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

[KellyGreen17]

Sam, the situation I'm thinking of is KG coming off the bench, not sitting out the entire game. I think if you start Scal in that situation you'd have a hard time finding minutes for Davis, Sheed and KG off the bench.

I like starting Scal if KG isn't playing at all though.

[Sam]

Kelly, I understand the logic behind possibly playing KG fewer minutes by relegating him to the bench. But my feeling is that KG's a starting-caliber player. If he can't start, he shouldn't play at all. The bench relies more on energy, while the starters rely more on finesse. Playing a sub-par starter with the bench could sap the bench energy. And, frankly, I'm hoping the bench can now grow together as a unit rather than being interrupted by even more lack of continuity. I know I talk about continuity a lot, but I guarantee it's not because I like to see myself in print. Continuity is vitally important, just as extended lack of continuity can be (and obviously has been) disastrous. The last thing this team needs is more of the incessant mixing and matching.

Sam

[swedeinestonia]

You are probably right Sam.

One thing that we can all agree on is that the bench is and will be key to this team.

[steve3344]

Thanks to the rotation of the earth it's 3 hours earlier out here on the left coast. I was able to go to the gym and take my frustration out on some poor,dumb dumbells.

Our defensive rotation wasn't very good. The Collison penetration in the 4th quarter while 2 Celtics took one step and waved at him was a perfect example. If you're going to stop a player, you have to get in front him. All of you, not just your hand. The 3-balls NO were throwing in, though, were going in no matter what. We defended them fairly well, they were just unconscious. Our interior and penetration defenses, though, were not good. NO's interior defense was good last night.

Paul Pierce is playing selfish ball. I know he's injured, but that's all the more reason why he should let his teammates set him up instead of trying to do it all himself. How many turnovers did he have because he wouldn't give up the ball?

KG looks old. I mean really old. Maybe it's his injury and he'll recover, maybe this is it. He has no hops (there was that spin move on the baseline where he couldn't get the ball over the rim before he was blocked). The NO players were taunting him last night; telling him he's done and West could take him anytime. He doesn't scare anybody anymore. What's really sad is, I don't see him looking like he's taking it personally.

A lot has been made about chemistry, or rather the lack of it. The best players on the floor last night were Quis, Sheed, Davis and Scal. Players who are new to the team and/or have been out for an extended period with injuries and/or get very limited floor time. The worst players on the floor were the starters, primarily the 4 that have been starting together for 3 years now. A unit that developed good enough chemistry, in one year, to win a championship. Tony Allen, who started in Ray Allen's place, has been with the Celtics and has played (and started) with Rondo, Pierce and Perk since before Mssrs. Garnett and Allen arrived. This is not to say we don't have a chemistry problem, we absolutely positively do, but I'm starting to think it's NOT one due to LACK of familiarity. The Lakers, whose bench stinks, were able to beat a healthy San Antonio Spurs team without Kobe and were able to beat Jerry Sloan's Jazz convincingly without Kobe AND Bynum. Somehow, they were able to get over the loss of key players and FOCUSED on what it takes to win. They made the chemistry happen.

We were 2-11 in free throws in the 2nd half last night (thanks Steve). If you put Shaq or Ben Wallace on the line 11 times you'd get better results than that. That's not due to age or injury or lack of familiarity with the current lineup. That's mental.

Remember the "deer in the headlights" look the Lakers had in their eyes after we smoked them in game 4 in '08? That was when they realized they had NO chance of winning it all and we were supremely confident and became even more aggressive. They were intimidated and we were, well, not. Look in the eyes of our Celtics now. What look is that?

bob

Bob,

We were 3 for 13 in FT's the second half. Right after I wrote we were 2-11 up to that point, TA went 1 for 2 from the line. And in that third quarter we missed EIGHT IN A ROW. Could you believe a Celtic team, or ANY pro team for that matter (without Shaq on it) could miss eight straight free throws? I couldn't. Until I saw it last night.

It seems every game we do something or have a stretch that is so awful we start wondering when was the last time it was this bad. 9-13 now in our last 22 games. And our slide has even given Toronto - a scant 4 games behind us in the standings - some real hope of overtaking us for the division. A division we led by 10 1/2 games after beating the Magic on Christmas day (we were 23-5, Toronto 14-17).

[Sam]

I'm starting to like the Sheed/Davis duo up front. I think those two are quite complementary in their games. At this point in his career, Sheed's strengths are not mobility, energy and power. Those are Glen's strengths. You won't see Sheed taking charges; you see Glen taking them constantly. Sheed's not much of an offensive rebounder; Glen is pretty persistent at it. On the other hand, Glen's offensive strengths lie in sneaking under guys or popping midrange jumpers. Sheed's offensive strengths lie in outreaching guys in the post for his short jumpers or shooting the bomb. And Sheed has the defensive knowledge that can help position Glen optimally.

Their growing synergy is another reason why I'd hate to see either one of them moved up to a starting role, regardless of the reason.

Sam

[Jerry Tarkanian]

I may be old -fashioned but I have a hard time understanding the move towards entire second units that has become common in the NBA.

Perhaps thinking longingly, but remember and admire the astute coaching jobs of those such as Auerbach who were able to substitute appropriately within the group to gain competitive advantage, tailored to the situation.

Players such as Sichting, Sanders and Nelson thrived in such scenarios; situational substitution allows bench players with particular skill sets to impact games in the manner best suited to their profiles.

And the sixth man of starter caliber created matchup and energy advantages for the C's of the past.

Just an evolution of the professional game I have never been enamored of.

Tark

[KellyGreen17]

Sam, I'm totally on-board with the continuity thing. I definitely wish we had the luxury of playing the same groups together all season. But I also think that trying to force guys into a certain role simply because that was the original game-plan will not translate into a championship. I'm not convinced at this point that KG is going to be anywhere near his pre-surgery days. I think we have a different team than we thought we did at the beginning of the season, and I think some adjustments are necessary.

You said "If he can't start, he shouldn't play at all". Do you mean just for this season? Because I definitely don't think that KG needs to retire if he can't start. I don't see any reason why he can't be our future PJ Brown - yes he wasn't starter quality anymore, but he definitely helped us win #17!

[Sam]

Kelly, P.J. was old, but he wasn't physically impaired. if it were just a matter of aging, I'd agree about KG or other players evolving into supporting roles over time. But the reason we're even having this conversation isn't aging; it's what may be a serious—possibly even permanent—physical impairment. And what's impaired most is the very attribute that makes KG a great player—explosiveness. Moreover, his hallmark has been great defense, which necessitates lateral movement. If he can no longer be explosive, and if he can no longer move well laterally, would he be able and willing to relearn how to play basketball with a different, more limited set of tools? Only he could answer that, and even then I don't know how much his personal pride would interfere with his candor.

Frankly, I'd rather have Glen Davis banging away with every fiber of his being against bench opponents than KG gingerly using his guile to try to out-finesse them. Very often, bench opponents are likely to have more athleticism than savvy going for them; and I fear they would use that athleticism to outmaneuver him and possibly even taunt him in the process.

Frankly, I haven't at all given up hope that he can recover at least mostly (as he appeared to be doing before he hyperextended the knee). But, if that's not to be, I would think he'd have some serious questions to face rather than dragging around a shell of a very proud man.

Sam

[112288]

Kelly, P.J. was old, but he wasn't physically impaired. if it were just a matter of aging, I'd agree about KG or other players evolving into supporting roles over time. But the reason we're even having this conversation isn't aging; it's what may be a serious—possibly even permanent—physical impairment. And what's impaired most is the very attribute that makes KG a great player—explosiveness. Moreover, his hallmark has been great defense, which necessitates lateral movement. If he can no longer be explosive, and if he can no longer move well laterally, would he be able and willing to relearn how to play basketball with a different, more limited set of tools? Only he could answer that, and even then I don't know how much his personal pride would interfere with his candor.

Frankly, I'd rather have Glen Davis banging away with every fiber of his being against bench opponents than KG gingerly using his guile to try to out-finesse them. Very often, bench opponents are likely to have more athleticism than savvy going for them; and I fear they would use that athleticism to outmaneuver him and possibly even taunt him in the process.

Frankly, I haven't at all given up hope that he can recover at least mostly (as he appeared to be doing before he hyperextended the knee). But, if that's not to be, I would think he'd have some serious questions to face rather than dragging around a shell of a very proud man.

Sam

Sam, Would it make sense to change KG position to center so he does not have to be so mobile in his roaming power forward position or change the defense so others pick-up his role of roaming?

112288

[Sam]

Funny you mention that, 112288. That very thought ran through my mind this morning, and I applaud the intent. But I soon had this vision of his facing someone like Bynum or Howard or Shaq—and it wasn't a pretty picture because KG doesn't leverage strength. Moreover, it would render Perk much less useful because I can't see him keeping up with PFs. I'm not at all "down" on KG. He's definitely a "gamer," and I have every hope he'll reemerge as at least most of what he was. But his playing persona has had an all-or-nothing aura that makes it difficult for me to reconcile with half-measures.

Sam

[KellyGreen17]

Good points on age vs. injury Sam, but I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be all or nothing with KG. Yes, he's struggled since the hyperextension, but he's still displayed some flashes of the old KG, especially at the beginning of games and after prolonged rest (notably end of 1st Q through mid 2nd). Obviously, I hope that he's just still recovering and that we'll see more consistency, but I think that, given a reduced roll, the KG we see now can still help this team win a championship.

[Sam]

Kelly, I guess I'd have to know what the reduced role would be and how it would affect the teammates with whom KG would be playing.

As an aside, I've tried to figure out whether something physical might be occurring during the halftime break that would render some of the veterans less effective in the third quarter

For example, I was wondering whether KG and Paul stiffen up at halftime. But, if that were true, why wouldn't the stiffen up during their second quarter rest? And why are they able to make comebacks (albeit too little too late) toward the end of the game? I'm always bothered by inconsistencies, and this seems to be one.

Sam

[KellyGreen17]

Sam, perhaps this "sleep consultant" that the players talked to at the beginning of the season has them taking power naps during halftime?

OK, serious face now...I read/heard (can't remember which) somewhere that guys have started icing their various joints during the game, rather than just when they are finished playing. I wonder if that may be part of the problem?

[Sam]

Kelly, it works for me as much as any other theory. There's a sluggishness after halftime that just seems amazingly consistent. Physical and mental (e.g., abandoning the game plan). And it tends to be less apparent (though too late) later in the game.

I also like the "power nap" theory, although some fans would claim they're taking those naps on the floor.

Sam

[KellyGreen17]

It seems to me that the first few minutes of the 3rd aren't a problem either. They usually run a couple decent offensive sets, play OK defense for a possession or two, then once the opposition scores a couple times in a row, we're toast. That seems like a confidence/mental issue to me.

[Sam]

You're right. Things seem to start deteriorating after a few minutes of the third. The consistency of the time frame has been rather amazing. Could the equipment people be secretly working for the Lakers and
placing slow-release anthills in the Celtics' sneakers at halftime?

I say let's start a conspiracy theory. How about an impromptu conspiracy theory contest. The best conspiracy theory explaining why the Celtics fade after a few minutes of the third quarter wins a free subscription next year. This is not a joke. This is now an official contest. And originality and creativity count. I'm the judge. (That's original and creative already.) But, unless we get at least a dozen entries, the contest is off.

I'm serious now. Get those contest entries in. (Among other things, this will show me how many people are reading this thread.)

I'm waiting for entries.

Sam

[112288]

You're right. Things seem to start deteriorating after a few minutes of the third. The consistency of the time frame has been rather amazing. Could the equipment people be secretly working for the Lakers and
placing slow-release anthills in the Celtics' sneakers at halftime?

I say let's start a conspiracy theory. How about an impromptu conspiracy theory contest. The best conspiracy theory explaining why the Celtics fade after a few minutes of the third quarter wins a free subscription next year. This is not a joke. This is now an official contest. And originality and creativity count. I'm the judge. (That's original and creative already.) But, unless we get at least a dozen entries, the contest is off.

I'm serious now. Get those contest entries in. (Among other things, this will show me how many people are reading this thread.)

I'm waiting for entries.

Sam

Sam,

I'll cast my vote for the problems in the 3Q......George Bush...Hey everyone else is blaming the guy!
Seriously, it has to do with keeping to and executing the game plan laid out at the start of the game and with so many losses due to non execution in the beginning of this problem it has morphed into the 800 pound gorilla, it's all mental now.

112288

[Jerry Tarkanian]

My vote:

They are watching Fox News at halftime and as a result spacing improperly on the floor in the second half with everyone on the right wing.

Regards,

Tark

[spike]

They're not getting hugged up.

[bigpygme]

Tyrone - Doc's not a hugger ?? i'm shocked !

[cowens/oldschool]

Sam

I'm not a true believer in a set rotation for continuity.....I would prefer to see how the game and teams personnel is playing together on a given night and then mixing and matching up the best combination to be able to take advantage on the floor.For example I thought Quis was our best player last game and thankfully he looks real fresh and game ready since hes been back....I was seething that he wasn't in at crunch time for TA.TA has his place,but last game was dumb move playing him there,as we all agree Quis had it going.

Another example is the 84 Celtics,you might have Max or McHale in at the end playing with Bird and Parish,at guard it was Ainge or Henderson at the end ussually with DJ.It depended on best matchups and who was doing a particular skill set well for that game to best take advantage of the matchup,even Wedman could have been in.If anything I think Doc should use this approach to best take advantage of the rosters versatility and given the Amigos advancing age,how they feel that particular night.

Also the young enough,healthy KG that I remember even a year ago was not a finese player at all in my memory,he had a high skill set,but I remember games vs Bosh,Amare and Lamar Odom where he was as physical as could be,explosive and throwing his body in the trenches,initiating contact....now I would agree hes not that same player and he has to figure out how to be effective playing a more limited game.He used to beat them to the punch with his intensity and had those great reflexes.

cow

[bigpygme]

conspiracy theory - the ref's are obviously out to keep us from our rightful place on the throne. their conspiracy is obvious. the last foul called on a PP drive to the hoop was December 25th. since then they have ignored 3,742 fouls. and that's just on Pierce. you expect me to believe that Glen Davis gets stuffed all those times he does without any contact at all ??? and Rondo spends so much time on the floor i think he's investigating the construction of the hardwood, and he only gets about half the calls he should.

the reverse is the same picture - phantom calls. Perk gets called for traveling more than most other TEAMS do in a game. Sheed's reputation preceeds him, and he can get a clean ball slap in and knock it away and get called. that's why he jabbers so much - it's totally unfair, and he's right and the ref's are wrong, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT ! THEY ARE ALL OUT TO GET US - AND IT'S ALL DUE TO THE LUSTER OF OUR LEGEND !!!!!

i am surprised to be the first one to point out this obvious theory !

best regards,
Michael

[dboss]

A ton of good posts and ideas about the Celtics but can anyone really know what the heck is going on with this team?

At this point I do not even think the players know themselves.

So all the prognostication still leaves us in limbo...at a point where I find myself watching every game and waiting for them to lose the lead and the game.

The Celtics will probably trade Ray Allen but it will be more for financial reason because i do not think you can improve the team by simply trading Ray Allen.

The issue appears to be both physical and psychological. This teams does not know how to win games anymore, despite the star power and all the talk this team is in a deep depression.

KG is not looking good out there. I do not think he is ready to play.

PP looks like a old man and is resorting to disgusting one on one playground basketball.

And now Ray Allen has a sore back..yeh right.

Doc Rivers has lost his ability to influence how the team plays. He too is at a loss. The team no longer listens to him. It is time for him to go. It will not happen this season but if the team continues to play the way they have been I do not see how they can bring Doc back to coach this team.

The Celtics will fake everyone out and win a few games but they have not beaten a good team in over 1 1/2 months.

If they do not come out ready to play after the break I think it will at least help us to conclude that this Celtics team is nothing more than a paper tiger.

I just cannot believe that this team is playing this way. But the facts do not lie. This team has no kick at the end of the race.

dboss

[Sam]

The Celtics came back from the all-star break and defeated the Kings in Sacramento, 95-92. Actually, it was a tale of two halves:

• The Celts starters lost the first half to their Kings counterparts by 5 points and won the second half (fortified by the replacement of Perk by Sheed some of the time) by 3 points.

• The Celts bench won the first half from their counterparts by 10 points and lost the second half by 5 points.

The game was basically decided when Paul Pierce hit a three-pointer in the final minute; and the Kings cooperated by missing six consecutive free throws at one juncture of the final stanza.

None of the starters really lived up to his billing, although there were some decent stats:

• Pierce had 17 points and Ray 15 (both on 5-15 shooting from the field).

• KG had nine rebounds (to go with nine points), while Rondo collected seven rebounds and six assists but only four points. I don’t recall seeing him penetrate to the hoop all night long.

• Perk’s stats (six points and five boards) were actually better than he looked on offense. He was constantly fumbling entry passes or committing a moving pick or unable to get off a bunny from underneath in traffic.

Four members of the bench were really the heroes of the night (with Tony being a nonentity):

• Sheed was 5-9, and at least two of the misses were three-point attempts that were necessitated by the shot clock. He hit all six of his freebies, including two very important ones in the stretch. And his interior defense was extraordinary, as only partially defined by his three blocked shots.

• Glen Davis was excellent, doing most of his damage in the first half. In 10 minutes of that half, he collected six points, six rebounds (four offensive), three assists, and a blocked shot. He pretty much disappeared in the second half, adding just one more rebound of each type.

• To my way of thinking, Marquis Daniels was the unsung hero of the game. He scored only 7 (mostly on free throws). But it was the way he managed to control the offense of the bench that really impressed me. He seemed intent on not letting them lapse into bad habits such as too much reliance on the three-ball, as he kept forcing the offensive action into the paint. And the guy never saw a transition opportunity he didn’t like (although the Celts misfired on so many that they got outscored 15-2 in fast break points.)

• Eddie House scored all his 12 points (in 16 minutes) on four very timely three-pointers. At his best, the guy is instant offense material.

Paul Pierce hit what was basically the game-winning three-pointer in the last minute and led the Celts with 17 points despite missing a lot of close-in shots (a common malady for the Celts in this one). Ray had 15 on 5-15 shooting. KG was quiet offensively but did grab nine boards, and Rondo had seven rebounds and six assists to go with a paltry four points. Frankly, his lateral movement on defense looked the same as before the all-star break.

During the first half, the starters looked as though they needed a Rustoleum application. Over the course of the game, they somehow managed to assist on a high percentage of their made field goals (63% for the evening after starting with 33% in the initial quarter) but misfired on numerous other opportunities as the result of walking the ball up, standing around, missing bunnies, and throwing passes to the wrong uniforms. By contrast, the bench was a breath of fresh air in the second quarter when they turned a tie game into a double-digit lead before turning over the reins to the starters, who allowed the lead to dwindle to 57-52 at halftime.

The starters reversed themselves somewhat in the second half, gaining three points on the Kings, while the bench lost five points to their Kings’ counterparts.

Sheed, Quis, Glen Davis and Eddie all played very well in this one, with Tony Allen being a non-factor in only nine minutes. Sheed had 17 points and five defensive rebounds in 24 minutes. He tried four three-pointers, making only one; but most of them were forced by the 24-second clock. He was 4-5 from the block and 6-6 from the line. And his interior defense was very strong, as only partly indicated by his three blocked shots.

Quis scored only seven but played the point much of the time he was out there. He had only one assist but kept forcing the ball down low, especially after one sequence when he obviously tired of a three-point clanging rut they were digging. Eddie was 4-8, with all four being from behind the arc. And Glen Davis was an absolute force in the first half, finishing his 10 minutes with six points, six rebounds (four offensive), three assists and a block, with no turnovers.

I have to admit that, at the moment, I gain greater satisfaction out of watching the bench than the starters. I can only hope that the slight improvement in the second half is the harbinger of a positive trend for the first team. In that first quarter, they looked like a commercial for Rustoleum, as they stood around, meandered up the floor threw errant passes, and played only sporadic defense.

After the 30-point Sacramento first quarter (which the Celtics matched), I didn’t find a lot of fault with the Celtics’ defense, which held the Kings to 62 points the rest of the way. (Of course, the Celtics didn’t fare much better, but I’m talking about the defense for the moment). In the first quarter, the Kings played a fine inside-out game, alternately attacking the hoop and shooting threes (5- with far too much success. I thought Sheed had a strong hand in quieting down their inside game somewhat beginning with the second quarter; and the Kings made only four additional three-pointers over the final three quarters.

One negative that may have a silver lining involved the huge number of “bunnies” missed by both starters and bench. At least they were getting the opportunities, and (as Doc said—or maybe rationalized) that could have been at least partly a matter of rusty timing.

As for the Garnett watch, he didn’t get a whole lot of touches on offense. And his defensive lateral movement remains status quo for the moment. He had one of the quieter nine-rebound games in recent memory.

One issue I'm starting to see is that Tony may be the odd man out now that Daniels is back. That doesn't mean Tony won't put in minutes, but I believe he struggles in trying to find his offensive role with Quis in there. Tony likes to hang around the basket, and so does Quis; but Quis is more effective because he's far more under control and finishes much better. They are so redundant, and the Celts need a floor spacer (other than Sheed) so badly with the bench unit, that I might prefer see Tony or Scal go rather than Eddie if they do trade for Nate Robinson. (I haven't checked the salaries and it's 4:10 in the morning, so I'm not about to bother.) And, between the two, I'd probably try to keep Scal for big man insurance purposes, as Tony's offensive rebounding skills may be preempted by Glen Davis.

I had the feeling that the team heaved a collective sigh of relief after this one. Sheed said, after the game, that they had a “good practice” yesterday; and it could have been demoralizing to follow that experience with a loss to the Kings. At least they should be able to focus intently on the challenge that lies ahead in Los Angeles on Thursday. And, if they’re now in the “crawl before they can walk” stage, at least they didn’t wind up flat on their faces with full diapers.

Sam

[sinus007]

Hi,
Sam, my goodness! 4 in the morning and you can coordinate your eyes and fingers and keep your thoughts on a straight line?
I just wanted to add a couple things. Kudos to BBD: very aggressive, as usual, he's got 5 offensive rebounds out of 8 total.
Overall, it looked like Celtics got lucky at the end: Kings missed FTs and goaltended on a missed shot. I hope tomorrow they keep the luck AND crank the intensity.

AK

[Sponsored content]