Eddie House is okay, but....ummm

[Eja117]

I Feel that the c's need to bench him or have him play in spurts with the 1st team 2nd and 3rd string. He's not producing and he can't dribble nor create his own shot. I say this only because Nate Robinson is available and is a better player to provide what the 2nd team needs.

Eddie House: Will shoot, but needs a play to be called for him in order to be open 1st. Can't create his own shot, but will try when under major pressure to put the ball on the floor.

Tony Allen: can't shoot but will shoot..lol although he tries, but he's not good at creating his own shot. He's at best turning defense in to offense.

Brian Scalabrine: Will shoot, and will defend, but he also cannot create his own shot.

Marquis Daniels: Can't shoot, will create his own shot, decent ball handler but extremely slow, and seems to be handicapped athletically at times..lol

we have yet to see these guys play significant minutes
Giddens (idk, not intrigued)
Walker (has an upside)
Hudson (has an upside)

With all that said our bench is missing one ultimate guy thats on the market to fill the void. Hopefully we land Nate "The Great" Robinson

Nate Robinson: Excellent ball handler, Quick as Lightning, Super Athletically gifted, Will shoot, Will create his own shots, Will carry a team, Will give his all on the court. Defensively i'm not worried if you play on the Celtics Team you will be taught team defense. Thanks & Merry X-MAS TO ALL!!! Great win for the C's today

I agree with you that I'm not in love with our bench and think Nate could help.

It's just that he's a better player.

I don't buy the notion that Nate is ruining the Knicks. We're talking about the Knicks. They have horrid management and a horrid team. It's beginning to seem to me that every year they have another player they try to blame their failure on. First it's Marbury. Then he comes here and gives a good and honest effort. Now it's Nate. I'm sure once he moves on he'll play ok again. There is no way we're going to lose to the Cavs because Nate brings bad chemistry here. Marbury didn't ruin us. Sheed didn't ruin us. Neither would Nate.

I don't understand why some people are so high on Sheed, but then point fingers at other players as trouble guys or something. That makes no sense to me. It's like if Lakers fans loved Artest, but thought they wouldn't want Lebron cause he has a bad attitude or something.

Wait a second. Sheed hasn't been known as a cancer in the lockeroom on any team. To my knowledge, he has not been benched for maturity issues, or what not. Nate played his last game on Dec 1: that's 11 games he's been benched. Even if you want to argue D'Antoni is just proving he can't handle certain players, that's the reality right now.

If Rasheed gets so many techs that he has to miss games is that like getting benched for maturity issues?

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Eddie is in a shooting slump, but so was Ray last year for quite a while. That is the way it is with shooters. Eddie still has made some great momentum building plays, just like the one 2 games ago to TA, when he stole the ball with that tap, then behind the back save = TA dunk. Those are the heart and soul plays that give the other guys momentum.....the other team usually takes a time out. He passes well and is an integral part of the team. I still like Eddie...!

[cdif911]

Eddie House = Steve Kerr - role player on championship team - hits big shots when you need them, keeps defenses honest - you keep a guy like him

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Insert Quote
Eddie House = Steve Kerr - role player on championship team - hits big shots when you need them, keeps defenses honest - you keep a guy like him

TP to you, that is a great comaprison and I agree..!

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Sorry, guess i have to wait to give that TP...it said i have to wait 1 hr..

[cdif911]

Sorry, guess i have to wait to give that TP...it said i have to wait 1 hr..

I can wait, I'll give you one in the meantime

[Toine43]

I like Eddie House, but he has been pretty bad this year. He is shooting 39 percent from the field and 37 percent from behind the arc. Last year he shot 44 percent overall and 44 percent from behind the arc. Hopefully it is just a slump, but the C's are 28 games into the season. If Eddie is not making shots, then he is pretty much useless, because that is what he is here to do. I would not make any rash decisions like benching him, etc., but he definitely bears watching because he has been shooting poorly for much of the year.

Those percentages actually aren't bad at all. Compare them to the all-time Celtics record for 3P% in a season and they don't look great, but we don't need him to do that again in order for him to be effective. So far this season, he's shooting for a higher 3P% than Ray Allen, just to give you one example. I haven't heard anything about Ray slumping. So Eddie really isn't even slumping, he's just not lighting the world on fire like he did last year. Eddie's fine, there's no chance Danny's going to replace him with Nate Robinson, let's all settle down.

Throwing out the fact that Ray Allen is also slumping does not negate the fact that Eddie is slumping. Right now, Eddie is shooting his worst percentages since he was a Clipper in 2003-04. He has the lowest assist and rebound numbers(per game, per 36 minutes, and rates) of his entire career. His defense is definitely the worst it has been since he's been a Celtic.

I like Eddie House, I really do but at this point, if he doesn't turn things around soon, he probably needs to go with other expiring contracts for a decnt backup PG so that Daniels can play SF, the player he is traded for can run the offense and (gulp, I don't believe I'm about to say this) and Tony Allen can play the SG on the second team.

I think Scoop makes an excellent point.

People's memory is often too short. In December 2008, Eddie House was shooting 36% from behind the arc. And 39% from the field.

This is just House being House. He goes cold for long stretches, then he becomes very hot for others one. It's been this way since he entered the league. If anyone believes there's something particularly bad about House's performance this season hasn't been playing too much attention.

The idea that having Nate Robinson instead of House would improve this team is mind-boggling. Why are people obsessed about a "2nd unit"? I'll never understand this. Regular season wins aren't really that important.

Exactly. It's all about who you want to go to battle with in the playoffs. I think it's time for people to realize we really don't need a true backup PG for reasons other than insurance. In the playoffs we'll go 9 deep. You can pretty much pencil in Sheed, BBD, Marquis, and Eddie into that rotation if the roster stays the same. Tony will only be a factor during the regular season. Starter minutes will obviously increase and the young Rondo will probably play 40 min/game in the playoffs, leaving 8 minutes during which Quis, Pierce, Ray, and Eddie can share the task of bringing the ball up the floor without the world coming to an end.

Eddie's out there to shoot and as Scoop pointed out he's a proven shooter and before we know it his 3P% will probably be up. Scoop was right on the mark when he said that you don't need a "2nd unit" for the playoffs. It's about having the right collection of individual reserves that can be trotted out there along with a few starters and change the game. Eddie's a certified game-changer. While it sounds necessary on paper, some medicore "true point guard" isn't needed because, let's face it, Rondo is going to play the whole game anyway. I predict that Danny finally sees that, and there won't be a Cassell/Marbury-type of acquisition this year.

[nickagneta]

I like Eddie House, but he has been pretty bad this year. He is shooting 39 percent from the field and 37 percent from behind the arc. Last year he shot 44 percent overall and 44 percent from behind the arc. Hopefully it is just a slump, but the C's are 28 games into the season. If Eddie is not making shots, then he is pretty much useless, because that is what he is here to do. I would not make any rash decisions like benching him, etc., but he definitely bears watching because he has been shooting poorly for much of the year.

Those percentages actually aren't bad at all. Compare them to the all-time Celtics record for 3P% in a season and they don't look great, but we don't need him to do that again in order for him to be effective. So far this season, he's shooting for a higher 3P% than Ray Allen, just to give you one example. I haven't heard anything about Ray slumping. So Eddie really isn't even slumping, he's just not lighting the world on fire like he did last year. Eddie's fine, there's no chance Danny's going to replace him with Nate Robinson, let's all settle down.

Throwing out the fact that Ray Allen is also slumping does not negate the fact that Eddie is slumping. Right now, Eddie is shooting his worst percentages since he was a Clipper in 2003-04. He has the lowest assist and rebound numbers(per game, per 36 minutes, and rates) of his entire career. His defense is definitely the worst it has been since he's been a Celtic.

I like Eddie House, I really do but at this point, if he doesn't turn things around soon, he probably needs to go with other expiring contracts for a decnt backup PG so that Daniels can play SF, the player he is traded for can run the offense and (gulp, I don't believe I'm about to say this) and Tony Allen can play the SG on the second team.

I think Scoop makes an excellent point.

People's memory is often too short. In December 2008, Eddie House was shooting 36% from behind the arc. And 39% from the field.

This is just House being House. He goes cold for long stretches, then he becomes very hot for others one. It's been this way since he entered the league. If anyone believes there's something particularly bad about House's performance this season hasn't been playing too much attention.

The idea that having Nate Robinson instead of House would improve this team is mind-boggling. Why are people obsessed about a "2nd unit"? I'll never understand this. Regular season wins aren't really that important.

Exactly. It's all about who you want to go to battle with in the playoffs. I think it's time for people to realize we really don't need a true backup PG for reasons other than insurance. In the playoffs we'll go 9 deep. You can pretty much pencil in Sheed, BBD, Marquis, and Eddie into that rotation if the roster stays the same. Tony will only be a factor during the regular season. Starter minutes will obviously increase and the young Rondo will probably play 40 min/game in the playoffs, leaving 8 minutes during which Quis, Pierce, Ray, and Eddie can share the task of bringing the ball up the floor without the world coming to an end.

Eddie's out there to shoot and as Scoop pointed out he's a proven shooter and before we know it his 3P% will probably be up. Scoop was right on the mark when he said that you don't need a "2nd unit" for the playoffs. It's about having the right collection of individual reserves that can be trotted out there along with a few starters and change the game. Eddie's a certified game-changer. While it sounds necessary on paper, some medicore "true point guard" isn't needed because, let's face it, Rondo is going to play the whole game anyway. I predict that Danny finally sees that, and there won't be a Cassell/Marbury-type of acquisition this year.

Actually, scoop's point isn't nearly as good as either you or he make it out to be. A quick scan through Eddie's game log totals at ESPN.com will show that Eddie has only twice in his entire career ever had a stretch like he did last year that brought his numbers up from mediocre to great, in 2005 from February through to the end of April and from January until April of 2009. That's it.

A scan through Eddie's TS% at ESPN.com under the Hollinger numbers will also show that without those 2 outstanding shooting stretches in his career, Eddie really isn't that great an outside shooter as his TS% hovers for his career around 51%. For a guy that shoots a high percentage of threes and has a very high FT%, that's not great.

So what I am saying is that Eddie going through a long stretch like last year to bring his shooting percentage's up is the exception, not the norm. if history on Eddie has taught us anything, it's to expect to see a lot more of what we are seeing now and not what we saw last January through April.

[Eja117]

Scoop was making a good point there till he said regular season wins aren't that important.

It's not about units. It's about players.  What happens if Ray goes down in the playoffs? Or Rondo? House is going to step it up or something?

Exactly.

Nate is the better player. Case closed.

This whole thing about glue guy is weird to me.  If you follow through the point to it's natural extreme conclusion it's like saying you'd rather have House than Lebron cause House is a great glue guy and Lebron is sorta a prima dona and hogs the ball or something.

Prima donas with issues can still be great players, especially with good coaches and great players can still achieve nothing and hold their teams back.

The Knicks are a great example. All round goodie goodie (or at least everyone thought) Ewing goes down. Bad boy prima dona Spreewell takes the Knicks to the finals as the only 8th seed ever to go...giving birth to the full fledged Ewing Theory.

If people think the Sixers would have been better off without Iverson and would have been better with Terrel Brandon or something they're out of their mind.

Can anyone think of an example where a team with a good coach and good focused, intense, defensive minded, professional guys like KG, PP, Ray, Perk, and Quise brought in a me type guy who was talented and suddenly because of that one player the team got totally derailed and fell apart (and then maybe the guy left the next year and the team got good again)?  I just can't remember that.

I remember the Bulls bringing in Rodman and they got very very good.

I don't think the Artest for Ariza situation is hurting the Lakers.

Steph didn't hurt us.

Sheed doesn't hurt us.

Now when you have the Blazers and you have a ton of young guys getting in trouble that's totally different.

[nickagneta]

Houston got better and has historically played better when Tracy McGrady wasn't around.

I wouldn't exactly call Vince Carter's addition to the Magic as a success just yet.

Marbury going from NJ to Phoenix took Phoenix, while under Kidd, from a 50 win playoff team to a 30 something win on average team and when they got rid of him and brought in Nash, Phoenix returned to a constant playoff team going deep in the playoffs.

[Donoghus]

Eddie, like Ray, is a shooter.  Shooters are extremely streaky players.  You have to ride the good times with the bad. That should be your expectation.  It often takes a while for shooters to break these cold streaks.  Eddie's had a rough stretch this season.  However, from my eyes, it doesn't seem like he doing anything different with his shot than he has in the past.  They're just not falling.  It happens. If any criticism can be made, its that he's taking more shots off the dribble which has never been a strength in his game.  He seems to shoot a lot better on the "catch and shoot".

Obviously, nothing is ever a given and neither is breaking this bad streak but its only late December.   Far too early to give up on this guy.

On this team, I'd take him over Nate Robinson every day of the week and twice on Sundays. 

[Eja117]

Here's a question for the House over Nate guys.

You have two clone teams. Only one team has Nate and the other has House and they both have to play exactly 18 minutes per game.

Which team wins a 7 game series?

[Eja117]

When you look at their stats Nate's worst year (his rookie year) is basically as good or better than Eddie's best year in his career.

The only reason that anyone thinks of Eddie as a potentially good player is that he plays on the Celts.  If he didn't he'd be considered a sometimes good bench player at best, and a step above bad at worst.  That's his spectrum.

Nate is younger and had an all-starish year last year.

The comparison is like Jamal Crawford with an attitude vs Eric Snow in one of his mediocre years.

I like Eddie, but he's not as good a player.

[Eja117]

Eddie House = Steve Kerr - role player on championship team - hits big shots when you need them, keeps defenses honest - you keep a guy like him

Is this to say that Nate can't keep defenses honest? I would think most teams would think of Nate on defense more than Eddie.

Teams didn't not double team Jordan and Pippen to keep a defender on Kerr.

Do you think the Bulls wouldn't have traded Kerr for someone like Steph Marbury back in the day?

[BballTim]

This whole thing about glue guy is weird to me.  If you follow through the point to it's natural extreme conclusion it's like saying you'd rather have House than Lebron cause House is a great glue guy and Lebron is sorta a prima dona and hogs the ball or something.

  It's weird because you clearly don't understand it. You have stars that carry the team and glue guys. LeBron would be one of the (super) stars.

The Knicks are a great example. All round goodie goodie (or at least everyone thought) Ewing goes down. Bad boy prima dona Spreewell takes the Knicks to the finals as the only 8th seed ever to go...giving birth to the full fledged Ewing Theory.

  Ewing was 36 on that team. It's not like he was in his prime.

I remember the Bulls bringing in Rodman and they got very very good.

  I remember the Bulls winning 3 titles before Rodman got there. They were actually pretty good then as well.

I don't think the Artest for Ariza situation is hurting the Lakers.

  It's too soon to tell, isn't it? Are they clearly better than they were last year? If not, is it worth it to bring in Artest?