No question in my mind

...that we would have won this series with Perk,tonights ugly game was made to order for Perk,our defense would have been even more stingy and we wouldn't have gotten so killed on the boards.I thought Doc should have given TA and Mighty Mouse a longer run,wish Ray was just alittle on.

cowens/oldschool wrote:...that we would have won this series with Perk,tonights ugly game was made to order for Perk,our defense would have been even more stingy and we wouldn't have gotten so killed on the boards.I thought Doc should have given TA and Mighty Mouse a longer run,wish Ray was just alittle on.

Unfortunately the story of our season continued for one more game: ANOTHER second-half double digit lead slipped away. From 49-36 with 8:24 left in the third, we only scored 30 more points in more than 20 minutes of play.

cowens/oldschool wrote:...that we would have won this series with Perk,tonights ugly game was made to order for Perk,our defense would have been even more stingy and we wouldn't have gotten so killed on the boards.I thought Doc should have given TA and Mighty Mouse a longer run,wish Ray was just alittle on.

Completely agree. There were many times when Rasheed got totally lost and picked up the wrong guy, which had KG needing to rotate to the wrong guy, leaving Rondo or Ray to box out Gasol.

I am most disappointed in the Captain. I feel like Pierce wilted under the Artest pressure and allowed him to push him further and further from the basket. The old PP would have taken the ball right at Artest and forced him to pick up fouls. Between his play and Ray not being able to hit shots - you finally saw age and fatigue catching up to us.

Oh well....great ride. See you guys in July.

I agree, I also think that had Sheed been healthy, the outcome would have been different. I'm not sure how many noticed, but he was really hurting. He was slow to get up, in obvious pain, limping down the court. So, for all the hits he took from the fans this year, he gave us his all when we needed him most.

No doubt if Perk plays 20-25 minutes and the game flows like last eve we win, perhaps quite easily. No way the Lakers out rebound us that bad. Perhaps we get out and run a bit more and get a couple more easy transition hoops, who knows. Guys were beat and tired in the final couple minutes and it showed. And of all people to nail a killer shot...Artest? go figure.

And as in BSK's bet, the LOGO is now on display!

beat

......I'm in pain,hate the Lakers,they also got all the calls last 5 min of game.

mrkleen09 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:...that we would have won this series with Perk,tonights ugly game was made to order for Perk,our defense would have been even more stingy and we wouldn't have gotten so killed on the boards.I thought Doc should have given TA and Mighty Mouse a longer run,wish Ray was just alittle on.

Completely agree. There were many times when Rasheed got totally lost and picked up the wrong guy, which had KG needing to rotate to the wrong guy, leaving Rondo or Ray to box out Gasol.

I am most disappointed in the Captain. I feel like Pierce wilted under the Artest pressure and allowed him to push him further and further from the basket. The old PP would have taken the ball right at Artest and forced him to pick up fouls. Between his play and Ray not being able to hit shots - you finally saw age and fatigue catching up to us.

Oh well....great ride. See you guys in July.

Ray disappointed me the most,he had so many wide open looks and missed lay ups,I would have given Nate alittle longer run,if he had half the wide open looks Ray had,you know he would have hit a few......damn we were so close,a few less minutes for Pierce and Ray could have had them fresher at crunch time and if those players TA or Nate gave us just alittle.

I am in no way Doc bashing here, I think he is a great coach. But it is beyond me why he did not spell Rondo, Ray & Pierce. I know some will say he could not afford to, but I disagree. The benching of Daniels, who we got to spell PP, Nate, and not using Scal enough (who did a good job while he was in) probably cost us the energy down the stretch to pull this out.

I know it is easy for me to sit here & comment on this, and there are reasons that I could not understand not being involved, but.........................I will always wonder.


oops, looks like Kleen beat me to it

In WWII there were the Battered Bastards of Bastogne

In this war, we have the Battered Bastards of Boston - written off so many times for dead, no shame.

i am goin to be absent for a few days. Need time to get over being very very pissed at the free throw disparity. In a game where it was so damn hard to score. Will be back around when I am no longer furious and have processed it all. Dont want to say anything stupid.

I just gotta say it again,we have Perk in game 7,we win and this is the greatest season ever.

Right on Rosalie,that would be a classic game 7 with the Celtic defense owning that game,sending Laker fans home shocked,it would be another special moment of the best franchise in the game!!!!

Yes, no doubt Perk would have won this game for us. Nevertheless, finishing 4 points away from #18 was still quite an accomplishment ofr a group of 30+ year olds with a few young studs spronkled in. I'm proud of them and can't wait to see what Danny does in the offseason.

LA's starting center fought through an injured knee the whole series.
Bynum averaged 15 ppg in the regular season but only had a total of 12 points in games 4-7.
He also missed the whole 2008 Finals.

TJ - Saying Perk would probably have made the difference for the Celts in Game 7 in no way diminishes the tremendous accomplishment the Lakers made in winning their 16th NBA championship. They played great throughout the regular season and playoffs and clearly outplayed the Celts in Game 7. They deserved to win and clearly were tougher mentally and physically. Excuses are for losers, and truth be told this year we Celtics fans are losers. Still, we came so very close and performed beyond everyone's expectations except perhaps Doc's. Have an enjoyable summer. Worcester

No Celtics fan is ever a loser unless (s)he brings it upon himself/herself. None of those on this board as far as I know.

We happened to root for a team that didn't win it all. Nothing loser-like in congratulating the winners and moving on.

There are Lakers fans who are losers, as some proved by their behavior the night of the final game and others are currently proving by their relentlessly taunting behavior and renewed threats to ruin the board on Boston.com.

If some Celtics fans stoned the Lakers bus two years ago, they were losers too.

When basketball (especially games in which we don't even play) defines whether we fans are winners or losers, I'll pack it in.

Sam

I never meant to imply that we Celtic fans are losers in life, just that we lost #18 by the skin of our teeth and some of us our now coming up with excuses, hence the old saw, "Excuses are for losers." I'm very proud of this team and it's fans, and we need not make excuses for a helluva season. Agreed that those who exhibit poor sportsmanship such as those hooligans who stoned the Celtic bus are indeed losers. For sure all those on this board comported themselves with dignity this year.

Hey Cowens/Old School I've been meaning to complement you on your avatar. It makes all this easier to take. Thanks.
Bostonian128

W,

I knew your intent. I just wanted to make certain no one else would misconstrue it.

Sam

Sam, thanks for understanding. We certainly have high standards as Celtics fans, and our team nearly achieved what nearly everyone considered impossible in February. We came within a few minutes, a few points, and one key injury from winning #18. During the past three years we have had oneheckuva record. I just hope Danny retools, and we can visit the Finals again real soon.

Bob and Cow,

The small margin of Lakers' victory creates a temptation to play "What if?" Especially involving Perk.

IF Perk had played in Game 7, and IF he had gotten 5 defensive boards, it would have been one more than he averaged in Games 1-5. And it would have been one less than Sheed got in Game 7.

But at what price? Perk averaged 1.4 turnovers in Games 1-5, and each Celtics turnover during those games led to an average of 1.2 Lakers points. Sheed committed an average of less than 1 turnover every w games in the finals. So subbing Sheed for Perk probably saved the Celts a couple of points in Game 7.

As far as Perk's defense, there's no question that his bulk and toughness was missed. But how sure can we be that it wasn't compensated for by Sheed's length? Sheed had two blocks in Game 7 and averaged about a block a game for the series. Do you know how many blocks Perk had in the total of 5+ games in the finals? ZERO.

For the series, Perk averaged 0.15 defensive rebound per minute played. Sheed averaged 0.20 defensive rebound per minute played. Sheed had one of his shots blocked in 145 minute of play; Perk had six of his shots blocked in 142 minutes of play.

None of these stats represents anything major. Which is exactly my point. On a purely statistical basis, there really not a lot that suggests things would have been a whole lot different with Perk in the game and Sheed playing fewer minutes. I need no convincing that perhaps having Perk available would have rested other bigs just enough to put the Celtics over the top. But I could also see him committing one of his moving screens or fumbling the ball out of bounds at one or more critical junctures.

And all of this conjecture would be relevant only IF Perk hadn't collected 2 or 3 early fouls. And perhaps IF Bynum had been able to play some productive minutes, the Lakers would have won by a bigger margin.

But, frankly, all the conjecture in the world won't change things any more than wondering what would have happened IF the Celts had gotten a couple more key calls or IF they had been awarded more free throws despite being the less aggressive team in the clutch. And, speaking of free throws, what IF the Lakers had shot their regular percentage from line?

The fact is that, IF we listed all the conceivable IFs, a majority would probably favor the Lakers. The Celts deserve all the credit in the world for playing their hearts out. They had their shot, but they allowed the game to get close enough so that a few extra ergs of energy at the end made the difference.

IF we're looking for a silver lining in all of this, I think the way the whole thing played out was sort of the NBA equivalent of a stress test. These guys endured a litany of challenges of nearly every description. And I'm satisfied that we finally got to see the very best they could collectively offer individually and as a team. That should make it easier to evaluate their strengths, vulnerabilities, and needs for the future.

We can play "What if?" concerning the final result, but the playoffs represented a great proving ground for ongoing strategies. It should be easier for Danny to draw conclusions about the ultimate upsides of guys like Glen Davis, Tony Allen. One doesn't have to connect many dots to conclude that this team is more offensively successful when it pushes the ball in transition. But one important dot is that good transition ball begins with rebounding.

This team proved that basketball savvy, professionalism and commitment can address many physical challenges. This lesson should be important in looking for more than physical ability in player acquisition. Among other things, Danny will have to determine what mix of personal qualities will be required in Rondo's teammates in order to help harness his unique skills productively.

It's interesting to reflect on the fact that, three years ago, Danny seized on the opportunity to attract some great players to Boston...mainly because of their greatness and not necessarily because they were ideal pieces to fit into an existing puzzle. Basically, Doc would up with three centerpieces and endeavored to blend them together with a bunch of role players to arrive at a "blueprint" or team "personality" almost by default. The strengths of the players determined the nature of the "model" followed by the team. Over time, the model was augmented on a sort of patchwork basis as needs became apparent.

To tell the truth, I've never really figured out exactly what that model has been; and that quandary has been intensified by the rapid ascension of Rondo as the de facto team leader. This offseason could very well mark the first opportunity for Danny to begin to structure the team with a particular model in mind rather than by default. It's going to be very interesting.

Go Celtics!

Sam