Poll

If you could magically have had Shaq or Perk in Boston last post season, who would it be?

Shaq.
27 (65.9%)
Perkins.
12 (29.3%)
Neither, Big Baby all the way!
0 (0%)
It doesn't matter - We still would have lost.
2 (4.9%)

Total Members Voted: 40

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?  (Read 7520 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« on: June 25, 2011, 08:05:51 PM »

Offline syfy9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • We may as well put Tyrion in at center.
If you could have a healthy Shaq or healthy Perk right before the playoffs started, who would you choose and why? (They would not get injured.) And do you think we could have won it all of we had one of them this post season?

Let's pretend that this would be our roster (In reality, it would be improbable/impossible without the Perk trade, but just play with me for a bit, guys).

Rondo, Delonte, Arroyo, Avery
Ray, Von Wafer
PP, Jeff Green, Pavlovic
KG, Big Baby, Troy Murphy
___________,Jermaine, Kristic




In my opinion, I like Perkins and all, and he's undoubtedly one of the top 10 defensive centers in the league, but I think Shaq would have provided better than Perk. He had better offensive capabilities, has a bigger body than Perk, rebounds as well if not better than him, and can finish. I admit Perk is over him in defensive ability, but Shaq provides offense as well as a good D. And come on, the Big Shamrock is clutch (come playoff time) and I believe he would step his game up in the playoffs.

Either way, we would have won a championship with either one of them if they were healthy and Rondo didn't get injured(:

 
Logged
I like Marcus Smart
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2011, 08:49:41 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Perkins, he can play more minutes and is less of a defensive liability.
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2011, 08:56:05 PM »

Offline clutchlikepaulp

  • Torrey Craig
  • Posts: 6
  • Tommy Points: 0
Are we assuming Shaq/Perk will be healthy throughout the entire playoffs or are they still liable to being injured?
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2011, 09:04:25 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
We were the best team in basketball this year when Shaq was a member of our starting five.  Offensively, we were a top five team in the league while still having a top defense.

I guess we should have never expected that he could actually play a full season, though. 

If we can somehow find a decent center who can play a full season next year, this team is still a contender.   
Logged
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2011, 09:06:16 PM »

Offline paulcowens

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 365
  • Tommy Points: 79
It's a totally silly question, isn't it?  There was no possible way we were going to have a healthy Shaq for the playoffs.  And when you say healthy Shaq, what exactly does that mean?  Shaq at his peak earlier in the season?  Well, THAT Shaq would have to start over Perkins.  With him our offense was amazingly powerful.  But that Shaq was only around briefly.  Shaq was more or less hobbled for much of the season, and by the end, of course, he was long gone.

What makes me mad is that, because of Danny's Folly, we went into the playoffs without a legitimate starting center.  I love Jermaine for the way he came back, but he should have been coming off the bench.  Even at 60% Perkins would have strengthened us tremendously, as our starting center.   Basically Danny gave up on the season, and it almost seemed like the whole reason for it was that he was mad at Perkins for not instantly signing a contract.  And all the malarky drummed up by Danny and Doc, about how Shaq was going to return and save us, was just unbelievably cynical.  They knew Shaq wasn't coming back, or if he managed to come back, would be a shell of what he had been earlier in the season.

So like I said, this question is just silly.  We badly needed Perkins.  Period.
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2011, 09:21:41 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
I believe that as the question stands - a healthy Shaq or Perk would've brought us to Banner 18 - BUT: We would've needed a healthy Rondo as well - just like the OP stated with the start of the the thread.

The Kendrick Perkins we all saw in the playoffs this year was not going to get the job done for us, unfortunately, no matter how much love I had (and still do) for the big guy.

We will hopefully see Max Perk next season, after a few months of recovery from his surgery. I think he and Serge will cause nightmares for the west, personally - IF he can stay healthy.

Tyson Chandler is perhaps the 3rd best center in the NBA (behind Dwight, Bynum) and a healthy Perk would've struggled vs either of those two, much less the Perk we all saw vs DAL (and MEM, as well).

The Shaq we saw at the start of the season would've had the same results - Banner 18 - but we still would've needed a healthy Rondo.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 09:34:29 PM by GreenFaith1819 »
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2011, 09:22:29 PM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
a healthy shaq or a healthy perk throughout the playoffs....i take shaq.
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2011, 09:39:13 PM »

Offline CelticsFanNC

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 74
  I'd take Shaq but I voted that it wouldn't have made a difference.  Neither would see the floor much against Miami.

   Rondo's injury was huge because it meant no easy baskets for the Big Three.
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2011, 10:27:51 PM »

Offline FLCeltsFan

  • Kendrick Perkins #1 Fan
  • Author
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5587
  • Tommy Points: 12044
  • Marcus Smart Fan!
Perk. 
Logged
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2011, 10:32:11 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
Oh boy, it's not even close.  A healthy Shaq would have made the Celtics a true title contender.  I believe we could have beaten Miami with a healthy Shaq (and healthy Rondo). 

I think Shaq was vital to our tital hopes from the very beginning of last season, Perk or no Perk.
Logged
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2011, 11:25:32 PM »

Offline Tgro

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 867
  • Tommy Points: 143
  • It's all about the TEAM!
Quote from: PosImpos on June 25, 2011, 10:32:11 PM
I think Shaq was vital to our tital hopes from the very beginning of last season, Perk or no Perk.

Up until January, we were easily the best team in the league. It feels like such a ripoff to see how this season turned out. It wasn't the old cry that every team has that without injuries this team could have done a lot of damage, its just a plain fact that injuries robbed us this year. All the way until the last game of the playoffs we were decimated and doomed. Shaq's injury had us on the ropes and facing the reality of losing. Rondo's injury was just the bullet that put us out of our misery.

Give me the team we had in November and December with a healthy Shaq and playing like they were and the 18th banner would have been easy. I know every team can say "what ifs" but this team deserves to say it more than any other this season. 
Logged
The Celtics aren't quitters. Why should you be? - blind homer
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2011, 11:30:04 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7166
  • Tommy Points: 845
Quote from: paulcowens on June 25, 2011, 09:06:16 PM
It's a totally silly question, isn't it?  There was no possible way we were going to have a healthy Shaq for the playoffs.  And when you say healthy Shaq, what exactly does that mean?  Shaq at his peak earlier in the season?  Well, THAT Shaq would have to start over Perkins.  With him our offense was amazingly powerful.  But that Shaq was only around briefly.  Shaq was more or less hobbled for much of the season, and by the end, of course, he was long gone.

What makes me mad is that, because of Danny's Folly, we went into the playoffs without a legitimate starting center.  I love Jermaine for the way he came back, but he should have been coming off the bench.  Even at 60% Perkins would have strengthened us tremendously, as our starting center.   Basically Danny gave up on the season, and it almost seemed like the whole reason for it was that he was mad at Perkins for not instantly signing a contract.  And all the malarky drummed up by Danny and Doc, about how Shaq was going to return and save us, was just unbelievably cynical.  They knew Shaq wasn't coming back, or if he managed to come back, would be a shell of what he had been earlier in the season.

So like I said, this question is just silly.  We badly needed Perkins.  Period.


well said.
Logged
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2011, 11:52:03 PM »

Offline jdz101

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Tommy Points: 404
Healthy shaq by a country mile.
Logged


how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was chris bosh?
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2011, 12:51:25 AM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
Quote from: PosImpos on June 25, 2011, 10:32:11 PM
I think Shaq was vital to our tital hopes from the very beginning of last season, Perk or no Perk.
I still don't get this.  We won with a younger Perk, and a much worse Rondo.  Shaq or no Shaq that starting 5 still never lost a championship series.  No Shaq, we were still the best team in basketball.
Logged
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale
Re: Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2011, 02:27:42 AM »

Offline 17wasEZ

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 375
  • Tommy Points: 39
Quote from: tenn_smoothie on June 25, 2011, 11:30:04 PM
Quote from: paulcowens on June 25, 2011, 09:06:16 PM
It's a totally silly question, isn't it?  There was no possible way we were going to have a healthy Shaq for the playoffs.  And when you say healthy Shaq, what exactly does that mean?  Shaq at his peak earlier in the season?  Well, THAT Shaq would have to start over Perkins.  With him our offense was amazingly powerful.  But that Shaq was only around briefly.  Shaq was more or less hobbled for much of the season, and by the end, of course, he was long gone.

What makes me mad is that, because of Danny's Folly, we went into the playoffs without a legitimate starting center.  I love Jermaine for the way he came back, but he should have been coming off the bench.  Even at 60% Perkins would have strengthened us tremendously, as our starting center.   Basically Danny gave up on the season, and it almost seemed like the whole reason for it was that he was mad at Perkins for not instantly signing a contract.  And all the malarky drummed up by Danny and Doc, about how Shaq was going to return and save us, was just unbelievably cynical.  They knew Shaq wasn't coming back, or if he managed to come back, would be a shell of what he had been earlier in the season.

So like I said, this question is just silly.  We badly needed Perkins.  Period.


well said.

You guys do realize it was a silly question the other way too then, right? Because, I'm sure you are well aware that there was NO WAY the Celtics were gonna have a healthy Perkins either.  He was recovering from last season's knee injury and nursing his other knee injury right before he was traded.

Hence, the question read "..a healthy Shaq or a healthy Perkins...".  The writer gave us a hypothetical question to ponder.

It seems as though Perk has taken on a Paul Bunyan "larger than life" kind of persona amongst some of the fans here. 

Logged
We all think we know more than we really do....
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »