Perk is just a slightly better player than TA

[Fafnir]

Tony Allen is thriving because with Rudy Gay hurt he's getting minutes and shot attempts. Tony has shown in the past he can produce if he's the starter, but typically those stats don't translate into wins for his team.

His problem was always a role player.

I would have 100% agreed with that until last year, but i thought he showed he can accept being a role player, and was [dang] important for us. Memphis also has been on a roll since TA has been getting big minutes when Mayo got suspended. Anyways, I was just disagreeing about TA's "level" being a bad place. But i completely disagree with the OP,  Perk is clearly a more important player, saying otherwise is crazy IMO.

Honestly I think that says more about OJ Mayo being overrated than Tony being under rated.

[Big_Matt34]

Honestly I think that says more about OJ Mayo being overrated than Tony being under rated.

Well i think it's a combination of Mayo being in a bad situation, and him being overrated. While i think TA is underappreciated by some Celt fans, i don't really think he is underrated. He has been quite good for the this year, especially lately, but i don't think many people are claiming he's been anything more than that.

[Bankshot]

This is preposterous.

More than preposterous.

Raise you another preposterous. Celtics were a healthy Perk away from a second Championship. Therefore this nonsense.

Not sure about this anymore.  If KG had gotten more than 3 rebounds, we probably win.  If Rondo shoots better and 25% from the line, we probably win.  If Ray doesn't go absolutely cold, we win.  If Pierce plays better, we win.  If Doc played Nate more than 4 minutes (who played well just the game before) we probably win.  If Tony takes some minutes from Ray (who wasn't really doing anything) we probably win.  So I think we still could have won without Perk had one of those players stepped up just a bit.

[LooseCannon]

I'll go a bit farther in the analogy.  Both Perk and Tony Allen have a legitimate claim to being elite defenders at their position.  TA has a real case for being considered the top defensive SG.  But both are limited on offense.  Perk is limited enough that he often doesn't finish games and Allen's lack of a jump shot makes him a bench player rather than a starter.  Neither is really a good fit for a Rondo-drive offense.  A team with Perkins as your third-best player is a lottery team.  A team with TA as your third-best player is a historically bad team.

[BudweiserCeltic]

This is preposterous.

More than preposterous.

Raise you another preposterous. Celtics were a healthy Perk away from a second Championship. Therefore this nonsense.

Not sure about this anymore.  If KG had gotten more than 3 rebounds, we probably win.  If Rondo shoots better and 25% from the line, we probably win.  If Ray doesn't go absolutely cold, we win.  If Pierce plays better, we win.  If Doc played Nate more than 4 minutes (who played well just the game before) we probably win.  If Tony takes some minutes from Ray (who wasn't really doing anything) we probably win.  So I think we still could have won without Perk had one of those players stepped up just a bit.

Not stepped up just a bit. One of those players played the bare minimum to what they are paid to play as.

[BballTim]

The loss of Perk is obviously very tough off the court for the players and coaches.  It's like having one of your best friends move far away when you're middle school age.

But the business at hand is making your team better and I think we accomplished that yesterday.  Jeff Green has all-star potential.

Perk is a below average offensive player.  He makes easy shots difficult ones.  Even Semih finished better than him.  And a 38 year old Shaq makes him look like an amateur.  He can't shoot free throws.  He travels all the time.  He tries to do too much when he gets double or triple teamed rather than kicking the ball out.

Sound familar?  Exactly the same flaws TA has on the offensive end.

So where is Perk's value?  On the defensive end; same as TA.  But they both take bad fouls at times and Perk has that tendency to pickup unnecessary T's.

So other than "chemistry" what does Perk really bring to the table?  The C's have held 1st place in the East all year without.  So we've already proven we can win without him.

This thread isn't meant to bash Perk, but his value has been grossly overstated here.  He's been great for us the past several years, during our down and glory years.  But he's not even close to being one of our key pieces.


 

  Still staying with your scoring >>>>>>>>> everything else theme?

[Junkyard Dawg]

TA is better than perk.
nenad is better than perk.
david lee is better than charles barkley.
switzerland is better than somalia.
air is better than water.

ridiculous statements that sound true in certain contexts.

the problem is, every player, coach and GM in the league would disagree with you. 

I hear what you're saying about perk being overrated, I don't agree with you, but comparing perk to players like this just makes no sense...