« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Billy Walker  (Read 13441 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2009, 01:57:44 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Quote from: ManUp on March 05, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
I have no problem with Walker being invisible out there. He bought Pierce some time to rest, played within the offense, and didn't get hurt the team defensively. In short he did nothing to hurt the team, and we maintained a 10 point lead with our second unit out there. It was the starters who lost the lead, and that was just the nets chucking some 3s. If anything Eddie had one dumb turnover because he wanted to get Walker the ball on a fast break.
The idea because he was invisible that he could be left out there longer without costing us is flawed. Leaving him out there longer would have left a better and more productive player on the bench.

It ended up being a close game, we needed all of the production we got out of our wings. Walker needs to provide more than being "invisible" and rest for Pierce to hit the 10 minute mark of play time.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2009, 01:59:28 PM »

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
I thought Walker looked decent last night.  Especially on the boards. He is going to contribute.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2009, 02:02:26 PM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 366
  • Tommy Points: 119
I thought Walker did very well in his short time on the court.  I wouldn't characterize what he did being 'invisible' either; he was doing what Doc wanted--nothing.

But the times where he was asked to make a play, he did--swinging the ball around the perimeter in a timely manner, rebounding in traffic, running the court, etc...  See, there's a difference between being 'invisible' and being 'ignored,' and I think Bill Walker was more ignored than invisible last night.  The ONE time anybody looked for him, Bill scored on a nifty, knife-like drive to the basket off a great look from Marbury.  There were other times where HAD HE GOTTEN THE BALL he could have made something happen--but his teammates looked him off, heeding to Doc's decision that he'd rather ignore Walker possibly be subjected to rookie mistakes.  

Hopefully, Walker's performance last night gives Doc the confidence to take off the reigns...

Logged
Folly. Persist.
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2009, 02:02:56 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on March 05, 2009, 01:33:08 PM
He was invisible for the most part.[/quote]

That's the main reason to give him extended runs.
[/quote]
No, this is actually the main reason why he hasn't gotten extended runs.
Logged
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2009, 02:06:42 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Quote from: footey on March 05, 2009, 01:59:28 PM
I thought Walker looked decent last night.  Especially on the boards. He is going to contribute.
He surely will, he'll provide some rest for Pierce to keep his minutes down the rest of the season.

Another point I'd like to raise. It is also important to give somewhat consistent minutes to younger players. A few random games of 15 minutes and then a bunch of DNPs won't help them get ready either. I'd much rather keep him at 5-8 so he knows what to expect on a given night.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2009, 02:22:01 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8511
  • Tommy Points: 285
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
Quote from: Fafnir on March 05, 2009, 01:57:44 PM
Quote from: ManUp on March 05, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
I have no problem with Walker being invisible out there. He bought Pierce some time to rest, played within the offense, and didn't get hurt the team defensively. In short he did nothing to hurt the team, and we maintained a 10 point lead with our second unit out there. It was the starters who lost the lead, and that was just the nets chucking some 3s. If anything Eddie had one dumb turnover because he wanted to get Walker the ball on a fast break.
The idea because he was invisible that he could be left out there longer without costing us is flawed. Leaving him out there longer would have left a better and more productive player on the bench.

It ended up being a close game, we needed all of the production we got out of our wings. Walker needs to provide more than being "invisible" and rest for Pierce to hit the 10 minute mark of play time.

There was nothing wrong with him being invisible. You can't expect much from him when he only played two short 3 minutes stints. In those short stints Walker played the right way, and did his job. He was where he was supposed to be, he moved the ball, boxed out, and defended. He simply did what was needed of him nothing more nothing less.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2009, 02:27:05 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2554
  • Tommy Points: 406
hopefully he gets 6-10 minutes against the cavs on friday.

i think the kid has a ton of potential.  I know we were all hoping that one of the rooks, or gabe would step up this year, we were counting on tony coming through, and that definitely has not happened. looks like billy is our best shot at getting some production from the kids, man i hope he earns rotation minutes before the playoffs.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2009, 02:34:28 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Quote from: kozlodoev on March 05, 2009, 02:02:56 PM
No, this is actually the main reason why he hasn't gotten extended runs.

If he was a veteran, and was doing nothing out there, I might agree with you. But experience in the court is just about the right medicine to cure "invisibility"... it plagues just about most, if not all rookies. You play them more, give them more experience so that they feel more comfortable with themselves, with the situation, and with their elder peers. It's quite simple in this regard. Some get cured, some get worse, some stay the same... Walker seems like someone that will start asserting himself more as he gains more confidence (and you do that with more court time). And not only this, confidence from his teammates towards him, his invisibility might well be a consequence of not being one of the first options with the veterans.

But if you have a player, that is trying to learn how to play the right way, and by doing that he's keeping to himself, not forcing things, playing within the offense... then where's the harm? What does it matter really if he's invisible out there... in a way, if he was being eaten up defensively, wouldn't that make him visible? So in a way, his invisibility has some good qualities in it.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2009, 03:19:54 PM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
For a rookies first real time on court I have no problem with invisible (even though I thought he looked good).  If he had the deer in head light look that giddens has shown and how gabe looked last year that is another thing.  Also if he was out there and looked horrible.
He didn't look like TA with turnovers.  Walker played within the team game, didn't chuck up shots to score to impress etc.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2009, 03:43:14 PM »

Offline jpd985

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 681
  • Tommy Points: 41
He did what he was suppose to do. Play defense, hustle, don't disrupt the offense, and don't turn the ball over.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2009, 04:03:55 PM »

Offline xmuscularghandix

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7620
  • Tommy Points: 280
Quote from: jpd985 on March 05, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
He did what he was suppose to do. Play defense, hustle, don't disrupt the offense, and don't turn the ball over.

i agree, but i think that he should atleast get a look while he's out there. everyone knows im a big fan of the kid, but i'm not saying the offense should flow through him, if we have enough possesions to spread the floor for leon to do his "thing" at least work to get the kid a good look. it could really do worlds for his confidence.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2009, 04:34:52 PM »

Offline ScoobyDoo

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2644
  • Tommy Points: 447
If we could play 4 on 5 for spurts, still win and it meant Pierce and Ray Allen got the proper rest, I'd be all for it. So the fact that Walker may have looked invisible is irrelevant if it means Pierce got some rest. Perhps if Pierce weren't rested last night he might have had a little less lift which may have resulted in rimming the game winning shot and us losing the game becasue he was spent?

I also agree with some who say leave them out there a bit longer if they're not losing the lead or if they are increasing. I'll take it a step further, I'd leave them out there ( Marbury, Pruitt, Walker, Moore, Powe or baby ) the rest of the game if they were winning it. Gets them great, great experience. And the season is a real grind for the starters. They won't mind the rest and they certainly won't lose their ability by getting more rest when they can.

In the end, you might jsut have a much stronger "team" come season's end with more depth. And "team" wins...

Now, if the subs are tanking, yank em asap. But if they're rolling, let them run...   
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2009, 04:40:08 PM »

Offline xmuscularghandix

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7620
  • Tommy Points: 280
Quote from: ScoobyDoo on March 05, 2009, 04:34:52 PM

Now, if the subs are tanking, yank em asap. But if they're rolling, let them run...   

well said.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2009, 04:45:40 PM »

Offline jdpapa3

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3884
  • Tommy Points: 85
I think we do have to force feed him minutes, but is it really called force-feeding when the guy deserves it?

I hate to be even mentioning this, but if Pierce or Allen have to miss one game or a small stretch in the playoffs (knock on wood) what the heck happens? (better example would be next week because Tony and Scal will be back for the playoffs, but we don't know if we can count on them to be rotation caliber by April) Do we play Steph 30 minutes at the 2? We will most likely get killed that way. Need to at least get the guy some reps so he's not completely lost.
Logged
Re: Billy Walker
« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2009, 05:25:57 PM »

Offline MVP

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 374
  • Tommy Points: 35
I think Bill Walker played pretty well given that he only played 7 minutes and barely touched the ball on offense. He got a basket in the 1 time he shot, hit the glass with 2 defensive rebounds, moved the ball to the open guy in the 2-3 times he touched the ball, had a very good contest on a layup that made a NJ player miss the shot and overall ran up and down the floor hard. From the short minutes that I've seen so far this year of Bill Walker, I don't know why he doesn't get more minutes especially given how depleted we are at the wing position with TA and Scal hurt. Hopefully this is not a 1 game fluke and Walker continues to get consistent rotation minutes.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »