Daniels

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonsucks69. Show bostonsucks69's posts

    Re: Daniels

    Daniels is made of glass. He is overdue for his annual injury. Probably by all star break. Cool
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Daniels

    After how well Daniels played against the Rockets I think Doc will give him some more playing time. And going small with a lineup of Rondo, Pierce, Ray, KG, and Daniels is also not a bad idea.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Icon11. Show Icon11's posts

    Re: Daniels

    Other than last year Daniels has always had game.  He was a difference maker when he was with Dallas.  I think his minutes are fine where they are though.  Who are you going to sit?  
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mem17. Show mem17's posts

    Re: Daniels

    I would play Marquis at the backup pg. position for now. Nate isn't getting the job done lately. I would stick with Wafer at some short minutes as Doc has been doing and bench Nate until he shows that he can deliver again.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamezHill24. Show JamezHill24's posts

    Re: Daniels

    i agree. as well as Von..lets get Ray some rest, dude can actually play. ive been impressed with both him and marquis as of late. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHEisCHE. Show CHEisCHE's posts

    Re: Daniels

    Daniel = Nate, now you see it now you don't type of players.

    no consistency  either thick or thin 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from markp99. Show markp99's posts

    Re: Daniels

    I think Marquis has shown more consistency that Nate, especially lately.  I have not looked, but I suspect the PLUS is pretty good when Marquis is in the game.

    We like his slashes to the basket and defensive energy.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichBelgium. Show MichBelgium's posts

    Re: Daniels

    I don't get it why doc keeps going with nate...  Nate at this moment is the most tradable piece in our roster. He is not contributing a thing... . However we should wait before trading him. Let's see how he'll do when west is back ...

    Give more minutes to daniels and wafer, at least these guys are preforming.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    After how well Daniels played against the Rockets I think Doc will give him some more playing time. And going small with a lineup of Rondo, Pierce, Ray, KG, and Daniels is also not a bad idea.
    Posted by P34


    small ball?  You are going to get Kirks blood pumping.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Icon11. Show Icon11's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    In Response to Re: Daniels : small ball?  You are going to get Kirks blood pumping.
    Posted by OneOnOne

    Nah. The small ball line up didn't include nate.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    I don't get it why doc keeps going with nate...  Nate at this moment is the most tradable piece in our roster. He is not contributing a thing... . However we should wait before trading him. Let's see how he'll do when west is back ... Give more minutes to daniels and wafer, at least these guys are preforming.
    Posted by MichBelgium



    Because his choices at backup PG are Nate, Bradley, and 'Quis.  Daniels handles the ball ok at times but he has his problems as well - primarily he's slow and it takes a while to get into the offense.  Nate is a little faster but not good at setting people up.  Bradley is simply not ready.  There are no good choices right now.

    But we got by without Rondo for a while.  We just have trouble getting by when Rondo's out of the game AND when our bigs are either out due to fouls or not playing well AND when KG is out.  Too many problems at once.  Its not that Nate is a problem in and of himself, its that his shortcomings are exaggerated when we have the other problems at the same time.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichBelgium. Show MichBelgium's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    In Response to Re: Daniels : Because his choices at backup PG are Nate, Bradley, and 'Quis.  Daniels handles the ball ok at times but he has his problems as well - primarily he's slow and it takes a while to get into the offense.  Nate is a little faster but not good at setting people up.  Bradley is simply not ready.  There are no good choices right now. But we got by without Rondo for a while.  We just have trouble getting by when Rondo's out of the game AND when our bigs are either out due to fouls or not playing well AND when KG is out.  Too many problems at once.  Its not that Nate is a problem in and of himself, its that his shortcomings are exaggerated when we have the other problems at the same time.
    Posted by Celtsfan4life

    Would you still have done the Nate/ Landry trade for House, Walker and Giddens? I am not so sure ...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    In Response to Re: Daniels : Would you still have done the Nate/ Landry trade for House, Walker and Giddens? I am not so sure ...
    Posted by MichBelgium


    Good question, Mich.  I just don't know to be honest.  I think its 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.  Landry and Giddens are now irrelevant.  But, today - would you rather have Nate or House + Walker.  Tough choice, but I loved Eddie so I'd probably take House and Walker.   Walker did have potential and could today be giving us a few smart, athletic minutes per game.  

    OK, I've talked/typed myself into it - I would not do the trade knowing what I know today.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: Daniels

    Think of it this way - if you gave Eddie the same open shots that Nate's been getting the last month, would Eddie have knocked more of them down.....YES!
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichBelgium. Show MichBelgium's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    Think of it this way - if you gave Eddie the same open shots that Nate's been getting the last month, would Eddie have knocked more of them down.....YES!
    Posted by Celtsfan4life

    On the other hand Eddie is even worse at dribbling the ball and playing the point guard spot. I wouldn't have done it for Walker I think...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Daniels

    Daniels should play back up point for a few games with Nate at the other guard

    Daniels was scoring at will in the Houston game and maybe he can be pushed tonight against the Kings
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from heirplain. Show heirplain's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    In Response to Re: Daniels : Would you still have done the Nate/ Landry trade for House, Walker and Giddens? I am not so sure ...
    Posted by MichBelgium


    Hope you guys don't mind me adding 2 cents.
    I was against giving up Eddie House. We never know how things are going to turn out though. I like Nate's game at times and am happy he has matured some.

    Eddie has been accused of not playing D which is true as an individual 1 on 1 defender but he was the master of the tip, disruption and steal within the system. (example was that steal and going out of bounds assist he made)! A bonus was his lights out 3 point quick release and his team member spirit. He did handle the ball ok if he had help if not so much 1on1 against the quicker pg's.

    Was Walker important? He and Giddens were trade chips if nothing else although I felt Billie was coming along.

    Thanks..JMO
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneNation. Show OneNation's posts

    Re: Daniels

    I think he is Boston's best defensive player. He really does many things very well on the court. I would love to see his minutes increased.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PierceIsTheTruth. Show PierceIsTheTruth's posts

    Re: Daniels

    he was playing good last year before he injured his thumb. He has been slashing to the basket and making some consistent shots. last year and early this year some people on this board where like "ship him out, blah blah he s u c k s".
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneNation. Show OneNation's posts

    Re: Daniels

    I think if you know the game you can recognize how much of a asset he is. Even if he doesn't score a point.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenkillme. Show greenkillme's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Daniels:
    Has anybody noticed the great inside shooting game that Daniels has and the great defense??? Please Doc, give this guy regular minutes...at least 25 per game. He should play more with Rondo and Pierce. This would help give Ray Allen a lot more open looks.
    Posted by celticsince1958


    So if he is on the floor with Rondo and Pierce causing Allen to get more open looks that means we only have one big on the floor. Don't you think we would be at a disadvantage defensively against most teams. I think you could do it against smaller lineups but Daniels and Pierce are not big enough to play the 4 spot against most teams for more than a couple of minutes at a time.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeezem. Show jeezem's posts

    Re: Daniels

    In Response to Re: Daniels:
    In Response to Daniels : So if he is on the floor with Rondo and Pierce causing Allen to get more open looks that means we only have one big on the floor. Don't you think we would be at a disadvantage defensively against most teams. I think you could do it against smaller lineups but Daniels and Pierce are not big enough to play the 4 spot against most teams for more than a couple of minutes at a time.
    Posted by greenkillme
    Depends on the matchups.    It's a good option to have though.  His flexibility to play multiple positions is underestimated as part of his value.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share