I think this is a little out of line. Big Baby can contribute now, but as a starter? No... no thanks. Perk is the perfect complement to Kevin Garnett, because he has never had a true center with that enforcer mentality next to him throughout his entire career, until now. Somebody above said Big Baby was a great defender.. and that's far from true. Solid for a rookie? Sure, but I think those comments above were unjustified based on the one preseason game Doc complimented Davis for playing excellent defense in the second half.</p> Perk gives us the size, toughness, defense, rebounding, and shot blocking presence we need. Not to mention, Perk does a lot of little things that a lot of people don't notice or care about. His outlet passing is HUGE. Everybody is saying we need to convert on our fast break opportunities, and Perk is a big help with that. He doesn't run ahead of the pack, but he sure as hell gets that ball dished to half court in the blink of an eye off a rebound, which is just as important as the backcourt players running the floor.</p> Kevin Garnett also does not want to play significant minutes at center if he doesn't have to. He has let it be known, and while he will do whatever Doc asks him to, it's not in his best interest to bang with bigger 7 footers every night. Can he? Yes, but it takes a toll on his body. I don't want him having to face that every night and take a lot out of him physically come mid-April. Perk can bang with those guys, Perk WANTS to bang with those guys, he is a great complement to KG as well as our entire starting unit, he's got the size/length/toughness that we need. Sure, he gets into foul trouble at times, but I'd rather have 28 minutes of Perk with 4 fouls than 28 minutes of Big Baby with this team having interior problems with the starting unit out there.</p> And finally, Big Baby is an offensive player. He is a guy that uses his foot quickness to his advantage, bangs around, can score in the post, is an excellent passer in the halfcourt, and brings energy. I'd rather have a post scorer with the second unit than a post defender.. and visa versa with the starting unit.</p> Big Baby won't and shouldn't start. It's Perk's job, and he has done a pretty damn good job with his role thus far.</p>
[quote name='CelticBalla32']I think this is a little out of line. Big Baby can contribute now, but as a starter? No... no thanks. Perk is the perfect complement to Kevin Garnett, because he has never had a true center with that enforcer mentality next to him throughout his entire career, until now. Somebody above said Big Baby was a great defender.. and that's far from true. Solid for a rookie? Sure, but I think those comments above were unjustified based on the one preseason game Doc complimented Davis for playing excellent defense in the second half.[/quote]</p> Perk has an 'enforcer' mentality? Of course Davis isn't a great one-on-one defender (if thats what u meant), look at him! But he gives us intensity, rebounds, second-chance points, and the occasional blocked shot.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Perk gives us the size, toughness, defense, rebounding, and shot blocking presence we need. Not to mention, Perk does a lot of little things that a lot of people don't notice or care about. His outlet passing is HUGE. Everybody is saying we need to convert on our fast break opportunities, and Perk is a big help with that. He doesn't run ahead of the pack, but he sure as hell gets that ball dished to half court in the blink of an eye off a rebound, which is just as important as the backcourt players running the floor.[/quote]</p> Outlet passing's good, but we score in every half-court oppurtunity anyways so I'll live... =P</p> </p> Davis forfeits size and part of the shotblocking but he gives us the other three categories that you listed for Perkins.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Kevin Garnett also does not want to play significant minutes at center if he doesn't have to. He has let it be known, and while he will do whatever Doc asks him to, it's not in his best interest to bang with bigger 7 footers every night. Can he? Yes, but it takes a toll on his body. I don't want him having to face that every night and take a lot out of him physically come mid-April. Perk can bang with those guys, Perk WANTS to bang with those guys, he is a great complement to KG as well as our entire starting unit, he's got the size/length/toughness that we need. Sure, he gets into foul trouble at times, but I'd rather have 28 minutes of Perk with 4 fouls than 28 minutes of Big Baby with this team having interior problems with the starting unit out there.[/quote]</p> Of course KG shouldn't be at center thats a given... are you saying Davis is a coward down low or something? If so I disagree</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']And finally, Big Baby is an offensive player. He is a guy that uses his foot quickness to his advantage, bangs around, can score in the post, is an excellent passer in the halfcourt, and brings energy. I'd rather have a post scorer with the second unit than a post defender.. and visa versa with the starting unit.[/quote]</p> OK you missed Davis's rebounding abilities on both ends again, but I'd love to have another guy down low that can take even more offensive pressure of Garnett and pretty much force the other team to single cover KG and get a body on Glen. And you're making Glen sound like a defensive liability which again I disagree with.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Big Baby won't and shouldn't start. It's Perk's job, and he has done a pretty damn good job with his role thus far.[/QUOTE]</p> He probably won't start given that he's a second-round pick (ability regardless)on a title contender, butI say give it a shot you never know. I don't think Perk's done that great. Not awful or anything, but definitely not great.</p> </p>
</p> Yes, Perk has that enforcer's mentality. His job is to play defense, bang in the paint, grab rebounds, block some shots, and bring some need toughness to the table - and he knows that. He knows it, and he does his job very well (when he's not in foul trouble).</p> You're point of "Of course Big Baby isn't a good defender, look at him!" does nothing more than hurt your own argument. Putting him in the starting lineup would give us size mismatches in the opposition's favor basically every night, we'd be playing KG out of position and bruising him up more than he should be, and Big Baby is a guy that is trying to make a name for himself and impress the coaches. Perk has a defined role, and does it well. With Perk, we don't have the size mismatches like we would with Big Baby. With Perk coming off the bench like you want, we don't have any form of offense from anybody in the second unit other than Eddie House and James Posey. With Big Baby in the starting lineup, we have to count on KG and KG only to do the job defensively inside. KG and Perk are perfect for each other, and it has shown.</p> </p> Perk is also a terrific passer out of the high post. Perk can run the old Antoine-to-Pierce play - where Paul seals his man under the hoop, spins off him, and catches a perfect lob pass for an easy 2. Big Baby is a terrific passer himself, without question, and there's no way I'll try to take that away from him in this little debate.</p> Davis can get position, he's strong, he can grab rebounds, and he can sneak up on you like Antoine used to do with some swiping blocked shots... but he's not even close to the interior defensive presence that Perk is. Perk is bigger, stronger, longer, mentally tougher, more established, and is a guy we can count on to match up perfectly with any big lug the opposition decides to throw out there. Put Big Baby on any of those guys, even a Brendan Haywood, he'd get outmatched and it would hurt us defensively in a big way... and again, take much more out of KG.</p> </p> Coward? No. Smaller, unproven, undefined, and hurtful to our defense? Certainly.</p> </p> Davis can rebound the basketball, when did I ever say he couldn't?</p> But can he rebound with longer, quicker, more athletic, and more talented 6'11'' guys on a nightly basis? No, not at all.</p> About Davis being a defensive liability, he is in some ways. Match him up with other 6'8''-6'9'' PF's, he looks great. Put him against bigger, quicker, more athletic, longer, and smarter players - he is a liability.</p> I think it's more than safe to say that about 98.5% of Celtic Nation would call your suggestion to start Davis over Perk to be somewhat ridiculous. It would hurt this team so many ways. He's the fan favorite, he's the young guy everybody wants to see on the floor... but he's not established, defined, savvy, or ready to handle a serious role... let alone a starting spot on a contending team.</p> We've duked out our thoughts... but tell me, what would Davis bring to the table that would make you say he'd help the starting unit... and more so than Perk? We've know that he's shorter, not as long, not as good a defender, younger, less experienced, and less defined..... with that said, what makes you think he'd help more than Perk? Because he's better offensively and has quicker feet? If anything, we need that off the bench.. some post offense. We have three future Hall of Famers in the starting lineup that can light it up for 30-40 on any given night... why would you add a 6'8'' offensive player who would give us matchup problems defensively to the mix over a 6'11'' defensive specialist who complements the pieces in place so well?</p> (I bolded that to make sure you answer that specific question directly).</p>
[quote name='CelticBalla32']Yes, Perk has that enforcer's mentality. His job is to play defense, bang in the paint, grab rebounds, block some shots, and bring some need toughness to the table - and he knows that. He knows it, and he does his job very well (when he's not in foul trouble).[/quote]</p> Even when he's not in foul trouble (once a lifetime), he's still not the ideal guy for any of that. I don't care that he knows his job. Scalabrine knows his. He's not exactly special.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']You're point of "Of course Big Baby isn't a good defender, look at him!" does nothing more than hurt your own argument. Putting him in the starting lineup would give us size mismatches in the opposition's favor basically every night, we'd be playing KG out of position and bruising him up more than he should be, and Big Baby is a guy that is trying to make a name for himself and impress the coaches. Perk has a defined role, and does it well. With Perk, we don't have the size mismatches like we would with Big Baby. With Perk coming off the bench like you want, we don't have any form of offense from anybody in the second unit other than Eddie House and James Posey. With Big Baby in the starting lineup, we have to count on KG and KG only to do the job defensively inside. KG and Perk are perfect for each other, and it has shown.[/quote]</p> How does it hurt my argument? He's not a great defender, but he's adequate IMO. And who said we'd be playing Garnett at center if this happened? Keep him at PF, start Davis at C. I know Davis is only 6-8 or 6-9 but he makes up for it for the hustle and intensity he brings combined with his rebounding. Perk is 6-10. That's only a couple of inches taller, and Davis has a lot more bulk. We don't need that much offense off the bench if we rotate so we have a few starters and bench players on the floor at the same time. Look at San Antonio, how many guys off their bench would you call a good offensive player? Michael Finley and Robert Horry? That's all I can think of. But yet they still find a way to win a heap of games year in and year out and have 4 titles in 9 years. They've never had much offense off their bench, just guys who can play and 'know their roles' -- similar to your boy Perk. Why would KG have to defend down low all by himself, did I not say what Davis can do for you with his hustle, desire, and rebounding? And the way KG is playing right now, you could plug Bruno Sundov in next to him and they'd look perfect for each other. So I really don't think KG and Perk are 'perfect for each other' is a legit argument or holds much water.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Perk is also a terrific passer out of the high post. Perk can run the old Antoine-to-Pierce play - where Paul seals his man under the hoop, spins off him, and catches a perfect lob pass for an easy 2. Big Baby is a terrific passer himself, without question, and there's no way I'll try to take that away from him in this little debate.</p> Davis can get position, he's strong, he can grab rebounds, and he can sneak up on you like Antoine used to do with some swiping blocked shots... but he's not even close to the interior defensive presence that Perk is. Perk is bigger, stronger, longer, mentally tougher, more established, and is a guy we can count on to match up perfectly with any big lug the opposition decides to throw out there. Put Big Baby on any of those guys, even a Brendan Haywood, he'd get outmatched and it would hurt us defensively in a big way... and again, take much more out of KG.[/quote]</p> Perk can run that old play? I'll believe it when I see it. Why wouldn't we just use KG?</p> </p> Perk is not an excellent defensive presence. He's decent. Perkmight match up perfect with the extremely slow centers, because that's what he is, slow. As soon as we see Phoenix, Golden State, Detroit, and the like, Perk will simply get out-quicked and badly. You're still making Davis sound like a bitch on defense, which he isn't. And how many centers on teams with any kind of playoff aspirations would you call offensive threats? Not too many I'm guessing. So why not have Davis cover them if they're not to skilled to start out with?Even if they are taller Davis could probably just use his bulk to help make up for the height deficit. Let KG play power forward and cover power forwards. It's what he's here for.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Coward? No. Smaller, unproven, undefined, and hurtful to our defense? Certainly.[/quote]</p> He's not hurtful... he's not a great man defender but you camp him down low he can rebound, block shots, score, and do whatever else you want. Size matters less when you have Davis's bulk and his will.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Davis can rebound the basketball, when did I ever say he couldn't?</p> But can he rebound with longer, quicker, more athletic, and more talented 6'11'' guys on a nightly basis? No, not at all.[/quote]</p> When does quickness come into play on rebounding? Jumping and length maybe. Quickness? If Davis is already down low I don't see the problem.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']About Davis being a defensive liability, he is in some ways. Match him up with other 6'8''-6'9'' PF's, he looks great. Put him against bigger, quicker, more athletic, longer, and smarter players - he is a liability.[/quote]</p> Not to say that Glen Davis is Ben Wallace in any way... but how exactly does Big Ben, at the same height as Davis, do so good defensively against almost everyone's best bigs? Answer being toughness, hustle, and intensity. Again I am not comparing Davis to Wallace at all so don't use that one against me.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']I think it's more than safe to say that about 98.5% of Celtic Nation would call your suggestion to start Davis over Perk to be somewhat ridiculous. It would hurt this team so many ways. He's the fan favorite, he's the young guy everybody wants to see on the floor... but he's not established, defined, savvy, or ready to handle a serious role... let alone a starting spot on a contending team.[/quote]</p> It sounds to me like your shooting down this idea on Glen Davis's name alone. Rookie, 2nd round pick, shouldnt be starting under any circumstances. I've liked what I've seen from him so far. If you haven't, OK. All I'm saying is give it a shot, because regardless of what you say, Perkins is far from perfect and I'm not too sure he's a starter on a serious contender either.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']We've duked out our thoughts... but tell me, what would Davis bring to the table that would make you say he'd help the starting unit... and more so than Perk? We've know that he's shorter, not as long, not as good a defender, younger, less experienced, and less defined..... with that said, what makes you think he'd help more than Perk? Because he's better offensively and has quicker feet? If anything, we need that off the bench.. some post offense. We have three future Hall of Famers in the starting lineup that can light it up for 30-40 on any given night... why would you add a 6'8'' offensive player who would give us matchup problems defensively to the mix over a 6'11'' defensive specialist who complements the pieces in place so well?[/quote]</p> Perk is useless offensively -- I don't know where you're getting the 'good passer' thing but I'm not seeing it that's for sure.The main thing Davis would do over Perk is help KG. Kevin Garnett takes a whole heap of pressure off Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Glen Davis can do the same for KG. He would force the opponents to cover both of them, because of Davis's scoring, good passing, and offensive rebounding. If you got a guy leaving Davis alone, he can really hurt you. If you got one guy covering KG and one on Davis, KG with his abilities will crush pretty much anybody in that matchup. If they still double KG, chances are the SG or SF is open, and KG can hit them pretty easily with his excellent passing. As for the defense part of that, go back up top. How many very skilled offensive centers are on teams worth worrying about? Not very many. Davis may not be a great defender, but his counterpart isn't very skilled offensively. I'd say those two qualitiescross each other out. When we are playing teams with that offensive center, we can plug in your boy Perk.</p> </p> To sum this up... the Celtics are leading (or close to it) in opponent's FG%. I know that Perkins is not the reason for that. Offensively, plugging Davis is in could make us that much better for the reasons I already outlined. So why not sub in Glen Davis and use Perkins off the bench, because while you are giving up something defensively, 1) it's not that big a difference between players here 2) Perk is not the sole reason the team's been so good defensively. He may one of the many, but he's not playing a huge part in this. So my question to you now is, for the reasons I just mentioned--- why not?</p>
</p> It hurts your argument because you're basically saying you'd start Davis over Perk, even though you agree he's smaller and a worse defender. That makes no sense. Also, you say "Perk is only a couple inches taller" - he's also a hell of a lot longer. That makes a big difference.</p> We don't need a great scorer off the bench, you're right - but we DO need a defensive big next to Garnett in the starting lineup. Perk is that, Davis is not. And off the bench, while we don't necessarily need to have a Leandro Barbosa-like 6th man, it's nice to balance out the lineup with a scoring option in the paint.</p> No, you can't just stick any big lug next to KG and say they fit. I know you were exagurating with your Bruno Sundov comment, but Perk's size, defense, mindset, and attitude really is a perfect fit next to KG. He has never had that before. He has always played with soft bigs who don't work hard... Perk is the exact opposite of that, and that's why KG respects Perk so much.</p> Also, Finley starts in San Antonio. Ginobili comes off the bench.</p> </p> First of all, you haven't seen Perk run that play? Have you watched any games? They run that play with Perk and Pierce more than once a game.</p> Perk is no Ben Wallace, but he's certainly a better defensive option than Big Baby. I'll say it for the 100th time - Perk is bigger, longer, stronger, more experienced, a better shot blocker, can get position on bigger guys while Davis has a bit more trouble, and complements everything this team is doing.</p> Obviously... obviously Perk isn't the best guy to match up with teams like Phoenix and Golden State who are apt to playing legal midgets at PF, but what does that have to do with this? We play those two teams 4 total times per year, and James Posey can play a great deal of 4 when we play them. Problem solved.</p> Big Baby would have problems matching up with starting PF's around the league, now you're saying start him at center? Please...</p> </p> How is Glen Davis NOT hurtful to our defense against starting PF's and centers? He's a wide load, he works hard, OK... but he'd give us matchup disadvantages and is not ready to handle a role like this as it is. He's a rookie, he is trying to make a name for himself rather than settling into a stable role. Perk can rebound and block shots even better than Davis... plus he's bigger and a better post defender. You've even agreed with that. So again... you're taking Davis over Perk because of his scoring ability when it really boils down to it. That is not needed in the starting unit, we need two defensive specialists next to KG/Pierce/Allen. We have that in Perk and Rondo.</p> </p> Ben Wallace was also one of the best conditioned and most physically fit centers of the past decade. Not to mention, he had a 36-39 inch vertical and was as strong as anybody in the league not named Shaquille. It's more than will and intensity. And even then... are you saying Perk doesn't play hard/intense? That man works his ass off at all times and is all heart, as well. Just because his personality doesn't animate him facially, or allow him to scream like Big Baby after a big play, doesn't mean he doesn't work as hard as anybody.</p> </p> I'm not shooting Big Baby down one bit, and I have loved what I've seen from him thus far. He has done a terrific job and has a real chance to earn himself some real minutes. I love Big Baby, always have... but that doesn't mean I'm going to blow him up and out of proportion and proclaim him to be ready for a role he certainly isn't.</p> </p> EXACTLY. Like I've said - you like Big Baby over Perk because of his offensive abilities. Perk can catch a ball, has good hands, and can dunk. That's what he has been doing, and that's all you need. We aren't going to run any plays for Perk, and we shouldn't. What's the point of starting an offensive player over a defensive player - when you have 3 All-Stars and a playmaker out there? We need defense to complement them, not offense - and I don't think you understand that.</p> About you saying Perk isn't a good passer... you may very well be the only Celtic fan who doesn't see it.</p> </p> First off, you saying Perk hasn't been a big factor in our defense thus far is just downright absurd. The top two components are Kevin Garnett and Tom Thibodeau... yes... but Perk is huge for our defense. He's our second best interior defender without question.</p> I am done with this "debate," because it's nothing more or less than boring and repetitive. We've stated the exact same things to each other in the past 2 posts, just with different words. There's no point in continuing, but I will say this:</p> You're the only one here who agrees with you. That should tell you something.</p>
You are right CelticBalla this is repetitive... because you keep asking me the same questions and posing the same problems and I keep answering them. But who cares, I'll keep working at it I got nothing to do:</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']It hurts your argument because you're basically saying you'd start Davis over Perk, even though you agree he's smaller and a worse defender. That makes no sense. Also, you say "Perk is only a couple inches taller" - he's also a hell of a lot longer. That makes a big difference.</p> We don't need a great scorer off the bench, you're right - but we DO need a defensive big next to Garnett in the starting lineup. Perk is that, Davis is not. And off the bench, while we don't necessarily need to have a Leandro Barbosa-like 6th man, it's nice to balance out the lineup with a scoring option in the paint.</p> No, you can't just stick any big lug next to KG and say they fit. I know you were exagurating with your Bruno Sundov comment, but Perk's size, defense, mindset, and attitude really is a perfect fit next to KG. He has never had that before. He has always played with soft bigs who don't work hard... Perk is the exact opposite of that, and that's why KG respects Perk so much.</p> Also, Finley starts in San Antonio. Ginobili comes off the bench.[/quote]</p> I never said Perk doesn't work hard. You're making the guy sound like the next Bill Russell. And he's not. At all. He's not soft, but he's not that talented either I'm sorry. The only timewe definitely WOULD start Perk is against teams with dynamite scoring options at center (the Stoudemires and Duncans of the league). Other than that, Davis is adequate for the job.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']First of all, you haven't seen Perk run that play? Have you watched any games? They run that play with Perk and Pierce more than once a game.</p> Perk is no Ben Wallace, but he's certainly a better defensive option than Big Baby. I'll say it for the 100th time - Perk is bigger, longer, stronger, more experienced, a better shot blocker, can get position on bigger guys while Davis has a bit more trouble, and complements everything this team is doing.</p> Obviously... obviously Perk isn't the best guy to match up with teams like Phoenix and Golden State who are apt to playing legal midgets at PF, but what does that have to do with this? We play those two teams 4 total times per year, and James Posey can play a great deal of 4 when we play them. Problem solved.</p> Big Baby would have problems matching up with starting PF's around the league, now you're saying start him at center? Please...[/quote]</p> I can't say anything I haven't already said about this, now it's just up to you to figure it out. I'll wait.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']How is Glen Davis NOT hurtful to our defense against starting PF's and centers? He's a wide load, he works hard, OK... but he'd give us matchup disadvantages and is not ready to handle a role like this as it is. He's a rookie, he is trying to make a name for himself rather than settling into a stable role. Perk can rebound and block shots even better than Davis... plus he's bigger and a better post defender. You've even agreed with that. So again... you're taking Davis over Perk because of his scoring ability when it really boils down to it. That is not needed in the starting unit, we need two defensive specialists next to KG/Pierce/Allen. We have that in Perk and Rondo.[/quote]</p> Once again, i've made my points, and you keep saying the same things.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Ben Wallace was also one of the best conditioned and most physically fit centers of the past decade. Not to mention, he had a 36-39 inch vertical and was as strong as anybody in the league not named Shaquille. It's more than will and intensity. And even then... are you saying Perk doesn't play hard/intense? That man works his ass off at all times and is all heart, as well. Just because his personality doesn't animate him facially, or allow him to scream like Big Baby after a big play, doesn't mean he doesn't work as hard as anybody.[/quote]</p> My point when I wrote that was -- giving up a couple of inches isn't the end of the world.</p> </p> And now I've questioned Perk's intensity... priceless....</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']I'm not shooting Big Baby down one bit, and I have loved what I've seen from him thus far. He has done a terrific job and has a real chance to earn himself some real minutes. I love Big Baby, always have... but that doesn't mean I'm going to blow him up and out of proportion and proclaim him to be ready for a role he certainly isn't.[/quote]</p> Explain why a guy like Perk who has played on nothing but losers throughout his 4-year career and never had any expectations is any better for this role mentally.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']EXACTLY. Like I've said - you like Big Baby over Perk because of his offensive abilities. Perk can catch a ball, has good hands, and can dunk. That's what he has been doing, and that's all you need. We aren't going to run any plays for Perk, and we shouldn't. What's the point of starting an offensive player over a defensive player - when you have 3 All-Stars and a playmaker out there? We need defense to complement them, not offense - and I don't think you understand that.</p> About you saying Perk isn't a good passer... you may very well be the only Celtic fan who doesn't see it.[/quote]</p> I'm saying give this a shot because it would make us downright nasty offensively. We're doing excellent so faron defense, do you really think that by making this change, boom, we're gonna suck defensively? All our league-leading (or up there) defensive stats will go up in flames? OK bud</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']First off, you saying Perk hasn't been a big factor in our defense thus far is just downright absurd. The top two components are Kevin Garnett and Tom Thibodeau... yes... but Perk is huge for our defense. He's our second best interior defender without question.</p> I am done with this "debate," because it's nothing more or less than boring and repetitive. We've stated the exact same things to each other in the past 2 posts, just with different words. There's no point in continuing, but I will say this:</p> You're the only one here who agrees with you. That should tell you something.[/quote]</p> So Perk is the shit, and no one on the perimeter is doing anything I guess? Posey? Rondo? Tony? Pierce, even?Perk is a component, just not top 3.</p> CelticBalla I really could care less who agrees with me and who doesn't. People who go with the crowd are losers. If something like this does happen and does work out, its just people who look stupid. Fun for me, not for you. Now we're done.</p>
Well, I said done talking about Big Baby vs. Perk, but I lied. I'll keep going about some things I don't want to just leave be:</p> </p> I never claimed that he was anything resembling Bill Russell's jock strap, but he's a serviceable defensive specialist. Is he one of the best centers in the league? Is he one of the most talented guys on the team? Hell no, but we don't need "talent." We need stable role players.</p> </p> As do you, my friend, which is why I felt it was pointless to keep discussing that.</p> </p> Giving up a couple inches isn't the end of the world, but it's more than just giving up 2 inches vertically. Perk is the better defender, plain and simple, and is bigger/longer - which is an added bonus. Why replace defense with offense in a lineup with 3 future Hall of Famers that can carry an offense singlehandedly? We don't need any extra offense in the starting unit, we need defense to complement the trio.</p> Oh, give me a break. Don't take that comment so literally. I never said you questioned Perk's intensity, just pointing out that Davis' isn't superior to his.</p> </p> Sure, no problem: Perk is in his 5th year in the league and knows what to expect. He knows the grind, he knows how much work is required to make it physically and mentally... and he has put in a ton of work each offseason he has been in the league - especially with his physique and conditioning. Big Baby, on the other hand, is doing nothing more than trying to make a name for himself and impress the coaches. He doesn't have any idea what to expect. He's going from playing 25-30 games a year in college to playing 82 games in the NBA with much more to handle as far as fatigue and traveling is concerned. Perk has been through it for 5 years, Big Baby is going to be overwhelmed at first just like any other rookie - especially with that 289 lbs. frame of his.</p> So, to sum all of that up in one note: Perk knows what to expect and has been through it for five years, Big Baby has never been through it.</p> </p> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Why substitute your starting center with a smaller rookie who isn't quite as good defensively... just to look sexier on the offensive end - which is the least of our problems in the starting unit? Would Big Baby turn us into the worst defensive team in the league? Of course not, but he wouldn't make it any better and he'd just add to areas we don't need any help in with the starting unit to begin with.</p> </p> I never said the perimeter defense hasn't had anything to do with it. I never said it was about three guys. It's clearly a collective effort, and everybody has chipped in to do an excellent job - as you previously stated. But Perk is a big help defensively, and surely a better defender than Glen Davis in all areas. And no... don't turn that into "CelticBalla says Big Baby sucks defensively and Perk is a god" - because I have never said that. All I've said is that Perk is better in that area, fills a need to the starting unit while Big Baby doesn't add anything we particularly need, and helps us with matchups in a big way.</p> </p> I'm not "going with the crowd," and I never have. I form my own opinions and stick to them. But when nobody else is thinking that this is the way to go, it should tell you something. Hell, Big Baby hasn't even solidified a spot in the rotation period.. even the second unit. And you're talking about starting him? He has played very well when given an opportunity, and if he cracks the 9-man rotation by the All-Star break I wouldn't be surprised one bit, but I have to respectfully disagree with you're opinion.</p> I'm glad we had/are having this discussion though. We need something to talk about, and the posting activity could use a boost. I think you're a great new member to have, bro. I hope you stick around, honestly.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aquaitious)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (David_Ortiz)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (44Thrilla)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Perkins has been perfectly consistent when in the lineup, actually. He's never going to be a scorer, but he plays good defense and can rebound very well. Davis or Perkins is not even worthdiscussing.</p> </div></p> Oooooooof course it is. I'd put Perkins in the 'could be better' defensive category... he's slower than hell and bites on every ball fake.</p> </p> </div></p> Justbecauseyoudon'tlikePerkins,itdoesn'tmeanthatanyrandomfatguyisbetterthanhim. Daviswasimpressive,butitwasonegameandPerkdidnotplay"bad"either.</p> </div></p> Exactly, Perkins is pretty much the same like Davis except maybe faster.</p> </p>
Yeah, we don't have to agree on the little things, lets just enjoy our team, which is kicking ass out there. haha</p> GO CELTICS!!!</p>
We should bring Brandon Hunter back and start him. He had 17 points and 12 rebounds in his first game.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Yeah, we don't have to agree on the little things, lets just enjoy our team, which is kicking ass out there. haha</p> GO CELTICS!!!</p> </div></p> </p> LOL -- CelticKing, always the voice of reason. </p>
[quote name='CelticBalla32']</p> Well, I said done talking about Big Baby vs. Perk, but I lied. I'll keep going about some things I don't want to just leave be:</p> I never claimed that he was anything resembling Bill Russell's jock strap, but he's a serviceable defensive specialist. Is he one of the best centers in the league? Is he one of the most talented guys on the team? Hell no, but we don't need "talent." We need stable role players.[/quote]</p> Servicable to you= somewhat useful in my book.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Giving up a couple inches isn't the end of the world, but it's more than just giving up 2 inches vertically. Perk is the better defender, plain and simple, and is bigger/longer - which is an added bonus. Why replace defense with offense in a lineup with 3 future Hall of Famers that can carry an offense singlehandedly? We don't need any extra offense in the starting unit, we need defense to complement the trio.</p> Oh, give me a break. Don't take that comment so literally. I never said you questioned Perk's intensity, just pointing out that Davis' isn't superior to his.[/quote]</p> I think it would be a good idea to ease up on Pierce/Allen/KG (especially)'s minutes and save their best shot for the playoffs. So at least breaking Davis in at this point would be good. And I already said how sick Davis could make our offense, without hurting the defense much at all IMO</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']Sure, no problem: Perk is in his 5th year in the league and knows what to expect. He knows the grind, he knows how much work is required to make it physically and mentally... and he has put in a ton of work each offseason he has been in the league - especially with his physique and conditioning. Big Baby, on the other hand, is doing nothing more than trying to make a name for himself and impress the coaches. He doesn't have any idea what to expect. He's going from playing 25-30 games a year in college to playing 82 games in the NBA with much more to handle as far as fatigue and traveling is concerned. Perk has been through it for 5 years, Big Baby is going to be overwhelmed at first just like any other rookie - especially with that 289 lbs. frame of his.</p> So, to sum all of that up in one note: Perk knows what to expect and has been through it for five years, Big Baby has never been through it.[/quote]</p> Perk's ready to handle the suddenexpectations on this team now, with two superstars having been acquired bang-bang? I have doubts. Not to say Davis would be much better there, but at least he is fresh from a successful program.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Why substitute your starting center with a smaller rookie who isn't quite as good defensively... just to look sexier on the offensive end - which is the least of our problems in the starting unit? Would Big Baby turn us into the worst defensive team in the league? Of course not, but he wouldn't make it any better and he'd just add to areas we don't need any help in with the starting unit to begin with.[/quote]</p> I've already explained my opinions here...</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']I never said the perimeter defense hasn't had anything to do with it. I never said it was about three guys. It's clearly a collective effort, and everybody has chipped in to do an excellent job - as you previously stated. But Perk is a big help defensively, and surely a better defender than Glen Davis in all areas. And no... don't turn that into "CelticBalla says Big Baby sucks defensively and Perk is a god" - because I have never said that. All I've said is that Perk is better in that area, fills a need to the starting unit while Big Baby doesn't add anything we particularly need, and helps us with matchups in a big way.[/quote]</p> Well you said earlier that it was KG, Tom Thibodeau, and Perkins. No mention of the perimeter guys anywhere, who have been going a great job. Even less D pressure on Davis when he has perimeter guys helping him out.</p> [quote name='CelticBalla32']I'm not "going with the crowd," and I never have. I form my own opinions and stick to them. But when nobody else is thinking that this is the way to go, it should tell you something. Hell, Big Baby hasn't even solidified a spot in the rotation period.. even the second unit. And you're talking about starting him? He has played very well when given an opportunity, and if he cracks the 9-man rotation by the All-Star break I wouldn't be surprised one bit, but I have to respectfully disagree with you're opinion.[/quote]</p> You're basically tell me to go with the crowd when you use the 'you're the only one who agrees with you' card.I could care less who agrees with me, it doesn't tell me anything. The way Ilook atit, more people to laugh at if i'm proven right.</p> </p> Big Baby hasn't solidified a spot b/c he's5 games into hisrookie year. He's a quality player and definitely has the width and should develop the other traits to be a good PF/C in this league. I see no problem with FFinghis developmenta little, we're not sacrificing that much on defense, we're nasty on offense, andI think we're a contender one way or the other. I'm not the coach though.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></p> I think it would be a good idea to ease up on Pierce/Allen/KG (especially)'s minutes and save their best shot for the playoffs. So at least breaking Davis in at this point would be good. And I already said how sick Davis could make our offense, without hurting the defense much at all IMO</p> </div></p> Easing up on their minutes is certainly a good idea. I think playing Ray Allen 48 minutes in a game where were were up by 20 at one point was pretty ridiculous. I'd like to see 37-38 minutes per game from each of the three.</p> With that said, what does Davis starting do to solve that? You want him starting at center... so I ask you, what's the difference if he just comes off the bench for meaningful relief? If you're so confident Davis would fit in as a starting center, what changes if he comes off the bench as one?</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></p> Well you said earlier that it was KG, Tom Thibodeau, and Perkins. No mention of the perimeter guys anywhere, who have been going a great job. Even less D pressure on Davis when he has perimeter guys helping him out.</p> </div></p> No, I did not say it was KG, Thibodeau, and Perkins. I said KG and Thibodeau were the top 2 components, but that Perk was also a big part of our defensive success. That's not saying he's "#3 on the list" or whatever you assumed. I never discredited the outstanding job the perimeter players have done, and I didn't mention them in there because I was making a point about Perk - not Pose, not Rondo, not Pierce, etc. All I said was that KG/Thibodeau were the main components to the success, but that Perk was also a big part of it - then you looked too much into my comments.</p> At this point, I think this conversation is pretty much dying down. I'll re-state my #1 point for the last time, and end it (for real this time): We do not need to beef up our offense, so replacing Perk with Big Baby - just to look better offensively - will do no good. While Big Baby wouldn't turn us into the worst defensive team in the history of mankind, Perk makes it a better defensive team than Big Baby does. He's also more experienced. We have more than enough offensive firepower in Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen. Adding Big Baby to the mix to make us slightly better (unneeded) offensively and slightly worse defensively wouldn't help this team one bit.</p> Big Baby is going to be a terrific player though, and his unique skills/physique mixed with his personality makes him an instant fan favorite. He's the type of guy you want/need in the locker room, and I hope he sticks around in Boston long-term. He'll get his big opportunity, but that opportunity won't be stealing the starting spot from Kendrick Perkins in 2008. If for some reason it happens, I'll gladly take on daily gloating from you for a long time.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32)</div><div class='quotemain'>Easing up on their minutes is certainly a good idea. I think playing Ray Allen 48 minutes in a game where were were up by 20 at one point was pretty ridiculous. I'd like to see 37-38 minutes per game from each of the three.</p> With that said, what does Davis starting do to solve that? You want him starting at center... so I ask you, what's the difference if he just comes off the bench for meaningful relief? If you're so confident Davis would fit in as a starting center, what changes if he comes off the bench as one?</div></p> As far as I know the team drafted him to be a starter at some point down the road. So why notget some kind of jumpstart on that?Of course we could play Davis at PF and KG atcenter to start with, but he'd have slightly less minutes and would platoon with Perkins.Davis would not look nearly as good with the 2nd unit IMO.</p>
