POST GAME PORTLAND - HOME

Rapid Reaction: Blazers 109, Celtics 96

BOSTON -- Rapid reaction after the Portland Trail Blazers defeated the Boston Celtics 109-96 on Friday night at TD Garden:

THE NITTY GRITTY
The Portland offense was as good as advertised as LaMarcus Aldridge led five Blazers in double figures with 27 points on 11-of-18 shooting to go along with a game-high 12 rebounds. Nicolas Batum and Mo Williams added 18 points apiece, while Damian Lillard had 17 points and four assists. The Blazers shot 48.8 percent from the field and made nine 3-pointers (even if Boston kept them to a manageable 34.6 percent beyond the arc). For Boston, Jared Sullinger returned after missing Wednesday's game with a bone bruise on his right knee and scored a career-high 26 points (his previous high was 16) while grabbing eight rebounds over 36 minutes. Jeff Green added 14 points, but was a minus-15 overall as Boston's first unit had a rather atrocious outing.

TURNING POINT
A one-possession game with under five minutes to go in the third quarter, the Trail Blazers closed out the quarter on a 17-8 run. Aldridge and Batum combined to score 21 points on 8-of-13 shooting in the frame, keying Portland's offense as it pushed its lead to double digits and led 90-78 heading to the fourth quarter. Both teams were 12-of-23 shooting in the third, but Portland hit a trio of 3s and got to the free throw line often while putting up 33 points. Sullinger tried to single-handedly will the Celtics back into the game in the final frame, but couldn't do it on his own.

GOOD PRESSEY, BAD PRESSEY
Phil Pressey showed us both ends of his spectrum, giving Boston's second-unit a jolt to start the second quarter before fading. Boston went from down two when Pressey checked in to up eight in a little more than three minutes (with Pressey handing out a couple assists and hitting a 3-pointer in that span). But the Blazers rallied back and Pressey had two cringe-worthy turnovers helping Portland pull ahead before he was removed from the game. He finished with six points on 2-of-4 shooting with three assists, two rebounds, and those two turnovers over 11:53.

LOOSE BALLS
MarShon Brooks ended a six-game DNP streak by making only his second appearance of the season. He played the final three minutes with Portland ahead by double digits and did not score (missing the only shot he took). ... His former Nets teammates Keith Bogans and Kris Humphries were healthy DNPs.

WHAT IT MEANS
Boston has now lost two in a row to fall to 4-6 with the degree of difficulty in their schedule only set to ramp up on the road. The Celtics play the second night of a back-to-back on Saturday evening in Minnesota. That's the start of a three-game road trip that closes with a Texas back-to-back in Houston and San Antonio next week.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WEEI - 93.7 FM

BLAZERS BLOW BY DEFENSELESS C’S

By Mike Petraglia


Jared Sullinger (7) and the Celtics couldn’t get a grip on the Blazers Friday night. (AP)

Before Friday’s game, Celtics coach Brad Stevens said any success on the upcoming road trip would rely on his team’s ability to play defense against some of the elite teams of the Western Conference.

If Friday night is any indication, they could be in for a long trip.

Nicolas Batum connected on 4-of-9 from 3-point range and finished with 18 points while LaMarcus Aldridge added a team-high 27 points and 12 rebounds to pace the Blazers to a 109-96 win over the Celtics Friday night at TD Garden.

The Celtics held Portland to just 8-of-22 shooting in the first quarter but still trailed, 23-21, heading into the second quarter.

But the second quarter was a different story as the Blazers started extending the Celtics defense and took 10 3-pointers, making four. The Celtics stayed close, shooting 64.3 percent, making 9-of-14 from the field. Vitor Faverani had all nine of his points in the quarter as the Celtics trailed 57-51 at the half.

The rough defense continued in the second half as the Blazers outscored the Celtics, 33-27, in the third quarter, led by 11 from Aldridge. Portland scored the last six points of the quarter to take a 90-78 lead into the final quarter.

The Celtics made it a seven-point game early in the fourth on back-to-back threes from Jared Sullinger and Courtney Lee but could get no closer. Sullinger led Boston with 26 points and eight rebounds in 36 minutes off the Boston bench.

Jeff Green (14) and Jordan Crawford (11) were the only other Celtics in double figures.

After winning four straight to even their record at 4-4, the 4-6 Celtics have lost their last two – both at home – and now head out on the road for a three-game road trip that begins Saturday night in Minnesota against the Timberwolves. They play Tuesday in Houston before wrapping up the swing on Wednesday in San Antonio against the Spurs.

The Blazers improved to 7-2 on the season.

112288

Between the back-breaking three-point barrage and two guys who would look good at center for the Celtics, this team was just too much for our lads. I hope they can improve their perimeter defense (which I had read was not that bad), but the height thing is a major problem.

Sam

Good effort by the Celtics, and yes Sam they are challenged height wise. Interesting that Humphries remains on the bench. Is Danny shopping? Would like Brooks to get a fair shot. Tommy said if he was given minutes, he could be a deadly shooter anywhere on the court.

The schedule does not get easier...Minny tomorrow...Houston Tuesday......Spurs on Wednesday.

112288

112288 wrote:Good effort by the Celtics, and yes Sam they are challenged height wise.  Interesting that Humphries remains on the bench.  Is Danny shopping?  Would like Brooks to get a fair shot.  Tommy said if he was given minutes, he could be a deadly shooter anywhere on the court.

The schedule does not get easier...Minny tomorrow...Houston Tuesday......Spurs on Wednesday.

112288

And after San Antonio comes the undefeated Pacers. After starting out 4-4, a record of 4-10 is a real possibility. After the Pacers come road games against Atlanta and Charlotte who just beat us in our own building, and then Memphis. Thank God next year's draft is so loaded.

Let me know if the draft has an elite C. Otherwise, I don't care THAT much about it. They miss Rondo, and a top center.

The defense is improving, but they've only played 10 meaningful games together. The way the defense looks now won't be the same defense in March-April.

Boston hasn't really played a team like Portland so it's another learning experience.



KJ

KJ,

I would not give up on VF he is learning the NBA and all the centers and how to guard their moves. It is one thing to get notes and watch film, it is another to play against them live.

But VF must work on defense and how to guard the pick and role. I wish he could develop a little mean streak. Someone who will be in camp again is Colton Ivinson. Now there is a boy willing to go head to head with anyone in the league physically.

112288

112288,

I haven't given up on him. I was more making a point about the draft. They don't necessarily need more wing players which is what this draft is filled with.




KJ

The chances of getting a really strong center in the draft are slim.  In the first place, there aren't many who are available; and a lot of seven-footers like Kelly Olynyk are really power forwards.  It seems to me that the two Celtics' first-round 2014 draft picks may be better used as non-salary inducements to try to pry a good young center from another team.  I've still got Asik on my own radar, and I'm just hoping neither he nor Howard gets injured this season. Asik's playing only 21 mpg, and yet he's averaging 7+ rebounds. And he's even shooting 58% at the free throw line.

Sam

steve3344 wrote:

112288 wrote:Good effort by the Celtics, and yes Sam they are challenged height wise.  Interesting that Humphries remains on the bench.  Is Danny shopping?  Would like Brooks to get a fair shot.  Tommy said if he was given minutes, he could be a deadly shooter anywhere on the court.

The schedule does not get easier...Minny tomorrow...Houston Tuesday......Spurs on Wednesday.

112288

And after San Antonio comes the undefeated Pacers.  After starting out 4-4, a record of 4-10 is a real possibility.  After the Pacers come road games against Atlanta and Charlotte who just beat us in our own building, and then Memphis.  Thank God next year's draft is so loaded.

I see 4-10 coming and thats a good thing, Sully looked great, loving what I'm seeing from him. AB and Jeff Green not looking for their shots aggressively enough, with AB hes still figuring it out, he can get up for a Dwayne Wade, then forget to look for his shot for way too long. Jeff Green has so much talent, but he just doesn't have that I'm gonna kick your ass mentality that Paul Pierce has. Once Pierce scored a couple you knew he was feeling it and could go off for 4-5 buckets in a row in a variety of ways....well not easy filling his shoes.

k_j_88 wrote:112288,

I haven't given up on him. I was more making a point about the draft. They don't necessarily need more wing players which is what this draft is filled with.




KJ

they don't need wing players? I don't see an all star player at the 3 right now.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:112288,

I haven't given up on him. I was more making a point about the draft. They don't necessarily need more wing players which is what this draft is filled with.




KJ

they don't need wing players? I don't see an all star player at the 3 right now.

You don't need an all-star at every position. And who's to say any specified early pick is an automatic all-star?

Point is, their biggest deficiencies right now are at the PG spot w/o Rondo and the C spot. Those are the 2 most vital positions, in my opinion.


KJ

....so if we had a shot at Wiggins or Parker you would still want a center or PG?

Not just a center. A really good center. And we have a PG.

Sam

cowens/oldschool wrote:....so if we had a shot at Wiggins or Parker you would still want a center or PG?

There is no stud center coming out from what I can see. But if there was, I'd be hard-pressed to overlook them.

If Boston drafts one of the supposed phenoms, okay cool. But that doesn't really mean anything. They need a winning culture in place, and I feel that Stevens is certainly capable of instilling that. If you have a losing team that appears to have no hope of success, it's very hard to attract free agents. Boston actually needs to be a decent team instead of a lottery team.



KJ

Good point, KJ. Which is more important? Getting the top pick in the lottery or demonstrating to potential acquisitions that you've already bottomed out and are on your way onward and upward? I'll take the latter unless a center at least as good as Drummond is available in the draft. And, if that happens, you might be able to trade your pick and multiple future first-rounders for the chance to pick him. After all, several first-rounders have to be more attractive trade material than an Ice Capades date.

Sam

k_j_88 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:....so if we had a shot at Wiggins or Parker you would still want a center or PG?

There is no stud center coming out from what I can see. But if there was, I'd be hard-pressed to overlook them.

If Boston drafts one of the supposed phenoms, okay cool. But that doesn't really mean anything. They need a winning culture in place, and I feel that Stevens is certainly capable of instilling that. If you have a losing team that appears to have no hope of success, it's very hard to attract free agents. Boston actually needs to be a decent team instead of a lottery team.



KJ

we've got 17 titles, enough said....still need the players. I would take the best player regardless of position.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:....so if we had a shot at Wiggins or Parker you would still want a center or PG?

There is no stud center coming out from what I can see. But if there was, I'd be hard-pressed to overlook them.

If Boston drafts one of the supposed phenoms, okay cool. But that doesn't really mean anything. They need a winning culture in place, and I feel that Stevens is certainly capable of instilling that. If you have a losing team that appears to have no hope of success, it's very hard to attract free agents. Boston actually needs to be a decent team instead of a lottery team.



KJ

we've got 17 titles, enough said....still need the players. I would take the best player regardless of position.

17 titles isn't enough to just make players want to play for the C's. The prospective star that would go there would need to feel like they have a chance to win a title there.

If Stevens doesn't prove himself to be a coach capable of building the team into a contender, what star player is going to want to play for him?

Like I said before with the draft, fine, get whoever they want, but it takes a collection of things to go right.



KJ

....bottomline I want one of the young phenoms

I am not with Cow here...sorry man.

We have seen what happens when you go all young players, all top picks....20+ years of mediocrity.  In those lean years the Celtics had LOTS of good young picks - but no veterans wanted to play here, as they had exactly one star (Paul Pierce) to play alongside.  The only reason a free agent would want to come here - is to play with a mix of young and established players.

Al Jefferson is just greedy enough to want to take his game to that disgraceful desert of losing that is the Bobcats.  But really, how many stars are lining up to sign with Cleveland, New Orleans, or Atlanta?

The way forward for the Celtics is building around Rondo, Green, Sully, Bass and Kelly - while freeing up enough salary cap room to bring in an all star and a few more role players.  DA already showed us all the blueprint.

Trading the farm or tanking to get Wiggins will ensure they spend a decade at the bottom of the NBA.

Rather than pin their hopes on free agent superstars, Celtic fans should trust in draft picks, trades, and a few second-level and role player free agents. The top free agents are overpriced, and an experience like the summer of 2007 when Boston landed KG should be considered the exception, not the blueprint.

When it comes to all those draft picks Ainge has stockpiled, some will go to actual picks and some will be used as trade assets. Trading for a young, emerging star, like what Houston did with James Harden, is a better bet than selling your soul to woo a supposedly top flight free agent, but even that is a rare occurrence.

A better model is along the lines of Golden State, where they drafted key pieces Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Harrison Barnes, and Draymond Green, picked up free agents David Lee and Andre Iguodala in sign-and-trade deals, and traded for Andrew Bogut. They've gotten tremendous value by acquiring second-tier players as free agents and through trades.

In a sense, the Celtics already have their "star" in Rondo, and what they need to do is develop the young talent they have, draft wisely, and pick up some key second-tier pieces like the Warriors have. I don't think they necessarily need to get an all-star through free agency or trade, though they can take advantage of an opportunity to do that if it arises.

Outside.

When I say Free Agents...I mean both players who reach free agency and those who are close. Both Ray Allen and KG were not technically Free Agents, but they were near the end of their perspective deals and were ripe for the taking. THAT is the forumla that DA has proven to work.

Not sure the GS formula is that same - as they have added veterans with much smaller impacts on their team than what the Celtics did (or Miami has done) - and rely very heavily on unproven, unbattle tested players like Thompson and Curry vs proven stars like Lebron / KG / Allen / Bosh.

Until Golden State gets anywhere in the playoffs - their model is yet to be proven. I like what they have done. I watched a great game with them vs OKC the other night. In the end, they lost and have showed nothing that tells me that they will get past OKC, Spurs, Clippers, Memphis in the West.

MrKleen,

I just don't think it's advisable to build a plan around the planets aligning and a KG/Ray or LeBron/Wade/Bosh situation occurring. My point is that building deliberately through a series of smaller steps with particular emphasis on the draft and acquiring better-value second-tier talent has a far greater chance of success in building a true contender.

Actually, Golden State won that game against OKC. The Warriors played very well, led for most of the game until Westbrook put them up by one when he made a 28-footer with two seconds left, and then Iguodala made a shot at the buzzer to win it. The Warriors outplayed them.

If the only justification for building a team is winning the title, then no, the Warriors' have shown "nothing." But they beat a very good Nuggets team in the first round and gave San Antonio all they could handle in the conference semis. Iguodala is a major upgrade to their roster, and they now have four guys -- Curry, Thompson, Iguodala, and Lee -- who are go-to guys at crunch time. They have both inside and outside scoring threats, they have a defensive presence in the middle with Bogut and very good overall defense (currently fourth as ranked by basketball-reference.com), and much to my surprise, Mark Jackson has done an excellent job and the team and coach have trust and faith in each other. Their greatest weaknesses are reliance on outside shooting and the vulnerability of Curry's ankles. They currently sit third in the very tough West at 7-3, behind the Spurs and Portland. They are a legitimate contender, which is what Boston needs to work towards.

Outside...you are correct. Two lucky shots really, and the Warriors pulled it out.

Of course the only justification for building a team is to win titles. What else is there? Happy to qualify for the playoffs and sell more expensive seats and hats with playoff patches on them?

I dont mean to diminish the Warriors...I think they are one of the best young teams in the league and constructed in a manner that makes a lot of sense. But until they win big games and a contend on a yearly basis for several years - their theory is just that.

Championship teams need veteran superstars along with young guns. Teams that are too centered in one direction or the other rarely win. Looking back over the last 25 NBA champions, I cant see one where the formula the Warriors are using has worked. Maybe they are breaking the mold, but I wont believe it until I see it.

mrkleen09 wrote:Of course the only justification for building a team is to win titles.  What else is there?  Happy to qualify for the playoffs and sell more expensive seats and hats with playoff patches on them?

But from management's perspective, the objective is to build a team to give you sustained, legitimate opportunities to win a championship. Ultimately, success will be measured by whether you actually win a title, but that isn't the sole measure of whether the path taken to build a contender was the correct one. The Big Three Celtics won a title, but what if they'd lost a game seven in the first two rounds in 2008 or if Pierce's knee injury in game 1 of the finals was a serious one and ended his playoffs and those Big Three Celtics never actually won a title? Do the vagaries of chance that sometimes make the difference between who wins and loses, like whether Ray Allen makes his desperation three at the end of game 6 in last year's finals, justify which way is right and which is wrong? I don't think so.

All management can do is build a team that is in a position to win the title. The rest is up to team performance and luck.

mrkleen09 wrote:Championship teams need veteran superstars along with young guns.  Teams that are too centered in one direction or the other rarely win.  Looking back over the last 25 NBA champions, I cant see one where the formula the Warriors are using has worked.  Maybe they are breaking the mold, but I wont believe it until I see it.

I see several championship teams similar to what the Warriors are doing.

2010-11 Dallas -- drafted their star Nowitski, built the rest of the team around him
Four Spurs champions -- drafted their stars, built the rest of the team around them
Six Bulls champions -- drafted their stars Jordan and Pippen, built the rest of the team around them
Two Houston champions -- drafted their star Olajuwon, built the rest of the team around him

That's the model I'm referring to and what I think the Warriors have done -- draft stars and build around them with second-tier talent and role players. In particular, I contrast that with the objective of acquiring the primary stars through trade or free agency. Even the champions that acquired their stars through trade or sign-and-trade -- the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, Shaq-Wade Heat, KG-Pierce-Ray Celtics, Kobe-Gasol Lakers, and LeBron-Wade Heat -- had one star they drafted. When a team tries to get all their stars through trades or free agency, they end up like the Knicks or the Nets. Maybe the Dwight-Harden Rockets will buck those odds, but they're not off to a good start.

I think the Celtics' best option is to keep Rondo -- a star -- get at least one more through the draft, and build around them. Maybe Green will be that star, but I'm not convinced he is; I'm more likely to believe that he's a second-tier player that can be a key piece in the overall picture.

If the opportunity comes along to get a rising star through a trade, then by all means, the Celtics should go for it, but only if it doesn't come at too high a cost in the other key players they've assembled. But hoping that opportunity materializes is a lousy plan. The best plan is to keep Rondo, use those accumulated draft picks to find a gem, and keep assembling pieces to fit around them. Paul George was the 10th pick, and Roy Hibbert was the 17th. It doesn't have to be a pre-draft darling like Andrew Wiggins.

Hi,
Since the topic shifted to how to become an NBA champion I'll bite.
Again, it assumes that the Celtics are about to be a contender, not just get into playoffs and get out after the 1st or 2nd round.
My understanding is that there could be a few ways to get into that exclusive club. But since Danny is still at the helm he'll go his way. I believe he's going to do what he's already done in 2003-2007. It worked then and there's no compelling reason it will not now. He's in similar position: PP then, RR now, a few talented young pups plus very good positions in upcoming drafts. Sure, there're not that many KGs and RAs he can trade for nowdays, but you never know who'll be available in '14 and '15.

AK