Tom Brady situation has me wondering...

U2larkin04 · Post #1 » by **U2larkin04** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:30 pm

What if one of our key guy's went down for the season? What do you think our options would be to maintain a chance at the title? Say if KG or Pierce was to go down for the year? Thought this could be an interesting thread to throw around different situations as to what we could do. Not saying we should ever hope for this... but it's offseason, and you all know we need to talk about something. (Plus, this is definitely a better thread than the one suggesting we need to change our jerseys! haha)

greenbeans · Post #2 » by **greenbeans** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:31 pm

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE go knock on some wood.

But its easy, scal fills in.

Zin5 · Post #3 » by **Zin5** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:56 pm

We'd be okay if we lost Ray or KG for an extended period of time, because I'd trust any of TA, Giddens, Powe and Davis to pick up the minutes. We don't exactly have a replacement for Perk, but he's not exactly crucial either. Losing Paul or Rondo would be terrible though. They're both crucial and neither have a backup that'd I'd like to see out on the court starting for more than one game in a row. It doesn't matter who we lose though, if we don't have one of them for the playoffs, we probably aren't going to see number 18. Let's just hope for the best, k.

Dave_From_NB · Post #4 » by **Dave_From_NB** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:56 pm

Give Chris Wallace a call, and find out what he's giving away that week. Or does he have anything left to give away?

U2larkin04 · Post #5 » by **U2larkin04** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 12:35 am

I think if Ray Ray were to go down, out of all the big three, we would still be able to succeed as much or close to it without him. I think that with our bench that we could make up for his absence or at least come close to it.

Bad-Thoma · Post #6 » by **Bad-Thoma** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 12:41 am

Obviously any of the big 3 going down hurts are chances, but just like the Pats it doesn't mean the season is over. (Remember bledsoe Pats fans!)

Rocky5000 · Post #7 » by **Rocky5000** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 3:37 am

Players in order of importance to the team
Pierce (because of how good he is and having no true backup)
Rondo (because of who his backups are)
KG (he's here because we showed that we could somehow win without him last year. I'm not entirely sure how that happened though.)
Perkins (once again the backup situation. His shoulder really worries me)
Ray (A better player than Rondo and Perk, but we have Eddie, Tony, and Giddens able to fill in for him. Still if he goes down, we won't be nearly as good.)
Tony (Slated for the 6th man role, without him our bench is Eddie, Powe and a bunch of very young players.)
-The rest of the guys I think we could handle an injury to fairly well, and keep on rolling.

GuyClinch · Post #8 » by **GuyClinch** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:41 am

I'd say KG is the most irreplacable..simply because there really isn't any guys that can match his style of play on this team (or in the NBA really)...

With Pierce there is some SHOT IN THE DARK that Walker or Giddens or TA or Darius Miles (or some combination of those guys) and give you much of what he gives us. But there really is no chance that say POB can step it up and be KG.

KG is a freak of nature. PP is just a damn good basketball player..

Either way we lost Pierce we lose 15 wins and we would be out of chances for a final. I'd say maybe 20 wins if we lose KG and 10 wins if we lose Ray.

Pete

bruno sundov · Post #9 » by **bruno sundov** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 2:22 pm

Dave_From_NB wrote:Give Chris Wallace a call, and find out what he's giving away that week. Or does he have anything left to give away?

LOL. YES!!!

CW speaking, "I had to give away pau. Ownership made me do it to cut salary."

So is that why you are taking on Zach Randolphs. The single most overpaid guy in the L. he has Larry Hughes and wally beat by a mile.

Benjamerica · Post #10 » by **Benjamerica** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 4:08 pm

If Paul went down wouldn't we start Ray at the 3 and have Tony Allen or even House maybe start at the 2? Rather than start Ray at the 2 and start a rookie or a scrub like Miles or Scals. . .

hoopster · Post #11 » by **hoopster** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 4:17 pm

U2larkin04 wrote:I think if Ray Ray were to go down, out of all the big three, we would still be able to succeed as much or close to it without him. I think that with our bench that we could make up for his absence or at least come close to it.

Yup -- I look down that bench and see a bevy of 8-time all-stars just willing and able to step right in.

Again, the lack of respect and appreciation for Ray's game (by some) on this board is absolutely mind-blowing.

tombattor · Post #12 » by **tombattor** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:34 pm

I'd hate to think this way, but that's why we have the big 3. I think we can withstand losing one of the 3 and still be very competitive.

bruno sundov · Post #13 » by **bruno sundov** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:53 pm

The only people we can't lose is Rondo and KG. No one else does what they do on the team. Lots of people can score or defend even at a high rate. Rondo sets the pace on Offense and KG does it on D.

GuyClinch · Post #14 » by **GuyClinch** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:55 pm

^^^But much like the Pats I don't think we would win a championship. From the Pats fans perspective it's okay during the regular season. It's kinda nice to be the underdog. We are already 3 point underdogs to the Jets. Hmm.

It's just going to suck in the playoffs..(if they make them).. Likewise it might be fun to see Bill Walker or Gidden or TA get 30 minutes a game.. But in the playoffs I'd rather have a proven money player.

Pete

Post #15 » by **ParticleMan** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:14 pm

I agree, I don't think we win a championship without the Big 3 healthy. And Rondo too. Perk is the most replaceable, just because I have confidence in Powe and we can go smallball too with KG at C in a pinch.

tombattor · Post #16 » by **tombattor** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:36 pm

GuyClinch wrote:^^^But much like the Pats I don't think we would win a championship. From the Pats fans perspective it's okay during the regular season. It's kinda nice to be the underdog. We are already 3 point underdogs to the Jets. Hmm.

It's just going to suck in the playoffs..(if they make them).. Likewise it might be fun to see Bill Walker or Gidden or TA get 30 minutes a game.. But in the playoffs I'd rather have a proven money player.

Pete

Yeah, I agree. I think we'll still be one of the elite teams with only 2 of our big 3 healthy, but it'll be pretty darn hard to win #18 without one of the big 3.

I also disagree with those who say that Rondo is more important than 1 of the big 3 because big 3 can compensate for the loss of Rondo while Rondo can't compensate for the loss of KG, Ray or Paul.

Dave_From_NB · Post #17 » by **Dave_From_NB** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:08 pm

tombattor wrote:

I also disagree with those who say that Rondo is more important than 1 of the big 3 because big 3 can compensate for the loss of Rondo while Rondo can't compensate for the loss of KG, Ray or Paul.

I agree with you. Also, Rondo is pretty replaceable at this point in his career. I really like Rondo and his upside, but lets not kid ourself that finding a 1 season replacement to Rondo is as hard as finding a SF as good as Pierce or PF as good as KG.

Although the loss of any of the starters would be troublesome, the thing to remember is that Ainge then goes in to action to replace the missing starter. Gasol to LA because Bynum was injured is perhaps a ludicrous example, but we could be pretty sure that Ainge wouldn't stand still if one of the important players went out.

bruno sundov · Post #18 » by **bruno sundov** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:15 am

Think of how much harder it was to win in the playoffs with just Ray Allen suicking. CLE and the first few games against DET. Then he came out of it and the team just started to roll. IF he wasn't in that funk for so long they take care of ATL and CLE in 5 or 6. So maybe it takes 22 games to win it all instead of 26.

He had a game where he didn't score at all. Maybe had a freethrow.

tombattor · Post #19 » by **tombattor** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:46 pm

bruno sundov wrote:Think of how much harder it was to win in the playoffs with just Ray Allen suicking. CLE and the first few games against DET. Then he came out of it and the team just started to roll. IF he wasn't in that funk for so long they take care of ATL and CLE in 5 or 6. So maybe it takes 22 games to win it all instead of 26.

He had a game where he didn't score at all. Maybe had a freethrow.

That's true and that's why it's great to have the Big 3. With that said, once Ray came out of the slump, which in part was caused by his child's illness, he was pretty darn good. In fact, I think we probably could have beaten the Lakers with just Ray and KG or just Ray and Paul. With all 3 playing, the Finals really wasn't that close at all.

Bad-Thoma · Post #20 » by **Bad-Thoma** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:44 pm

tombattor wrote:
bruno sundov wrote:Think of how much harder it was to win in the playoffs with just Ray Allen suicking. CLE and the first few games against DET. Then he came out of it and the team just started to roll. IF he wasn't in that funk for so long they take care of ATL and CLE in 5 or 6. So maybe it takes 22 games to win it all instead of 26.

He had a game where he didn't score at all. Maybe had a freethrow.

That's true and that's why it's great to have the Big 3. With that said, once Ray came out of the slump, which in part was caused by his child's illness, he was pretty darn good. In fact, I think we probably could have beaten the Lakers with just Ray and KG or just Ray and Paul. With all 3 playing, the Finals really wasn't that close at all.

Yes, but now they have Bynum back so the NBA is thinking of cancelling the season and just mailing LA their rings.