Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

2 posters

Go down

Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Empty Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

Post by Sam Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:47 pm

Brad Stevens, as often occurs, managed to find positives in the Celtics' loss to Portland.  In a nutshell, he felt they played some of their best defense of the season.  And, when all is said and done, his thoughts have merit.  I thought the relative containment of Lillard (primarily by Avery Bradley) was one of the highlights of the game for the Celts.  I loved the 0-7 start of Aldrich against Sully early in the game.  A lot of the reason was Sully's ability to push Aldrich out beyond his comfort zone.  For the first half, the vaunted three-point offense of the Blazers was almost non-existent.  I recall complimenting Kelly Olynyk several times on the Game-on Thread for his defensive work against Lopez.


But the problem always seems to be that, when the Celtics perform well—especially defensively, other teams adjust and the Celtics have little or no answer in the form of their own counter-adjustments.  To some extent, with a young team, that's a matter of lack of experience.  They don't yet have sufficient experience, against a sufficient mix of matchups, to have developed an instinct for adjusting from the designated game plan of the night.  And, if Brad has the answer, something happens to his team's ability to execute his adjustment instructions.


For a while, it almost seemed to be a matter of one game forward and two games backward.  More recently, it seems more a matter of one half or quarter forward and the rest of the game backward.


So what's the cure?  Unfortunately, it's probably a lot more of the same until the pendulum shifts and the Celtics graduate slowly from rote learning mode to a more instinctive mode in which their actions on the court become more instinctive and less calculated.


Anyway, enjoy the article.


Sam



From today’s Boston Boston Herald:

[size=47]Celtics search for positives[/size]
Fail to execute down stretch
Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Clip_image002
Photo by: 
Kelvin Ma
IN HIS HAND: Kelly Olynyk defends the rim from the driving LaMarcus Aldridge during last night’s Celtics game against Portland at the Garden. Aldridge’s game-high 20 points helped the visiting Blazers win.
1
Monday, November 24, 2014
By: Mark Murphy
 
Almost needless to say, this isn’t how Celtics coach Brad Stevens designed the play in the timeout.
Guard Avery Bradley was supposed to set a screen at the top of the 3-point arc for Jeff Green, with the notion of freeing up the Celtics forward for an open 3-pointer.
Instead, with roughly 15 seconds left and the Celtics trailing Portland by four points, the play was disrupted when Bradley attempted to set the screen too quickly. Green inexplicably backed his dribble out to 29 feet and launched a hopeless air ball.
Execution, never a strength, once again failed the Celtics down the stretch of last night’s 94-88 loss to Portland.
And yet Stevens came out of the smoke clinging to something positive. His team had defended for the better portion of a game. It was a small beginning, perhaps, but the coach of the 4-8 Celtics needs some kind of silver lining to praise in the next video session.
“I’ve felt like, you know, we were kind of hanging on to whether or not we made shots or how we played on the offensive end,” Stevens said. “And that wasn’t the case today, and so that’s why I leave here encouraged.
“I think as we enter a five-day stretch before we play two more contenders, then we have something to build off of instead of just trying to believe we can do it without any real proof,” he said. “So today is good proof for us.”
Stevens can start with the following statistic:
For only the third time in their 12 games, the Celtics held an opponent under 100 points — at that, a Portland team that is averaging 103.6 per game.
Despite losing track of Steve Blake and Wesley Matthews long enough for both Portland guards to make big jumpers down the stretch, the Celtics played perhaps their best defensive game of the year.
Prior to shooting 47.4 percent in the fourth, the Blazers had struggled from the floor. Matthews had one basket on 1-for-3 shooting prior to his eight-point fourth. LaMarcus Aldridge missed his first seven shots en route to an uneven 20-point, 7-for-21 night.
Damian Lillard, pressured by Bradley for most of the night, had 12 points on 4-for-14 shooting.
“I feel like we came out with great defensive intensity,” said Bradley. “Unfortunately we weren’t able to make shots. We missed wide-open shots. We definitely had a chance to win this game, and we didn’t go and take it.”
The fourth quarter started tied at 72, and that’s when the Celtics lost their grip. Portland opened the frame with a 14-3 run that included 3-pointers from Matthews and Lillard, in addition to a pair of hoops from Joel Freeland.
That became the problem. Supporting characters like Freeland, fellow center Chris Kaman and Blake filled in Portland’s offensive cracks just enough to keep the Celtics in chase mode.
The Celtics, who shot 26 percent in the fourth and 39 percent overall, finally found some range out of sheer panic.
The result was an 11-3 run in the last 4:36 that included a pair of 3-pointers from Jared Sullinger and another from Bradley. The problem was Portland’s one basket in that stretch — a Matthews’ 3-pointer with 3:02 left for a 92-82 Blazers lead.
Though Sullinger’s second bomb, set up by a Rajon Rondo kick-out, cut the Portland edge to four points (92-88) with 1:30 left, the Celtics wouldn’t score again.
Matthews followed Green’s deep air ball and a Sullinger miss on the following possession with a transition dunk to put the game out of reach.
“I just missed,” said Green. “Avery just went too fast and I tried to make something out of it. I didn’t realize how much time was left on the clock. It was just a missed shot by me.”
And so the trade-off continues, from a team that can’t defend to, at least for one night, a team that can’t score.
Brandon Bass was a rare 0-for-4 in the first half before heating up in the third quarter. Kelly Olynyk (0-for-3) went scoreless for the second time in three games. Sullinger and Green combined to shoot an unfathomable 15-for-38.
“We just have to move on for the next game,” said Green. “Continue to work, get back in the gym, watch film.”
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Empty Re: Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

Post by wide clyde Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:18 am

Sam,

There are two things that will either need to happen, either separately or even better at the same time, before the Celtics stop their ups and downs during games.

First, is that they find or develop a better "go to guy" when things start to unravel during a game.  I think that it clearly needs to be Rondo on this team if no other player is added.  And, second, is that we all learn to wait until this young team develops more experience in handling these situations.

I know that the team is not fully composed of rookies and second year players, but, still, many of the key components are pretty young (Olynyk, Sullenger, Bradley, Zeller, Smart) and many others are new to the team this year.  It takes time to mature as a team on and off the court before any team can come close to achieving their best.

San Antonio is repeating the old Red Auerbach approach of adding only one or two quality pieces each year to maintain their team balance and continuity. Red always seemed to add that one "cagey" veteran (Howell, Silas, etc) to keep the train flying forward.  San Antonio adds that same type of guy and also the key young guy every so often, but even they had to wait for Ginobli, Parker and Duncan to grow together.

wide clyde

Posts : 815
Join date : 2014-10-22

Back to top Go down

Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Empty Re: Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

Post by Sam Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:44 pm

Clyde,

I have mixed feelings about the "go to guy" concept.  I guess what bothers me about it is that it seems to imply one guy should always be THE MAN in the clutch.  I think a literal focus on one guy becomes predictable in a hurry and very easy to defend against.  The great Celtics teams over the years have had leaders, but they've also had more than one player who could come up big at the end.  The availability of multiple options enhanced the viability of each one of those options by creating unpredictability.

The Russell teams had Russ (especially on defense), Sam, Havlicek, Heinsohn, and others.  The Cowens team had Cow, White and Havlicek.  The Bird teams had Larry, McHale, and DJ who could come up big at the end.  The KG team had Paul, Ray and KG himself.  I believe that the Spurs have at least four "go to guys" in Duncan, Ginobli, Parker, and pick one or more from Leonard, Green and Diaw.

Pending roster moves, I like to think that Rondo, Green and Sully could become go to guys, with each one having a different go to style.  I believe the strength of developing a trio would be reducing the pressure on any one guy.  I just can't fathom any strategy for the Boston Celtics that puts the spotlight primarily on one individual.  But it could easily be that I'm misunderstanding the "go to guy" concept that's being discussed.

Red's practice of adding the cagey veteran was normally used to enhance an already stacked team of veterans.  That happened with Andy Phillip, Arnie Risen, Jack Nichols, Carl Braun, Willie Naulls, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Siegfried, Emmette Bryant, and Don Nelson on the Russell Celtics alone.  Bailey Howell was added to replace Tom Heinsohn rather than as a general enhancement piece.  I wish this team were at the stage where enhancements were in order; but—as you suggest—they have a way to go before they have a viable foundation to be enhanced. 

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Empty Re: Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

Post by wide clyde Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:16 am

Sam,

There is always a "go to" guy to take the last shot, but the guy the other players rally around, in my opinion, is not always that guy who gets the last shot.

The "key" guy is the team's emotional leader. He is the glue that holds everyone together when times are tough. He is the guy who challenges and demands the best of play from the other guys on the team, etc, etc. Certainly, in some cases, he is also the guy who takes the last shot.

As I have mentioned, every good team has this guy. Exactly who he was on those great Celtics teams that you mentioned, I do not know but might guess that with so many great players that "the guy" could have been one of many or even those teams had more than just "the one guy".

My original point of a team needing this "guy" was completely directed at this year's Celtics team. I think that Rondo needs to be this guy for the Celtics, but I would not mind if someone else took the role. I am just not sure that the team gets much better this year until someone fills this role.

wide clyde

Posts : 815
Join date : 2014-10-22

Back to top Go down

Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Empty Re: Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

Post by Sam Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:46 pm

Clyde,

I guess I've always thought of the "go to" term as describing on-court actions rather than an emotional leader or human rallying point.

I think it could safely be said that Bird and KG were the emotional glue on their teams. 

The ongoing glue on the Russell teams was Red Auerbach as much as any of the players.  To the extent that a player assumed the role of emotional leader at key moments, it was a complementary player like Frank Ramsey ("Okay boys, you're playing with my money.") or Tom Sanders (When Red said, "Win or lose, you're my guys," Satch said, "Lose?  Are you kiddin' me baby?") as often as someone like Cousy or Russell.  However, I claim Bill Russell was by far the greatest on court rallying point in the history of the game.  It's not humanly possible to be a better rallying point than to be someone who literally, absolutely, flatly refuses to lose.

Cowens gets the emotional nod on the teams of the 70s.  He may have been the most fiercely emotional player the Celtics have ever had.  But Havlicek might have been the sneakiest leader the Celtics have ever had because he quietly but firmly imposed his leadership will on the rest of the team on the court.  If Russell was the best-ever example of refusing to lose, John wasn't far behind.

On the current team, I don't really see anyone who possesses both the desire to be the glue and the talent to back it up on the court.  I agree that Smart may have the mentality, but he has a way to go in the ability department.  There's nothing quite so hollow as a player who talks the talk but sputters when it comes to walking the walk.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread Empty Re: Brad's Version of a Glimmer Thread

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum