Wow. I sure would like to play under you as my coach if I were a one dimensional player who was stinking it up. This guy can do no wrong in your eyes. Sam has played in 29 games now as a Celtic. He has about 5 games where I would say he played at a level where we should be glad to have him in the game. About 5 of them that he played so-so, and the rest were poor. Some of those other 19 games downright awful. If theses were Scal's numbers you would be ripping the guy to shreds on here. The blinders you Sam lovers have on are unbelievable. Fortunately it appears that Doc is starting to see the light. As a former PG you'd think it wouldn't have taken him so long...
I'm not a Sam lover in the terms that he should have this role. Overall I am, he's been one of my favourite players for years but he isn't the guy he once was and that means everything to whether he should play right now.
I've always said the same thing about Sam and Eddie. Both are comparable in talent with very different skill sets. Eddie will be more consistent and Sam will be more dynamic and capable of having bigger games. When they signed Sam I said I had no preference over who played because they were different more so than one being better than the other. Sam didn't fit in after 10-15 games and I wanted Eddie House back in the rotation as the backup point for/before the playoffs. Continued to want Eddie there for Atlanta and the start of Cleveland.
Now I'm not so sure on Eddie because he hasn't played significant competetitive minutes in 29 days. That's an awful lot of time to go without playing to be inserted into a very tough playoff series. That reliability he once offered, well I'm not convinced it exists anymore.
I also do not think Sam Cassell is a one dimensional player and I think far too many people are calling him so. Eddie is better for ball movement (which I said when Sam signed) but Sam is a far superior floor general and playmaker (which I said when Sam signed). Example of him being a floor general, game one, Rondo stops passing KG the ball in the post and we lose the third quarter. Sammy comes in and immediately KG is the focal point of the offense again, and getting post ups. Example of a playmaker, second quarter game two, he had the whole game on a string, he was dictating everything and creating plays, he was scoring and getting players like Powe and Posey better scoring opportunities. I don't think he's a one dimensional player, he contributes in other ways offensively also.
I also think this is a very good series for Sam. He's playing against the two point guards that don't regularly try to take advantage of his lack of quickness and weak defense. On the other end neither can pressure the ball, both are small and fall victim to Sam's post ups, and both fall for his tricks/intelligence (like his pump fakes or ability to get to the spots he likes). This is by far the best series Sam is likely to have.
He's had two very good games in this series in games one and two. He didn't play well in Cleveland but Rondo was very poor too. Last night he didn't play enough to seriously judge him, but Rondo was fantastic from the second quarter onwards so Sam should've sat for the rest of the way.
No. You're a Sam lover. Plain and simple. You give him labels of "very good games" when they are mediocre. You overlook the 20+ bad games he has played for us. You fail to admit that even though Sam CAN be a better floor general while out there he REFUSES to be because he doesn't want to do anything but hit shots. He is convinced that he is the best player on the floor except when he is in there with KG and that no one else is deserving of shots. House on the other hand is ALWAYS looking to pass first and shoot second. That IMO makes him the better floor general now because he is willing to try and run the offense. You can't play the way Sam has played and not think that you are going to be labeled one dimensional. Unfortunately his one dimension isn't even working right now.
EJ, i think you are working off the wrong paradigm IMO.
you are assessing Sam in terms of "playing good" and "not playing good".
you are working with the same framework with Big Baby in terms of his consistency - playing well in one game and then struggling in the next...etc...
the fact of the matter is that that is all irrelevant at this point. sure Big Baby would be better if he had more experience. sure Sam would be better if he was 5 years younger....on and on..
but the these guys are who they are right now and they are members of this team and the only thing that matters is using their strengths to our advantage to win games.
the best way to do that is to put them in the best matchups...
Sam was brought in because Eddie is not a good ballhandler and teams were pressing him when he was in the game and it was leading to turnovers which was totally taking us out of our offense in the second unit.
but this element is not as big of a problem in this particular series as having a backup PG who can stay with the opposing teams shooters....so that is why he should play in this series. that's my opinion anyway....
but there will come a time when having another ballhandler out there will be important. or having another guy who can create his own shot will be important...
you keep looking at examples given of Sam performing well and saying that "well that was just one game..." but to me, that is the wrong filter. it doesn't matter at this point how many times he did something or didn't do something.
the fact is when matched up with guy like Jacque Vaughn for instance, Sam was able to post him up and get some easy buckets for us.....it doesn't matter how many times he did it for this team. what matters is that it is a particular skill that he has. and under the right circumstances, it is a skill that could come in handy.
the same can be said for Big Baby. the question is not about him getting huge minutes or not getting huge minutes, it is about putting him in positions where his skill set gets us some advantage.
did you see the game 5 of the ORL/DET series when Van Gundy put in that guy Gortat?
the guy hardly played the whole year but comes in for 4 minutes that actually were pretty valuable.
Scott did the same thing with Armstrong in their game 5...
and Big Baby is a much better player than these guys, but that also is not really the point. the point is that in the playoffs, all the old debates are out the window. our roster is what it is and even the most one dimensional player can actually have a game changing influence if put in the right situation.
Powe is definitely further along than BBD and is much more consistent than him, but if he can't keep Varejao out of the paint because he just enough bigger, then you have to go with BBD - consistent or not.
if Sam can't keep up with Gibson, then you have to go with either Rondo for 48 or go with Eddie.... and then if CLE makes an adjustment, then we have to make an adjustment.....and so on and so on...
that's just how i see it anyway.
to me, the playoffs are largely about matchups and adjustments.....these teams know each other so well at this point that small things become huge.
Topic: Doc, have we finally seen the last of 0-14 Cassell? (Read 23697 times)