POST GAME - WASHINGTON - HOME

It's still all about the team.  One theory would be that his teammates have a tendency to shrink with the game on the line, so Crawford feels the urgency to step up his own offense, perhaps because he knows he's not a sufficiently accomplished PG to improve others' games as much as they'd need to improve them to be truly effective in crunch time.

Yes, Jeff Green made great one game-ending play early in the season.  But then is not now.  More recently he horribly bricked a shot when he couldn't get to the hoop in the last five seconds; and he couldn't even get fouled—at least enough for the refs to call it in that situation.  And, just before that, Bass had tried to back in and was at such a loss that Brad had to call timeout.  Who on the team, other than Jordan Crawford, has the ganas to want to take the last shot with the Celtics a point behind?  Maybe Sully, but he's probably being defended by a taller player, which lowers his likelihood of success at the big moment.  Maybe Bradley, but much more likely via a jumper than a higher percentage drive to the hoop.

So what I'm saying is that, during main portion of the game, there's only a reasonable amount of pressure on the offense.  Jordan can focus on passing first and shooting when he's open, and his teammates can seek their comfort zones.  At the end, when pressure mounts, the usual roles go to hell in a hand basket, and Jordan Crawford is one of the few (if not the only) one who relishes stepping up.

Sam

BobH,

Did Gorman hear that?  Did a sideline reporter tip him off?  Or did he just assume it?

Sam

any team that has to rely on Jordan Crawford as their go to scorer in the clutch is a losing team

sam wrote:BobH,

Did Gorman hear that?  Did a sideline reporter tip him off?  Orr did he just assume it?

Sam

sam,

I don't know if Gorman heard Brad yelling on the sidelines next to him or if he he had a waking dream. All I know is that I heard him say it real time during the game.



bob


.

Sam,

I hear you and you would be correct if it was 2015 - 2016..............but are we not in a phase of building a new team where we are in the position to offer opportunities to experiment and measure talent?

112288

112288,

There's a difference between development and experimentation. In the basketball world, development usually presupposes that, at some point, experiments have to give way to some orderly measurement of progress and determination of what direction to take next. I suspect Brad considers that experimental period to have passed well before now.

I've posted many times that basketball players are not toy soldiers who can be yanked in and out of a rotation without expecting consequences. Every time an experiment occurs, one consequence is that it can create discontinuity affecting team performance. Remember a couple of years ago when I was talking about how badly discontinuity (e.g. through loss or return of an injured player) could mess up even a team of veterans who had some history together? Well, this is not exactly a team of veterans who have had some history together.

These guys are having so much difficulty gaining even enough stability so their progress can be measured with some degree of validity. To an unfortunate extent, their trick or treat tendencies make every day Halloween for them. The last thing they need is to be disrupted by a guy whose time for experimentation passed earlier in the season (including preseason and in-season games and practices).... a guy who is probably so frustrated at his lack of floor time that he appears to have a personal agenda—to impress—whenever he is on the floor. This is the time of the season when they need an accumulation of team thinking rather than individual thinking.

Sure, Brad could experiment for a while with Brooks. Then he could experiment for a while with Bogans. Then he could experiment for a while with starting Pressey. Then he has a roster spot available to bring someone in from Maine and experiment with him for a while. The Celtic could go through the rest of the season in a condition of permanent hot and cold running upheaval. Would they then be in a position to draw valid conclusions about what they need in the draft, the free agent market, and trades?

Not as well as if they had given a lot of run to a reasonably set rotation that encouraged stability and synergy rather than mayhem and discord. At least then they’d know the team had done their best together, and they’d be able to discern (with confidence) in what areas their best didn't hold sufficient potential and changes were needed.

As that noted basketball authority, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, once said, "It's good to be a seeker. But sooner or later, one must become a finder." It’s difficult to draw conclusions when the entire scenario is frequently being interrupted with experiments that often affect not simply the experimentees but also the performances of all the experimentees’ teammates.

Had Asik been acquired for Lee and Bass, I could have accepted the kind of discontinuities the changes might have created because those changes were being incurred for such an ultimately good reason. I could see where the availability of a rim protector, rebounding force, "got your back" defender would have eased the way for the entire team to be put in a better position to succeed in positions and roles at which they felt most comfortable.

Sam

Sam,

I guess we agree that we disagree.  However I will leave this topic with this note.  

Brooks right now has no value to draw interest.  If they play him and he produces two things happen:

1) They have a player who may provide offense and be a service to the Celtics moving forward;

2) He creates value through his play and performance which gives Danny another player WITH VALUE to use in a trade.

112288