|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 24, 2005 2:37:08 GMT -5
I don't know if the fans have addressed their feelings yet, but so far no one has been discussing whom they think will win the starting PG position: Delonte or Dickau.
Maybe some fans think Dickau will automatically get the first dibs because he's been in the league longer. But this is his first year with the Celtics, and Delonte has been here a year longer than that.
But Delonte has been injured for most of his rookie season, so maybe its a wash.
I know most of you will say the battle will be determined by who plays better leading up to the first regular season game in November. But I'd like to know what the overall feel around town is before then.
Delonte or Dickau?
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 24, 2005 3:01:52 GMT -5
Its interesting that Neidnagel was said to know that Steve Nash was a better player than his stats were telling early in his career. Could it be that the Brain Doctor sees the same potential in Dan Dickau? I'm not trying to make like I'm on the Dickau train, but I just find it interesting--especially after looking at their stats.
Steve Nash was drafted in '96. In his 1st 4 years (2 with PHO, 2 with DAL), he was nothing special, according to his stats. He was roughlly an 8 ppg and 5 apg guy, playing in about 25 minutes per game. Nothing flashy--a FG% roughly in the mid 40's, good three point shooter, low turnover guy. He wasn't overly quick, he wasn't strong, he wasn't knocking anyone's socks off on defense, etc. But then in '00, he came alive. With ample playing time (34+ mpg), he turned into a 15+ ppg, 7+ apg PG. His assists average would gradually increase over the next 4 years, while his scoring remained consistent in the mid teens. He became the fiery leader of the high powered offense in Dallas and in Phoenix. And he's been one of the league's premier PG's.
Dan Dickau came into the league with some fanfare, being selected by the Kings with the 28th pick in the 1st round. But he showed little during his 1st 4 years in the leauge (keep in mind that Nash was dormant in his 1st 4 years too). But then, all of a sudden, with ample playing time (31 mpg), he showed life. He went from a quiet 2 ppg, 1 apg guy to a 13+ ppg, 5+ apg PG.
Nash came alive in his 5th year, and his preceeding years have been very fruitful. Last year was Dickau's 5th year in the league, and he blossomed. Is this a sign of things to come, like how Nash turned into a terrific PG? Does the Brain Doctor sense good things in Dickau, the way he did about Nash early in his career? Must be because Ainge seems convinced that Dickau is a good player.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by BCHISTORIAN on Aug 24, 2005 4:46:44 GMT -5
i don't even know what to expect. all i know that ainge usually proves all doubters wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by esco33 on Aug 24, 2005 8:09:57 GMT -5
I say Dickau gets the starting nod at point guard. Not automatically because he has been in the league longer. I just think in training camp he will prove to be the better point guard in running the offense.
(Signing is still not official yet. Wonder what the holdup is)
|
|
|
|
Post by BCHISTORIAN on Aug 24, 2005 8:29:57 GMT -5
yeah, that's my question as well
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 24, 2005 10:39:01 GMT -5
But what are your thoughts on his career path possibly being in line with Nash's? Could Dickau be on the verge of better things to come, at the same period of his career when Nash turned his career around?
|
|
|
|
Post by esco33 on Aug 24, 2005 10:57:41 GMT -5
I am not going to say that Dickau will be as good as Nash, but you have pointed out a very good comparison between the two of them in the first four years. I don't know if Dickau was as highly touted as Nash was coming out of college though.
I do not think Dickau will be as good as Nash is now unfortunately, but I will go out on a limb and say that he has the potential to be a very good starting point guard in the league. I think he has the potential to be a top 6, top 7 point guard, because he has that natural passing ability to rack up those assists.
I have been hearing the argument that any player could put up decent stats on a poor team if they had gotten more minutes. I disagree. Some players could, but not any player. You need to have that basketball IQ to run a team's offense and Dickau proved that last year.
You also need players around you that can put the ball in the basket, and he didn't have that many at all, but yet he still managed to average about 5 assists per.
He is really coming into his own, and I think he will get better. I was actually surprised to still find him on the market a few weeks ago and I was hoping that the Celtics would take a look at him.
In a nutshell, potentially I could see him averaging 12-15pts a game and 7-8 assists on a good team with people to pass to in the prime of his career. Hopefully, if he can put up those numbers, I hope he stays with us and averages those numbers with the Celtics.
Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Aug 24, 2005 11:03:26 GMT -5
there have been a lot of players who weren't good in their first four years. Most of them weren't Nash.
Delonte is the popular choice cause he was drafted with low expectations and exceeded them. Banks was drafted with high expectations and didn't meet them. Dickau has finally had a good year. I think Delonte gets first shot, but they all have about a one third chance
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 24, 2005 11:04:43 GMT -5
Keep in mind that I'm not trying to make a comparison of Dickau becoming as good as Nash. I'm just comparing how their careers seemed to have taken off at about the same time frame, each blossoming in their 5th year in the league. And also, Dr. Brain may have a hand in Ainge's decision to not only bring Dickau to Boston, but give him a 3 year contract as well. They may both think that Dickau is set to become a better player.
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Aug 24, 2005 11:09:07 GMT -5
Well I hope Dr Brain doesn't think he'll be worse
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 24, 2005 11:12:20 GMT -5
If he did, Ainge wouldn't have gone after Dickau. But there could be a trend in Dickau's game, and that may be the reason why Ainge gave him a 3 year deal. If Dickau was just a stop gap vet for security measures in case Delonte and Banks stumble, a three year deal is excessive.
|
|
|
|
Post by esco33 on Aug 24, 2005 11:14:11 GMT -5
Another thing that also led me to believe that Dickau would be the starter is that when I first heard the rumor, I figured that it would be for a one-year deal, but learned that the contract would be for three years. Do you think Ainge would sign a backup point guard to a three year contract? He did sign Blount to that massive contract, but that was different because I think he thought, as we all did that he would play like he did second half of 2004 which was starting center material.
I think Ainge is signing Dickau to that 3-year contract, so Doc can give him the reigns to run the team, and see what happens the next couple years.
P.S. Deal still not official yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Aug 24, 2005 11:18:40 GMT -5
I don't read into the contracts Ainge gives too much. He seems to think the players are pretty expendable and so far he may be right
|
|
|
|
Post by ferbo on Aug 24, 2005 12:45:32 GMT -5
Just to be contrary, I guess I'll pick Banks as the starter---for no apparent reason. n I tend to think the steadying influence of a vet like Dickau might be more influential on the second team than the first.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 24, 2005 17:59:47 GMT -5
I still stand by my logic that Ainge signed Blount as a favor to Rivers, whom really wanted the guy, it seems. Maybe if Blount wasn't in such a foul mood all the time, he'd be a pretty decent player.
Yeah, the 3 year signing does seem to show that Ainge is interested in the guy. But at the same time, its not a significant contract so he can be moved sometime within the 3 years if Ainge is interested in doing that.
|
|
