|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 23, 2005 4:02:33 GMT -5
Is Mark Blount worth holding onto?
Let's weigh his positives and negatives.
First off, let me say that he's turned himself into quite a nice scorer. From the clueless 7' footer backing up Tony Battie in 2001 to the player he is today, it has been a tremendous improvement on the offensive end. No longer just a guy who can nail the 20 foot shots regularly, he's now added a drop step move, a soft touch on his hook shots (even with his left hand), a 2 step penetration that ends up being a layup or a teardrop, and a fadeaway inside of 7 feet. Ilgauskas was at his mercy last night. Even I am impressed with his offense.
And now, let's take a look at his negatives. He's a horrible rebounder, who's rebounding average for a starter ranks near the bottom of the league. And for a 7 footer with quickness and long reach, he's not much of a shot blocker. And his hands are still glued together--you can almost expect him to fumble 2 - 3 passes a game. He's very moody and wears his emotion on his sleeves. His defense is serviceable, but weak in terms of championship material.
So is it worth holding onto Blount? A guy who can be one of the league's best scoring Centers but near the bottom in terms of the other major categories (such as defense, rebounding, and attitude).
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Nov 23, 2005 5:01:46 GMT -5
He also runs the court well.
He has to go if we plan on rebuilding. He will buckle like a card table if we go on a losing streak. Id look to deal him now, because we got to get Al and Perk some minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by BCHISTORIAN on Nov 23, 2005 6:31:41 GMT -5
you probably know my opinion  |
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Nov 23, 2005 12:16:42 GMT -5
I'm leaning towards no. Couple him with a one kneed power forward who is mostly a one trick pony (3 pointers) and give more minutes to Scala than Perk (still completely incapable of not fouling) or Al J (the next Clarence Weatherspoon? the next Sweetney? The next Fizer? He is about a million miles from the next Brand) and we have one of the weakest big men rotations in the league. I wanted Diogu but he was taken way before Gerald Green who isn't playing. Tony Allen isn't around and we keep losing so I don't know why GG isn't playing (possibly cause he is only about as good as your average 18th pick) but he isn't playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Eye of the Q is upon you! on Nov 23, 2005 12:58:50 GMT -5
My weigh in on Blount. He can score decently with a mix of inside and outside play. However he is never going to be a physically tough player or rebounder because I sincerely doubt he wants it. Like I have said before, Chris Mihm would have been a much better fit and I would have traded Blount to LALA land 2 years ago.
Judging by our signings of Dickau and Scalabrine, I say that Danny Ainge is striking out badly in trades and FA signings overall.
Also, I think we have coaching issues. Doc is coming up short here as well. Lucky thing is I am not the owner of this team.
I am pretty downbeat about the C's this year. As far as the future goes, that is completely unknown.
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Nov 23, 2005 14:03:54 GMT -5
Chris Mihm never impressed me and still doesn't. Another underachiever worthy of the legacy of Travis Knight and Potapenko
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Nov 23, 2005 15:04:36 GMT -5
So far, I think Ainge has done well on trades. And when it comes to FAs, DD and Veal barely even register on the radar. their contracts are nothing.
And when it comes to trading BLount, our bigs are already weak with blount, so we may as well trade him to give the kids some minutes.
There is no magic trade or rotation switch thats gonna make this a really good team. This is a year that should be spent evaluating what kind of talent we have, and to do that the kids need minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by mev17 on Nov 24, 2005 3:21:29 GMT -5
Living in LA, I can tell you the Lakers and their fans get frustrated with Mihm because he is so inconsistent. He can give you 14 rebounds one game then disappear the next.
I could see trading Blount if a rebounding/defensive minded big man were available.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 24, 2005 3:44:49 GMT -5
I'm all for moving Blount. As we can clearly see now, without defense, we lose to pitiful teams. I mean, giving up 120 pts to the winless Atlanta Hawks is disgusting. Not only did we surrender their first win of the season, but this game marks the first time this season where they were able to score over 100 pts. They not only reached 100, but we made them feel really good by giving them another 20.
This goes to show you how weak our defense is. And when the starting Center is only capable of pulling down 1 rebound, its a no brainer why we lost the rebounding battle to the Hawks. They murdered us on the offensive glass. They continually abused us inside, getting easy baskets left and right and clear paths to the basket.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 24, 2005 19:17:42 GMT -5
What to do, what to do? When we are in desperate need for an overhaul on defense, all Mark can do is complain about not getting touches. Does this guy really care what's best about this team? What we need are rebounding and interior defense. Our offense can take care of its self. Why does he feel that its so important for him to get more touches when that is secondary to what we really need?
I'm glad Doc is not holding back his feelings and fighting back with his comments. Its time for Blount to go. He's a gloomy guy who is probably hurting the team more than he is helping. Not only on the court, but also in the clubhouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Nov 25, 2005 10:39:40 GMT -5
Didn't Perk get like 3 blocks in 8 mins last nite? And why is Blount playing? If they don't want to play Perk because he is only (in comparison) a rebounding, blocking, fouling machine then at least they could play Raef at center and Al J at pf. Blount can come off the bench when they need scoring. I just don't get this. The second unit needs offense. Al J and Perk needs minutes. Doc is growing what Nixon and LBJ had. A credibility gap. He says we need defense and to give time to the young guys, then he doesn't do it. That's about an inch from what I call a lie. It's alos kind of like saying to your fans "I know I said this, but you all have short memories and are a bunch of idiots so I'll do this and lose instead." The only thing I can think of is that they are purposely tanking it for a shot at a high pick. Bad year to tank. 07 is the year to do that,
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 25, 2005 16:25:14 GMT -5
Well, if its any consolation, Doc admits it in this morning's Herald that his mistake (among the more than 50 he's already made, in his own estimation) was not playing Perkins more in wednesday night's loss vs. the Hawks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Nov 25, 2005 19:45:19 GMT -5
Blount is a quality "back-up", not a starter. However, because he plays here, he is a starter, and the fans complain about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic17 on Nov 25, 2005 20:11:25 GMT -5
Runner-
I wouldn't mind Blount as a back-up, if he wouldn't complain about it and play hard. I just don't see him dealing with that role.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Nov 25, 2005 22:36:29 GMT -5
Right. If Blount can accept his role off the bench and still play with hustle and intensity like he showed in the first couple of games in the season, I won't mind him remaining with the team. He's a good scoring big man and that we could use that off the bench. But as a starter, if he's only scoring and not doing his damage on the boards or on defense, it hurts us.
|
|
