Re: Celtics Post-Game Thread (Collection of past threads)

[Sam]

Sky,

Last season, the Celtics shot .403 from three-point land, 4th in the league. The Suns shot .465. So I don't believe the Celts were any all-time threats. I would have been shocked if they had been, and I'm surprised they were even fourth, because their rag-tag lineups caused all sorts of desperation shots that would have lowered the percentage.

I like a well-rounded team...one that can compete in any style of play. Although I firmly believe this year's edition of the Celtics has the versatility to do just that (except for a consistent transition game), they haven't exhibited it so far.

Conversely, I dislike predictability—whether it's in a team's style or the knowledge that a certain player will always get the ball in the clutch.

I believe the Celtics shocked teams with the three-ball during the first few games. My ASSUMPTION (while having not watched the past four games while on vacation) is that other teams took advantage of the predictability by making appropriate adjustments. That's what pro teams do.

Any team with championship aspirations must be prepared to "out-adjust" other teams. I assume that's what Doc's emphasizing during the luxury of some practice time. I'd like to see more slashing (Pierce, Daniels); more pick-and-rolls and inside handoffs (KG, Perk, Sheed, Williams); more pushing of the ball to get into the halfcourt set.

In the games I did see (all wins), I was disturbed that so many Celtics would get to the basket and pass out to the perimeter. They looked scared to death to take the ball strong to the hoop and take the gamble of being blocked or getting fouled. Yes, they were shooting the threes at a high percentages, but I recall mentioning in post-game threads that relying so much on the bomb was dangerous.

A 7-1 record is hardly the time to get down on a team. But the quality of their play is more important than their record in the early going. And the lack of sufficient diversity in their attack, as well as the lack of perimeter defensive intensity, are major areas of needed improvement.

I'm not at all discouraged, because they're operating from a position of strength in so many ways. And a bit part of the game, from my viewpoint, has always been the adjustment subplots. In some ways, it's like reading a good Ken Follett spy novel.

Sam

[gyso]

Sam,

Making the other team react to us is like threading The Eye of the Needle (Die Nadel)

gyso

[Sam]

Good one, gyso.

[Sam]

JAZZ 86 @ CELTS 97, Nov. 11, 2009

I spent most of last night updating the stats thread and most of today in Boston for a routine doctor's appointment, so I apologize for the tardiness of a post-game reflection.

When things go as universally well as they did last night (even Doc couldn't find a lot to criticize), summaries somehow shrink. There just isn't that much to pick apart. But fortunately, there's plenty to like.

Since I'm still seeing stats in front of my eyes, I'll start with a statistical approach before making some other observations. Of our nine Celtics advanced stats, the home team stood out (compared with the Jazz) in four:

• Enabling chemistry
• Contributions from the arc
• Opportunism
• Contributions from the transition game

Enabling Chemistry

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the Celts' points came off assists. I've always said that, when they go over two-thirds, they practically have to fall asleep to lost. Rondo led with 11 assists, but three other Celts had at least three. The play on which the ball flew between at least four of them (including Perk's behind-the-back pass), resulting in a Rondo layup was a classic. Given that their pattern has been a more dependable defense than offense, I believe chemistry is the single most important factor in their championship aspirations.

Contributions from the Arc

Unlike some of their earlier games, the Celts didn't spend more time at the arc than Noah. But their selective and timely three-pointers, instead of dominating their offense, complemented their relentless driving to the hoop. Except for the last three minutes of garbage time, I kept my own stat of Celtics shots taken in the paint, mid-range, and from the perimeter. (I'm referring to shots taken, including shots on which they were fouled), not just made shots:

59% were taken in the paint
18% were mid-range shots
23% were taken from the perimeter

I would consider this distribution just about ideal.

Opportunism

This stat is all about shooting percentages:

2-point FG 59%

3- FG 37%

FT 89%

When you're taking 59% of your shots in the lane, you'd have to be shooting with your feet to make fewer than 50% of your two-point field goal attempts. As far as freebies, it should be noted that Rondo didn't take any; but Perk was 2 for 2, which may be a hopeful sign.

Transition Game

The Celtics scored only 12 fast break points. But a team doesn't have to score a lot of points on the run to control the transition pace. It just has to score a lot more than the other team. And, even with (an admittedly under-the-weather) Deron Williams playing, the Jazz scored only two. And part of the reason goes right back to all those Celtics shots taken in the paint. A lack of long rebounds is one of the best ways to limit an up-tempo attack by opponents.

Other

One reason that points in the paint was not listed as a significant advantage for the Celtics is that the Jazz scored a slightly higher percentage of their own points in the paint. In this virtually "perfect storm" of elements in favor of the Celtics, perhaps the only disquieting factor was a continuing vulnerability of their interior defense.

Doc mentioned, after the game, that the Celtics were switching to combat the motion offense of the Jazz during the first half; and they were getting caught in their switched for easy inside passes for hoops. So, in the second half, they stopped switching, and their interior defense tightened and contributed to some of those fast break points. Here's hoping they learned a defensive lesson from this game, as well as using their offensive performance as a template for the future.

Sam

[RosalieTCeltics]

I spent my evening tonight at the TD Bank Garden, (or whatever they have changed it to). I have to tell you I was so disappointed in the way the Celts came out and played. No offense whatsoever to speak of. What the heck is going on with their offense? No ball movement, no offensive rebounding. Rondo was almost non existent. Perk played like he was going to beat up everyone on the court. Pierce left the court with a bruised knee for a short time, and Ray Allen hardly got his hands on the basketball at all. There were times when he was wide open in the corner, waving his arms and it was as though he was non existent. Any points he got were by himself, driving the basket and scoring layups. I think he hit one outside shot. Garnett was the only one who played a half decent game, and yet the Hawks got three quarters of all the offensive rebounds. You could tell they just wanted this game more.

For a team that has this much potential, I am wondering what is going on.
This is the second Friday they have lost at home. How disappointing.
I just hope that they have a nice long ride to Indiana and get their minds straight for tomorrow night's game.

Oh well, maybe next time they will win when I spend THAT amount of $ on a game. I hate seeing them lose to a team that is cocky as heck. This just builds their confidence that they have the Celtic's number. I was sure I was going to see them play well tonight.

[jeb]

Rosalie t

I thought Pierce played great defense. Other than that I agree with you. But with a caveat. The Hawks hit a ton of highly contested shots. All night. Sometimes they just make em.

Best

Jeb

[RosalieTCeltics]

Alot of those shots they hit were wide open. If they had hit more of the three pointers they took, they would have really beaten the Celtics by more.

Pierce did have a pretty good defensive game, but the offense was so stagnant that they didn't have a prayer of winning the game. They were just flat, period.

[Sam]

HAWKS 97 @ CELTICS 86, NOV. 13, 2009

Well, Rosalie, cheer up. Lousy weather is coming into the region, so things are improving. I think the technical term for this one was "stinker" (and that's the polite version.)

I don't ever recall a game in which the rebounding was such a dominant influence on the final score. The Hawks got 41% of the rebounds that came off their offensive boards and 84% of the rebounds available on their defensive boards. Period. End of story.

When Williams wasn't in there, Perk was about the only Celtic going after offensive boards; and all that's required to beat Perk to an offensive board is to be there. Given his lack of lift, he tries to stretch one arm out as far as possible and rebound (read "bat") the ball with that one hand. If, by some stroke of luck, the ball actually ever fell into his hand....well, we're talking about Perk's hand, and he's just getting to the point where he can hold the ball with TWO hands. He'd be far better off not flailing, off-balance, at every ball. He should just spread out and establish position on the offensive board and try to grab the ball with two hands. He'd touch the ball less often, but at least he'd have a better shot at holding it when he touches it.

On the Celtics' defensive boards, I've been noticing, duriing the past few games, that opponents don't commit themselves in terms of positioning until just about the time the ball hits the rim. They play what I'd call a "motion rebounding" game. This means (1) they're pretty sure which way the ball's going to bounce when they do make their moves; (2) the Celtics are standing and looking up at the ball with no pretext of boxing out and no idea where opponents are; and (3) the "seams" in the Celtics' alleged rebounding "wall" are fully exposed.

On one play, the Hawks took a jumper, and there were Daniels and Sheed standing alone under the Hawks' basket, apparently transfixed by the trajectory of the ball. All of a sudden (imagine this) they weren't alone any longer, as some Hawk (probably Horford) just slid between them (untouched) and tapped it home.

I believe the only way the Celtics would have had a better chance of winning this game would have been at least 20 minutes of Scal. Scal would have had great difficulty covering some of the Hawks' athletics players, but he would have tried. More important, he would have laid a body on a Hawk on EVERY SINGLE rebounding skirmish. I can't believe a veteran team could have been so neglectful of a fundamental basic for an entire game.

Someone (KG?) said after the game that rebounding is a team thing, and he was right. But sayin' ain't doin', and the Celtics did the exact opposite of rebounding as a team. They seldom rebounded even as individuals.

I don't want to talk about anything else tonight. Not their offensive futility when they don't rely on the three...not their standaround halfcourt offense which only rarely demonstrated any chemistry...not their marginal free throw shooting...not the continued impotence of the starters at the start of games...not the quietest 9 assists by a PG in the history of the game...and DEFINITELY not the refs. The summary for this game is: The Celtics' rebounding sucked!!! Period. End of story.

The only thing that may save them from Doc's most fierce rant as a Celtics' coach is that they'll all probably be trying to grab a few hours of sleep before tomorrow night's Pacers game. Let's hope for better things.

Sam

[jeb]

Agreed just wanted to note I feel pierce had a very good defensive game.

Watching the game as I did on tv those shots Crawford took were very well defended. He just stuck em. The Hawks all did. With the game in the balance.

It is bothersome that we are giving up so many wide open shots. Defensive sets look funny.

[steve3344]

Anyone notice Sheed is 3 for his last 22 three-point attempts? It might even be worse than that but I couldn't find the play-by-play results of the Minnesota game where he shot 2 for 7. Don't know what order his misses were in that game. We were all so giddy when he hit a bunch of 'em the first few game but as a lifetime 34% three-point shooter (which ain't great), Sheed can just as easily shoot you out of a game as shoot you to a win. And 1 for 15 for the team on threes tonight is as bad as it gets.

Also, when's the last time a Boston starter began the first 10 games of the season hitting 30% of his free throws as Rondo has? I know he's only shot ten of them so far but I wonder if we'll see any improvement this year from his alleged summer of practice in that area. So far, nope.

If Paul's knee is a problem for him tomorrow night, does Marquis start at SF? Hope The Truth is ok. Knees are tricky. We didn't think KG was hurt that bad last year when 20 minutes or so after he hurt his we saw him stretching it out at halftime against a wall near the locker room, supposedly trying to get ready for the second half of that game and he wound up not going in and instead, being out of commission the rest of the year and needing surgery. Not that I think anything like that is the case with PP's dinged knee, because he did come back after the time out and play a bit, but it's just another thing to be concerned about following this depressing game.

At least the Lakers also got their second loss of the season tonight. They scored 23 whole points in the second half in getting wiped out by the Nugs. TWENTY-THREE! That's pretty shocking. And it might be a franchise low for them since the 24 second clock was implemented. I know Denver's tough in their building but that's absurd.

On the subject of other games tonight, I noticed something remarkable in the Jazz/Sixer game in Philly. Not only did Utah clobber the Sixers by 22, but the Jazz' two starting guards - a couple of guys named Wesley Matthews and Eric Maynor (who had barely even been introduced to their teammates by gametime) had a COMBINED total of 159 professional minutes under their belt at tipoff. 128 for Matthews and 31 for Maynor. And the two of those no-name guys outscored Iguodala and Lou Williams 29-21! Before this game, rookie PG Maynor (their 2009 first-round pick) only had 5 assists in his ENTIRE LIFE in the pros and only 14 career points). He had 11 assists against the Sixers in the game. And undrafted Matthews only had 2 career assists before the game.

Starting Utah guards had a TOTAL of 7 career assists at gametime. Unbelievable. And those two guys totally schooled Philly's guards. The press in Philly are gonna be brutal on the team after this stinkeroo, getting crushed by a Deron-less Jazz team on their home court.

One closing thought - now that we've already lost our second game at home this early in the season, I think all that talk (mostly from Rasheed) about the C's going 72-10 can be put to bed. He's as bad a prognosticator as Jimmy Rollins.

[cowens/oldschool]

Steve

I too noticed Rondos FT shooting sucks,its gotten worse,clank,how could it regress to this level?Jamal Crawford killed us,as did Bibby and Joe Johnson did his thing,we're great against teams that can't run,that want to slug it out,athletic teams that can run hard and go back outside for the 3 we are vulnerable to,thankfully Cavs,Lakers and Magic all will slug it out,our strength,but if we get destroyed on boards by any team and go 1-15 from 3 we're still gonna lose.

cow

[Sam]

Steve,

It's absolutely great to see you posting on this board. We need more of your posts. I've always admired the way you select your points and back them up. Clearly you learned a lot from experiences such as interviewing Red Auerbach.

Sam

[RosalieTCeltics]

It is not just Rasheed who is shooting blanks from the three point line, Eddie is terrible, Pierce is the only one who has hit with consistency.

Sam, you are right, the only thing that should be talked about for this game is the horrible rebounding. There were times when I watched four Hawks under the basket, and four Celtics already on their way down the floor. What is that? I think they read their press clippings a little too much. If I was Doc, I would pull any guy who doesn't rebound tonight, veteran or not. This is the time to lean on these guys. The offensive
rebounding must have accounted for at least 20 of their points, maybe more. I was so frustrated!

However, there was no ball movement when the Celts made it down to their end of the court. It was every man for himself. I don't have the assist count, but I will be it was low for this team.

Another day, another game. Let's home that by the time they play Orlando next week, they will have corrected some of these early tendencies. I would stick them all at the free throw line for an hour each day. Their free throw shooting is horrible!

[Sam]

A 133-104 loss to the Celtics gives the bookend bombs against the Jazz and Pacers—two teams that are (not so coincidentally) active at both ends and opportunistic when left open on offense. In this game, the Celtics mounted an improved rebounding performance (at both ends), although still slightly below that of the opponent. But what absolutely clobbered the Celtics were three things:

1. Energy depletion. As the game wore on, the Celtics wore down. Even when the starters got a nice rest surrounding the beginning of the fourth quarter, they seemed sluggish when faced with an energized Pacers onslaught at crunch time. They failed to fight through picks (the Pacers murdered them in that area). They were slow to loose balls. At one point, Ford came upcourt, stumbled off-balance, lost the ball, and the ball just rolled another 20 feet. And who was there to pick it up? Ford!!!!!

2. Transition points. The Pacers out-transitioned the Celts by a 4 to 1 margin, aided by long rebounds off inopportune three-points attempts by the Celts. The Pacers seemed content to pack the defense and dare the Celtics to beat them with three-pointers, and the Bostonians were not up to that task.

3. Ability of the Pacers to create and capitalize on on open shots everywhere. Mid-range jumpers (often off of picks), nine three-pointers (to three for the Celts).

Things to build on:

• Outstanding, and largely error-free work by Sheldon Williams. Going into this game, Sheldon was well out in front of all other Celtics in terms of rebounds per minute; and he ranked sixth in points per minute. And he did nothing to hurt those rankings, with 10 points and nine boards in 17.5 minutes.

• Continued veteran play by Marquis Daniels. He continues to do whatever is needed on offense (in this case, some difficult work in the paint when others were bombing away), and he's a close-guarding defensive pest.

• Ray Allen is working hard to take whatever the game will give him He went to the hoop often in scoring 24, including a couple of freebies. Ray also seemed to be putting out more defensive effort than some of his mates.

• A rebounding resurgence of sorts by Perk, who grabbed three offensive and 10 defensive boards. I bet he had to wear ear plugs to escape Doc's wrath after the previous game.

Of concern:

Sheed: Zero rebounds in 18 minutes, to go along with 0-2 from three-point land. The poster child for lacklustre

Rondo: 4 assists in 32 minutes. And another 2-2 in MISSED freebies. No catalyst there.

Pierce: I suspect he may have been hampered by his knee, as he seemed just ordinary. Late in the game, it looked as though he was going to try to put the team on his shoulders, but it just didn't come off. In fact, he missed three freebies at key moments when the Celts were trying to catch up.

This is not the sort of malaise that gets pinned on any individual, although some seem more culpable than others. As for breaking out of it, we know the ability and knowhow are there. Reps, focus and effort are badly needed.

Sam

[dboss]

The Celtics corrected their rebounding woes 43-34 and on the offensive glass 14-6 and still got blown away down the stretch.

The Pacers managed a huge fast break points advantage 27-6 and shot 9-18 from the perimeter.

In general their wings beat our wings up and down the court all night and we did not defend the arc very well either.

PP really looked old and slow but it is just the 10th game of the year and perhaps again Boston did not take this game seriously enough. It was surprising the way we had the lead and then it was gone.

Rasheed Wallace in 19 minutes has zero rebounds and shot 2-4 missing both of his 3 point attempts.

Williams again played well in 18 minutes with 9 rebounds and 10 points off the bench.

There is a question that I have that I cannot answer yet but it is bound to come up sooner or later.

Should Boston play more like the 80's teams that used their size in the post to dominate teams rather that try to match teams at the wings? This is probably not worded correctly but we are going to see some problems against young athletic teams if we do not slow the game down and work our offense inside. Wallace needs to get down on the block more as does KG and Boston needs to run more plays for Williams because he looks to be a pretty good post player.

Or, the unthinkable may help correct the problem. JR and Walker are uptempo players but are a long way from being all around players however does it make sense to rely on Ray Allen and Paul Pierce for 34-36 minutes per game all year? What is the optimum number of minutes that these guys should be playing? At what point does their 'marginal utility of production" decline?

Doc Rivers has a pecking order mentality that makes it difficult to sit a Ray Allen or a Paul Pierce but the Celtics need to find out PDQ if JR and /or Walker can play the 2/3 spots in place of PP and RA. And Daniels needs to play more right now as there is no question about his contribution.

In sum the Celtics need to either slow the pace down and use their bigs to dominant the game in the post or begin a process of integrating our young wings into the game when the pace quickens.

dboss

[dboss]

Sam

The Celtics need to get back to the business of executing at both ends. Last night we only had 18 assists and Pacers had 31. Defending the perimeter is a lot easier than defending the post so when the Celtics play teams like the Hornets or the Pacers that have a good 3 point shooter, they need to close that out. They also need to defend against the fast break.

In both losses to the Hawks and Pacers, the Celtics dominated in the paint on offense 52 -32 last night and 58-44 against the Hawks. That is the strength of our offense. The early season three point barrage cannot carry a team that plays at a relatively slow pace.

Rasheed Wallace is not going to be a consistent threat from the arc. But he can score in the post and defend and rebound. That is what we need from him the most. As he continues to miss 3 point shots his effectiveness at opening up the lanes diminishes. Teams are dropping off him because I think they would rather see him shoot the 3 than set up on the block.

Perkins has quietly moved up into double figures in scoring for the first time in his career.

The Golden State game is looking like an important game because they play a lot like the Pacers. This will tell us if the problems in 3 out of the past 5 games is deeper than we would like to think.

dboss

[dboss]

For the record

Golden State has produced 212 fast break points through 9 games.

On average they outscore their opponents 23.5 to 15 in fast break points.

Dboss

[Sam]

Dboss,

I agree that the Celtics somehow need to capitalize on an ability to dominate in the paint—whether it be via the twin towers approach or by setting picks for slashers or whatever. But one of the reasons they're outscoring opponents in the paint is because the opponents are so busy scoring via mid-range jumpers, transition baskets, and three-point bombs. With respect to the boms, the worm has definitely turned.

But, all of that having been said, the Garnett era has been distinguished by offense that feeds off defense—whether in terms of created opportunities or just plain energy flow. On defense, this team previously did a good job of jumping out and recovering; the recovery is now too slow or nonexistent. I think that technique, and especially its timing, takes a while to learn. In the meantime, too many deadly 3-point shooters are being left alone in the corners to capitalize on kick-outs, square up, smoke a cigarette, have a little snack, and launch textbook threes.

Frankly, I've never been happy with the Celtics' halfcourt offense because it has no consistent "style," is too often predisposed to standing around, and sometimes seems to be unable to respond to opponents' adjustments. It exists through a combination of sporadic spurts, some hero shots, periodic interludes of good team play and default to the iso when trouble comes. (The latter becomes more problematic and less effective as players age.) Last night I commented, on the game-on thread, during one of numerous moments when the spacing really sucked.

I know it cuts you to the quick to suggest that one option for the Celtics would be to slow the pace because I know how much we share a love of the uptempo game. My question for you is, if they slowed down the game some more, how much of the game would they be playing in reverse? (LOL)

I know this is probably a stupid idea, but I'd consider having a sort of "swat team" available to put on the floor when the team goes into malaise. It would consist of KG, Williams, Daniels, Ray and Rondo. I'd be looking for (1) mayhem on the defensive end, (2) rebounding strength on both ends, (3) transition potential, (4) low post and slashing abilit, and (5) opportunities for the inside-out game.

Sam

[dboss]

Sam

I was hoping that the Celtics could slow the other team down...not themselves lol

We have seen some beautiful basketball this year with some great sharing of the ball and some nice fast breaks but I think we both know that if you cannot get a consistent break out from the 3 spot you cannot consistently score on the fast break. PP plays a secondary role in the fast break as a trailer who spots up behind the line. That was great when Dave Cowens would do that but your SF needs to be on the front end not the back end of the break.

I like that swat team. That is very diverse and covers all of the bases at both ends. Let's see if that combo makes it past the drawing board.

dboss

[beat]

Sam and dboss

Like the swat team approach too and I'd throw BB in that bunch too perhaps for Ray or Daniels to give us just a bit more beef. Baby can get up and down the floor well too.

Love to be a mouse hiding and watching the next practice or when Doc talks to the guys next (or both)

Question on another front, should Doc consider a change in the starting line up? and if so whom for whom?

beat

[Sam]

Beat,

The main reason I had Ray in there was as a perimeter threat so opponents could not just pack in the defense. But I like the possibility of remaking Glen into a "3," and perhaps he could bump Daniels down to the shooting guard position in certain "swat" circumstances requiring that beef you mentioned.

I'm perfectly happy to see Doc use the first half of the season to seek out the most productive combinations and strategies, even if the team doesn't play much more than .600 ball. The worst thing would be to give up too early on all the potential this team exudes.

I bet Sarah's there. Please give her a big hug for me.

Sam

[David14]

At the risk of being in the minority, my take on what is going on is that Doc's "techinical" and "programmed" approach to the game with an army of coaches where he is attempting to take a group of highly talented players and teach them, or force them, into a "canned" game plan will be a problem all year.

The structured approach has been negating or diluting a highly talented, fun loving, and experienced group of players and turning them into new students. They seem t be confused, stiff, "thinking too much" instead of following their basketball instincts, and have lost some of their passion and fun for the game.

I suspect the theory of having one coach who allows his players to be themselves and simply play the game, is now considered a passe' ineffective approach to the game of NBA basketball. Forget the fact that the one coach theory won 11 championships in 13 years.

There is no doubt that the players will need to adjust from team to team, and the younger guys may need work on techniques. However, I say bring back Red's and KC's philosophy. Throw out the programming of each player, the hundreds of plays, and, as Tommy and Mike clearly stated, having each coach yell out instructions to the players on every single play.

Set the "talent free" and I bet #18 will be more a of reality. Sheed, Rondo, Ray, and Paul will be far more effective as "Sheed, Rondo, Ray, and Paul instead of being component #1, 2, or #3 in a programmed system.

I beleive the Celtics won Games#7 with Atlanta and Celeveland in 2008 and then beat the Lakers based solely on the players deciding to take matters in their own hands.

Just one disappointed Celtics' fan's opinion. By the way, how many plays did Red use, 4!!!!

David

[Sam]

David,

Red had seven plays, with several options per play, for a total of more than 20 permutations. Actually, Doc's stated philosophy when the Three Amigos came aboard was to allow them to set the tone as to how best to blend their talents. Since then, he has installed some plays, but his laissez fair approach has still been in play. Even during the preseason, he emphasized that he was in no hurry to install plays and that Paul and Ray, in particular, might be suffering a little from the lack of great structure.

Sheed recently emphasized that, when the congregation went to his house to make in a Celtic, one of the things KG reinforced was that Doc was a "veteran's coach." Implicit in that description is a tendency to let vets pretty much alone. It's ironic that, when I read your post, I was about to post something about the starters possibly needing more structured plays.

They certainly are free-spirited and strong-willed to a large degree. But I suspect the problem is more one of lack of execution (such as the egregious lack of spacing I noted last night) than overload of structure.

For example, I'm not seeing nearly as much crisp swing of the ball to the weak side as I've become used to noting among the starters. Except for Ray and his curls, I note almost no motion out there. Since the defense has a tendency to pack it in due to lack of respect for Rondo's shooting, standing around almost guarantees a defensive wall against inside passes and successful slashes. By way of contrast, motion helps to open up passing lanes.

Perhaps I'm wrong and the starters feel overloaded with structure, but I'm not betting that way.

Sam

[David14]

Sam, the danger in posting stats around here is that you, gyso, beat, and BobH are incredibly locked into the team's history and the technical elements of the game. I have an "ongoing disclaimer", that when I "vent" about a Celtics loss it is more of emotion than research. Actually, I was not sure how many plays that Red had in his system, but 7 is a relatively small number of structured plays compared to today's sophisticated systems.

I'm sure all will be well soon, however it is a bit discouraging to see folks like Eddie, Sheed, and Rondo with their heads down. Donny Marshal and Tanguay, along with Tommy and Mike, appear to be a bit concerned about the enthusiasm as well. Then again, we are unique breed in that we are Celtics fans!!

With respect to the players' thoughts, I don't believe the players "feel" overloaded in sense where they are resisting Doc's structure, however I really do believe they are trying to "think" too much instead just letting their talent and instincts take over. That's dangerous with "catch and shoot" jump shots as an example.

Okay, having complained enough, I'm ready for another 19 winning streak.

David

[RosalieTCeltics]

Don't worry David, I am with you. I am not a stat person. I see what is going on, and I complain too! Sam is head and shoulders above me, as are the other guys. Too many numbers for me!

[Sponsored content]