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

[David14]

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!

Thanks Rosalie. My hunch is that you and I have always viewed the Celtics in the same fashion. Stats tell a factual story, however I have always watched the games with my heart first, win or lose!!

David

[Sam]

David and Rosalie,

Whether or not structure is the cause, the effect seems to be diminished energy. And my concern is whether the root is even deeper than the lack of enthusiasm that David noted. The word "joy" appears many times in Russell's various writings. The old Celtics could work up enthusiasm through a variety of motivations, but it was when they exuded purre joy that one could tell they were cruising on top of the world.

I thought the sense of joy pervaded a lot of the championship season, and it almost seemed to start with their Roman Holiday. It seems such a long distance from their current malaise through the tunnel of enthusiasm to the boulevard of joy. I hope we begin to see immediate signs of greater enthusiasm and that, by the end of the season that enthusiasm has paved the way to a sort of Joy to the World Championship.

Sam

[beat]

David

I have no way of knowing just what the vast majority of teams run or how many plays but your quote

"but 7 is a relatively small number of structured plays compared to today's sophisticated systems. "

I just don't see the sophisticated system with well anyone.

Lots of clearing out, lots of pick and rolls but I really think the "smarts" went out years ago. Not mentioning any C's but players like Oscar, West, Frazier, Wilkins ect. ran PLAYS, of course they were also blessed with teamates that knew them and the variations.
You need to watch off the ball and see if players are doing anything other than standing. Pick any game any team and DO NOT WATCH THE BALL, on TV its a bit harder but look at the other 4 offensive players. Are there back picks , back door cuts (even if they don't get open are they trying too.

In watching my sons practices a bit, the coach is new and he's trying to get constant motion where you need to go set screens or cut and the ball should rarely hit the floor. Actually the kids do pretty well (with no defense on the floor) put a defense, even with a little pressure and it breaks down rather quickly. As do most NBA plays to IMHO.

The C's aside from Rondo are not quick. No other athletic feat can really overcome quickness strength speed jumping ability. The court is quite small to give up a step or to to a quick player, there is not the room for most to recover, there are no Bill Russells out there anymore. Most other skills can be countered but not quickness. Only one that can is anticipation but there are no Birds or Havliceks anymore either.

The stats that Sam, dboss, GYSO, and others put here are a bit "beyond" even me as it takes a bit of time to digest them. and even then I more than not scratch my head and get this deer in the headlight look.

So don't get hung up with numbers but watch the game off the ball at least part of the time.

beat

[David14]

Beat, good comments. I'm probably not articulating my concerns in the clearest manner, however I believe the "committee" of coaches who demand strict compliance to every move dictated by a certain play cause a naturally talented player to think far too much before reacting to the "minute". That, in my opinion dilutes, and in many cases, negates the player's natural instincts to react as a basketball player. As an example, Shaq blames not fully understanding the complexity of the Cavs playbook for his slow start, and Artest indicated his "sorta lost" in learning the "triangle offense". Here is a statement, as another example, of how complex an NBA system can be if the team uses the NBA Princeton system;

"Coaches, I want to introduce the newest eBook in the Basketball Secrets Unleashed: NBA Princeton Offense Playbook. It is a playbook comprised of NBA Princeton sets from the New Jersey Nets, Sacramento Kings, and Washington Wizards of the NBA. It isn't an ebook designed to "install the princeton offense". It has 103 sets that are run by these teams"!!!

Personally, I have had great success when playing amateur ball through college and as a gym rat. However, as time went on, I believe the talent I brought to the teams were always "stifled" by the coaches committment to his "book". How frustrating it was to see a play fail when I clearly and confidently knew I could score at will. Robbie Benson's baskeball movie "One on One" said it best. Great movie, great moral views, and great ending when the hard nosed coach "let it go" and let Robbie lead the heroes to victory. If my memory serves me well, last year the knock on Micki and Starbury is that they never learned, or accepted, the coaches' system.

I believe trying to learn, as an example, 103 potentials as found in the NBA Princeton system would certain cause one to think far too much. I have serious issues with high school and college coaches who stifle players who have unique natural talent. Couz, Larry, Pistol Peat, Hondo, Russ, Elgin, Magic, for example, are all players who simply have unprogrammable talent that were allowed to roam, adlib, and control the game. I had the luxury of spending a few minutes with the dreaded Pat Riley. He is a close friend of some owners of some valve manufacturing groups in Illinois and WI. His version of plays during Showtime was give the ball to magic. Sure, half court offenses have to have some plays such as single picks, double picks, pick and rolls, etc. In addition, a fast break team needs to have outlet pass structure, lane filling, etc.

On the other hand, that's why I would not make a great coach in today's game. Great tip on trying to watch the off-ball action in today's game. The new thoughts about structured plays are here to stay. I suspect I will always believe that heart, motivation, passion, and simply "having fun" will always make the final determination about winning or losing!!!

Disclaimer---Beat, as I may have stated before, and one of the reasons, I relate so well to Rosalie, as a youngster in a large family from a difficult area in Boston, where the world never gave my immigrant parents much of a chance for high paying jobs, the Boston Celtics, and my ability to sneak into the Garden, when I was not sneaking into Fenway to try to get closer to a "spitting Ted Williams (my alltime baseball hero), or Jimmy P, Jackie Jenson, etc, gave me hope, drive, and motivation. Therefore, I am probably the least objective Celtics fan, maybe next to Jebster, that is!!!

Thanks for taking the time to post your comments.

David

PS- I say Rosalie for coach!!!

[David14]

Sam, your comments to myself and Rosalie really say it all. R-U-S-S spells laughter, joy, pride, and commitment. Celtics Pride was created by a group of fellas (Jebism), that loved to play together and be together. They all were 100% supportive of their leader and never gave up on their Pride even when LA invented Purple and Gold balloons. Sure, they needed discipline, who was going to keep Tommy from taking 60 "hook" or "line drive" jump shots a game, and/or someone had to design an out of bounds play. That is, even if the in-bound pass caused the ball to hit a "guide wire". That is was important in order to ultimately create "Havlicek stole the ball" memory. We sure got the "Most" out of that play.

Seriously, I do agree that the Celtics used, and needed the 7 basic plays that you referenced. However, I think the numbers of variations were minimal compared to todays computer generated numerous options for each player to learn. In addition, I believe Red's play calling, hand signals and all, came with the caveat that the players were free to use their own judgment to adlib.

On the other hand, I fully understand your points and really appreciate the stats that you, gyso, BobH, among others, take the time post. It does help better understand what has occured, and/or what should occur.

David

[beat]

David

Thanks for the reply. My own personal belief is there are far to many knuckheads in the league to be able to run 100 differents sets or plays. Being that all 5 players on the court actually know what to do and when to do it.

I coached 7th and 8th graders years ago and we had 3-4 plays and even that was too much. So we went back to 2. Basically one for a zone the other for MtM. We also ran the old weave a bit too, with some success, at least it got the kids moving!

I grew up in the country on a dairy farm. Never saw a big city till I was in college. Even now years later and having traveled a little I find them interesting but I could never live in one.

I need my space and if I want to piss off my back deck, I can cause no one can see me. Sort of like the old Daniel Boone saying that if he could see smoke from his neighbors chimmney they were too close.

C's do have a lot of work in front of them as they "circle the wagons"
I'm sure now lots of teams think we are ripe for the picking and we need to change those minds as soon as posible. I think that concerns me as much as anything. When McHale played he said something that during the warmups the other team would watch them a bit instead of what they should be doing. At that point McHale knew we had um and the game hadn't even started.

beat

[David14]

Beat, I completely agree that today's NBA players have difficulty remembering, or making the effort to learn more than one play. It's really a twisted part of our economy. I also respect and appreciate your thoughts about country living. To me country living is probably the only way to live in a peace given today's demands on folks. I've become a pretty good big city role player simply to let my wife, kids, and grandkids to be protected from the "stress" and "hurt" that's out there these days.

My one real "vice" is my love for the Celtics.

David

[Sam]

David,

With respect to structured basketball strategy, there are three main stragecis differences I note between an Auerbach-coached team and today's teams.

First, most of today's "plays" involve what I might call a "springboard." By that, I mean some device (pick, curl, swing of the ball, whatever) designed to free an individual to perform an individual specialty. In contrast, players in Red's plays were often regarded as interchangeable. Plays (along with their options) were designed as fundamentally sound ways to increase the chance of a score (regardless of who scored) rather than simply to capitalize on an individual's strengths. Red's mantra might have been, "The plays the thing." (Except that he might have been arrested for plagiarism.

Second, what passes for "plays" today tend to be dumbed-down strategic generalizations ("We're going to run a lot of pick-and-rolls"). There's little-to-no complexity to them because I don't believe today's players find the fundamentals sufficiently instinctive to cope with that much complexity.

Third, today's plays tend not to hang around long enough to become fixtures to fans (at least this fan)—sort of like old friends that you looked forward to seeing season after season. Red figured that, once you latched onto a play that was really effective, and once you instituted options to add the element of unpredictability, there was no reason to mess around with it...because, once it was proven a "winner," it would probably remain a "winner." Today's coaches seem to gravitate toward whatever's currently expedient.

So perhaps today's coaches are over-structuring offenses. Maybe I'm not seeing consistent evidence of it perhaps because I'm just not able to pick up all the the constantly shifting strategies. But, in general, it seems today's strategies are designed more to turn individual players loose than to subject teams to potentially restrictive regimen. Interesting discussion, to say the least.

By the way, on the subject of the Splendid Splnter, a media friend once gave me a picture that he had found in some baseball memorabilia shop. (They actually gave it to him for free.) It shows Ted Williams, Bobby Doerr (my past and present lifetime role model), and Dominic DiMaggio in front of the dugout prior to the 1946 all-star game.

My friend caught up with the three of them at a golf tournament (this was in the early 80s) and asked them to autograph it for me, which they did. (Bobby penned a special message to me, and that message actually ignited a wonderful and enduring personal friendship between us that exists to this day.)

Not long afterward, my wife and I returned from an evening engagement and found fireman frantically fighting a blaze that was rapidly climbing the hill toward our home. My wife and a neighbor started hosing down the house as she yelled to me, "Get the valuables into the car." So I did. (You KNOW what's coming.)

We actually lucked out as it started to rain steadily enough to put out the fire about 15 feet from the house. Although we were both exhausted, she wanted to bring in the valuables. So we went out to the car, and there was my picture and my entire collection of 167 Frank Sinatra vinyl albums. Slowly her sooty face turned toward me, and she screamed, "This is what you consider valuables? What about the silverware? What about the valuable papers?"

So I responded, "Screw the silverware. Screw the valuable papers. We can replace them."

And that's how I got to sleep in the car with the valuables that night.

Sam

[beat]

Sam

Great story. It made my day!!!
Some things just can't be replaced.

beat

[David14]

Sam, yes, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, I knew what the "rest of the story" was going to be in what you perceived as valuables. I whole heartedly agree. That picture and autographs must have great personal meaning to you. It fills some blanks for me with your love and knowledge about sports. Unfortunately, when we are young we get careless about the sentimental value and meaning of memorabilia. The fire must have been scary enough, but to think about losing those kinds of valuables must have created a horrible experience. Although, if your wife doesn't mind me saying so, sleeping in the car was a small price to pay for the "save". I could kick myself for losing so many of the great sports memorabilia that I collected over the years. Don't report me, but I can't count high enough how many baseball cards I tossed into Onset Bay after grabbing the gum and seeing how far cards can float!!! Besides loving the Celtics, the Sox were right up there. Thank goodness for "cheap" street cars and holes in chain link fences. What a feeling it was to be able to get into Fenway and seeing a kid's baseball heroes. Lifetime memories for sure.

You make a great point about the "user friendly" nature of Red's plays. That made a great difference in the players' commitment to staying disciplined. Your point about the players migration from team to team also makes good sense.

David

[Outside]

Another reason why the offense was simpler in Red's days was that a good portion of the "offense" was the fast break. When coaching younger kids, I implored them to fast break as much as possible because 1) I like it; 2) it's more fun for the kids; and 3) running meant relying less on a set offense, which usually broke down.

As several people have pointed out, the C's aren't that quick and athletic compared to other teams. However, as Sam mentioned, recent Celtic teams have been characterized by offense that feeds off defense, and I do remember the C's getting more easy baskets in prior years. They may be getting fewer easy baskets now because Garnett isn't really "back" yet. If he does get back to something like his former self, that should be worth at least a ten point differential each game in better defense plus easy baskets.

Despite all that, they can obviously succeed without great quickness or Garnett at his best, just as they did the second half of last year and the first few games this year. I think each player and coach needs to look in the mirror and figure out how to get better performances individually, but mostly as a team. I get the sense that they play as players instead of as a team too often.

The two signs I look for to tell that the C's are working well as a team are easy baskets (which come from the defense) and Ray Allen. Ray is usually moving on offense regardless, but he'll only get a significant number of shots when the whole team is moving. I pick on Sheed a lot, but here's an example -- if Sheed is just positioning himself at a favorite spot on the 3-point line, his man can sag off him to help cover Ray. If Sheed at least cuts through and circles back to the 3-point line, his man has to follow him and can't sag anymore. If Sheed posts up once in a while while cutting through, he may even draw a double team, which opens up Ray even more. You can come up with examples for other players besides Sheed, but the point is that motion by all players can help lead to baskets. And the other team can't run on you when they're picking the ball out of the net.

Outside

[beat]

Outside

Lets run the weave!!!
Not kidding either.....well sort of.

But it would get things moving. However it would be a 4 man weave as I don't want Perk to be a part of it.

beat

[Sam]

Outside,

Another advantage of the fast break is that it's usually easier to teach movement than to teach timing. So, if you're dealing with kids, or if you're integrating recent draftees to a pro team, the fast break can more easily compensate for lack of experience and chemistry than the intricacies of half court basketball can.

And, in my eyes at least, the miscues resulting from a fast break are easier to accept then halfcourt errors. It just somehow seems that the potential result was more worthy of the risk.

Obviously, Red's teams had great fast breaks. (I'm convinced no fast break since has touched them for beauty, execution and success rate.) But at least as important was their push of the ball even when they weren't fast-breaking. That's why the HUGE majority of their halfcourt possessions resulted in a shot during the first 15 seconds of the clock. No pressure as the clock wound down; plenty of time to reset if things went awry. Don't get me started!

Sam

[RosalieTCeltics]

The other night I sent a note to the Tommy and Mike Mailbag wondering why, with an offense that seems to be struggling at times, that Ray Allen is not utilized more. I had sat through that Atlanta game, watching Ray get open in his "sweet spots" and no one ever even thinking of throwing him the ball. It was frustrating to watch. Tommy's answer and Mikes for that matter, were this: Mike had spent time on the plane on the way to Indiana with Ray. He questioned him on his lack of shooting and getting the ball. Ray answered that alot of it was his decision, that he had desired that there were other ways he could help the team without standing outside the three point line and shooting. That night he droved to the basket several times, scoring on some pretty terrific moves. What do I get from this? The offense is not yet set up for Paul and Ray to be the big time scorers they can be, so they are using other ways to score.

There is no doubt in my mind that Paul Pierce was hampered Saturday night by his knee. He had no lift at all.

Only time will tell if this team is capable of putting these two games behind them and moving on to bigger and better things. I believe it will happen.

[Sam]

The Celtics did win, 109-95, but it was a much closer game than the final score (or even an earlier 19-point Celtics lead) indicates. A depleted, smallish Warriors team almost seemed to lull the Celtics into a sustained sleepwalking, basket-trading trance. Finally, in the second half, the Celtics woke up and the Warriors slowed down.

Consider these Celtics stat splits by half:

Percentage of made field goals coming off assists:

First half: 50%
Second half: 67%

Percentage of available offensive rebounds captured:

First half: 22%
Second half: 32%

Percentage of available defensive rebounds captured:

First half: 61%
Second half: 94%

This is a time when catalysts are needed to ignite a fire under the Celtics that will not sputter depending on the quality of the opponent, the severity of the challenge, the mood of the moment. In short, consistency is needed. And it's vitally important that the recent malaise (or whatever it is) not become the ongoing "default" for this team whenever it's not playing the elite. Hopefully the second half last night was a step in the right direction.

My believe is that, aside from emotional factors, there are two catalysts that are the most sure-fire for converting malaise into momentum. One is defensive intensity. And it seems to me there are two options.

One optiono is what I'd call voluntary. Maybe players decide to hunker down more ferociously; maybe they start paying more than lip service to team defense; maybe someone like KG goes crazy with a couple of key blocks, and the defensive intensity becomes infectious. I think some of this occurred in the second half.

The other option is what I'd call calculated. Maybe the coach deliberately gets thrown out of the game after a bad call against the defense; or (my personal favorite, especially when a very deep team is involved), the "shock troops" come in and clamp a full-court press on the suckers.

I wish Doc would consider the full-court press much more often. One seldom sees it nowadays. Maybe it's too taxing on all these athletes I keep hearing about—you know, the ones with athleticism so vastly superior to their older counterparts. But it's a strategy that can work and doesn’t require exceptional skills to do so. And it affects both teams. It tends to discombobulate opponents, cause turnovers, waste timeouts, interrupt their momentum, and generally wreak havoc. And it can wake up the pressing team emotionally and even physically (through the release of endorphins, adrenalin, etc.).

A full-court press creates risk. There is the possibility that the pressing team can become more fatigued than the the team it's pressing. This is where depth comes into play, and it's why the pressing players very often are not the starters. Suppose the Celts are 10 down starting the fourth quarter, and the foe is on a run. I could see a five of Williams, Scal, Daniels, Giddens and Rondo (he can handle the minutes and the exertion—or I’d even give Hudson a shot) exerting a press for a couple of minutes—early in the quarter, when a couple of overly zealous fouls would be of the non-shooting variety.

Obviously, they wouldn’t be out there for their size; they’d be out there for their disruptive abilities. They wouldn’t be out there long; either the tactic would work or backfire almost immediately. And, if it backfires, it’s probably not much worse than continuing malaise among increasingly dispirited starters

So much for the defensive end. A catalyst is also needed in the offensive end. This part of the discussion will be much more brief. In fact, it can be encapsulated in one word, as we saw in the second half last night. That word is “Rondo.” When he gets his act in gear, the offense cooks. When he’s walking up the floor and wasting time messing around the perimeter, the offense bogs down. It’s pretty simple.

So he drives, gets fouled, and misses two. That’s a shame, but the most important thing is that he’s moving. This is not a team that features much motion in the half court. Lately, the ball movement has been lousy too. (Ditto for the spacing.) SOMETHING has to move, or the defense just stands there, anticipates everything, clogs the middle, and picks off passes like apples on the ground.

I don’t mean to imply that all the pressure should be on Rondo to be the sole difference-maker. It’s unforgivable that the ball movement and spacing aren’t better. But I’m old-fashioned enough (gee, no kidding!) to believe that, as the point guard goes, so goes the offense.

Sam

[beat]

Sam

The press idea must be given even more consideration than in years past when there were 10 seconds to get the ball across midcourt. Now there are only 8. If we allow the first pass in to be short and towards a corner a double team and covering the close outlets will result in turnovers. Yes we will give up the easy basket from time to time when pressing BUT this will be offset by the advantage gained as you say the other team wastes timeouts ect.

Cetainly not to be deployed for 48 minutes but for stretches it stands a good chance to be quite a weapon.

beat

[dboss]

Sam

I thought the defense played very well in the 2nd half and it was sparked by intensity from Rajion and that eventually spread to his teamates

There were a few things that I was looking for in this game and i got a couple on my wish list right.

First I wanted tio see Rajon play more minutes and he did and I also wanted to see Eddie play off the ball which he did hitting 3/5 from behuind the arc.

PP was productive even though he was really not elevating on his shot. and I thought the rest of the starters and the bench put forth a good effort.

It was nice to see JR in the game early but I am not sure any player can be a contributor uless the get more than 3.5 minutes at a time in the game.

I hate the pecking order mentality. If JR is going to play it would be nice for them to run a play or two for him. Pretty impossible to evaluate any player under this circumstance. I would really like to see JR get 12 mpg initially divided into 2 six minute stints.

I like your idea about the full court press. It is interesting that we rarely see any teams press in the backcourt. It seems the focus is all about outscoring the opponent.

The Celtics have the bench depth to to press more. That's where an athletic player off the bench like JR could really help this club. I would even include Hudson in that group along with Marquis and Scalabrine.

This team is definitely a work in progress.

dboss

[Sam]

Beat and dboss,

Employed the right way, the press can be devastating. And, in a sense, it's really an extension of halfcourt team defense. There's lots of scrambling and covering and switching, and the timing's very important. It's far more than a matter of sticking with your man full-court. And it's definitely not all about getting steals or even turnovers. The press can take precious seconds away from the enemy attack and exert great pressure by compressing halfcourt sets into difficult time scarcities.

Sam

[Pumpsie Green]

Are there no game threads on this forum?

[gacracker]

Pumpsie:

Look under the "Game On" Forum at the Home Page

GC

[Pumpsie Green]

Pumpsie:

Look under the "Game On" Forum at the Home Page

GC

Thanks GA....found it.

[Sam]

I has to miss the game "live" last night. So, this morning, I very reluctantly sat down to watch it on tape (yes, VHS). I absolutely HATE to watch a game that I already know they lost. So, when I found out I had screwed up the taping, I was momentarily elated. Until I remembered "On Demand." So I had no excuse.

And unfortunately, the first thing you see when you watch a game is the first quarter. It was almost as though they had cloned other first quarters played this season. In every one of their four losses, the starters have been hosed in the +/- column. I can't emphasize enough that the difference between seizing the pace from the outset versus having to play catchup is IMMENSE.

And here'e an interesting stat. In 13 or the 14 games (and three of the four losses), the bench has had a collective "plus" in the +/- statistic. And that includes the increasingly maligned Sheed. We tend to judge him on his three-point performance, but consistency of the "pluses" beside his name (including last night) strongly suggest that the combinations in which he's included seem to find ways to gain on the competition.

Last night, Sheed's rebounding was outstanding. But I felt it wasn't his most important contribution. In between chucking up clankers, he was involved in doing precisely what the starters did NOT do in the first quarter. He, and the rest of the bench, spaced the floor and moved the ball. All sorts of penetrations and successful kickouts eventuated.

It's obvious that Sheed needs to become more discriminating in his shot selection, as it's true that eight missed (and often rushed) threes sacrifice entirely too many possessions. But the impact of his three-point propensity isn't limited to the MADE threes. The THREAT of made threes had impact on the opposition, even in this game. I was please to note that, as the game wore on, Sheed went inside more often, including the short jumper that briefly tied the game near the end. (I'm spending more time on one player than I normally would in this writeup because I believe Sheed represents perhaps the most pivotal figure in the Celtics' chances this season.)

One problem, of course, is that a second unit that's more competitively successful than the first unit is sort of like the tail wagging the dog. Doc called the team "disorganized," and I have to believe he was alluding mostly to the starters. Their defense is okay (maybe not championship calibre but certainly within striking distance).

What the starters have to start realizing is that the key to a successful offense is BALANCE in at least two senses of the word. Diversity of strategies AND physical balance on the floor. They had neither going for them during that first quarter.

The entire alleged "offense" of the starters during that period consisted of north-south basketball. They kept trying to force inside passes to nonexistent openings. They continually drove into traffic. And the Magic kept packing in the defense, daring the Celts to beat them from outside, and frustrating the home team with ridiculous ease.

I kept careful track, on a hunch. Do you know how many times the Celtics swung the ball around the horn during that quarter. NONE! NONE! And they could hardly have overlooked the fact that it's a great tactic because the Magic was using it all quarter long to generate open threes.

Three year ago, I recall our all being continually chagrined at a team of Pierce and the kiddies being outplayed early in the game, mounting furious comebacks, and eventually being just good enough to lose. Well echoes of that pattern are starting to resound at Boston Garden (and further afield), except that now we're dealing with a veteran-laden squad.

Speaking of veterans, I though Tom Heinsohn made an interesting point. He suggested that, from the ranks of all these veterans must come some inspiring leadership. I've referred to it previously as the need for "catalysts." For a while last night, Pierce seemed poised to adopt that role However, every single starter (with the possible exception of Ray) seems reluctant to seize the leadership mantle...hesitant to display what Spike alluded to as "blood and guts"' basketball that can become so infectious so quickly.

With each successive game, I see positive glimmers. In this game, the Celtics played pretty good defense and dominated a number of key statistical categories: free throw shooting; points in the paint; fast break points; offensive rebounding (a 2-to-1 advantage—of course, they had more misses to rebound); lack of turnovers; steals. But the early display of ineptitude was a major factor in a TERRIBLE field goal shooting percentage (.345), which was exacerbated by .105 shooting from beyond the arc.

I surely would like to be a fly on the wall during practices lately. (For one thing, I could definitely stand the weight loss.)

Sam

[RosalieTCeltics]

We keep hearing about the importance of these practices of late, yet we see no positive outcome offensively. Rondo just seemed reluctant at times to push the ball and move it to an open player. You are right, they didn't pass the ball well at all last night. Where to look? Look at the head of the team.
Garnett seems to be working hard, yet not getting the results he wants. He seems a bit frustrated to me. Pierce is Pierce, he is a hard worker most of the time, then he makes a few crazy plays and the bottom falls out. Ray is not acting like Ray. Mike Gorman said that he had a long conversation with Ray about his role this year. Ray said he was not looking to shoot the three so much, going inside whenever he can. The problem is that Ray is our gunner. We need him to get hot and start shooting. He has played terrific all around ball so far this year. We just need him to become "Ray Allen for 3" again!

The offense is really struggling, and for the life of me I just can't see why a team this talented should be in this position. Eddie is way off for the most part, although I thought he was coming around during that Warriors game.
His defense is what kept him on the floor last night.

This team needs a shot in the a.. , They are much too good for this. Hopefully Garnett will begin to look more and more like himself. Is he afraid to get hurt again?

Tomorrow could be a dangerous game for the Celtics unless they bring their defense with them. This is a team that couldn't care less that they are playing the Celtics, they will shoot three's until the cows come home.
This has been a weak spot for the Celtics so far, defending the three.
Here's hoping that little by little, the light will be turned back on and we will see the Celtics we all have been touting for the whole summer.

[jeb]

Rosalie t

I thought KG looked really active and motivated on d last night. But good lord we just couldn't buy a bucket.

I think if we regulate these slow starts we'll start to see some better results. I dont know if I have let go a little bit or what but I feel really optimistic. I think it is good it is happening now and we will play our way through it.

[RosalieTCeltics]

Jeb - Actually, I thought the same thing, he had 3 blocks, I am not sure how many rebounds, 13 or so points. But, then I happened to be watching some year old footage of the Celtics, and realized just how mobile Garnett was before his knee problems. You can tell he is a bit frustrated with himself, I am sure he wants to be just as he always was. I am just not sure that will ever happen. That is not to say that he won't come around, he is still one of the most valuable pieces of the puzzle that makes up this Celtic's team.

Could it be that they got used to playing a different way without him and are having a hard time breaking old habits? Remember, Paul and Rondo and Ray all thought there were nights when they had to carry this team
and they did.

I believe it is just going to take a little longer than we all expected for all of them to get used to one another. I thought Rasheed was fantastic last night defensively and under the basket. If he would play like that more often, it is going to be a joy watching them finally come together. Actually,
Daniels did a great job when he was in there also. So, there certainly are some positives to draw from this game.

Again, it is the starters who are setting the tone of their game, and they are not doing a very good job of it. I have faith though, and when they finally do gel what a wonderful time it will be for us die hard Celtic fans!

[Sponsored content]