CelticsBlog Post
I have many miles to go before they give me Tommy Point take away power 
Time for some discussion if people want of various lineups....Thanks for the above lineups....maybe you can start a 15 member lineup thread now that it's clear Paul and Ray are coming back, and you could include minutes per player too, or whatever you want....I did 12 since it made people think a touch more about who really could have value in case of injury, etc.....
I notice your lineups are veteren stacked. I'm torn on this. (not a Jermaine O'Neal fan, but I do consider us desperate in the area of bigs, so I'll take anything). Torn because I really like the Tommy Heinsoln push pull approach to a basketball team. Vets who provide Savvy and pull the young, and young who provide energy, more defensive disruption of the other squad, and push the older players to match energy level, intensity (keeping the old young by example, in other words). I really believe it works. If you have a team entirely of old people you end up doing nothing to disrupt the other team when they have the ball. This is why I don't understand the continued desire of some to boot Tony Allen off the team. At this point, He, Rondo and the un-injured Perk, but mainly he and Rondo, are the only ones on the team who make the other team uncomfortable on offense. If you trot out too many old players, then back them up with too many Marquis Daniel, Finley, Mike Miller types, the other team simply gets more and more comfortable with the ball. Of course, most of us want Tony back at this point.....he' not replaceable imo. Okay, look forward to discussing yours and some of the other lineups......Your TP's are safer than all heck.
Hey, thanks for responding to my post and btw I had a feeling that you were joking about taking away people's Tommy Points. I would start a thread if I knew how to do so - could you please help me with this?
Anyway, I really like all of your points, especially the Tommy Heinsohn push-pull idea/theory, so TP for you for all of that info. In regards to said strategy, I couldn't agree more. If Danny had done a better job of drafting players (and if Doc had actually played one of them over the past two seasons, like Bill Walker) over the years, we wouldn't have this problem. Then again, no one is perfect, and if Ainge hadn't made one mistake on draft night since his hiring, we probably wouldn't have gotten the Big Three and Banner 17 two years ago (although we might have been set up well for a decade of dominance, but that's just me). Nevertheless, I'm not a Tony Allen guy - he could have been easily replaced by Wesley Matthews had we selected him with the 58th pick in 2009 (on draft night that year, after reading a post by someone who called Matthews, I was completely and utterly confused as to why Danny failed to take him. The same happened this year when he took Harangody instead of Willie Warren or Charles Garcia. Harangody isn't bad, but with Warren still on the board (was stunned that the Lakers didn't take him), you have to take him - he was clearly the bpa.) You build a winner year after year through the draft - not free agency. The addition of players through free agency and trades, for the most part imo, are often the missing pieces to the championship puzzle. Heck, I wish that Roy Hibbert was our Center instead of Perk and that Greg Monroe was our PF of the future - but I digress. What I just suggested (as a frontcourt duo) could have only come about as a result of great foresight/divine intervention/suckering teams and extreme luck; and I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog
. It is possible though - you just have to think a couple moves ahead.
Anyway, I've written way too much already, so I'll end with my assessment of the roles of the veterans on an already aging squad.
For the most part, imo, the best veteran additions are the ones who have yet to taste the champagne. Their jobs are to fill in the holes of the roster and/or provide insurance in case of an emergency. In Game 7 of the Finals, the only options left for Boston off the bench to fill the big man role after Glen Davis were Sheldon Williams and Scal, and I ask you, in the most important game of the year, with whom would you have been more comfortable - Sheldon Williams, who was labeled a project during the regular season and who had seen barely any time in the playoffs, or Joe Smith, a 15 year veteran with slightly more size, a better jump shot, better defense, and who would not have been the proverbial deer in the headlights in the biggest game of his career? Personally, I'd take the latter, but believe me - I completely agree with your concern over adding more veterans to an already aging squad. I honestly believe that GMs should at least contemplate the worst possible situation to be in in the most critical contest of the year when constructing a roster, so that we have plenty in reserve to compensate for injuries, suspensions, foul trouble etc. In addition, I just think that it would be a great way for guys like JO, Tinsley, Stackhouse, Joe Smith, and Iverson to end their careers. All, except perhaps AI, wouldn't rock the boat and demand big minutes, and would probably except a much-reduced role for a shot at a title.
As far as JO goes, while I agree that his postseason performance was hardly anything to write home about, in Miami's offense he was asked to carry a significant portion of their offense in support of Wade. In Boston, he would possibly be the fifth offensive option on an absolutely stacked starting five. People say that he no longer has great speed, leaping ability, durablility, and doesn't show up in crunch time. Some of this is true, but it should also be pointed out that Perk presents the same problems (injuries aside, for the most part) as far as speed, athleticism, and offensive ability, period. JO played 70 games this year, and, while he may need some kind of ankle surgey in the offseason (which may have thrown him off against us in the first round in addition to Perk's thuggery), when he was right in the 2009 playoffs against Atlanta, he absolutely torched Al Horford (something Perk has never been able to do); and while health remains a concern, I think that Doc would do a great job (as he did this year) of giving him needed days off and such so that he is at least reasonably healthy by the start of the postseason. People say that he doesn't play in the low post anymore, but I'm not completely sold on that. The Heat never went to him down there due to their style of play; and while he may not have the court speed of his youth, he still has the superior quickness to get by players. He complemented Bosh very well in Toronto, but that team really didn't have any other go-to offensive firepower. Do you really think he believes that Artest deserves to be crowned a champion after what transpired in Indiana? I think not, and perhaps neither does Tinsley.
Okay, I really need to stop writing – so I’ll end as quickly as possible.
Tinsley – durability a concern, but wouldn’t play a ton anyway. Has playoff experience, can defend, and is an excellent passer.
Iverson – can create for himself and others in addition to getting to the free throw line. Wants to win a ring badly and can create his own shot when the clock is winding down or in the event of a broken play.
Stackhouse – thrived in the role of 6th man for Dallas and Milwaukee last year. Like AI, can create and make tough shots with the clock winding down. Has plenty of playoff experience and probably wants to go out with a title.
Tim Thomas – another big man who can space the floor.
Joe Smith – already mentioned.
The 95/96 draft classes ride again.
Topic: Lineups (talk talk talk talk) (Read 9189 times)