ImageImageImage

Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce

Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman

User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#21 » by campybatman » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:11 pm

sam_I_am wrote:As a rookie, Larry Bird joined the team with the worst record in basketball and it became aa 60 win team with the best record in basketball. It wasn't until the next year that Parish and McHale came along. At age 23 he was already that good.



I understand that. However, who'd said that Pierce is Bird? I certainly haven't... I was speaking most recently in regards to the quality of teammates of Pierce over the years. What you're implying is a different discussion which I never initiated. Early in the thread, the question is: Why is Bird's name readily brought up when some want to validate Pierce's importance on this team as a long standing Celtics player. By your own comments, you give reason to why Pierce shouldn't be compared to Bird beyond the simplest answer that they both played the same position more or less. Duh. Pierce is who he is: An outstanding basketball talent but one who isn't on the same level as a LeBron James or a young Shaquille O'Neal. He didn't impact Boston in the same ways that a franchise player does. Granted... But, again, I never said Pierce was that phenomenal superstar that immediately turn around the Boston Celtics fortunates as a rookie. No, but Pierce has been an important player that deserves his fair share of credit for helping to gradually turn things around or to improve. Even Rivers' owed credit for improving his coaching staff last season. And Danny Ainge deserves a lot of the other credit for making moves that for the most part have proven to be sound judgments in terms of potential longterm contributors or future trading chips. For instance, Perkins (MEM), Powe (DEN), Rondo (PHO), Davis (SEA) and Bill Walker (WAS) are all players drafted by teams not Boston and then acquired by Ainge via trades.
Red2
RealGM
Posts: 14,664
And1: 4,584
Joined: Aug 04, 2003

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#22 » by Red2 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:26 pm

the 86 celts versus the 2008 celtics would be a very interesting matchup. Both teams had strong veteran leadership with great small forwards in Pierce and Bird. I think the 86 celts were a deeper team and would have posed real matchup problems for the 08 Celts both in the front court and in the backcourt. Rondo trying to guard DJ would have been a complete mismatch because dj would gave posted him up all night long. Ainge versus ray allen would have been interesting as would Pierce versus Bird. Pierce would beat bird with quickness but Bird would kill Pierce from the perimeter and with his passing. McHale, Parrish and Walton to me have the advantage over kg perk and PJ but again it would have been interesting. Posey versus scott wedman, House versus sichting,etc
"Now, there's a steal by Bird..!"
sully00
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 28,105
And1: 7,738
Joined: Jan 08, 2004
Location: Providence, RI
       

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#23 » by sully00 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:04 pm

This idea that Bird joined some horrible team in 79-80 and carried them to 66 wins in nonsense. That team had 3 HOF's in Archibald, Cowens, and Maravich as well as Cedric Maxwell. They may have been at the end of the line and the franchise had been a mess the previous two years because of ownership but that wasn't exactly LeBron's Cav's Bird joined.

The sad irony between Bird and Pierce is Pierce is becoming a champion at the same point that Bird's run as a champion essentially ended.
User avatar
MyInsatiableOne
General Manager
Posts: 9,319
And1: 180
Joined: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Midwest via New England
Contact:
     

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#24 » by MyInsatiableOne » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:19 pm

^^I would hardly boast of having Maravich...at that point in his career he was at the end and a shadow of his former self.
It's still 17 to 11!!!!
Fencer reregistered
RealGM
Posts: 41,012
And1: 27,894
Joined: Oct 25, 2006

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#25 » by Fencer reregistered » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:05 pm

The 86 Cs would have destroyed last year's.

McHale could have shut down KG offensively. DJ could have shut down Ray. Parish could have limited the damage from Bird's inability to stop Pierce's drives, and Bird could have severely bothered Pierce except for his drives.

Turn it around, and Perk can't single-cover McHale, while Pierce can't cover Bird. So heavy rotations would be needed, and an open Parish would wind up shooting baseline rainbows all game.
Banned temporarily for, among other sins, being "Extremely Deviant".
User avatar
MyInsatiableOne
General Manager
Posts: 9,319
And1: 180
Joined: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Midwest via New England
Contact:
     

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#26 » by MyInsatiableOne » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:38 pm

I can agree with the '86 team winning a match-up with last years. Think about this, too...the '86 team did what it did when the league was at its peak in terms of talent...
It's still 17 to 11!!!!
sully00
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 28,105
And1: 7,738
Joined: Jan 08, 2004
Location: Providence, RI
       

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#27 » by sully00 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:50 pm

While Bird, McHale, and Parish would have a great skill advantage you are simply not grasping the size and athletic gap between this front court and todays NBA. KG is bigger than all 3, height isn't the issue as much as weight. Perk would physically dominate these guys on the block. McHale was a very good to great defender in his day but KG would pull 18 ft from the hoop and put it on the floor, as skilled as he was in his day he is simply not KG.

But even more significantly than that would be Danny Ainge trying to guard Ray Allen or worse Rondo, Larry Bird on Paul Pierce, who was exactly the type of player Bird struggled with on both ends. While a better offensive team I think the gap on the defensive end is much greater in favor of the '08 Celts.

The rules were so drastically different between the two eras, but whichever set of rules you played with in the end the quicker, stronger, more athletic team is going to be at an advantage this is just reality. It would be like comparing football teams 20 years apart.

I actually would think that the 83-84 team that was much deeper and athletic might have a better chance of creating match ups that the present Celts could not overcome. Though we would miss the BIg Baby vs BIll Walton match up.

As much as it pains me to say the 85 or 87 Lakers might be another story.
pERKiSaBEAST
Banned User
Posts: 94
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 19, 2008

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#28 » by pERKiSaBEAST » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:09 pm

I've watched the Celtics since '84 so I saw the tail end of the old Big 3...The Chief is one of my favorite players of all time and definetly deserves to be in the hall (as he is), he also knows something about that ganja.


Bird, Ainge, and McHale: I have many fond memories, I loved the way Ainge was a gunner.


When It comes to Pierce, he's his own player but he's definetly up there with Bird.

In Fact, 1 on 1 PAUL PIERCE IS THE BEST IN THE NBA RIGHT NOW.

I watch ESPN, and I'm thoroughly disgusted by the faggotry (call me homophobic if you will).

They seem to be only enamored by "amazing athletic ability" as opposed to Basketball skill.

When Pierce hit that game winning shots a few games ago, the sportscenter clip had stuart scott sayin in a very dull and unexcited tone "pierce with the clock running down....and....got that one."


THAT WAS IT :laugh:


I couldn't believe, on to the next clip, some meaningless Lebrick James dunk in the 1st Quarter and the entire sportscenter staff goes crazy "OH MY GOD, LEBRON JAMES THROWS IT DOWN THAT WAS FILTHY GOOD!!!1" (i like lebron but c'mon can't shoot like Pauly, doesn't have the footwork or post moves, ability to hit the clutch shot)..

I see this consistently, Kobe, Wade, Lebron get the "WOW DID YOU SEE THAT"

Pierce hits crucial shot after crucial shot, sons the best players 1 on 1 consistently, and the sportscenter staff seems completely uninterested because he's not jumping quite as high as kobe.


Totally homo, they just like "athletes" their not about the actual sport and the skills involved.


At this point in time, I would rather have Paul Pierce the kobe...and I would only consider taking Lebron over Pierce because he's so much earlier in his career, but of course in the end I would always take Pierce.


In my estimation there is 3 reasons Pierce is so CRIMINALLY underrated:


1. He's not quite as athletic as kobe, lebron, wade.

2. He's played on some Horrible teams, and people don't realize, those teams were average only because of PIERCE, without Pierce on the Celtics teams of the last 10 years many of those teams would have been THE ABSOLUTE WORST TEAM IN THE NBA...Antoine is the best player he's played with until now, a metiocre gunner with the worst hops ever seen on a black dude...Scalabrine has more hops.

3. There's A LOT of jealous Celtic haters out there, in the media and their audience who don't want to see Pierce be included in the Top 3 in the NBA catagory, despite the fact that he CLEARLY IS AFTER LAST YEAR'S THOROUGH SONNING OF LEBRON AND KOBE.


That block on kobe's FADEAWAY JUMPER that jumpstarted the comeback in game 4 of the finals was probably the biggest block in NBA FINALS HISTORY, in terms of it's effect on that game and therefore the rest of the series going up 3-1.


NOW THAT'S CLUTCH, FORGET ABOUT HIS SHOOTING ABILITY.

Also, BEST FINISHER IN THE NBA, not talking about dunking the ball, JUST OVERALL ABILITY TO FINISH AT THE HOOP.


WHO BETTER THEN PAUWLY PIERCE ?
GuyClinch
RealGM
Posts: 13,345
And1: 1,478
Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#29 » by GuyClinch » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:42 pm

The rules were so drastically different between the two eras, but whichever set of rules you played with in the end the quicker, stronger, more athletic team is going to be at an advantage this is just reality. It would be like comparing football teams 20 years apart.


I absolutely think the modern C's would win. But in fairness to the '86 Cs' - those guys would have been different (and better) players had they been exposed to modern nutrition, training, video tape and the workout regimens they have today. This is big part of why players are faster and stronger - they train much better and they eat much better.

The Larry Bird that grew up today wouldn't be the Larry Bird that grew up back in the day. And the same with McHale and Parish. Parish would have probably developed more like KG...for example. PP credits many of his moves with being a basketball historian. he was able to cherry pick the best of a guys game and bring it to his game.

Perhaps a more obvious example is tennis. If you watch some old tape of Connors and imagine him today - his game was quite a bit different. Guys nowadays play with a different style and better techniques. Would a modern player beat Connors? Absolutely - would Connors be the same guy had he grown up today - of course not.

Pete
pERKiSaBEAST
Banned User
Posts: 94
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 19, 2008

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#30 » by pERKiSaBEAST » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:50 pm

^agreed

Todays C's would win, but I still think it is a close game...especially if Ainge is hittin 3's and McHale is on his post game...I think Pierce could guard Larry pretty well actually, but not vice versa.

Not saying Pierce is better, but not a good matchup for Larry Legend.
User avatar
MyInsatiableOne
General Manager
Posts: 9,319
And1: 180
Joined: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Midwest via New England
Contact:
     

Re: Why Bird? Pierce is Pierce 

Post#31 » by MyInsatiableOne » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:06 pm

GuyClinch wrote:
The rules were so drastically different between the two eras, but whichever set of rules you played with in the end the quicker, stronger, more athletic team is going to be at an advantage this is just reality. It would be like comparing football teams 20 years apart.


I absolutely think the modern C's would win. But in fairness to the '86 Cs' - those guys would have been different (and better) players had they been exposed to modern nutrition, training, video tape and the workout regimens they have today. This is big part of why players are faster and stronger - they train much better and they eat much better.

The Larry Bird that grew up today wouldn't be the Larry Bird that grew up back in the day. And the same with McHale and Parish. Parish would have probably developed more like KG...for example. PP credits many of his moves with being a basketball historian. he was able to cherry pick the best of a guys game and bring it to his game.

Perhaps a more obvious example is tennis. If you watch some old tape of Connors and imagine him today - his game was quite a bit different. Guys nowadays play with a different style and better techniques. Would a modern player beat Connors? Absolutely - would Connors be the same guy had he grown up today - of course not.

Pete


Well said Pete...I think you've altered my thinking on this quite a bit...and I'd have to lean toward agreeing with you
It's still 17 to 11!!!!

Return to Boston Celtics