Author Topic: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?  (Read 6682 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline blceltsfan

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 244
  • Tommy Points: 8
I get the fascination with wings...hot or mild....battered or naked. But you can only have so many.

I'm wondering who is going to fill the low post LUNCH BOX on offense? Other than Perk, who's playing with their back to the basket? That's not KG, Sheed, BBD, Scal, etc.

Powe was truly a blue collar, bring your lunch to work type guy down on the box. Sure he was undersized but knows how to use his body and quickness to get to the hole and rebound the misses for put backs. We'll miss him. We'll pray for his recovery and possible return. We'll count on nothing.

I'm hungry and need this lunch box filled before the season.

Any ideas who and how we get them?

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2009, 08:11:35 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Both KG and Sheed can play in the post. Whether they do it often enough, or will do it next season remains to be seen. But one of those two are pretty much the only candidates.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2009, 08:15:03 AM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
id rather have a legit backup pg

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2009, 08:29:33 AM »

Offline blceltsfan

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 244
  • Tommy Points: 8
Why does one exclude the other? with S&T's being considered, as well as the exceptions, why can't we get both?

I will say though that the backup PG you seek may be a waste on this team. Doc has not done well with utilizing PG backups and giving them enough time on the court to gain confidence and get in the flow. Heck, even when Marbury played well in the fisrt half, he'd be lucky to get off the bench in the second. So, he reverts to Ray or Paul bringing the ball up. House is not our guy and should stay at 2. I am fantasizing that Daniels surpasses everyone's expectations and plays an exciting PG role.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2009, 08:34:31 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Why does one exclude the other? with S&T's being considered, as well as the exceptions, why can't we get both?

I will say though that the backup PG you seek may be a waste on this team. Doc has not done well with utilizing PG backups and giving them enough time on the court to gain confidence and get in the flow. Heck, even when Marbury played well in the fisrt half, he'd be lucky to get off the bench in the second. So, he reverts to Ray or Paul bringing the ball up. House is not our guy and should stay at 2. I am fantasizing that Daniels surpasses everyone's expectations and plays an exciting PG role.
We don't really have the minutes to offer a "low post player". I put the quotes there because I think Perk, Sheed, and Garnett all will play that role for us next year at different times.

True low post players like Yao and Big Al are very rare and usually not obtainable easily. We don't have the horses to get one. That's okay our top three bigs are very good.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2009, 09:15:25 AM »

Offline blceltsfan

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 244
  • Tommy Points: 8
Obviously they are very good players. However to utilize their skill sets of shooting range creating mismatches away from the basket I don't see that changing. Not to mention avoiding the season's wear and tear on the 30 somethings. Field goal percetage is typically higher from the post and spacing is also an issue when you don't have someone down there.

KG averaged 1.4 offensive boards, Rasheed .08. Perk and Powe both averaged over 2. Powe averaged over 50% from the field. So, who fills Powe's role. It's difficult to acknowledge all the posts of Powe's value to the C's and then not have a plan to fill that role.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2009, 09:41:33 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Obviously they are very good players. However to utilize their skill sets of shooting range creating mismatches away from the basket I don't see that changing. Not to mention avoiding the season's wear and tear on the 30 somethings. Field goal percetage is typically higher from the post and spacing is also an issue when you don't have someone down there.

KG averaged 1.4 offensive boards, Rasheed .08. Perk and Powe both averaged over 2. Powe averaged over 50% from the field. So, who fills Powe's role. It's difficult to acknowledge all the posts of Powe's value to the C's and then not have a plan to fill that role.
Rasheed is going to be taking Powe's minutes. He won't get the same offensive rebounds, but Rasheed is a superior defensive rebounder.

Besides you seem to be ignoring the fact that Rasheed and Garnett can, have in the past, and will next season play in the post.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2009, 10:02:11 AM »

Offline BrickJames

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1406
  • Tommy Points: 185
  • Master Mason
Sheed.
God bless and good night!


Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2009, 11:49:46 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34125
  • Tommy Points: 1612
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
When Powe is healthy, then the Celtics can think about him.


Right now, they should only be thinking about players that they know will effect this season.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2009, 11:58:03 AM »

Offline blceltsfan

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 244
  • Tommy Points: 8
I agree...I'm not thinking about him as a contributor. I'm thinking of the value of his past contributions and wondering who will fill that role in 09-10.

The concensus is saying Sheed.

I have my doubts.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2009, 12:04:44 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
I agree...I'm not thinking about him as a contributor. I'm thinking of the value of his past contributions and wondering who will fill that role in 09-10.

The concensus is saying Sheed.

I have my doubts.
You think Powe is a better player than Sheed?

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2009, 12:07:46 PM »

Offline rmcc4444

  • Hugo Gonzalez
  • Posts: 65
  • Tommy Points: 12
I think the team is stacked.  Daniels was icing on the cake.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2009, 12:13:07 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19015
  • Tommy Points: 1834
I think the team is stacked.  Daniels was icing on the cake.

Agree.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2009, 12:17:34 PM »

Offline P2

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2088
  • Tommy Points: 163
  • Green 18!
I think the team is stacked.  Daniels was icing on the cake.

Agree.

Yeah, we have a superstar 4th big, and our backup PG is also a perenial All-Star.

Re: Done with Wings. What r we doing to fill the low post lunch box?
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2009, 12:24:07 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19015
  • Tommy Points: 1834
I think the team is stacked.  Daniels was icing on the cake.

Agree.

Yeah, we have a superstar 4th big, and our backup PG is also a perenial All-Star.

The point is, that the people we have are good enough. The rest of the roster spots can be filled with people to add depth and support and we'll be golden.

We really don't "need" anything more to make this a very good team. Anything we add right now will just make us better, but we're very good as is.