Maggette says he could be willing to take pay cut to come to Boston

[cordobes]

If there's a reporter from the Globe or Herald nearby, I'd like to know if Corey is willing to commit himself to improving on the defensive end.

Bigger question for me than if he's willing to come off the bench.

I think it's pretty fair to say that he would he would be able to since he has said that he wants to win. If he wants to win then he will do whatever Doc asks of him. He is really athletic so it's not like he can't defend .

That is a misconception. One can be have phenomenal athleticism and still be a very poor defender. And please, don't say that our system will make him better. Defensive systems can hide a poor defender, but they don't turn a bad defender - especially if the player is a bad defender because he lacks lateral quickness or fundamentals - into a good defender.

defense is all want to and effort. The guy is a 20 ppg scorer even if he isn't the greatest defender he can make it up on the offensive end. By the way weren't Ray Allen and Paul Pierce considered average defenders at best before last year started? If Ray Allen can become an adequate to good defender then so can Maggette as long as the effort is there.

I've already addressed this issue. In my view, there are a lot of fallacies in that reasoning:

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=20712.msg324512#msg324512

Also, do you think Maggette can keep his 20 ppg if he joins the Celtics? Last year, he used 27% of the Clippers' possessions to meet that numbers.   People are assuming that players can keep "making sacrifices and sharing the ball" indefinitely and still keep their efficiency, but that's not the way it works. And it's not a problem of egos or willingness. 

ok buddy ,I am sure you have seen your fair share of clippers games in portugal to know how good a defender Maggette can or can't be ......

I'm not interested in ad hominem arguments. And I recognized that I've never analyzed Maggette enough to understand why he's such a bad defender (but not because I'm in Portugal, I can start watching dozens of Maggette's games right now).

But the point here is that concepts like:

1. All defense takes is athleticism, will and effort.
2. Team defense doesn't depend on the individual defensive skills of the players.
3. Defensive systems can improve a player's defense.

are pure nonsense.

Give Thibodeau or any other reputed defensive coach a team of Amares, Jeffersons, Maggettes, Rickys and Barbosas - all of them quick and athletic enough -, assume he's able to motivate them to practice and play hard defense, and he'll return the worst defensive team in the league.

[rondohondo]

If there's a reporter from the Globe or Herald nearby, I'd like to know if Corey is willing to commit himself to improving on the defensive end.

Bigger question for me than if he's willing to come off the bench.

I think it's pretty fair to say that he would he would be able to since he has said that he wants to win. If he wants to win then he will do whatever Doc asks of him. He is really athletic so it's not like he can't defend .

That is a misconception. One can be have phenomenal athleticism and still be a very poor defender. And please, don't say that our system will make him better. Defensive systems can hide a poor defender, but they don't turn a bad defender - especially if the player is a bad defender because he lacks lateral quickness or fundamentals - into a good defender.

defense is all want to and effort. The guy is a 20 ppg scorer even if he isn't the greatest defender he can make it up on the offensive end. By the way weren't Ray Allen and Paul Pierce considered average defenders at best before last year started? If Ray Allen can become an adequate to good defender then so can Maggette as long as the effort is there.

I've already addressed this issue. In my view, there are a lot of fallacies in that reasoning:

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=20712.msg324512#msg324512

Also, do you think Maggette can keep his 20 ppg if he joins the Celtics? Last year, he used 27% of the Clippers' possessions to meet that numbers.   People are assuming that players can keep "making sacrifices and sharing the ball" indefinitely and still keep their efficiency, but that's not the way it works. And it's not a problem of egos or willingness. 

ok buddy ,I am sure you have seen your fair share of clippers games in portugal to know how good a defender Maggette can or can't be ......

I'm not interested in ad hominem arguments. And I recognized that I've never analyzed Maggette enough to understand why he's such a bad defender (but not because I'm in Portugal, I can start watching dozens of Maggette's games right now).

But the point here is that concepts like:

1. All defense takes is athleticism, will and effort.
2. Team defense doesn't depend on the individual defensive skills of the players.
3. Defensive systems can improve a player's defense.

are pure nonsense.

Give Thibodeau or another reputed defensive coach a team of Amares, Jeffersons, Maggettes, Rickys and Barbosas, assume he's able to motivate them to practice and play hard defense, and he'll return the worst defensive team in the league.

http://www.nba.com/coachfile/tom_thibodeau/index.html

Thibodeau spent the previous seven years as an assistant coach with the New York Knicks. During his tenure with the Knicks, New York set a then-NBA record by holding 33 consecutive opponents under 100 points in the 2000-2001 season.

That 2000-2001 Knicks team had a starting lineup of

C: Camby
PF: Larry Johnson
SF: Latrell Sprewell
SG: Allen Houston
PG: Marc Jackson

Camby and Sprewell are/were very good defenders, but the other 3 were average at best and they set an NBA record by holding opponents under 100 points for 33 consecutive games.

It is about the defensive system and effort even if you refuse to believe that .

[BudweiserCeltic]

Well, of course if you have a ton of crap defensive players you're not going to get much done in any defensive system.

You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win. It should be a tool to help you win, just like the offense is. Our defense had to carry our team through the playoffs a little bit too much for my liking. I would say the same if we relied too much in our offense. We need to balance the two a bit better, and it starts by getting scorers off the bench.

[earl]

You don't need great individual defenders to play good team defense.

Myth. There's no team defense that can save you if you don't have good individual defenders. Do you know the difference between our defense and Pacers' defense? It's explained by a single reason: we have great individual defenders, they don't. I've already written a variety of posts about the overrated nature of team defense over here, including in this thread.

I'd agree that you need some individual defenders to base a team D around, but you don't need a team full of them was my point. We can be a great defensive team next year with or without Posey (regardless of who else is brought in).

Ray Allen was a poor defender too

Myth. I've already given this recomendation: go see the 2001 ECF again. Ray Allen put a defensive clinic guarding MVP Allen Iverson, who stated that he was the best defender he faced all season. Ray Allen was a very good defender with the Bucks, a very good defender in college.

and some say so about Paul

When asked, motivated and coached to play defense, Pierce was always a top 5 defender in his position. Another myth.

I hadn't followed Ray a ton before he arrived, so I'll concede the point on that. Has Corey Maggette ever been asked, coached and motivated to play defense? If such a thing occurs, I actually wouldn't be surprised for him to hold his own.

2.) He's the first bench scorer. Without House and Posey, who is going to score consistently off the bench?

Not sure if I understand. We already have 3 all-star scorers in the starting 5. We need scoring off the bench, but why should that be the priority?

Never said it was the priority, just that our only bench scoring were a couple spot up 3 point shooters who are now free agents.

Hell, the Cavs started WALLY, and they played some of the best D in the playoffs

The Cavs played good defense in spite of Wally. They played a very bold defensive system against us, using a centerfield, assigning Wally to a role is perfectly able to fill. And besides their bigs and LeBron, they have elite defenders from the bench: Varejão and a winger, Pavlovic. Now, imagine you're facing the Cavs once again. Pierce needs to get a rest or gets himself in foul trouble. Who are you going to put on LeBron? Maggette? Ray Allen? The 6'3'' rookie? Scalabrine? Maggette allows a opponent PER of 18.4. The average SF in the league has borderline All-Star numbers when facing him.

That is precisely the point, nobody here in their right mind would argue Wally is even an average defender (I certainly didn't). The team D worked out alright though, huh? I wouldn't consider any of those other guys "elite" defenders (but still good).

And you've got to be kidding about Pierce taking a rest against LeBron. In that situation, Maggette would come off the bench and guard LeBron, and LeBron would abuse him just like he abused Posey.

The only difference I see in that _specific_ situation is somebody has to guard Maggette, whose forte is to attack and draw fouls.

If we lose out on Pose and bring in Maggette, we'd need to add a good shooter.

And how are you going to play all these guys? We are ending up using our best offensive players (Ray, Pierce) primarily as defenders.

I'm not sure I see the problem. You could replace Posey with Maggette and resign House, both of which played considerable minutes throughout the season and deep into the playoffs (aside from the temporary shelving of House when Cassell came aboard).

4.) I have no problem with our last scoring option being a prototypical scorer.

You should. A prototypical scorer is a player that basically scores and is only efficient when scoring. Basketball is much more than scoring. Who's going to do the other things? Scorers? They're going to do it poorly. That's what the concept of role-player is about. Red Auerbach invented it for a reason. If your last scoring option is a scorer, you are probably headed to a lottery spot.

Misunderstood your point. I don't think Maggette is a "prototypical scorer" as you describe it. He's tough, he can get to the basket and is known for drawing fouls (like Pierce) (obviously he can score) and he can rebound. He's not a Gerald Green "I'm going to stand around and shoot and that's it" type of player. Personally, I think with effort and coaching he can fit into the team defense well enough for this team to be a championship contender.

[CoachBo]

Well, of course if you have a ton of crap defensive players you're not going to get much done in any defensive system.

You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win. It should be a tool to help you win, just like the offense is. Our defense had to carry our team through the playoffs a little bit too much for my liking. I would say the same if we relied too much in our offense. We need to balance the two a bit better, and it starts by getting scorers off the bench.

Again, I cannot begin to tell you how strongly I disagree with this post as a coach. So much that I cannot let this one go.

Championship defense requires a commitment from EVERY single player on the floor, particularly when it traps, blitzes and relies on rotations to stop the other club. It also requires at least a couple of lockdown defenders who are going to win at least two-thirds of the battles against the great scorers in the league. I've seen the nonsense posted on these Posey threads before that he got beat by James, Josh Smith or whoever. Fair enough, but who won the majority of those battles? Have you guys forgotten the lengthy stretches - 7 to 10 minutes - that he shut Bryant down? There's been a general mischaracterization in these threads that a great defender should never get beat, which is just nonsense. All you can ask in the association with the great scorers is a defender who wins the majority of his battles, and that's Posey.

And as for the middle, you will not win a championship in the association with "average or subpar" defenders inside. Not this year, not 10 years ago and not 25 years ago. We were fortunate to have Garnett, and to a slightly lesser extent Perkins, inside to clean any plays up.

And as a coach, I'll find the points to win if I have a great defense that slows the other club down and creates opportunities for me in transition, which the Celtics were quite good at doing. Points can be created in a variety of ways, and they don't require having five scorers on the floor to create.

I'm not saying that the Celtics couldn't win with Maggette. What I'm saying is the guy is a below-average defender - and yes, I saw him live or recorded at least a dozen times last year. He's going to have to commit to Thibs' system and play a hell of a lot harder than I saw him play last year, or I'm simply not going to like a Posey-for-Maggette tradeoff.

[winsomme]

Well, of course if you have a ton of crap defensive players you're not going to get much done in any defensive system.

You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win. It should be a tool to help you win, just like the offense is. Our defense had to carry our team through the playoffs a little bit too much for my liking. I would say the same if we relied too much in our offense. We need to balance the two a bit better, and it starts by getting scorers off the bench.

well a lot of our defense's effectiveness IMO depends on making proper rotations and when guarding the man with the ball knowing where your help is coming from....and when you aren't on top of those things, bad things happen (ie easy buckets and other players in foul trouble)

that being said, it is not out of the question that a middling defender can up his play in the system. it just depends on the player.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Well, of course if you have a ton of crap defensive players you're not going to get much done in any defensive system.

You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win. It should be a tool to help you win, just like the offense is. Our defense had to carry our team through the playoffs a little bit too much for my liking. I would say the same if we relied too much in our offense. We need to balance the two a bit better, and it starts by getting scorers off the bench.

Again, I cannot begin to tell you how strongly I disagree with this post as a coach. So much that I cannot let this one go.

Championship defense requires a commitment from EVERY single player on the floor, particularly when it traps, blitzes and relies on rotations to stop the other club. It also requires at least a couple of lockdown defenders who are going to win at least two-thirds of the battles against the great scorers in the league. I've seen the nonsense posted on these Posey threads before that he got beat by James, Josh Smith or whoever. Fair enough, but who won the majority of those battles? Have you guys forgotten the lengthy stretches - 7 to 10 minutes - that he shut Bryant down? There's been a general mischaracterization in these threads that a great defender should never get beat, which is just nonsense. All you can ask in the association with the great scorers is a defender who wins the majority of his battles, and that's Posey.

And as for the middle, you will not win a championship in the association with "average or subpar" defenders inside. Not this year, not 10 years ago and not 25 years ago. We were fortunate to have Garnett, and to a slightly lesser extent Perkins, inside to clean any plays up.

And as a coach, I'll find the points to win if I have a great defense that slows the other club down and creates opportunities for me in transition, which the Celtics were quite good at doing. Points can be created in a variety of ways, and they don't require having five scorers on the floor to create.

I'm not saying that the Celtics couldn't win with Maggette. What I'm saying is the guy is a below-average defender - and yes, I saw him live or recorded at least a dozen times last year. He's going to have to commit to Thibs' system and play a hell of a lot harder than I saw him play last year, or I'm simply not going to like a Posey-for-Maggette tradeoff.

Now, you're twisting my words. One thing is for someone not to be a good defender, and it's another not to have the commitment to play defense. The two things are not the same.

[cordobes]

If there's a reporter from the Globe or Herald nearby, I'd like to know if Corey is willing to commit himself to improving on the defensive end.

Bigger question for me than if he's willing to come off the bench.

I think it's pretty fair to say that he would he would be able to since he has said that he wants to win. If he wants to win then he will do whatever Doc asks of him. He is really athletic so it's not like he can't defend .

That is a misconception. One can be have phenomenal athleticism and still be a very poor defender. And please, don't say that our system will make him better. Defensive systems can hide a poor defender, but they don't turn a bad defender - especially if the player is a bad defender because he lacks lateral quickness or fundamentals - into a good defender.

defense is all want to and effort. The guy is a 20 ppg scorer even if he isn't the greatest defender he can make it up on the offensive end. By the way weren't Ray Allen and Paul Pierce considered average defenders at best before last year started? If Ray Allen can become an adequate to good defender then so can Maggette as long as the effort is there.

I've already addressed this issue. In my view, there are a lot of fallacies in that reasoning:

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=20712.msg324512#msg324512

Also, do you think Maggette can keep his 20 ppg if he joins the Celtics? Last year, he used 27% of the Clippers' possessions to meet that numbers.   People are assuming that players can keep "making sacrifices and sharing the ball" indefinitely and still keep their efficiency, but that's not the way it works. And it's not a problem of egos or willingness. 

ok buddy ,I am sure you have seen your fair share of clippers games in portugal to know how good a defender Maggette can or can't be ......

I'm not interested in ad hominem arguments. And I recognized that I've never analyzed Maggette enough to understand why he's such a bad defender (but not because I'm in Portugal, I can start watching dozens of Maggette's games right now).

But the point here is that concepts like:

1. All defense takes is athleticism, will and effort.
2. Team defense doesn't depend on the individual defensive skills of the players.
3. Defensive systems can improve a player's defense.

are pure nonsense.

Give Thibodeau or another reputed defensive coach a team of Amares, Jeffersons, Maggettes, Rickys and Barbosas, assume he's able to motivate them to practice and play hard defense, and he'll return the worst defensive team in the league.

http://www.nba.com/coachfile/tom_thibodeau/index.html

Thibodeau spent the previous seven years as an assistant coach with the New York Knicks. During his tenure with the Knicks, New York set a then-NBA record by holding 33 consecutive opponents under 100 points in the 2000-2001 season.

That 2000-2001 Knicks team had a starting lineup of

C: Camby
PF: Larry Johnson
SF: Latrell Sprewell
SG: Allen Houston
PG: Marc Jackson

Camby and Sprewell are/were very good defenders, but the other 3 were average at best and they set an NBA record by holding opponents under 100 points for 33 consecutive games.

It is about the defensive system and effort even if you refuse to believe that .

That team also had two of the best defenders in the league playing starter minutes, Kurt Thomas and Charlie Ward. But you're missing my point - I'm not saying that team defense is useless.

This is just my opinion and others may disagree, but here's what I think about the nature of team defense:

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=20414.msg317292#msg317292

[CoachBo]

You and I do not see the pro game the same. At all.

The definition of a poor defender includes a defender who doesn't put out effort, so I don't agree with your last post, either. It's a results game and the results are the same.

You cannot win a championship rolling a team of scorers out there that's ambivalent about playing defense, and the Lakers are proof of that.

We have three great scorers in the starting lineup, who rarely left the lineup together, and two significant threats coming off the bench. In that equasion, I'm looking for defense off the bench rather than scoring 100 percent of the time. It's an approach that won us a title, and the ONLY acceptable reason to me to change it by letting Posey go is if management determines his contract demands are excessive.

[wdleehi]

Replacing Posey with Maggette will hurt some of the bench defense, but I would bet the Celtics would still have the most efficient defense.  The Celtics got all the players in this system almost flawlessly from the begining.  As long as Maggette buys into the system, the Celtics defense will continue. 


Of course strengthening the defense off the bench at PG and C would offset that.

[BudweiserCeltic]

You and I do not see the pro game the same. At all.

The definition of a poor defender includes a defender who doesn't put out effort, so I don't agree with your last post, either. It's a results game and the results are the same.

You cannot win a championship rolling a team of scorers out there that's ambivalent about playing defense, and the Lakers are proof of that.

Man, you didn't read my post at all. When did I say that you win a championsip rolling a team of scorers out? Where, tell me? Where did I mention that defense wasn't important? All I said that we have an offensive/defense unbalance. I don't like relying on our defense to win, just as I wouldn't like to rely on our offense to win. All I said that we had to rely on our defense too many times for my liking. Would've said the same if it was the other way around. I don't like the current balance.

[cordobes]

Well, of course if you have a ton of crap defensive players you're not going to get much done in any defensive system.

You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win. It should be a tool to help you win, just like the offense is. Our defense had to carry our team through the playoffs a little bit too much for my liking. I would say the same if we relied too much in our offense. We need to balance the two a bit better, and it starts by getting scorers off the bench.

I absolutely disagree. In my view, and from my experience, it's precisely the opposite: you can rely on your defense to win, but you can't win relying on your offense. Offense is too inconsistent by definition; defense you can bring it every night.

If we replace two proved defensive players like PJ and Posey with two mediocre defenders, our team defense will suffer a lot. You still have Garnett, but if you're going to need Garnett to help more and more quickly, he'll tire down quickly, he'll make more mistakes and he'll get in foul trouble. You can still sink a lot to protect the paint, but if your players are not good enough closing out - and that's not only about quickness and effort, the opponents will have more type A outside shots.

[CoachBo]

"You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win."

We won a championship with the combination you criticize above - and the above is a quote, lest you start backpeddling again. To criticize it is folly.

This is a pretty good explanation - one you clearly don't want to hear - about the value of defense and how it's played:

http://www.emptythebench.com/2008/06/17/in-defense-of-hard-nosed-nba-defense-or-why-you-can-still-enjoy-nba-basketball-when-your-team-isnt-scoring/

This is my last comment on the topic, so you can have the last word. I just want it on the record that there's a coach out there who considers your approach to "balance" a mistake.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Well, of course if you have a ton of crap defensive players you're not going to get much done in any defensive system.

You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win. It should be a tool to help you win, just like the offense is. Our defense had to carry our team through the playoffs a little bit too much for my liking. I would say the same if we relied too much in our offense. We need to balance the two a bit better, and it starts by getting scorers off the bench.

I absolutely disagree. In my view, and from my experience, it's precisely the opposite: you can rely on your defense to win, but you can't win relying on your offense. Offense is too inconsistent by definition; defense you can bring it every night.

If we replace two proved defensive players like PJ and Posey with two mediocre defenders, our team defense will suffer a lot. You still have Garnett, but if you're going to need Garnett to help more and more quickly, he'll tire down quickly, he'll make more mistakes and he'll get in foul trouble. You can still sink a lot to protect the paint, but if your players are not good enough closing out - and that's not only about quickness and effort, the opponents will have more type A outside shots.

All I'm saying that you shouldn't have to rely on one or the other if you have a properly balanced team. If you told me to choose from a team that's great defensively vs. a team that's great offensively I'd lean towards the defensive team. But if you told me to choose between those two, and a team that's good offensively and good defensively I'd choose that one.

So, just because I want a legit scorer off the bench it suddenly means that we'll fill the whole bench with crappy defensive players? There has to be a balance, and in NONE of my posts have I suggested that we go and do that.

"You have a good defensive system, good defensive players, you can fill the middle with average or subpar defenders and overall you should still have quite a potent defense.'

To me, as this team is currently consituted, we need to improve the bench offense more than anything. And not with shooters, but with scorers.

Defense wins championships and all, but we were a bit lucky that our defense sustained us the way it did... a team shouldn't have to rely on its defense to win."

We won a championship with the combination you criticize above - and the above is a quote, lest you start backpeddling again. To criticize it is folly.

This is a pretty good explanation - one you clearly don't want to hear - about the value of defense and how it's played:

http://www.emptythebench.com/2008/06/17/in-defense-of-hard-nosed-nba-defense-or-why-you-can-still-enjoy-nba-basketball-when-your-team-isnt-scoring/

This is my last comment on the topic, so you can have the last word. I just want it on the record that there's a coach out there who considers your approach to "balance" a mistake.

You porpusely cut off the rest of my paragraph. Read it fully to get the CONTEXT of what I'm writing.

[cordobes]

That is precisely the point, nobody here in their right mind would argue Wally is even an average defender (I certainly didn't). The team D worked out alright though, huh? I wouldn't consider any of those other guys "elite" defenders (but still good).

And you've got to be kidding about Pierce taking a rest against LeBron. In that situation, Maggette would come off the bench and guard LeBron, and LeBron would abuse him just like he abused Posey.

The only difference I see in that _specific_ situation is somebody has to guard Maggette, whose forte is to attack and draw fouls.

I think this is the essential point. Even if you believe that Posey was "abused" by LeBron, consider this: Posey is one of the best players in the league defending SFs. Maggette is very mediocre. Assuming that their defensive performances would equate is plainly wrong, I think. It would be like assuming that Posey could be a 20ppg scorer if he uses 26% of the Clippers offensive possessions. 

About Wally: team defense can hide a player. There are schemes designed for that. But there's not an universal blueprint. Let's forget that Ray Allen had a terrible offensive performance, missing shots he can make while sleeping. Now, if Rondo was a good shooter, the Cavs wouldn't be able to play that defensive system against us. So, they'd need to try something else, and that would probably expose Wally's weaknesses.