Officially sick of Doc refusing to play the young guys

[buellj814]

I have to agree with the sentiment of the OP, which I read as "we don't have enouch energy on the floor with only the older vets playing, and a shot of youthful vigor would improve the team's overall play."

I also think Doc pretty much blows at rotations, and always has.  Better coaches that we've had in Boston would put a younger, inexperienced player on the floor with the starters, rather than the second unit.  The vets help the young guy along.  It's hard to play well when the other guys on the floor are being outplayed, too.  Doc tends to play lines like he's coaching hockey or something...  The displaced starter moves to the bench, becoming...wait for it...the 6th man.  The coach who came up with this brilliant idea was Red.  He "got" it.

Do we have young players that are capable of pulling this off is certainly debatable (probably not), but as a strategy, it is a very, very good way to compensate for aging veterans, develop young players, and keep vets around by bringing them off the bench.

Despite the many who disagreed with the OP (and were probably correct), it's a good question.  A spot-up 3pt shooter who can scrap for loose balls and at least play man-up defense should be serviceable for at least some minutes with our starters.  Let KG help by calling out the rotations for the guy, he's supposed to be good at that.

If we don't have any useful young players, blame Danny, not Doc.  But if the players don't get better, blame Doc.  He's supposed to be teaching them.  They're only supposed to be role players, anyway.  Let's not expect these kids to be superstars as late-round picks.

finally someone who understood the my original post...theres hope for humanity after all

Probably not...someone, somewhere is typing out a post about what an idiot I am for wanting Bill Walker to start, even though I wrote no such thing.

I appreciate your post, though.  Aside from not understanding matchups (and putting Eddie House on Jason Terry, and, I think, Crawford?), I am critical of Doc for how he uses young players (or doesn't).  There isn't much to really learn in garbage time.

To give credit where it is due, I think Phil Jackson has done a good job at developing young role players by giving them meaningful minutes along with established players early in the season and in games, and it has paid off in the playoffs.  Of course, Red would point out that Phil took his idea...  But Doc keeps the starters playing together, into the 4th quarter, even when we're coasting with a 20 point lead (I remember a few games like that...).

I don't understand all the Doc love.  I really don't.

who the hell has jackson developed?? he hates bynum and has called him out several times about being soft and not tough enough.. bynum has developed because he has talent something our young guys lack plain and simple

Here are some of LA's picks this decade, with draft position, who have seen the court and contributed as role players, including in some important games.  Several are still with the team:

Luke Walton, 2003, 32nd pick
Jordan Farmar, 2006, 26th pick
Sasha Vujacic, 2004, 27th pick
Kareem Rush, 2002, 20th pick (traded for the pick that became:
Ronny Turiaf, 2005, 37th pick
Brian Cook, 2003, 24th pick
Von Wafer, 2005, 39th pick
Tyronne Lue, 1998, 23rd pick
Devean George, 1999, 23rd pick

So, after looking this up, not only is the idea I posted in this thread above viable, but there is plenty of useful NBA players to be found late in the draft.  Perhaps either Danny isn't as good as we give him credit for, or the coaching staff is missing something in developing them.

ok well that list is considerably underwhelming.. we developed young guys and then were able to trade them for TWO FUTURE HALL OF FAMERS!!!!!!!!!! thats a pretty good job of developing young talent if you ask me.. and since the trade we have had guys like big baby and leon powe without having any sort of good picks.. do you not remember that?

[Meadowlark_Scal]

I have been holding this in for some time because I felt that maybe Doc was doing the right thing by not playing the young guys since they might not be that good.  But after these last few games and our consistent inconsistency of energy and effort I have had enough.  TA comes into the game yesterday like 4 gallons of Monster energy drink and next thing you know were running up and down the court passing the ball, playing great defense, scoring points.  It was probably even the best we've played all season.  Given Rondo was a huge part of that second quarter, TA's energy and effort was the perfect complement to Rondo's play. TA was up and down the court with Rondo when things sped up it was phenomenal.  Then 2nd half comes around and Doc REFUSES to play the young guys.  If we're gonna lose games the way we are then its time the kids get a chance.  The vets are simply not bringing it for 48 minutes a game and if thats going to be the case then forget the vets and let the kids prove themselves.  We wont win the championship this year behind the wiley ol' veterans we'll win it because of our young guns carrying those vets over the hump. 



Exhale...thats my rant

Well, what you said is the absolute fact...TA lead the charge we needed, and when we needed it. Did he make a few mistakes, well yes he did, if you watched the game EVERYONE made some mistakes. TA opened up our game, Rondo saw it, and jumped in, then everyone was on it, and we were running LA into the dirt. It stopped when TA was out, no one went to the hole anymore, they settled for outside shots..that still didn't drop..TA should be starting, RAY needs to stay here, but at a different role, a sharpshooter, off the bench...starting is so dumb as a career goal, it is about matchups and who is hot, TA is the guy to cover Kobe, he was all over him, ray needs time to get out of his slump and ray and pp need some rest, pp couldn't cover anyone yesterday, not the end of the world, that is when the COACH sees who is effective, and puts them out there, doc blew it, the lakers wouldn't have had it that close if TA kept charging and leading like he did, besides, if doc played the young guys sept-dec, he would have players that people got to see, they would have more experience and, if we didn't keep them, could use them as trade bait, now, noone has seen them, the only one they saw was doc's boy scal......it would have been better if they didn't see him

[More Banners]

I have to agree with the sentiment of the OP, which I read as "we don't have enouch energy on the floor with only the older vets playing, and a shot of youthful vigor would improve the team's overall play."

I also think Doc pretty much blows at rotations, and always has.  Better coaches that we've had in Boston would put a younger, inexperienced player on the floor with the starters, rather than the second unit.  The vets help the young guy along.  It's hard to play well when the other guys on the floor are being outplayed, too.  Doc tends to play lines like he's coaching hockey or something...  The displaced starter moves to the bench, becoming...wait for it...the 6th man.  The coach who came up with this brilliant idea was Red.  He "got" it.

Do we have young players that are capable of pulling this off is certainly debatable (probably not), but as a strategy, it is a very, very good way to compensate for aging veterans, develop young players, and keep vets around by bringing them off the bench.

Despite the many who disagreed with the OP (and were probably correct), it's a good question.  A spot-up 3pt shooter who can scrap for loose balls and at least play man-up defense should be serviceable for at least some minutes with our starters.  Let KG help by calling out the rotations for the guy, he's supposed to be good at that.

If we don't have any useful young players, blame Danny, not Doc.  But if the players don't get better, blame Doc.  He's supposed to be teaching them.  They're only supposed to be role players, anyway.  Let's not expect these kids to be superstars as late-round picks.

finally someone who understood the my original post...theres hope for humanity after all

Probably not...someone, somewhere is typing out a post about what an idiot I am for wanting Bill Walker to start, even though I wrote no such thing.

I appreciate your post, though.  Aside from not understanding matchups (and putting Eddie House on Jason Terry, and, I think, Crawford?), I am critical of Doc for how he uses young players (or doesn't).  There isn't much to really learn in garbage time.

To give credit where it is due, I think Phil Jackson has done a good job at developing young role players by giving them meaningful minutes along with established players early in the season and in games, and it has paid off in the playoffs.  Of course, Red would point out that Phil took his idea...  But Doc keeps the starters playing together, into the 4th quarter, even when we're coasting with a 20 point lead (I remember a few games like that...).

I don't understand all the Doc love.  I really don't.

who the hell has jackson developed?? he hates bynum and has called him out several times about being soft and not tough enough.. bynum has developed because he has talent something our young guys lack plain and simple

Here are some of LA's picks this decade, with draft position, who have seen the court and contributed as role players, including in some important games.  Several are still with the team:

Luke Walton, 2003, 32nd pick
Jordan Farmar, 2006, 26th pick
Sasha Vujacic, 2004, 27th pick
Kareem Rush, 2002, 20th pick (traded for the pick that became:
Ronny Turiaf, 2005, 37th pick
Brian Cook, 2003, 24th pick
Von Wafer, 2005, 39th pick
Tyronne Lue, 1998, 23rd pick
Devean George, 1999, 23rd pick

So, after looking this up, not only is the idea I posted in this thread above viable, but there is plenty of useful NBA players to be found late in the draft.  Perhaps either Danny isn't as good as we give him credit for, or the coaching staff is missing something in developing them.

ok well that list is considerably underwhelming.. we developed young guys and then were able to trade them for TWO FUTURE HALL OF FAMERS!!!!!!!!!! thats a pretty good job of developing young talent if you ask me.. and since the trade we have had guys like big baby and leon powe without having any sort of good picks.. do you not remember that?

To restate my main point, and the topic of this thread:  playing young players alongside the starters helps their develoment and provides needed hustle and energy.  I think I made my case using the example of how Red used to do it, and how (that SOB) Phil Jackson has consistently developed contributing role players with late round picks on contending teams, and Doc, simply does/has not.

Changing the subject:

Trading the #5 pick for Ray Allen and a former #15 pick in Al Jefferson for KG seems completely irrelevant to this discussion, though they were good moves.

A totally different subject suggested by this post is:  Is Danny good at drafting?  I think he probably gets more credit than he deserves.  While he had some good finds in Gomes, BBD, and Powe, along with Big Al, Rondo, and Perk, he also picked Marcus Banks, Brandon Hunter, Justin Weed, Oriene Green, Gerald Green, Gabe Pruitt, and, of course, Giddens.  That looks pretty average to me.

[buellj814]

I have to agree with the sentiment of the OP, which I read as "we don't have enouch energy on the floor with only the older vets playing, and a shot of youthful vigor would improve the team's overall play."

I also think Doc pretty much blows at rotations, and always has.  Better coaches that we've had in Boston would put a younger, inexperienced player on the floor with the starters, rather than the second unit.  The vets help the young guy along.  It's hard to play well when the other guys on the floor are being outplayed, too.  Doc tends to play lines like he's coaching hockey or something...  The displaced starter moves to the bench, becoming...wait for it...the 6th man.  The coach who came up with this brilliant idea was Red.  He "got" it.

Do we have young players that are capable of pulling this off is certainly debatable (probably not), but as a strategy, it is a very, very good way to compensate for aging veterans, develop young players, and keep vets around by bringing them off the bench.

Despite the many who disagreed with the OP (and were probably correct), it's a good question.  A spot-up 3pt shooter who can scrap for loose balls and at least play man-up defense should be serviceable for at least some minutes with our starters.  Let KG help by calling out the rotations for the guy, he's supposed to be good at that.

If we don't have any useful young players, blame Danny, not Doc.  But if the players don't get better, blame Doc.  He's supposed to be teaching them.  They're only supposed to be role players, anyway.  Let's not expect these kids to be superstars as late-round picks.

finally someone who understood the my original post...theres hope for humanity after all

Probably not...someone, somewhere is typing out a post about what an idiot I am for wanting Bill Walker to start, even though I wrote no such thing.

I appreciate your post, though.  Aside from not understanding matchups (and putting Eddie House on Jason Terry, and, I think, Crawford?), I am critical of Doc for how he uses young players (or doesn't).  There isn't much to really learn in garbage time.

To give credit where it is due, I think Phil Jackson has done a good job at developing young role players by giving them meaningful minutes along with established players early in the season and in games, and it has paid off in the playoffs.  Of course, Red would point out that Phil took his idea...  But Doc keeps the starters playing together, into the 4th quarter, even when we're coasting with a 20 point lead (I remember a few games like that...).

I don't understand all the Doc love.  I really don't.

who the hell has jackson developed?? he hates bynum and has called him out several times about being soft and not tough enough.. bynum has developed because he has talent something our young guys lack plain and simple

Here are some of LA's picks this decade, with draft position, who have seen the court and contributed as role players, including in some important games.  Several are still with the team:

Luke Walton, 2003, 32nd pick
Jordan Farmar, 2006, 26th pick
Sasha Vujacic, 2004, 27th pick
Kareem Rush, 2002, 20th pick (traded for the pick that became:
Ronny Turiaf, 2005, 37th pick
Brian Cook, 2003, 24th pick
Von Wafer, 2005, 39th pick
Tyronne Lue, 1998, 23rd pick
Devean George, 1999, 23rd pick

So, after looking this up, not only is the idea I posted in this thread above viable, but there is plenty of useful NBA players to be found late in the draft.  Perhaps either Danny isn't as good as we give him credit for, or the coaching staff is missing something in developing them.

ok well that list is considerably underwhelming.. we developed young guys and then were able to trade them for TWO FUTURE HALL OF FAMERS!!!!!!!!!! thats a pretty good job of developing young talent if you ask me.. and since the trade we have had guys like big baby and leon powe without having any sort of good picks.. do you not remember that?

To restate my main point, and the topic of this thread:  playing young players alongside the starters helps their develoment and provides needed hustle and energy.  I think I made my case using the example of how Red used to do it, and how (that SOB) Phil Jackson has consistently developed contributing role players with late round picks on contending teams, and Doc, simply does/has not.

Changing the subject:

Trading the #5 pick for Ray Allen and a former #15 pick in Al Jefferson for KG seems completely irrelevant to this discussion, though they were good moves.

A totally different subject suggested by this post is:  Is Danny good at drafting?  I think he probably gets more credit than he deserves.  While he had some good finds in Gomes, BBD, and Powe, along with Big Al, Rondo, and Perk, he also picked Marcus Banks, Brandon Hunter, Justin Weed, Oriene Green, Gerald Green, Gabe Pruitt, and, of course, Giddens.  That looks pretty average to me.

the two busts there are banks and gerald the other guys are either late first or secound round.. tell me how many secound rounders actually make it?

[More Banners]

the two busts there are banks and gerald the other guys are either late first or secound round.. tell me how many secound rounders actually make it?

Hey, I love having a dialogue with a skeptic, but please, offer something to the discussion, okay?  Let me ask you a question:

What would you look for in a second round pick?

I think that needs to be answered before answering how/why they do or don't stick.

[CoachBo]

TA isn't a young guy.  And the real young guys can't play.  So no, I do not agree with this thread.

Agreed.  I think Doc needs to stop relying so heavily on his guys like Pierce, Ray, Garnett and Wallace so much (Ray is in a terrible slump, and Pierce and Wallace are in cruise control right now), but the whole idea of "playing the young guys" is a losers mentality.  What Doc needs to do is trust his secondary players a little more (and in turn, the secondary player need to step it up more, to earn that trust).  But it has nothing to do with young and old, it has to do with this team not being a 3-4 man show anymore.

Quoted for truth. The ever popular Internet obsession with youth doesn't win NBA games. Never has. Never will.

[buellj814]

the two busts there are banks and gerald the other guys are either late first or secound round.. tell me how many secound rounders actually make it?

Hey, I love having a dialogue with a skeptic, but please, offer something to the discussion, okay?  Let me ask you a question:

What would you look for in a second round pick?

I think that needs to be answered before answering how/why they do or don't stick.

a useful rotation player

[More Banners]

the two busts there are banks and gerald the other guys are either late first or secound round.. tell me how many secound rounders actually make it?

Hey, I love having a dialogue with a skeptic, but please, offer something to the discussion, okay?  Let me ask you a question:

What would you look for in a second round pick?

I think that needs to be answered before answering how/why they do or don't stick.

a useful rotation player

That would be nice.  Practically speaking, it isn't really a viable answer, since whatever player would qualify as a "rotation player" would depend on who else is on the team.  also, it is very unlikely to see a second round pick being a rotation guy in their first year (which I take to mean a 15-20 minute/night guy).

But I'll take it to mean that you look for a player that has skills to complement the team that's already there, and not a 1st, second, or third scoring option or a starter, but are looking more for, at best, the 8th or 9th man in the regular rotation, and perhaps someone who could grow into a bigger role-playing role.

I'll stick to the idea of the OP that Doc doesn't use young players, and my suggestion that they don't develop as well as a result.

A good coach puts players in a position to succeed.  That's critical for young players.  I think getting dumped by one team doesn't exactly turn other teams on, who are developing their own guys and don't have enough roster spots to have too many projects.  You pretty much have to make it with the team that drafts you.

You'll see how LA did a great job drafing shooters and bangers/rebounders with their late picks, as almost everyone on the list was one or the other.  That makes them ideal complements/role players in the triangle.  They were put on the floor and given playing time in situations where they could be expected to succeed (we might call it 'playing within themselves' or whatever).  And they did/are.

You'll see how Danny's strategy varied.  At first, he was looking for players with "an NBA-level skill", like Banks' on-ball defense, or Brandon Hunter's rebounding.  He's gotten away from that, and tried to fill a position, then just went with the best overall player available.  I think the "NBA skill" strategy makes more sense at this point in the draft, as LA's experience showed.

He drafted quite a few point guards to fill a need (thay are no longer in the league).  What were they expected to do?  They were expected to run an NBA offense, mostly.  Could they have gotten the ball over halfcourt and given it to Ray or Pierce?  Probably.  If any of those guys could get the ball over halfcourt, give it to PP or RA, and then wait to shoot and make an open 3, they'd be better than Eddie House.  They were not put in a position to succeed by "playing within themselves".

He also drafted guys that were undersized, hustle PF's who fell due to size and injury.  Those guys included Gomes and Powe, but also Brandon Hunter. 

Hunter got screwed.  Our former interim coach finally played him in the Pacer's playoff series when J.O'Neal was pushing us around, and Rick Carlysle ended Hunter's career by calling him a goon.  Nobody in the C's organization stood up for him, and he was out of the league.  He was, if only by chance, put in a position to succeed, but the organization didn't stick by him.

So I think that while you are correct that not many second rounders stick, I think quite often they are not developed properly, either, and the Celtics are the perfect example of a team that doesn't do a good job developing late picks.

Take Tony Allen:  As posted in the "support tony allen thread", he is an above average slasher and defender, and a below average ball handler and shooter.  The Celtics decide to make him play backup PG?  Dumb.  See him in the Lakers' game slashing and defending, and he looked great.  If he develops his jump shot, he'll take and make more of those.

But the Celtics havn't given many of these other late round picks the opportunity to develop that TA has received.  And Danny's draft strategy has been inconsistent.

[buellj814]

but how come he gets no credit for rondo and perkins?

[More Banners]

but how come he gets no credit for rondo and perkins?

Think a little about why they're different. 

Rondo was a 21st pick, which is quite a bit higher than we're talking about. 

Perk was a 27th pick that wasn't expected to contribute during the first couple of years, and didn't.  I think more has been expected of other guys, and sooner.  True that he was given quite a long time to develop into the fine role player that he is, and they did develop him, so props to them, even if they didn't learn anything about developing players by seeing how well it worked with Perk.  He didn't start getting regular minutes until his 3rd year, and was pretty solid by his 4th.  Many of the guys Danny drafted weren't kept around that long.

Also, keep in mind that when Perk was drafted, 1st round picks got guaranteed 4 year contracts instead of a two year deal like now, so they had longer to prove themselves.  Having to pay them that guaranteed money for 4 years was pretty good incentive for the team to pay a bit more attention to developing them, too.

I've posted elsewhere that if a team isn't going to play a 2nd round pick, it's probably better to keep their rights and let them play in Europe for a year or two, then bring them over.  I'd like to think that at least one of the many PG picks would've done better that way than sitting on the end of our bench as a 3rd stringer doing nothing. 

Apparently, Danny would rather use draft picks as cheap roster filler and practice bodies than develop them into servicable players.

[buellj814]

we'll agree to disagree

[gc1530]

In a related topic, Lester Hudson with 11 points in 8 minutes off the bench in the first half for Memphis...

[kozlodoev]

Think a little about why they're different.

You got that right, they're different. They don't suck.

[More Banners]

we'll agree to disagree

I would be happy to agree to disagree, but as often as you've changed the topic of discussion, I'm not sure what we disagree about.

Danny was average in the draft.  Average.  That's all.  Some good picks, some not so great.  It would be pretty easy to name the good ones, and no doubt we'd agree on them.  I think about half of his picks are in the league, and half are not.  His worst pick may have been his highest (Banks at 11).  I'd call that average.

[Mike-Dub]

Officially sick of people saying Doc should play the young guys