Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?
posted at 12/18/2010 2:59 PM EST
In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?
In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams? : Please explain: why do you think Erdon and JON (who have taken turns as the C's starting center) are better than Perkins? And Shaq may be better than Perk but he can only go 15-20 minutes. Context (schedule, back-to-backs, etc.) are nearly as important as who has the healthiest/best players.
Posted by portcallen99
Shaq is clearly better than Perk and Erden is a rookie. Shaq has averaged 22 mins per game while I believe last year Perk averaged about 26. There are some that would like you to believe that Perk averages about 38 mins but he simply does not. From my perspective at this point not only is Shaq better but Baby is as well. With some more experience and muscle I don't think there is any doubt that Semih will be better.
Perk is a journeyman center who only in Boston playing with 3 hall of famers is some sort of God in the middle. Give me Noah, either Lopez, either Gasol, Howard, Horford, Chandler, Jason Thompson, Kaman, Kaman's replacement Jordan, Bynum, Shaq, Hibbert, Gasol, Varejao, Nene, Ibaka, Biedrins, Okafor, and even Al Jefferson and OBTW I have not even thought about looking up any stats or anything like that.... these are simply just better players. I would also add McGee and Blatche as much better all around players but you may consider them as 4s as opposed to 5s.
What is funny is how people love to go on and on about how Perk is a great matchup against Howard, etc.
But nobody ever says what would happen if your center was actually a threat at both ends of the court instead of just one end....... so if you can actually run your offense through Bogut or Lopez it is a bad thing because they might not be able to stop Howard.... nobody can stop Howard and Perk gets called for about one tenth of the actual fouls he actually commits and then pisses his pants when gets called for a foul (which he obviously committed).
This gets to the point that amazes me to no end..... people love to put qualifiers on players " so and so is a defensive specialist"... "so and so is a pass first point guard"... when what they really mean is that they have an incomplete player and that there are many other players at the same position that are overall better players but somehow with the existing players the team is better off as opposed to having players that are actually players...... Bruce Bowen is a "defensive specialist" small forward and of course nobody would want LeBron James because he is the 3rd best player in the game but somehow the Spurs are better off with Bowen........ Rondo can't score / shoot and he is a "pass first" point guard and it would really not be too good to have "insert name" because he can do everything Rondo does and more but "would not be a good fit for the Cs"...... lmfao...... as if somehow Pierce, Allen, and Garnett would not love to have someone that can shoot and finish.... ditto for Perk.... Pierce, Allen, and KG would really hate to have Brook Lopez who can shoot, shoot freebies, play defense, pass, etc.
The other night agains the Knicks the national announcers said "I would not even guard Rondo".... "Rondo needs to learn to move better without the ball because he would be open for uncontested jumpers"...... um if you had done your prep work you would realize that there is no such thing as a contested Rondo jumper - he is the joke of the league and as a result of having 4 hall of famers to pass the ball to he averages 14 assists per game...... I will take an average shooter who does not create an automatic double team against the best players of my team and 8 assists per game... um like Paul, Williams, Felton, Nelson, Jennings, Rose, Davis, Evans, Udrih, and so on and so forth.....