Jordan Crawford Thinks Celtics Now Think of Him as a Leader

KJ,

I don't quite know where an equation of contribution to leadership came into the conversation, but I agree with you. Personally, my favorite kind of team model would be one on which everyone—from superstar to role player—would have the freedom, guts and credibility to place himself in a leadership position when appropriate. (Sort of like Keyon Dooling a couple of seasons ago.) Unfortunately, such phenomena usually take time to develop, and we'll probably never again see an entire team of leadership candidates because of the temporary nature of today's rosters.

Sam

Sam,

I think it was here:

mrkleen09 wrote: He is not a star player, hell I dont even know if he will make this team.  My point all along was, the Celtics are in NO POSITION to decide who is and is not going to be a contributor at this point.  If the guy comes into camp in good shape, plays hard, makes the team, and then works into the rotation and chips in 10 to 12 points per game - WHY wouldnt you want him around?

When you have a good team - you might be able to dismiss players out of hand.  When you have a very mediocre, rebuilding team -  you need to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

I only brought it up because the original context was the perception of Crawford as a leader, not just as a "contributor." Technically, anyone that actively plays counts as a contributor, regardless of how much or how little that contribution is. I was just trying to make that distinctive difference.

Also, I agree with your sentiments on having multiple players stepping up as leaders when needed. It's hard to find this in a star-driven league (excluding Chicago, San Antonio).

KJ

Mrkleen,

I think where many people are missing the point about Crawford's performance is that Jordan's future success or failure with the Celtics (if he's still here in the first place) may have at least as much to do with the team as with Crawford.

He has never played on a highly disciplined team, and I'm including last year's Celtics (minus Rondo)in that description because so much of their offense after Rondo departed was of the playground variety with no strong PG leadership. I believe a lack of shooting discipline is the #1 factor that (1) lowers Crawford's shooting percentage and (2) can make him somewhat of a loose cannon on the court. The fact that he's a pretty instinctive and decent ball distributor at the SG position (although obviously not even close to the PG level) suggests to me that he could potentially thrive in a more disciplined team-oriented situation than he has been exposed to in his pro career to date.

Unfortunately, pending further developments by Danny at the PG position, Crawford could be one of the Celtics who will suffer most from a prolonged absence on Rondo's part. I'd like to see what Jordan could do with (1) a coach who has a recent track record of finding ways to integrate young guys into the team concept, (2) a team with enough veterans (at least right now) to exert some team-oriented discipline, and (3) an elite point guard as a day-to-day influence.

One has to wonder how thick or fine a line there may be between (1) a loose cannon who has the ability to score from 30 feet as well as slashing with unpredictable moves and (2) a more disciplined player who can generate instant offense on a reliable basis.

Sam

cowens/oldschool wrote:you've got to be kidding me, Eddie House hit some huge shots for us on that championship run, Crawford was jacking up shots for a young team that was the worst team in the league, he had a free rein to show what he could do, in 2 of his years there he shot under 40% FG, do you get it, his scoring avg is irrelevant, doesn't mean squat....somebody has to stick up for Eddie House.

Cow - I am talking about CAREER numbers....not 2008, pulled out of context.

Eddie House was a big contributor to the championship and I was sad to see him go the following year. But lets take the rose colored glasses off for a moment. Eddie House years when he shot 33% and 35% from the field for a full season....so lets not pretend he was somehow on a higher level than Jordan Crawford. Both were marginal role players in the NBA. The numbers dont lie, sorry.

sam wrote:One has to wonder how thick or fine a line there may be between (1) a loose cannon who has the ability to score from 30 feet as well as slashing with unpredictable moves and (2) a more disciplined player who can generate instant offense on a reliable basis.

Sam

Exactly right Sam.

My point all along, is the Celtics are in no position to be discarding career 13 PPG scorers before training camp even starts. In fact, in spite of some opinions out here - Crawford is under contract - so he is going to be a part of this team in the short term. That being the case, I see no reason to be so negative about him.

Crawford has potential -- the potential to add much-needed offensive spark, the potential to take boneheaded shots, the potential to sit on the bench in Brad Steven's dog house, the potential to be a helpful part of young, athletic team. I suppose I could add "leadership" to that list.

mrkleen09 wrote:

My point all along, is the Celtics are in no position to be discarding career 13 PPG scorers before training camp even starts.  In fact, in spite of some opinions out here - Crawford is under contract - so he is going to be a part of this team in the short term.  That being the case, I see no reason to be so negative about him.

Obviously that negativity comes from seeing how one plays. And apparently, I'm not the only one to notice Crawford's play and feel this same sentiment.

So are you saying we should not to make a judgment about players when we see them not playing particularly well? "Oh this guy is under contract anyway so let's just ignore his poor play whenever it happens." C. Lee and J. Terry had plenty of stretches where they weren't productive, and some of us here noted that. Naturally, players are going to be critiqued whether good or bad.


KJ

k_j_88 wrote:So are you saying we should not to make a judgment about players when we see them not playing particularly well? "Oh this guy is under contract anyway so let's just ignore his poor play whenever it happens." C. Lee and J. Terry had plenty of stretches where they weren't productive, and some of us here noted that. Naturally, players are going to be critiqued whether good or bad.

KJ

I am saying that if all you saw was negative play from Crawford last season - then you are not a very astute basketball fan.  

Is he wild at times?  Yes.  Is he undisciplined as a player at times? Yes.  Did he also have several very effective scoring nights?  Yes.  

Did Crawford average more assists, more points and more rebounds than Courtney Lee and last year.  Yes.
Did Crawford average more points per minute than Jason Terry last year?  Yes.
Did Crawford average more assists, more rebounds and the same number of points per game as Avery Bradley last year.  Yes.

So you dont have to like his style...but dont give me the he played poorly all year crap.....if that were the case, why arent you asking for Bradley and Lee to be shipped out as well ?

mrkleen,

I never said "all year," but it was enough for me to think they should trade him. I felt that he, Lee, Terry were the most expendable players. I thought Bass was too, and I still think he is, but I have no problem with him staying because I do think Bass can do pretty well.

And if you have seen me talk about Lee, you'd have known that I already felt that he is expendable to this team. Bradley didn't play great offense but his defense can't be ignored. Sorry but Crawford doesn't even come close to Bradley's defensive intensity. Bradley fills the void left by Tony Allen as the best one on one defender on the team. That and Bradley plays under control.

But like I said before, I hope Crawford plays well. But I doubt he is a "leader." Who knows? Maybe he will prove me wrong this season. I'd certainly hope he does.

KJ

KJ,

I don't want to put words in Mrkleen's mouth. But I know that I am referring to the wisdom of judging Crawford's potential with his performance after joining a sinking ship which lost its PG and with a tendency toward playground basketball. Why not see whether he can perform more consistently and with greater discipline with what will hopefully be a more consistent team emphasizing discipline under a new coach who is certainly familiar with teaching disciplined ball?

I'm fond of saying, "The past is not the present." That was never more true than in the case of the upcoming season—for better or worse.

Sam

Sam,

I guess time will tell. Here's to hoping it's a successful transition.

KJ

KJ,

Just one of many unknowns that will make this season interesting, to say the least.

Sam