team will spend the main dollars on C/F to replace Mikki Moore, (this being a huge off-season market for vet F/C.) They will also likely look to retain Marbury or add and impact guard who can provide leadership and scoring punch consistently to  the bench.

Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were not playing heavy minutes until the injury bug hit. Ray backed up Paul at the 3 and the team used its guard depth to balance out the lack of a vet 3, which worked fine and actually became a team strength once Marbury learned the offense and ran the 2nd unit with aplomb.

TA or no TA, if this team has a quality backup 5 to go along with Davis/Powe at the 4 and they get quality PG play out of the backup 1 with Eddie at the 2, the team can afford to develop their younger wings with upside while still keeping Pierce/Ray's minutes under control.

I'd take Grant Hill for 1 year if he'd come cheap, but I wouldn't spend big money on a multi-year deal for a backup wing to play 15-20 mpg when there are better value players at the other need positions.

Bring in Sheed and bring back Marbury and this team can afford to replace TA with a minimum salary, one-year wing vet or evaluate Walker/Giddens development over the summer and make a decision then.

Good post. I agree with just about everything and think that Grant Hill would be a perfect fit for this team as a short term solution while this team evaluates what they have in the wings(pun intended).

And for the most part I agree with your evaluation of Tony Allen. It's pretty spot on. I just hate his game and think he really isn't a good option for a championship team to have as their 6th man/1st wing off the bench. I like smarter players that meld into a role and can play with anyone in that 6th man role and Tony is not that.

My post for the most part was critical of people who blame coaches for using their bench players in late game situations without having played them at all in a game. Sorry, but this is basketball where at the end of games players have the chance to foul out and then bench players need to immediately come in and make an impact. It is the nature of the game. Bench players get paid handsomely for having to do exactly that. If it is their career to be a bench player then they must be ready to produce at a moments notice. They need to be physically, and more importantly, emotionally and mentally ready to enter a game and be ready to be productive.

I just will never understand it when if they don't produce in that situation and people criticize the player, that people defend them by saying it is the coach's fault for not getting that player more minutes. I think the concept is absurd. Tony Allen gets paid more money in one year than most of us will see in their lifetimes for the opportunity and for being giving the responsibility of being ready when called upon. Tony didn't play well. That's Tony's fault.