Malcolm Brogdon perfectly sums up Celtics’ identity crisis

Malcolm Brogdon perfectly sums up Celtics’ identity crisis

WEEI By Scott McLaughlin

The stats would tell you that the Celtics had the second-best defensive rating in the NBA this season. Stats may not lie, but they do sometimes deceive.

The reality is that the Celtics were too inconsistent on defense pretty much all season, and that finally caught up to them in the playoffs.

Somewhere, deep down, the Celtics who were dominant defensively last year were still there. They showed up in Games 6 and 7 of the second round against Philadelphia, when they held the 76ers to 86 and 88 points, respectively. They returned for Games 4-6 against Miami, holding the Heat under 100 points per game as they clawed their way out of an 0-3 hole.

Too often, though, those Celtics were nowhere to be found. The Celtics gave up 110 points or more 10 times this postseason, including in each of the first three games of the Eastern Conference Finals, and went 2-8 in those games. Last postseason, the Celtics gave up that many points just five times, while playing one more round.

The C’s ranked 10th among 16 playoff teams in postseason defensive rating (112.9). Of the eight teams to reach at least the second round, only one was worse defensively (the Phoenix Suns).

That defensive slippage is a big reason the Celtics are not playing a fourth round again this year. A quick look at Monday’s final score of 103-84 in Game 7 shows that offense was the problem, not defense. Offense absolutely was a huge problem. The Celtics shot 39% from the field, 21.4% from three, and committed 15 turnovers.

But the defense wasn’t good enough either. The Celtics struggled to string together stops, allowing the Heat to rebuild their lead seemingly every time Boston managed to get within seven or eight points.

The Celtics wanted to be a better offensive team this year, and they were, jumping from ninth in offensive rating last year (113.6) to second this season (117.3). Some defensive sacrifice was to be expected, because that’s the give-and-take nature of these things.

In retrospect, it’s easy to say that the pendulum swung too far, and that the Celtics could never quite rediscover a defensive identity that showed up every night.

Malcolm Brogdon, who was playing through a partially torn tendon in his forearm, acknowledged as much Monday night after Boston’s Game 7 loss.

“Yeah, it was a big issue,” Brogdon said of the defensive identity disappearing. “I think this was a team last year that prided itself on defense. Defense was their calling card. This year, offense was our calling card, and I don’t think you win championships with a better offense than you have a defense.

“I think we were pretty much the best offensive team in the league with our depth, the ways we could score, our versatility, really one through seven, one through eight. But defensively, I thought we had the versatility, I thought we had the talent defensively, but on any given night we would just let go of the rope and have a lot of breakdowns.”

Bingo. No matter how good of an offensive team you think you are, it’s hard to win on offense alone because shooting droughts are bound to happen. The Celtics were a really good three-point shooting team all year, but in the Eastern Conference Finals they had four games in which they shot worse than 30% from deep. They overcame it in Game 6 because their defense stepped up, but not in Game 7.

If the C’s played more consistent defense every night, like they did last year, maybe they would have survived one or two more off nights shooting, and they might still be playing.

“Defensively is where the difference is for us,” Brogdon added after Game 7. “That was a game, whether or not we made shots, if we got stops we could’ve stayed in the game. That’s not a team that’s gonna score 120 points. It’s not a team that’s gonna get out in transition and beat you that way. They’re gonna slow the game down and play in the half-court. So if we can get stops, that’s a game we can stay in even if we’re not making shots. But the fact of the matter is we didn’t get stops.”

Jayson Tatum, who battled through his own injury after rolling his ankle on the first possession of Game 7, knows it, too.

“We’re at our best, these last three games besides tonight, when we’re locked in on the defensive end,” Tatum said. “We showed how special we can be as a unit. We didn’t shoot the ball well, but that’s part of it. Being in this league, offenses fluctuate from night to night, but defenses can always, for the most part, maintain. Even if you’re missing shots, you have to lock in on the defensive end.”

Put another way, and crossing sports to steal a metaphor legendary Boston College hockey coach Jerry York used to use, offense is the cat and defense is the dog. The cat doesn’t always listen and sometimes just wanders off, but the dog always comes when it’s called.

You could say, then, that the Celtics are going to need to have more dog in them next season.

112288

Ime was a defense-first coach.  We lost in 6 last year because our offense didn't score.  Joe was hired because he was an offense-first coach.  Defense Wins Championships (unless you've got the best shooting back court in NBA history with Steph and Klay, and even then they defended).  We had the #2 defense in the league through the regular season, we knew how to defend.  We just stopped.  And when we stopped defending, and our offense struggled because we got hit by an energized and active defense, we lost because we stopped living for stops.


Bob


.

Seems like a slightly simplistic analysis. With defense first, we had almost lost to the Heat last year. This year we got hit with a Tatum injury.

I believe that our lack of ball and player movement and sharing the creative role on offense is the problem. We could not break down the zone defense well this year. We were also not able to do it last year. The Warriors had zoned us to 2023.

I don’t see Tatum or Brown screening for others. If we were able to attack Miami’s weakest point, mixed with attacking from our strongest point, we would have done better.

Just my thoughts. Hopefully something that we can incorporate next year.

Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

G.O.D.F.A.T.H.A. wrote:Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

Did he help us much in the previous series?

prakash wrote:

G.O.D.F.A.T.H.A. wrote:Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

Did he help us much in the previous series?

With an average of 16 points per game and shooting 52.3% on threes? I'd certainly say so.

steve3344 wrote:

prakash wrote:

G.O.D.F.A.T.H.A. wrote:Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

Did he help us much in the previous series?

With an average of 16 points per game and shooting 52.3% on threes? I'd certainly say so.

He was effective against the Hawks. Philly shut him down inside once Embiid got back. He did hit some 3s but was also ineffective defensively. I don't know when he got injured against Miami but I was not seeing the defensive effectiveness.

Basically, against Miami, his low shot release and "lower the head and drive to the basket" were exposed.

prakash wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

prakash wrote:

G.O.D.F.A.T.H.A. wrote:Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

Did he help us much in the previous series?

With an average of 16 points per game and shooting 52.3% on threes? I'd certainly say so.

He was effective against the Hawks.  Philly shut him down inside once Embiid got back.  He did hit some 3s but was also ineffective defensively.  I don't know when he got injured against Miami but I was not seeing the defensive effectiveness.

Basically, against Miami, his low shot release and "lower the head and drive to the basket" were exposed.

Brogdon was 13.3/3.7/4.4, shooting .448 from the field and 28% on threes against the Hawks and 16.0/4.4/3.0, shooting .444 from the field and 52.3% on threes against the Sixers so he had a better series against Philly than Atlanta. Not by a lot, but still better. The key was his deadly shooting on threes vs the Sixers plus a little higher scoring average.

steve3344 wrote:

prakash wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

prakash wrote:

G.O.D.F.A.T.H.A. wrote:Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

Did he help us much in the previous series?

With an average of 16 points per game and shooting 52.3% on threes? I'd certainly say so.

He was effective against the Hawks.  Philly shut him down inside once Embiid got back.  He did hit some 3s but was also ineffective defensively.  I don't know when he got injured against Miami but I was not seeing the defensive effectiveness.

Basically, against Miami, his low shot release and "lower the head and drive to the basket" were exposed.

Brogdon was 13.3/3.7/4.4, shooting .448 from the field and 28% on threes against the Hawks and 16.0/4.4/3.0, shooting .444 from the field and 52.3% on threes against the Sixers so he had a better series against Philly than Atlanta. Not by a lot, but still better. The key was his deadly shooting on threes vs the Sixers plus a little higher scoring average.

Ok, I will not argue with numbers. I just didn’t see him as being impactful in the Philly series. Even less so against Miami in games 1&2. He likely got injured in Game 2.

prakash wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

prakash wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

prakash wrote:

G.O.D.F.A.T.H.A. wrote:Brogdon would have helped us win the game had he not have gotten hurt

Did he help us much in the previous series?

With an average of 16 points per game and shooting 52.3% on threes? I'd certainly say so.

He was effective against the Hawks.  Philly shut him down inside once Embiid got back.  He did hit some 3s but was also ineffective defensively.  I don't know when he got injured against Miami but I was not seeing the defensive effectiveness.

Basically, against Miami, his low shot release and "lower the head and drive to the basket" were exposed.

Brogdon was 13.3/3.7/4.4, shooting .448 from the field and 28% on threes against the Hawks and 16.0/4.4/3.0, shooting .444 from the field and 52.3% on threes against the Sixers so he had a better series against Philly than Atlanta. Not by a lot, but still better. The key was his deadly shooting on threes vs the Sixers plus a little higher scoring average.

Ok, I will not argue with numbers. I just didn’t see him as being impactful in the Philly series.  Even less so against Miami in games 1&2. He likely got injured in Game 2.

Brogdon's tremendous long distance shooting was a key factor in helping win that grueling series against Philly. You're probably correct about his injury timiline. After playing 37 minutes and scoring 19 points in game one vs the Heat he only played 26 minutes (13 points, 1-5 from deep) in game 2. After that he was completely ineffective the remainder of the series. What a shame.