Author Topic: First sign of descent?  (Read 10011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2008, 06:05:29 PM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
Everyone please stop blaming Glen Rivers. Even the players are blaming the coach.  Sorry but out of all the major sports Basketball is the one sport that is less effected by coaching.  

in game 4 doc should be questioned for the following:

1- why was bbd in the 4th qtr?
2- why was pj brown in until about the 4 min mark of the 4th qtr?
3- why did doc sit rondo down for approximately 9 min at the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th qtr, after having a solid 3rd qtr and essentially "icing" him for the final 4 minute stretch of the game?
4- doc doesnt run offensive plays, rather he runs offensive sets. why is he unable to develop an offensive set geared towards spacing the floor and promoting movement away from the ball, which would create open lanes to the hoop and open shots?
5- how can u let a sub-par coach like mike brown out-coach you? he has made adjustments on both ends of the floor since returning to cleveland.  while brown makes adjustments, doc remains complacent.

yes the players own responsibility for the poor play, shot selection, and lack of leadership. however, to suggest doc does not deserve blame is ludicris.

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2008, 06:55:45 PM »

Offline MBz

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2203
  • Tommy Points: 30
I havn't been happy with his offensive sets either.  Most of his plays are iso plays, this is what I was worried about.  I want to see cuts to the buckets for the lay ups, we've got slashers, we've got finishers.  I don't want to see Pierce settling for jump shots.
do it

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2008, 08:29:05 PM »

Offline paintitgreen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1104
  • Tommy Points: 154
A few points some of which run together, but I separated it out so people can decide what they disagree with. MBz and dark lord both hit on some of it as I was typing.

1. Coaching matters a lot in the NBA. Not as much as in the NFL, but there's a reason 6 coaches (Phil 9, Pop 4, Riley 3, Chuck Daly 2, Rudy T 2, and Larry Brown 1) have won the last 21 championships, and all were considered excellent coaches before they won titles (except maybe Rudy T but I do think he was pretty well respected). Yes, all of them had stars on their teams, but they implemented systems that won titles. The last coach who arguably rode his team's coattails to victory was our man K.C. Jones. Coaching matters.

2. It's clear many many Celtics fans have no patience for Doc and he has very quickly been blamed for our team's playoff road failures. Essentially, these fans (okay, we fans) see Doc living up to their expectations - when things are easy he's fine, when things don't go according to plan he cannot make the proper adjustments. Those of us who were actually watching the team and were on this board talking about them for the 3-5 years before KG and Ray Allen came to town were almost unanimous in having this fear. For that reason, I admit, the immediate pointing of the finger at him seems unfair.

However, the reasons behind blaming him are wholly rational, not personal, and are based on observations of Doc not just with a stacked roster during this regular season but with a weak to average roster during the seasons before this one. For the most part, Doc's shortcomings in playoff road games match up with his shortcomings in previous seasons.

3. KG's statement is completely on the mark. Doc has completely failed to install any offense that works against a good defensive team. Everybody has pointed to our road defense as a problem during these playoffs. I wholly disagree. The problem is really our offense, a major problem Doc has had throughout his tenure in Boston.

In Atlanta, the Hawks had a great FG% at home because we couldn't execute offensively and Atlanta got their transition offense going, allowing them to take and make high percentage shots. We didn't play great defense during parts of those games, but our inability to run offense led to Atlanta's ability to get a transition game going which affected the percentages I keep seeing on TNT about Boston's poor road defense.

In Cleveland, hey, the Cavs are shooting the lights out. A lot of it is Lebron making better decisions - more good passes, fewer turnovers. And a lot of it is the Cavs hitting shots they normally don't hit. We're making them take the shots we want them to take, they're just making more of them. That happens.

But what's still struggling is our offense. We have not gotten anything going on that end, and it affects us more on the road because there's no home crowd to carry the team through tough spots.

4. Somebody referenced how Doc was telling the players to attack the basket in the fourth and get to the line, so it's their fault not his. Granted, they are partly to blame, but what Doc said was incredibly easy to say. Obviously we should've attacked the basket when we had them in the penalty early in the fourth quarter. You think so, doctor? Stating the obvious doesn't equate to good coaching - making the obvious happen is what makes good coaching.

Doc has never, in all his years in Boston, shown that he knows how to get his players good shots. For 3 years, we were treated to an offense of "give the ball to Paul Pierce and let him try to take his man off the dribble to create offense. Oh, don't worry about moving off the ball." For 3 years, that was not an effective offense.

So what was the offense we used to try to "take it to the basket" last night in a big playoff game? Give the ball to one guy, get out of the way and hope he can take his man off the dribble to create a shot. Except instead of doing it only with Pierce, we just did it mostly with Pierce, but sometimes with Allen, sometimes with KG and sometimes with Cassell. Instead of having one good player run a horribly inefficient and predictable offense, we have multiple good players run a horribly inefficient and predictable offense. Brilliant! That's progress.

Look, the Cavs have played excellent defense and have prevented us from getting to the basket. But Doc pays no attention to that. Doc's plan is to hope one of our guys can just work through the defense instead of running offensive sets that have previously been worked out and allow our players to get to the basket. Hope is not a plan or a set play, two things we lack on the offensive end of the floor. I watch the Celtics in crunch time and it appears as though they've never run any plays together in practice. That's because they're not running actual plays, they're just running Doc's old standby - isolation basketball, which clearly doesn't work against a good defense.

Unfortunately, Doc hasn't made an adjustment, because I don't think Doc can make an adjustment. One reason is his inability to read a game and realize an adjustment is necessary. Another is the fact that he doesn't seem to have any alternative plans to which we can adjust.  

Down the stretch of every LA-Utah game, the Lakers have geared their defense toward stopping the pick and roll, but the Jazz continue to find ways to run it effectively. Why? Because it appears they actually practice it - over and over and over again so they know what to do when it's expected, when it's not expected, when the pass is easy, when the pass is difficult. We just don't have that, and just like I credit Sloan for the way the Jazz can routinely run that play, I blame Doc for his inability to put an offense in play. And he's supposed to be an offensive coach?

This is what KG means in saying they're doing what Doc tells them to do. While Doc might be saying attack the basket, he hasn't installed any offensive sets to get the ball and players to the basket. He just has them give the ball to one player and let him try to take his man off the dribble. Maybe if we had offensive plays geared toward off-ball movement and setting screens, we'd get some open looks. But the Cs are doing what their coach tells them - isolation basketball. It's just not working, sort of like how it hasn't worked the 3 years prior to this season.

5. The offensive problem is magnified in the 4th quarter when defenses, especially good ones like Cleveland's and ours, clamp down. Our horrendous offense is why in 18 fourth quarter possessions last night, our offense resulted in exactly three attempts within 10 feet of the basket. Once, Pierce missed a layup; once, Pierce was blocked by Lebron on a 9 foot jumper; once, Cassell got to the foul line and hit two free throws.

4th quarter offense:
Pierce 12 min., 3-7 FG, 0-2 3P, 0-0 FT, 6 pts, 0 assists, 1 turnover
Allen 7.5 min., 0-1 FG, 0-1 3P, 0-0 FT, 0 pts.
Garnett 7.5 min., 0-2 FG, 0-0 FT, 1 off. rebound, 1 assist
Cassell 8 min., 0-3 FG, 0-1 3P, 2-2 FT, 2 pts, 1 assist
Brown 12 min., 2-2 FG, 4 pts.
Davis 4.5 min., 0-1 FG, 0 pts., 1 turnover
Posey 4.5 min., 0-0 FG, 0 pts.
Rondo 4 min., 0-0 FG, 0 pts, 0 assists

18 possessions - 2 assists, 2 turnovers, 1 trip to the free throw line, 2 field goal attempts inside 10 feet of the basket (with a missed layup and blocked shot to show for it), 5 made midrange jumpers, 5 missed midrange jumpers, 4 missed 3 point shots, 1 offensive rebound. Pathetic. And as much as the guys on the court didn't execute, there wasn't an offensive game plan to execute. Even from just reading the results, it's clear it was just isolation basketball from the fact that only 2 of the 5 field goals we made were assisted (none of Pierce's 3 makes were assisted, both of P.J. Brown's were). That's specifically why Doc screwed up as a coach and why KG is correct in what he said.

6. Before the 4th quarter, our players on many occasions didn't execute when they should have, something that is not Doc's fault. In the third quarter alone, when we could have taken control of the game, Allen and Pierce each missed relatively easy layups and Rondo and Perk each missed a pair of free throws. All that happened within a span of about 3-4 minutes. That's not Doc's fault. Those were high percentage shots that just had bad results. If Pierce and Allen make those layups, and Rondo and Perk just split those free throws, it would have been a 61-56 lead instead of being down 56-55. But that poor execution cost us.

Meanwhile, on the other end, Joe Smith is knocking down 20 foot jumpers (a shot we want to give him), Lebron makes a couple of tough 3s (well, one tough 3, one uncontested), and in the last minute of the game, Anderson freaking Varejao hits 11 and 19 foot jump shots. The Cavs were making shots they, in all honesty, haven't been making and that we have no problem letting them take. No reason to believe we can't keep this defensive effort up with better results in Boston. We played well, we just need to finish on those occasions when we do have easy attempts, because if Doc has shown me anything, it's that he's not gonna create easy looks late in a tight ball game. And that's why it's a scary series now.

7. Now that I've admitted Doc isn't entirely to blame - obviously, while coaching matters, the players have to execute, I'll go back to how badly Doc is butchering this playoffs by pointing out what I perceive to be  ludicrous mistakes Doc has made with personnel decisions.

A. He inserts unused, rusty 10th-12th men at completely irrational times.  He did this in Game 4 of the Atlanta series when he suddenly decided to start the 4th quarter with streak shooter Eddie House, who had played maybe 1 minute during the competitive phases of the series up to that point, playing the point.  I like Eddie, but why?  He did it again with Big Baby in the 4th last night. What was the point? It was a 3 point game, maybe he wanted to wake some guys up, but why insert an out-of-control and out-of-shape (albeit lovable) rookie who has not shown an ability to follow our game plan at such a crucial point in such a crucial game when there's little to no margin for error?

B. He pulls guys from games with little to no explanation. It happened to Powe last night and before, it's happened to Perk and Rondo at various times, and it arguably happened to House when he was yanked entirely prior to the playoffs. This was one of the fans' biggest criticisms of Doc when he was coaching a team of developmental players. The argument was then (as it is now) that while the players might be young and developing, he doesn't help them develop, he just yanks around their minutes at will to "teach them a lesson." (See especially Gomes, Jefferson and Rondo in previous years).

C. He does not give the right amount of rest at the right times. So KG has played a lot and you don't want him running on empty. Fine. But there's absolutely no reason to keep him on the bench for 4 1/2 minutes of game time in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game. 2 minutes would have been plenty. It's a playoff game. It's what he's here for.

D. He has no idea how to use James Posey, by leaps and bounds our best bench player and so far in this series, probably our second best player overall. Doc has shown his inability to utilize Posey in both the Atlanta and Cleveland series. In Atlanta, he was a great defensive cover for Joe Johnson or Josh Smith. In Cleveland, he's our best defensive cover for Lebron (or Wally). Yet, he's only playing 23 minutes a game in the playoffs (including 19 minutes last night and 18 minutes in Game 4 of the Atlanta series, the two losses for which I believe we have the fewest excuses). This doesn't make sense. He's shooting 46.6% from the field, 39.5% on 3s, is clutch and plays outstanding defense. Why is he not on the floor more? He should be playing 30 minutes a night. He can sub in at the 2, 3 or 4, and with KG's ability to play some center minutes, you could have Posey as your primary sub for 4 starters. Yet, last night, he doesn't come into the game until the 1:23 mark of the first quarter and the 3:18 mark of the third quarter. Why are we keeping all our starters on the floor for the entire first and third quarters and resting them in the 4th?? Why on earth did we have two of our "Big Three" on the bench at any time in the fourth quarter, let alone for 4 1/2 minutes. Sub Posey in 6 minutes into the game and 6 minutes into the second half, he can buy you 3-4 minutes for each of the Big 3 WHILE THE OTHER TWO STAY ON THE COURT. It's patently absurd.

E. He doesn't know what to do with Sam. Granted, it's difficult to place a shoot first point guard into an offense that needs ball movement to thrive. But it's not as difficult an adjustment as it seems (and it's not like we have any good ball movement going without him, either). Cassell is a shooter and a scorer. He can make shots that win you big basketball games, and the need for him is apparent by the fact that he was a primary factor in us winning Games 1 and 2. In the 4th quarter of Game 1 and 2nd quarter of Game 2, he essentially won those games.  That said, if he's not making his shots, he's not worth much to you. And we shouldn't be giving him 8 minutes of the 4th to try to work out his shot. If it's not going down in the 2nd or 3rd quarters, don't start him in the 4th. Simple. And if you do have him on because you need that ballhandler, for the love of God, make sure KG or Allen is out there, because those are the only two players to whom Cassell willingly defers. We have too many quality NBA players to be screwing around in the 4th hoping Sam Cassell, who's already 0-2 on the night, will get it going with Davis, Posey, Brown and Pierce.

F. I understand Doc's struggles with House. I like him, but I don't think, in general, you want him there when you're facing any pressure defense because he can't handle the ball. That said, when Cassell can't get his shot going, like he couldn't last night, I would have preferred giving House a shot in the 3rd quarter to see if he could give us some offense. Cassell fills a valuable need because he can handle the ball and House really can't. But when Cassell's not on, he can't be on the court and House can plug away with some minutes and maybe he can get hot to spark the team.

8. My take on the rest of the series - we're still in fine shape, I don't see this series as over, we can easily take any 2 of the remaining 3 games. Our defense is just plain solid. Lebron's not playing poorly, we're just defending him extremely well. I, unlike many, believe that can keep up. I'm not worried about Cleveland putting up monster numbers on the offensive end. I'm worried about us being unable to put up halfway decent numbers on the offensive end. We're playing pathetically on offense. We can and I believe should win this series, but if we don't get offensive sets going, we're going to continue playing mediocre basketball - great defense, bad offense.

Go Cs.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 08:56:27 PM by paintitgreen »
Go Celtics.

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2008, 08:46:33 PM »

Offline threzd

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 172
  • Tommy Points: 12
Long post, but very good, very comprehensive, and I agree with pretty much all of it.

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2008, 08:52:57 PM »

Offline paintitgreen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1104
  • Tommy Points: 154
Yeah, too long.

9. We need our home crowd to show up in a frenzy - not anxious and nervous and waiting for the other shoe to drop like in the old days of the Red Sox, but rocking and loud like in the old days of the Celtics. THe teams are playing roughly the same - home crowds are carrying it, we can't let down.
Go Celtics.

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2008, 09:08:11 PM »

Offline kenmaine

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 753
  • Tommy Points: 25
  • Boston 104, New York 59
Whew, good post paintitgreen. I agree with most, I think. Kind of like a Dostoyevsky novel, I read it but it was so long I don't remember what I read ;)
One point I'd like to make- KG is not perfect, but so what? He's a fantastic player and the fans who want him to be an "inside presence" may be asking for too much. Just not his strength.
One other point- since it's technically possible for the C's to win it all without winning a single road game, would it somehow feel tainted? It almost feels that way, though it shouldn't.


Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2008, 09:11:59 PM »

Offline NoraG1

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1350
  • Tommy Points: 108
Whew, good post paintitgreen. I agree with most, I think. Kind of like a Dostoyevsky novel, I read it but it was so long I don't remember what I read ;)
One point I'd like to make- KG is not perfect, but so what? He's a fantastic player and the fans who want him to be an "inside presence" may be asking for too much. Just not his strength.
One other point- since it's technically possible for the C's to win it all without winning a single road game, would it somehow feel tainted? It almost feels that way, though it shouldn't.



Winning a championship no matter how should not be 'tainted' if they get that far and win they will deserve it no matter what it took to get it.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 09:21:05 PM by NoraG1 »

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2008, 09:19:47 PM »

Offline paintitgreen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1104
  • Tommy Points: 154
Sorry, a lot on my mind. I keep meaning to cut down posts, but it's my way of venting. Really just personal therapy.

I agree with NoraG. To me, it won't be tainted at all if they go 16-0 at home and 0-12 on the road. 16 wins is 16 wins. A championship is a championship. We played the regular season to get that advantage, if that's what we use to win it all, then other teams should've beaten us more then.
Go Celtics.

Re: First sign of descent?
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2008, 09:33:35 PM »

Offline kenmaine

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 753
  • Tommy Points: 25
  • Boston 104, New York 59
Hi guys, thanks for calling me on the dumb "thought" that I posted. Of course it wouldn't be tainted to win the title by winning every home game and none on the road. I'll take that anyday, and I was really just throwing it out there as a question based on the general negative tone today.

 As for me, I don't like the way they're playing- it's ugly, slow, and boring. But I suppose that's just "playoff basketball".
Anyway, right now it's sure not coming easy, but it's still 2-2 with homecourt advantage against a so-so team, so I'm optimistic about this series at least, and hopeful that, while there may be some "dissent" there won't be a descent.