Poll: What's next on the pecking order, a backup wing or a backup PG?

[vagrantwade]

Celtics made it clear when they rescinded a minimum offer to Marbury that they were going to go with what they had as far as PG's go.

[PerkinsIsABEAST]

backup wing and it's not even close.

just shows how awful of a x's and o's coach doc rivers is that he hasn't thought of the obvious decision of playing eddie house at "pg" and having pierce run point foward with the 2nd unit. Basacally eddie house should only be bringing up the ball against bad PG defenders, pierce should bring the ball up if eddie house has to face any type of pressure and should be the one initiating the offense mainly by running pick and rolls and having eddie house space the floor.

That's why I wanted Grant Hill. He could have done that on the bench.

Actually, that is what they did in the finals in '08, especially in the comeback game 4. The bench was Powe, PJ, Eddie, Posey and usually Ray (though at times Pierce), with Eddie playing PG on defense and Ray or PP playiing PG on offense.

Again, a backup would be better just to be safe, since we can't have PP and Ray play PG on the bench every game if we're going to have a 7 overtime series again.

grant can do this but pierce will be way more effective at it as hes a far better player at this point in their careers and he plays with the 2nd unit anyway (which is actually a rare good x's and o's move by doc.) Also i've seen doc only do this a few times aka making pierce the point foward and having him bring up the ball, it doesn't change the fact that the other 100+ times he hasn't done it and it's been ridiculously frustrating to say the least.

If we want P getting rest, then this is not a good situation.

I also don't like P bringing the ball up. I really don't trust P as a point forward. I don't trust his dribble nor his instincts. I trust his instincts as a scorer.

uh why is that not a good situation? I like P bringing the ball up FAR more than eddie house that's for sure, as well as his ability to play pg in an offense far more than house as well.

Obviously if there was a very good PG we could get as a backup who could bring up the ball/space the floor etc then yea obv go get him, I don't see one who is avaliable tho.

[GKC]

Doesn't matter. Most of the time the lineup is Ray with the backcourt. He seems to be conditioned for more minutes too. However, the 40+ they both averaged in the playoffs was too much.

[paintitgreen]

I'm less concerned with them playing 40+ minutes in the playoffs than I am with Paul playing about 42 a night in the regular season from the time Garnett got hurt to the end of the season.

[Drucci]

Wing, obviously.

[PerkinsIsABEAST]

I'm less concerned with them playing 40+ minutes in the playoffs than I am with Paul playing about 42 a night in the regular season from the time Garnett got hurt to the end of the season.

+1, Pierce's minutes should be around 37-38 in the playoffs and around 33-34 in the reg season

[celticinorlando]

matt barnes might be a cav soon...

[2short]

wing
PP needs a break, sure scal can fill in here and there but walker/giddens aren't looking so hot in preseason, ta is too short and turnover prone
a wing or swing man who can defend, play solid and not hurt us on offense (don't need a star)
i think pruitt, eddie and ray bringing up ball are just fine to back up rondo

[celtsrp33]

matt barnes might be a cav soon...

Eh, they can have him.  Does the addition of Matt Barnes put them over the top?  I think not.  I still believe we have a much better overall team than Cle.

[GKC]

matt barnes might be a cav soon...

Eh, they can have him.  Does the addition of Matt Barnes put them over the top?  I think not.  I still believe we have a much better overall team than Cle.

Wouldn't that just give them a logjam? They already have Parker. They can either back up delonte for 20 minutes a game or be Lebron's backup, which means they would rarely see any game time at all.

[guava_wrench]

backup wing and it's not even close.

just shows how awful of a x's and o's coach doc rivers is that he hasn't thought of the obvious decision of playing eddie house at "pg" and having pierce run point foward with the 2nd unit. Basacally eddie house should only be bringing up the ball against bad PG defenders, pierce should bring the ball up if eddie house has to face any type of pressure and should be the one initiating the offense mainly by running pick and rolls and having eddie house space the floor.

That's why I wanted Grant Hill. He could have done that on the bench.

Actually, that is what they did in the finals in '08, especially in the comeback game 4. The bench was Powe, PJ, Eddie, Posey and usually Ray (though at times Pierce), with Eddie playing PG on defense and Ray or PP playiing PG on offense.

Again, a backup would be better just to be safe, since we can't have PP and Ray play PG on the bench every game if we're going to have a 7 overtime series again.

grant can do this but pierce will be way more effective at it as hes a far better player at this point in their careers and he plays with the 2nd unit anyway (which is actually a rare good x's and o's move by doc.) Also i've seen doc only do this a few times aka making pierce the point foward and having him bring up the ball, it doesn't change the fact that the other 100+ times he hasn't done it and it's been ridiculously frustrating to say the least.

If we want P getting rest, then this is not a good situation.

I also don't like P bringing the ball up. I really don't trust P as a point forward. I don't trust his dribble nor his instincts. I trust his instincts as a scorer.

uh why is that not a good situation? I like P bringing the ball up FAR more than eddie house that's for sure, as well as his ability to play pg in an offense far more than house as well.

Obviously if there was a very good PG we could get as a backup who could bring up the ball/space the floor etc then yea obv go get him, I don't see one who is avaliable tho.

It is not a good situation because it takes more energy from P to have to bring the ball up, and it means he is stuck on the floor with the bench instead of resting.

I also do not like Pierce running the offense at all. I don't consider him a good facilitator. The only play I like in such situations is the pick and roll with House. Pierce will be a turnover machine.

Hill would have been good because he actually has the skill set and mindset to play point forward. Without Hill, 'system' will be the key word with the bench. I would like to see 10 guys play every game during the regular season.

Rondo can also play minutes with the bench now that we have a shooter like Sheed coming off the bench. House could then get some minutes with the starters, where they don't need a PG as much with KG's passing ability in the post and 2 years together.

[Eja117]

Wait. I'm one of the two guys who voted pg thinking that House wasn't a backup pg, but a sg.

But now that I think of it, if he's playing pg, then maybe it is backup wing after all.

[GKC]

Wait. I'm one of the two guys who voted pg thinking that House wasn't a backup pg, but a sg.

But now that I think of it, if he's playing pg, then maybe it is backup wing after all.

I think he plays SG most of the time, but it's a utility thing. He plays SG usually last year, and played PG when they needed a lot of scoring (or when someone is point forward).

Either way, backup for PP is priority.

[LooseCannon]

I don't think it matters whether or not a backup wing is more important.  What matters is that, once Marbury is no longer an option, there aren't really very many point guards who have a shot at offering more to the team than the pack of what appear to be mostly interchangeable career backup point guards out there who can be had for the minimum.

On the other hand, there is a lot more variation in talent in SF/SG bench players, so spending more effort on that area has a comparative advantage over working on finding a backup point guard, even if the PG spot was more important to fill.

[CoachBo]

Wing, easily. Someone who can defend and hit an outside shot.