Morey - Words vs Actions

Ladies and gentlemen, DaDakota.

 

There is absolutely nothing about Budinger that makes me think "lead dog."

He seems like one of those quiet, capable role player types.

 

Not really. Those "alpha dogs" that you name.. that's their personality. They want the last shot, they want to take their man off the dribble. Budinger doesn't have that whatsoever. It wasn't there in college and it still isn't there in the NBA. Coaches have to get on him just to shoot the damn ball! Further, I'm not even sure he's capable of being that player.. how many times did he take his man one on one and get off a jumper? I know he drove a bit, but nothing like a Roy or Kobe type. His points mostly came off fast break points or jumpers off screens. Best case scenario, compare him to a Rip Hamilton -- and Rip Hamilton would never be confused with an "Alpha".

I wouldn't even call his skills amazing. I mean, Brent Barry was a smart basketball player who could pretty much do it all (similar to Bud) -- that doesn't mean I would ever want Brent Barry to be the best player on my team (which the "Alpha" has to be).

 

I think Budinger has some nice ability. I wasn't questioning that. I just don't think he has a lead dog-mentality in him.

There is nothing wrong with that. You need more non-lead dogs than lead dogs to make up a team.

No matter how good he becomes, ability-wise, I don't see him every taking on that kind of role. He's pretty much the opposite of that is what I'm getting at. He's a follower not a leader.

 

If Brooks is our Batman, we are in big trouble. Holy Missing the Playoffs, Batman!

 

You are most likely correct in your initial statements; however, he is also a Rookie.

Look at Rondo coming into his own. Takes a few seasons.

 

So you honestly believe the answer to our missing "alpha dog" problem is Brooks/Budinger? You think that they'd fit the "alpha dog" role better than Bosh?

 

Yes because Kevin Garnett is not a leader and Mr. Big Shot was Mr. Big Shot for no reason.

There is no team in the NBA who won a championship without a big dog. The closest to come to that was Adelman's Sacramento team before getting screwed out of a championship, and even then Chris Webber was the most important player in their team.

 

Whaaaaaaaaat? Boston had two lead dogs -- KG and Pierce, with the edge going to Pierce. And they still have two -- Rondo and Pierce.

Billups was that Detroit team's lead dog -- I don't think many would dispute that.

Using Detroit as your blueprint to win a championship is a bad move though -- they are the exception, not the rule. You win the NBA with stars, not cast of role players.

 

Brooks isn't scared of taking big shots but that's about the only thing about him that fits into the "lead dog" category. If that's all it took to be a lead dog, Nate Robinson would be one instead of coming off the bench everywhere he plays.

Brooks only marginally fits into that category better than Budinger. Neither of them have the ability or enough of the personality traits to be lead dogs in the NBA. They are both role players at best on a contending team.

 

Rondo can do other things beside score. He is a legit triple double threat, while Brooks is a on sided player.

Rondo is a much better facilitator and defender.

 

DD,

What they did before that year is irrelevant -- the question is who was the lead dog on that team. It was Paul Pierce. How do I know? Who always takes the last second shot for Boston? It's pretty simple, even on their team today -- the ball is in PP's hand when the shot clock is turned off. That's pretty much the definition of alpha dog -- someone who will take over and win the game for you.

All three of those players you listed as good to great are Hall of Famers. They did not lead their teams to championships by themselves -- they could only do it on the same team. But that seems to go to my argument more than yours -- the stars will rule the game. You can't win a championship in today's NBA without multiple star players. KG, Pierce, and Allen will never be confused with Aaron Brooks -- he does not belong in the same breath.

Just to be clear though, Rajon Rondo is better than Aaron Brooks. A lot better. If you gave GMs their choice of who to start a team with, the answer is Rondo 99.9% of the time (.1% chance you become GM). When Brooks starts putting up triple doubles against the best teams in his conference in the playoffs, I'll be happy to re-think this debate.

 

In about 9 short weeks, we will find out what's in store for us. Within that time frame, the NBA draft and free agency will open up.

As they say, we will know in the fullness of time.

More than Bosh, we need a starting center while Yao rehabs to full form (fingers and toes crossed), so again I will say we need a rugged shot blocking/rebounding center in the mold of Emeka Okafor. We have plenty of shooters and scorers. We need d. Bad.