Bill Walker's play with the Knicks...(merged)

[slamtheking]

Well, you guys can say bad things about Walker if you want, but the kid can slash and score....consider that he is playing as his coach wants him to......He does work for D'antoni, it isn't pick up....! But some people are acting as if we couldn't have ever used him, to give the other teams some defensive workover, make them tired....! Or show him off at his best for better trade bait. Maybe give our older guys a break.

   Oh, and don't forget the KNICKS BEAT ATLANTA 3 times, as in, every time they played them, how can you discount that when the Hawks beat us EVERY TIME this YEAR...!

Because the Knicks suck and the Hawks probably didn't take them seriously?

And those are really just isolated incidences.  Honestly, I think D'Antoni is a disgrace to the game.  He honestly thinks he can win by scoring a ton of points and playing no defense.  That's never, ever worked in the NBA.  Sure, you can win some regular season games and make a playoff run, but you'll never win a title. 

I don't hate Bill Walker.  He may turn out to be OK.  However, this notion that Doc Rivers hates young players is just flat out ridiculous considering that Perk, Rondo, BBD, and Powe all played big roles in bringing home #17 two years ago. 
Feel free to critique Doc; I'm not his biggest fan in the world.  However, to critique him on that is just silly. 

As I mentioned above, giving Doc credit for playing or developing youth is absurd.  He plays young players only when he has no other options. 
HOWEVER, if you can rebut my point above and tell me what vet Doc passed over to play Perk, Rondo, BBD and Powe, I will give you 5 Tommy points and more importantly, concede you may be right and I may be wrong.  I have asked a number of posters to prove me wrong on this before and no one has been able to do so.  I welcome any attempt on your part to succeed where others have failed. 
Perk and Rondo started because there were no vets to start ahead of them.  House and Pollard were not realistic options for starting for obvious reasons so don't bother offering them up as your examples.
Powe and BBD got PT because the only other vet big on the team was Pollard who was always injured. Once PJ was signed, BBD was riding the pine and Powe's time was cut back even further.

Posey played a lot of time at the 4 ahead of both Powe and BBD for quite a bit of the games.  Even Scal saw time at that position.  Doc loved small ball with Posey at the 4 because he didn't want to play Powe/BBD significant minutes.  Not saying it wasn't an effective line-up most of the time, but Doc didn't play those 2 a lot of minutes.

You are free to interpret things however they fit your view.

Obviously, they traded other possible PGs because they were confident in Rondo. This makes your point rather pointless. There is a reason we were willing to give up West and not give up Rondo.

You will likely never concede anything because you have made up your mind.

Not true. 
I asked for a legitimate rebuttal and would even entertain admitting my opinion may be wrong if someone could provide a legit counterpoint. 
If you're offering up the trading of Delonte as the proof that Doc would play youth over a vet when he had an option, that's not addressing my point at all.  Delonte was just another young player and the C's organization picked between 2 young players which one to keep. 
This doesn't counter my point that when Doc has an option between a young player and a vet, he goes with the vet and the young player will only get on the court when there is no other option.  My question still stands: who were the vets Doc passed over (who were healthy to play at that time) to play the young players on this team during his tenure?

Actually the truth of the situation is that Sebatian Telfair was the starting PG from the start of the season with Wally Szczerbiak being the shooting guard. Wally was constantly hurt playing a block of games at a time and then missing a block and then playing a block and missing a block.

During that time Doc tried Delonte as the starting SG, Gerald Green as the starting SG and then Tony Allen. Allen finally earned the starting nod but got hurt. Gerald Green then took over the SG duties. During that same span of games it became apparent that Telfair couldn't get it done, so on January 19th of 2007 he was replaced...by Delonte West.

Gerald Green as the SG became a disaster. But in backing up Delonte Rondo started showing that he was understanding the offense and could be a good defender. Doc decided he had earned the right to start while moving Delonte to SG to replace a woeful Gerald Green. When Pierce returned from a long injury the Perk, Big Al, Pierce, West, Rondo starting five started playing very well together and except for sitting Al and Pierce later in the year to tank and guarantee the second worse record, this was the group that ended the year as starters.

Rondo did not get the PG position because of injury. He got the position by impressing the coaching staff while backing up Delonte West and because West was a comba guard and Rondo and Delonte played well together as a tandem, Doc went with those two as his starters because they played the best.

Go back and check out the game logs. They will show that all this is true.

I don't disagree with you recollection of events at all in terms of the roster and who started on that team.  It's pretty much how I remember things back then.  It just goes to my point that there were no real vets for Rondo to beat out but he was still sitting behind guys that were in the league before him.  Rondo just had to beat out a woeful Telfair which took half the year to get that shot and West, who was ok, not great, as a combo guard.  West got to start the games in Wally's injury absense.  Wally started when he was healthy.

I'm not a Doc hater as someone else suggested.  I just see this as a part of Doc's coaching mentality and I consider it a weakpoint, among several other items.  Doc winning the title by outcoaching Phil Jackson was sweet and has given pause to call for his termination when I previously would have welcomed it.  Having said that, Doc's strongpoint of getting players to play for him hasn't been happening for most of this season.  If the team reverts back to that styyle of play at the end of the year or in the playoffs, I think Doc's tenure here may need to come to an end after this season.

[nickagneta]

Well, you guys can say bad things about Walker if you want, but the kid can slash and score....consider that he is playing as his coach wants him to......He does work for D'antoni, it isn't pick up....! But some people are acting as if we couldn't have ever used him, to give the other teams some defensive workover, make them tired....! Or show him off at his best for better trade bait. Maybe give our older guys a break.

   Oh, and don't forget the KNICKS BEAT ATLANTA 3 times, as in, every time they played them, how can you discount that when the Hawks beat us EVERY TIME this YEAR...!

Because the Knicks suck and the Hawks probably didn't take them seriously?

And those are really just isolated incidences.  Honestly, I think D'Antoni is a disgrace to the game.  He honestly thinks he can win by scoring a ton of points and playing no defense.  That's never, ever worked in the NBA.  Sure, you can win some regular season games and make a playoff run, but you'll never win a title. 

I don't hate Bill Walker.  He may turn out to be OK.  However, this notion that Doc Rivers hates young players is just flat out ridiculous considering that Perk, Rondo, BBD, and Powe all played big roles in bringing home #17 two years ago. 
Feel free to critique Doc; I'm not his biggest fan in the world.  However, to critique him on that is just silly. 

As I mentioned above, giving Doc credit for playing or developing youth is absurd.  He plays young players only when he has no other options. 
HOWEVER, if you can rebut my point above and tell me what vet Doc passed over to play Perk, Rondo, BBD and Powe, I will give you 5 Tommy points and more importantly, concede you may be right and I may be wrong.  I have asked a number of posters to prove me wrong on this before and no one has been able to do so.  I welcome any attempt on your part to succeed where others have failed. 
Perk and Rondo started because there were no vets to start ahead of them.  House and Pollard were not realistic options for starting for obvious reasons so don't bother offering them up as your examples.
Powe and BBD got PT because the only other vet big on the team was Pollard who was always injured. Once PJ was signed, BBD was riding the pine and Powe's time was cut back even further.

Posey played a lot of time at the 4 ahead of both Powe and BBD for quite a bit of the games.  Even Scal saw time at that position.  Doc loved small ball with Posey at the 4 because he didn't want to play Powe/BBD significant minutes.  Not saying it wasn't an effective line-up most of the time, but Doc didn't play those 2 a lot of minutes.

You are free to interpret things however they fit your view.

Obviously, they traded other possible PGs because they were confident in Rondo. This makes your point rather pointless. There is a reason we were willing to give up West and not give up Rondo.

You will likely never concede anything because you have made up your mind.

Not true. 
I asked for a legitimate rebuttal and would even entertain admitting my opinion may be wrong if someone could provide a legit counterpoint. 
If you're offering up the trading of Delonte as the proof that Doc would play youth over a vet when he had an option, that's not addressing my point at all.  Delonte was just another young player and the C's organization picked between 2 young players which one to keep. 
This doesn't counter my point that when Doc has an option between a young player and a vet, he goes with the vet and the young player will only get on the court when there is no other option.  My question still stands: who were the vets Doc passed over (who were healthy to play at that time) to play the young players on this team during his tenure?

Actually the truth of the situation is that Sebatian Telfair was the starting PG from the start of the season with Wally Szczerbiak being the shooting guard. Wally was constantly hurt playing a block of games at a time and then missing a block and then playing a block and missing a block.

During that time Doc tried Delonte as the starting SG, Gerald Green as the starting SG and then Tony Allen. Allen finally earned the starting nod but got hurt. Gerald Green then took over the SG duties. During that same span of games it became apparent that Telfair couldn't get it done, so on January 19th of 2007 he was replaced...by Delonte West.

Gerald Green as the SG became a disaster. But in backing up Delonte Rondo started showing that he was understanding the offense and could be a good defender. Doc decided he had earned the right to start while moving Delonte to SG to replace a woeful Gerald Green. When Pierce returned from a long injury the Perk, Big Al, Pierce, West, Rondo starting five started playing very well together and except for sitting Al and Pierce later in the year to tank and guarantee the second worse record, this was the group that ended the year as starters.

Rondo did not get the PG position because of injury. He got the position by impressing the coaching staff while backing up Delonte West and because West was a comba guard and Rondo and Delonte played well together as a tandem, Doc went with those two as his starters because they played the best.

Go back and check out the game logs. They will show that all this is true.

I don't disagree with you recollection of events at all in terms of the roster and who started on that team.  It's pretty much how I remember things back then.  It just goes to my point that there were no real vets for Rondo to beat out but he was still sitting behind guys that were in the league before him.  Rondo just had to beat out a woeful Telfair which took half the year to get that shot and West, who was ok, not great, as a combo guard.  West got to start the games in Wally's injury absense.  Wally started when he was healthy.

I'm not a Doc hater as someone else suggested.  I just see this as a part of Doc's coaching mentality and I consider it a weakpoint, among several other items.  Doc winning the title by outcoaching Phil Jackson was sweet and has given pause to call for his termination when I previously would have welcomed it.  Having said that, Doc's strongpoint of getting players to play for him hasn't been happening for most of this season.  If the team reverts back to that styyle of play at the end of the year or in the playoffs, I think Doc's tenure here may need to come to an end after this season.

There were no real vets on the whole team but he did have to beat out other players and win the spot with his play. He was not handed the job because everyone else was injured as many like to claim happen.

[droopdog7]

This idea that Doc doesn't develop young players is a myth. Period. Not a single one the those young plyaers that Doc didn't play has gone on to do anything in the NBA. Not a one. And walker isn't doing anything that a bunch of other scrubs in the league can't do. He playing us getting points on a garbage team with a garbage offense.

These last several posts are simply overanalyzing the situation.

[guava_wrench]

Well, you guys can say bad things about Walker if you want, but the kid can slash and score....consider that he is playing as his coach wants him to......He does work for D'antoni, it isn't pick up....! But some people are acting as if we couldn't have ever used him, to give the other teams some defensive workover, make them tired....! Or show him off at his best for better trade bait. Maybe give our older guys a break.

   Oh, and don't forget the KNICKS BEAT ATLANTA 3 times, as in, every time they played them, how can you discount that when the Hawks beat us EVERY TIME this YEAR...!

Because the Knicks suck and the Hawks probably didn't take them seriously?

And those are really just isolated incidences.  Honestly, I think D'Antoni is a disgrace to the game.  He honestly thinks he can win by scoring a ton of points and playing no defense.  That's never, ever worked in the NBA.  Sure, you can win some regular season games and make a playoff run, but you'll never win a title. 

I don't hate Bill Walker.  He may turn out to be OK.  However, this notion that Doc Rivers hates young players is just flat out ridiculous considering that Perk, Rondo, BBD, and Powe all played big roles in bringing home #17 two years ago. 
Feel free to critique Doc; I'm not his biggest fan in the world.  However, to critique him on that is just silly. 

As I mentioned above, giving Doc credit for playing or developing youth is absurd.  He plays young players only when he has no other options. 
HOWEVER, if you can rebut my point above and tell me what vet Doc passed over to play Perk, Rondo, BBD and Powe, I will give you 5 Tommy points and more importantly, concede you may be right and I may be wrong.  I have asked a number of posters to prove me wrong on this before and no one has been able to do so.  I welcome any attempt on your part to succeed where others have failed. 
Perk and Rondo started because there were no vets to start ahead of them.  House and Pollard were not realistic options for starting for obvious reasons so don't bother offering them up as your examples.
Powe and BBD got PT because the only other vet big on the team was Pollard who was always injured. Once PJ was signed, BBD was riding the pine and Powe's time was cut back even further.

Posey played a lot of time at the 4 ahead of both Powe and BBD for quite a bit of the games.  Even Scal saw time at that position.  Doc loved small ball with Posey at the 4 because he didn't want to play Powe/BBD significant minutes.  Not saying it wasn't an effective line-up most of the time, but Doc didn't play those 2 a lot of minutes.

You are free to interpret things however they fit your view.

Obviously, they traded other possible PGs because they were confident in Rondo. This makes your point rather pointless. There is a reason we were willing to give up West and not give up Rondo.

You will likely never concede anything because you have made up your mind.

Not true. 
I asked for a legitimate rebuttal and would even entertain admitting my opinion may be wrong if someone could provide a legit counterpoint. 
If you're offering up the trading of Delonte as the proof that Doc would play youth over a vet when he had an option, that's not addressing my point at all.  Delonte was just another young player and the C's organization picked between 2 young players which one to keep. 
This doesn't counter my point that when Doc has an option between a young player and a vet, he goes with the vet and the young player will only get on the court when there is no other option.  My question still stands: who were the vets Doc passed over (who were healthy to play at that time) to play the young players on this team during his tenure?

Actually the truth of the situation is that Sebatian Telfair was the starting PG from the start of the season with Wally Szczerbiak being the shooting guard. Wally was constantly hurt playing a block of games at a time and then missing a block and then playing a block and missing a block.

During that time Doc tried Delonte as the starting SG, Gerald Green as the starting SG and then Tony Allen. Allen finally earned the starting nod but got hurt. Gerald Green then took over the SG duties. During that same span of games it became apparent that Telfair couldn't get it done, so on January 19th of 2007 he was replaced...by Delonte West.

Gerald Green as the SG became a disaster. But in backing up Delonte Rondo started showing that he was understanding the offense and could be a good defender. Doc decided he had earned the right to start while moving Delonte to SG to replace a woeful Gerald Green. When Pierce returned from a long injury the Perk, Big Al, Pierce, West, Rondo starting five started playing very well together and except for sitting Al and Pierce later in the year to tank and guarantee the second worse record, this was the group that ended the year as starters.

Rondo did not get the PG position because of injury. He got the position by impressing the coaching staff while backing up Delonte West and because West was a comba guard and Rondo and Delonte played well together as a tandem, Doc went with those two as his starters because they played the best.

Go back and check out the game logs. They will show that all this is true.

I don't disagree with you recollection of events at all in terms of the roster and who started on that team.  It's pretty much how I remember things back then.  It just goes to my point that there were no real vets for Rondo to beat out but he was still sitting behind guys that were in the league before him.  Rondo just had to beat out a woeful Telfair which took half the year to get that shot and West, who was ok, not great, as a combo guard.  West got to start the games in Wally's injury absense.  Wally started when he was healthy.

I'm not a Doc hater as someone else suggested.  I just see this as a part of Doc's coaching mentality and I consider it a weakpoint, among several other items.  Doc winning the title by outcoaching Phil Jackson was sweet and has given pause to call for his termination when I previously would have welcomed it.  Having said that, Doc's strongpoint of getting players to play for him hasn't been happening for most of this season.  If the team reverts back to that styyle of play at the end of the year or in the playoffs, I think Doc's tenure here may need to come to an end after this season.

I love how the reason for playing Posey at the end of games was because Doc doesn't like young players, though Rondo would be on the floor instead of Cassell. Did you ever consider that the reason Posey was on the floor was that Posey was a better player than Powe and BBD?

"This doesn't counter my point that when Doc has an option between a young player and a vet, he goes with the vet and the young player will only get on the court when there is no other option."

Not true. Look at Olowakandi. You mentioned Pollard -- he, like  Brown, did not start over the younger Perk. Of course, you will just look for another younger guy he did play over, ignoring the fact that he was our backup C and those younger guys were playing PF.

The ultimate example of how ridiculous these assertions have become -- the number of DNP-CDs Scal has, as well as the number of times he was inactive and in a suit while Baby and Powe were in the game.

[Induna]

For me it all boils down to Walker just giving these kids a few real minutes to help them develop and to see what they can do. Watching them sit wondering if they can possibly contribute more than a Scalabrine really gets to me. I am not talking playoff burn I am talking development minutes to see if they are worth keeping, to improve their play (nothing beats real minutes for that) and to increase their trade value.

In all this you have to say the C's have shown amazing ability tom pick guys low in the draft that are worth talking about. Hopefully the trend continues.

[hwangjini_1]

For me it all boils down to Walker just giving these kids a few real minutes to help them develop and to see what they can do. Watching them sit wondering if they can possibly contribute more than a Scalabrine really gets to me. I am not talking playoff burn I am talking development minutes to see if they are worth keeping, to improve their play (nothing beats real minutes for that) and to increase their trade value.

In all this you have to say the C's have shown amazing ability tom pick guys low in the draft that are worth talking about. Hopefully the trend continues.

i understand your point about developing players. but isnt practice where most young players who are not star-like in their ability the place to develop?

that is, i am not sure exactly how playing walker (or others) 5 to 7  minutes a game will develop a player all that much faster. it seems that practice would show a player's ability much better since they are competing against starters and playing many more minutes.

further, it seems to me that in practice you can learn more about plays, etc than in a game.

game time is important in development, but practice would seem to be a better place to develop a young player who does not have the obvious skills to play in the nba on a consistent basis.

does walker suddenly show abilities, skills, intellect, leadership, etc in games that he could not, or did not, show during hours and hours and hours of practice?

it seems to me that doc evaluates players through practice, especially younger ones. then they take what they learn onto the floor during games.

walker is not that good a player by nba standards. he seems destined for bench time on most times. also, doc may believe that with the chemistry of the current celtic team, walker did not fit in well.

[Kiorrik]

Billy got 32:45 minutes last night. He scored 15 on 4 of 8, with 3-5 from deep. A rebound, 2 fouls and 2 steals. He also notched 2 Assists and zero turnovers.

It's not a *lot* but I'm curious to see how much he handled the ball. I'm going to watch the game later on, because that stat-line in combination with the minutes he had makes it seem like a good sample of what Billy *can* do.

The only way to argue the above is by coming up with Tony Allen-like symptoms, Jekyll and Hyde stuff, you know?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Well, you guys can say bad things about Walker if you want, but the kid can slash and score....consider that he is playing as his coach wants him to......He does work for D'antoni, it isn't pick up....! But some people are acting as if we couldn't have ever used him, to give the other teams some defensive workover, make them tired....! Or show him off at his best for better trade bait. Maybe give our older guys a break.

   Oh, and don't forget the KNICKS BEAT ATLANTA 3 times, as in, every time they played them, how can you discount that when the Hawks beat us EVERY TIME this YEAR...!

Because the Knicks suck and the Hawks probably didn't take them seriously?

And those are really just isolated incidences.  Honestly, I think D'Antoni is a disgrace to the game.  He honestly thinks he can win by scoring a ton of points and playing no defense.  That's never, ever worked in the NBA.  Sure, you can win some regular season games and make a playoff run, but you'll never win a title. 

I don't hate Bill Walker.  He may turn out to be OK.  However, this notion that Doc Rivers hates young players is just flat out ridiculous considering that Perk, Rondo, BBD, and Powe all played big roles in bringing home #17 two years ago. 
Feel free to critique Doc; I'm not his biggest fan in the world.  However, to critique him on that is just silly. 

As I mentioned above, giving Doc credit for playing or developing youth is absurd.  He plays young players only when he has no other options. 
HOWEVER, if you can rebut my point above and tell me what vet Doc passed over to play Perk, Rondo, BBD and Powe, I will give you 5 Tommy points and more importantly, concede you may be right and I may be wrong.  I have asked a number of posters to prove me wrong on this before and no one has been able to do so.  I welcome any attempt on your part to succeed where others have failed. 
Perk and Rondo started because there were no vets to start ahead of them.  House and Pollard were not realistic options for starting for obvious reasons so don't bother offering them up as your examples.
Powe and BBD got PT because the only other vet big on the team was Pollard who was always injured. Once PJ was signed, BBD was riding the pine and Powe's time was cut back even further.

Posey played a lot of time at the 4 ahead of both Powe and BBD for quite a bit of the games.  Even Scal saw time at that position.  Doc loved small ball with Posey at the 4 because he didn't want to play Powe/BBD significant minutes.  Not saying it wasn't an effective line-up most of the time, but Doc didn't play those 2 a lot of minutes.

You are free to interpret things however they fit your view.

Obviously, they traded other possible PGs because they were confident in Rondo. This makes your point rather pointless. There is a reason we were willing to give up West and not give up Rondo.

You will likely never concede anything because you have made up your mind.

Not true. 
I asked for a legitimate rebuttal and would even entertain admitting my opinion may be wrong if someone could provide a legit counterpoint. 
If you're offering up the trading of Delonte as the proof that Doc would play youth over a vet when he had an option, that's not addressing my point at all.  Delonte was just another young player and the C's organization picked between 2 young players which one to keep. 
This doesn't counter my point that when Doc has an option between a young player and a vet, he goes with the vet and the young player will only get on the court when there is no other option.  My question still stands: who were the vets Doc passed over (who were healthy to play at that time) to play the young players on this team during his tenure?

Actually the truth of the situation is that Sebatian Telfair was the starting PG from the start of the season with Wally Szczerbiak being the shooting guard. Wally was constantly hurt playing a block of games at a time and then missing a block and then playing a block and missing a block.

During that time Doc tried Delonte as the starting SG, Gerald Green as the starting SG and then Tony Allen. Allen finally earned the starting nod but got hurt. Gerald Green then took over the SG duties. During that same span of games it became apparent that Telfair couldn't get it done, so on January 19th of 2007 he was replaced...by Delonte West.

Gerald Green as the SG became a disaster. But in backing up Delonte Rondo started showing that he was understanding the offense and could be a good defender. Doc decided he had earned the right to start while moving Delonte to SG to replace a woeful Gerald Green. When Pierce returned from a long injury the Perk, Big Al, Pierce, West, Rondo starting five started playing very well together and except for sitting Al and Pierce later in the year to tank and guarantee the second worse record, this was the group that ended the year as starters.

Rondo did not get the PG position because of injury. He got the position by impressing the coaching staff while backing up Delonte West and because West was a comba guard and Rondo and Delonte played well together as a tandem, Doc went with those two as his starters because they played the best.

Go back and check out the game logs. They will show that all this is true.

I don't disagree with you recollection of events at all in terms of the roster and who started on that team.  It's pretty much how I remember things back then.  It just goes to my point that there were no real vets for Rondo to beat out but he was still sitting behind guys that were in the league before him.  Rondo just had to beat out a woeful Telfair which took half the year to get that shot and West, who was ok, not great, as a combo guard.  West got to start the games in Wally's injury absense.  Wally started when he was healthy.

I'm not a Doc hater as someone else suggested.  I just see this as a part of Doc's coaching mentality and I consider it a weakpoint, among several other items.  Doc winning the title by outcoaching Phil Jackson was sweet and has given pause to call for his termination when I previously would have welcomed it.  Having said that, Doc's strongpoint of getting players to play for him hasn't been happening for most of this season.  If the team reverts back to that styyle of play at the end of the year or in the playoffs, I think Doc's tenure here may need to come to an end after this season.

I love how the reason for playing Posey at the end of games was because Doc doesn't like young players, though Rondo would be on the floor instead of Cassell. Did you ever consider that the reason Posey was on the floor was that Posey was a better player than Powe and BBD?

"This doesn't counter my point that when Doc has an option between a young player and a vet, he goes with the vet and the young player will only get on the court when there is no other option."

Not true. Look at Olowakandi. You mentioned Pollard -- he, like  Brown, did not start over the younger Perk. Of course, you will just look for another younger guy he did play over, ignoring the fact that he was our backup C and those younger guys were playing PF.

The ultimate example of how ridiculous these assertions have become -- the number of DNP-CDs Scal has, as well as the number of times he was inactive and in a suit while Baby and Powe were in the game.

Posey playing at the end of games had more to do with Perk than with Baby or Powe.

And yes, Scal sees a lot of DNP-CD, yet he has still gotten plenty of playing time even when he was sucking. At least last year he responded, particularly after his embarrassing early portion of the season/pre-season.

Hey, there's no need to rationalize it, Doc loves his vets and favors them. This is no secret, and he'll even admit to it. For a young player to get ahead of a veteran he doesn't simply have to be just better, but convincingly/substantially better. Doc doesn't seem to believe in letting young guys learn by playing. It's philosophy; he'd rather go with players that actually know how to play even if they're sucking.

Is that good or bad? Well in general I think it's a bad thing, obviously many see it as a good thing.

I think players that show promise and can actually play a bit should get playing time. If they don't answer the call, then sit them right back down and keep developing that way, but I think the chance has to be given for them to show up.

[Induna]

For me it all boils down to Walker just giving these kids a few real minutes to help them develop and to see what they can do. Watching them sit wondering if they can possibly contribute more than a Scalabrine really gets to me. I am not talking playoff burn I am talking development minutes to see if they are worth keeping, to improve their play (nothing beats real minutes for that) and to increase their trade value.

In all this you have to say the C's have shown amazing ability tom pick guys low in the draft that are worth talking about. Hopefully the trend continues.

i understand your point about developing players. but isnt practice where most young players who are not star-like in their ability the place to develop?

that is, i am not sure exactly how playing walker (or others) 5 to 7  minutes a game will develop a player all that much faster. it seems that practice would show a player's ability much better since they are competing against starters and playing many more minutes.

further, it seems to me that in practice you can learn more about plays, etc than in a game.

game time is important in development, but practice would seem to be a better place to develop a young player who does not have the obvious skills to play in the nba on a consistent basis.

does walker suddenly show abilities, skills, intellect, leadership, etc in games that he could not, or did not, show during hours and hours and hours of practice?

it seems to me that doc evaluates players through practice, especially younger ones. then they take what they learn onto the floor during games.

walker is not that good a player by nba standards. he seems destined for bench time on most times. also, doc may believe that with the chemistry of the current celtic team, walker did not fit in well.

I have to disagree, you can only see and do so much at practice. You can basically learn the theory of basketball in practice but you need a game time education as well.  Games are also the ideal situation to assess progress made in practice.

I also think you are wrong when you say Walker obviously does not have the skills to play in the NBA where he is currently playiong and producing that flat out does not make any sense at all. All the evidence points to the contrary.

You also have zero proof that walker did not fit in at the celtics - what are the indicators of that?

[Mr October]

This idea that Doc doesn't develop young players is a myth. Period. Not a single one the those young plyaers that Doc didn't play has gone on to do anything in the NBA. Not a one. And walker isn't doing anything that a bunch of other scrubs in the league can't do. He playing us getting points on a garbage team with a garbage offense.

These last several posts are simply overanalyzing the situation.

TP. Young guys with bad team ball fundamentals don't deserve minutes on a contender. Period. They need to learn to earn their minutes - and you do that by climbing up the ladder in practice, or getting lucky when the injury bug hits.

On a crap team, just about any NBA role player can have his day. I'd much rather have Finley, Robinson, Daniels, Tony Allen and Scal going into the playoffs over Walker.

[Mr October]

Billy got 32:45 minutes last night. He scored 15 on 4 of 8, with 3-5 from deep. A rebound, 2 fouls and 2 steals. He also notched 2 Assists and zero turnovers.

It's not a *lot* but I'm curious to see how much he handled the ball. I'm going to watch the game later on, because that stat-line in combination with the minutes he had makes it seem like a good sample of what Billy *can* do.

The only way to argue the above is by coming up with Tony Allen-like symptoms, Jekyll and Hyde stuff, you know?

This is an example of what Walker can do against a lottery team, while playing on a lottery team with 15 games remaining in the regular season. Considering no one is going to take the Knicks seriously for the remainder of the season, Walker should put up some numbers. That at least will suggest that there is a role for him in the NBA.

It certainly doesn't prove that he's going to become a 15 ppg scorer on a contender. Lets see what he can do when he's at least on a team above 500.

[Kiorrik]

This is an example of what Walker can do against a lottery team, while playing on a lottery team with 15 games remaining in the regular season. Considering no one is going to take the Knicks seriously for the remainder of the season, Walker should put up some numbers. That at least will suggest that there is a role for him in the NBA.

It certainly doesn't prove that he's going to become a 15 ppg scorer on a contender. Lets see what he can do when he's at least on a team above 500.

Agree 100%.

Halfway the 2nd half and well, it's the same old Bill walker: good moves on offense, hardly any effort on D.

However, at some points he showed some good D as well. I believe he can, but just won't, for some reason. If he could get his defense up to a level close to that of his O...

But for some reason I believe Doc made the right decision; it doesn't look like Walker will go through that change, because it's a lack of effort, not a lack of skill.


.edit: on that note - Giddens looked solid on D. He's not as flashy or as offensively capable as Billy, but I noticed he's open a lot, just doesn't get the ball as often, and plays good D.

[Tai]

For me it all boils down to Walker just giving these kids a few real minutes to help them develop and to see what they can do. Watching them sit wondering if they can possibly contribute more than a Scalabrine really gets to me. I am not talking playoff burn I am talking development minutes to see if they are worth keeping, to improve their play (nothing beats real minutes for that) and to increase their trade value.

In all this you have to say the C's have shown amazing ability tom pick guys low in the draft that are worth talking about. Hopefully the trend continues.

i understand your point about developing players. but isnt practice where most young players who are not star-like in their ability the place to develop?

that is, i am not sure exactly how playing walker (or others) 5 to 7  minutes a game will develop a player all that much faster. it seems that practice would show a player's ability much better since they are competing against starters and playing many more minutes.

further, it seems to me that in practice you can learn more about plays, etc than in a game.

game time is important in development, but practice would seem to be a better place to develop a young player who does not have the obvious skills to play in the nba on a consistent basis.

does walker suddenly show abilities, skills, intellect, leadership, etc in games that he could not, or did not, show during hours and hours and hours of practice?

it seems to me that doc evaluates players through practice, especially younger ones. then they take what they learn onto the floor during games.

walker is not that good a player by nba standards. he seems destined for bench time on most times. also, doc may believe that with the chemistry of the current celtic team, walker did not fit in well.

I have to disagree, you can only see and do so much at practice. You can basically learn the theory of basketball in practice but you need a game time education as well.  Games are also the ideal situation to assess progress made in practice.

I also think you are wrong when you say Walker obviously does not have the skills to play in the NBA where he is currently playiong and producing that flat out does not make any sense at all. All the evidence points to the contrary.

You also have zero proof that walker did not fit in at the celtics - what are the indicators of that?

"Theory of basketball" sounds like a cop out. Can you elaborate? To me, you're implying you learn NOTHING in practice. Last time I checked, you learned EVERYTHING that you're gonna do as a team at games in practice, like set plays and what not. Maybe a more accurate statement would be "Theory of Celtics' basketball this season"?

You clearly think Bill was getting it done in practice. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But, if he wasn't, would he really have been better in games?

[Induna]

For me it all boils down to Walker just giving these kids a few real minutes to help them develop and to see what they can do. Watching them sit wondering if they can possibly contribute more than a Scalabrine really gets to me. I am not talking playoff burn I am talking development minutes to see if they are worth keeping, to improve their play (nothing beats real minutes for that) and to increase their trade value.

In all this you have to say the C's have shown amazing ability tom pick guys low in the draft that are worth talking about. Hopefully the trend continues.

i understand your point about developing players. but isnt practice where most young players who are not star-like in their ability the place to develop?

that is, i am not sure exactly how playing walker (or others) 5 to 7  minutes a game will develop a player all that much faster. it seems that practice would show a player's ability much better since they are competing against starters and playing many more minutes.

further, it seems to me that in practice you can learn more about plays, etc than in a game.

game time is important in development, but practice would seem to be a better place to develop a young player who does not have the obvious skills to play in the nba on a consistent basis.

does walker suddenly show abilities, skills, intellect, leadership, etc in games that he could not, or did not, show during hours and hours and hours of practice?

it seems to me that doc evaluates players through practice, especially younger ones. then they take what they learn onto the floor during games.

walker is not that good a player by nba standards. he seems destined for bench time on most times. also, doc may believe that with the chemistry of the current celtic team, walker did not fit in well.

I have to disagree, you can only see and do so much at practice. You can basically learn the theory of basketball in practice but you need a game time education as well.  Games are also the ideal situation to assess progress made in practice.

I also think you are wrong when you say Walker obviously does not have the skills to play in the NBA where he is currently playiong and producing that flat out does not make any sense at all. All the evidence points to the contrary.

You also have zero proof that walker did not fit in at the celtics - what are the indicators of that?

"Theory of basketball" sounds like a cop out. Can you elaborate? To me, you're implying you learn NOTHING in practice. Last time I checked, you learned EVERYTHING that you're gonna do as a team at games in practice, like set plays and what not. Maybe a more accurate statement would be "Theory of Celtics' basketball this season"?

You clearly think Bill was getting it done in practice. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But, if he wasn't, would he really have been better in games?

Everything in a playbook is theory players attempt to put that into practice on the floor during games. How can this be a cop out? Step it up to say Military training - for all the practice a soldier gets he learns an awful lot more in battle that is why experienced soldiers who have seen combat are better. 

You don't know that Walker was not doing well in practice and for the record Doc sstated after the New York Game that he was pushing for minutes at the C's with his play at practice/ Like I said you can only guess that he was not doing it at practive but now we have the evidence of his play in games with the Knicks which means we have to speculate less.

[Mr October]

For me it all boils down to Walker just giving these kids a few real minutes to help them develop and to see what they can do. Watching them sit wondering if they can possibly contribute more than a Scalabrine really gets to me. I am not talking playoff burn I am talking development minutes to see if they are worth keeping, to improve their play (nothing beats real minutes for that) and to increase their trade value.

In all this you have to say the C's have shown amazing ability tom pick guys low in the draft that are worth talking about. Hopefully the trend continues.

i understand your point about developing players. but isnt practice where most young players who are not star-like in their ability the place to develop?

that is, i am not sure exactly how playing walker (or others) 5 to 7  minutes a game will develop a player all that much faster. it seems that practice would show a player's ability much better since they are competing against starters and playing many more minutes.

further, it seems to me that in practice you can learn more about plays, etc than in a game.

game time is important in development, but practice would seem to be a better place to develop a young player who does not have the obvious skills to play in the nba on a consistent basis.

does walker suddenly show abilities, skills, intellect, leadership, etc in games that he could not, or did not, show during hours and hours and hours of practice?

it seems to me that doc evaluates players through practice, especially younger ones. then they take what they learn onto the floor during games.

walker is not that good a player by nba standards. he seems destined for bench time on most times. also, doc may believe that with the chemistry of the current celtic team, walker did not fit in well.

I have to disagree, you can only see and do so much at practice. You can basically learn the theory of basketball in practice but you need a game time education as well.  Games are also the ideal situation to assess progress made in practice.

I also think you are wrong when you say Walker obviously does not have the skills to play in the NBA where he is currently playiong and producing that flat out does not make any sense at all. All the evidence points to the contrary.

You also have zero proof that walker did not fit in at the celtics - what are the indicators of that?

"Theory of basketball" sounds like a cop out. Can you elaborate? To me, you're implying you learn NOTHING in practice. Last time I checked, you learned EVERYTHING that you're gonna do as a team at games in practice, like set plays and what not. Maybe a more accurate statement would be "Theory of Celtics' basketball this season"?

You clearly think Bill was getting it done in practice. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But, if he wasn't, would he really have been better in games?

Everything in a playbook is theory players attempt to put that into practice on the floor during games. How can this be a cop out? Step it up to say Military training - for all the practice a soldier gets he learns an awful lot more in battle that is why experienced soldiers who have seen combat are better. 

You don't know that Walker was not doing well in practice and for the record Doc sstated after the New York Game that he was pushing for minutes at the C's with his play at practice/ Like I said you can only guess that he was not doing it at practive but now we have the evidence of his play in games with the Knicks which means we have to speculate less.

In the military you're talking about hundreds to thousands of bodies. If you are only going to send 10-12 soldiers on a specialized mission, certainly that small team is going to be made up of a group that is well trained and prepared to work together.

For all we know Walker has not demonstrated fundamentally sound team ball in practice. I certainly haven't seen good team skills from him in his garbage minutes on the C's. He's too raw. Does he have potential to be an NBA role player? Sure.  But I highly doubt he's gonna be a star player. He's just a mediocre wing. Those guys are a dime a dozen.