I want to dispel this notion before the season starts.

[greg683x]

for those of you who refuse to call the series close, answer me this...

When KG got into it with Zaza Pachulia in game 4 when he pushed the ref out of the way, how many of you were biting your fingernails the next day waiting for the "KG Suspended" headline on ESPN.com or for it to roll across the bottom of the screen on ESPN.  How many of you said "Oh Crap I hope KG doesnt get suspended."

If you did, then I wouldnt think thats something that would come out of someones mouth, or a thought that would go through the head of someone who thinks this series is a gimmie at that point.

Youre telling me none of you, going into that game 7 in Boston, had a thought in the back of your head, what if the big 3 come out flat?  what if atlanta finally mans up and jumps all over us?  Come on.  Any series that has to go the full amount of games to decide is close irregardless.

[Mr October]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7...

Thats cool. Its kinda pointless to debate this detail at this point anyway.  I do have a follow up question though. The reason this topic was brought

up, is because the experts on BSPN point to this series as to why the Celtics should struggle against the other contenders.

Do you think too much was made of the Atlanta series? Was the Cs team we saw against Atlanta made of the same stuff (confidence, sharpness, chemistry) as the team that we saw against the Lakers in the finals?

Once the series is over the only thing that matters is who won. As I said earlier I think it is reasonable to think that the Celtics almost lost to the Hawks but what does that have to do with what will happen this year or the legacy that the 2007-08 Celtics team has?

They are still NBA Champions and what happened then in that specific series has no bearing on what will happen going forward this year. To me it seemed pointless of the Screaming One to even bring up the point. Because they almost lost to Atlanta last year means they are somehow less of a team this year? As always Smith makes no sense.

To answer your question, I think that the Celtics got better with every game they played and every series they played. Win or lose those games, they learned something new about their opponents and something new about themselves. And they applied it and got better. That goes for the coach, too.

They were a much better overall team and coaching staff after Game 6 against the Lakers than they were before Game 1 against the Hawks. No question, without a doubt. So, yeah I think the national media made too much of the fact that, IMO, the Celtics almost lost that series. The reason being that most brought up the fact in a negative sense and, here is where I think we all agree, we looked at it from the positive side.

They knew better who they were and what they could do and how to come up big when they had to and how to overcome and adapt. All things they may not have learned had they swept the series.

nicely put. And thanks for the followup. TP.

Go Celtics! ...6 more days.

[BballTim]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7.

If there was doubt as to its outcome then it was questionable at that time whether the Celtics would lose that series or not. In a seven game series if you are vastly superior to your opponent then allowing the series to go to seven games means you almost lost because anything can happen in a game seven.

That's my point and the last thing I have to say about it. We'll just have to have constant different opinions regarding the matter.

  The fact that the game wasn't 100% guaranteed doesn't mean that we almost lost. You make "anything can happen" sound like a 50-50 proposition.

To BBallTim: BTW, go back and read what I wrote about asking those people something. I said:

"There's no givens in game 7's. There's no sure things in game 7's. Everything up until that point is thrown out the window because it is winner take all and anything can happen.

Don't believe me, just go ask any professional player of any sport that has ever played in a game 7"

Ask a professional player or coach if anything can happen. Ask a professional player or coach if there are no sure things in game sevens. I never stated to ask them the specific scenario that we are discussing. Never wrote it even once.

To better explain myself let me put it this way. Go ask those people if game sevens have outcomes that before the game have no doubt as to the outcome no matter who is playing and no matter where it is. Ask those people because they have all been a part of historic and sometimes stunning game seven results. 

I don't have to go find quotes on video and in written form to back up the logical answer these people are going to tell you. It's pretty self evident. There's no sure thing in game sevens and if a team is pushed that far in a series then anything can happen and it seems pretty reasonable to say that either team could have won the series and either team could have lost the series.

  It's not self evident. You're claiming that every athlete shares your opinion without backing it up in any way. By your logic, every football team that was in a game that was tied after 3 quarters almost lost that game. Or that the Celts almost lost every game that was tied after 3 quarters. Plenty of players would disagree.

  The leaders of every free nation on earth agrees with my opinion, btw. If you don't believe me, just ask them.

[NoraG1]

Does this then mean that the Hawks are better then both Detroit and the Lakers because Celtics beat those teams in 6? Nothing is cut and dry. The fact is it is very unlikely that Hawks were better then those teams and unlikely that Celtics would lose at home based on what they had done in the Hawks series at home.

[greg683x]

Does this then mean that the Hawks are better then both Detroit and the Lakers because Celtics beat those teams in 6? Nothing is cut and dry. The fact is it is very unlikely that Hawks were better then those teams and unlikely that Celtics would lose at home based on what they had done in the Hawks series at home.

Obviously it doesnt mean the Hawks are better than the Pistons or Lakers.  All it means is that the Hawks faced the Celtics at a more opportune(sp?) time.

IMO, that series being close has nothing to do with the Hawks being as good as the Celtics or as anyone else.  That series had nothing to do with the Atlanta Hawks, and everything to do with the Celtics never having played a playoff series together before, and basically learning on the job how to win a playoff game on the road as a team in a hostile environment.

It was the situation, not the opposing team.  But just because its a situational circumstance, and not the opponet in front of them, you still cant say the series wasnt close.

As far as talent, ability, experience, they Celtics are EONS better than the Hawks in just about every category.  That my friends is not even close.

But was that series close because the Celtics took a step back on road games to learn on the job how to play as a unit in the playoffs on the road, in a hostile environment?  Yes it was.

[nickagneta]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7.

If there was doubt as to its outcome then it was questionable at that time whether the Celtics would lose that series or not. In a seven game series if you are vastly superior to your opponent then allowing the series to go to seven games means you almost lost because anything can happen in a game seven.

That's my point and the last thing I have to say about it. We'll just have to have constant different opinions regarding the matter.

  The fact that the game wasn't 100% guaranteed doesn't mean that we almost lost. You make "anything can happen" sound like a 50-50 proposition.

"Anything can happen" does equal 50-50. Example: Feb 3, 2008 Super Bowl XLII Giants 17 Patriots 14.

The fact that the game wasn't a 100% guaranteed Patriots win beforehand doesn't mean that they couldn't lose it. Many thought the game was a foregone conclusion, much like what you are saying was the case before that game 7.

Go ask Bill Belichick about "anything can happen". I'd love to hear the answer.

[NoraG1]

I think it is 75 to 25. Celtics for every game of that series at home won by a big margin.

[MaxwellSmart]

Does this then mean that the Hawks are better then both Detroit and the Lakers because Celtics beat those teams in 6? Nothing is cut and dry. The fact is it is very unlikely that Hawks were better then those teams and unlikely that Celtics would lose at home based on what they had done in the Hawks series at home.

Obviously it doesnt mean the Hawks are better than the Pistons or Lakers.  All it means is that the Hawks faced the Celtics at a more opportune(sp?) time.

IMO, that series being close has nothing to do with the Hawks being as good as the Celtics or as anyone else.  That series had nothing to do with the Atlanta Hawks, and everything to do with the Celtics never having played a playoff series together before, and basically learning on the job how to win a playoff game on the road as a team in a hostile environment.

It was the situation, not the opposing team.  But just because its a situational circumstance, and not the opponet in front of them, you still cant say the series wasnt close.

As far as talent, ability, experience, they Celtics are EONS better than the Hawks in just about every category.  That my friends is not even close.

But was that series close because the Celtics took a step back on road games to learn on the job how to play as a unit in the playoffs on the road, in a hostile environment?  Yes it was.

Ask Steve Bullpett or Danny Ainge....the REAL reason that series went 7 games was because Doc CHANGED HIS ROTATION that he used all season long( remember Eddie House NOT getting any playing time? )...He finally came to his senses about the middle of the Cavs series----and Walla---The C's were back on track....Didn't anybody actually watch these games???

[KJ33]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7...

Thats cool. Its kinda pointless to debate this detail at this point anyway.  I do have a follow up question though. The reason this topic was brought up, is because the experts on BSPN point to this series as to why the Celtics should struggle against the other contenders.

Do you think too much was made of the Atlanta series? Was the Cs team we saw against Atlanta made of the same stuff (confidence, sharpness, chemistry) as the team that we saw against the Lakers in the finals?

Once the series is over the only thing that matters is who won. As I said earlier I think it is reasonable to think that the Celtics almost lost to the Hawks but what does that have to do with what will happen this year or the legacy that the 2007-08 Celtics team has?

They are still NBA Champions and what happened then in that specific series has no bearing on what will happen going forward this year. To me it seemed pointless of the Screaming One to even bring up the point. Because they almost lost to Atlanta last year means they are somehow less of a team this year? As always Smith makes no sense.

To answer your question, I think that the Celtics got better with every game they played and every series they played. Win or lose those games, they learned something new about their opponents and something new about themselves. And they applied it and got better. That goes for the coach, too.

They were a much better overall team and coaching staff after Game 6 against the Lakers than they were before Game 1 against the Hawks. No question, without a doubt. So, yeah I think the national media made too much of the fact that, IMO, the Celtics almost lost that series. The reason being that most brought up the fact in a negative sense and, here is where I think we all agree, we looked at it from the positive side.

They knew better who they were and what they could do and how to come up big when they had to and how to overcome and adapt. All things they may not have learned had they swept the series.

All excellent points about how that 1st round was instrumental in the C's ultimate success.

I wonder how many here had this view as it was unfolding.  I was as frustrated as anyone about the C's inability to wrap things up in Atlanta, but because of their home dominance, which is most often a sign of superiority in the NBA, I was not super concerned in Game 7 other than the anything can happen dynamic, which is true(a key injury for example). 

My sense at the time, as others were writing that the series was lost in Game 4, etc., was that if they could emerge from what clearly was an overwhelming advantage in every single home game, in a series where they got to play 4 at home, this would be a far greater help down the road than finishing the series quickly.  Many were concluding that even if the C's did prevail, how much weakness this had exposed, we'll never get past the next round, this should never happen to a 66 win team etc., misinterpreting, in my opinion, the forging of their first time playoff identity as established flaws. 

The real almost lost was Cleveland, THAT Game 7 was truly frightening for a C's fan.

[crownsy]

Does this then mean that the Hawks are better then both Detroit and the Lakers because Celtics beat those teams in 6? Nothing is cut and dry. The fact is it is very unlikely that Hawks were better then those teams and unlikely that Celtics would lose at home based on what they had done in the Hawks series at home.

Obviously it doesnt mean the Hawks are better than the Pistons or Lakers.  All it means is that the Hawks faced the Celtics at a more opportune(sp?) time.

IMO, that series being close has nothing to do with the Hawks being as good as the Celtics or as anyone else.  That series had nothing to do with the Atlanta Hawks, and everything to do with the Celtics never having played a playoff series together before, and basically learning on the job how to win a playoff game on the road as a team in a hostile environment.

It was the situation, not the opposing team.  But just because its a situational circumstance, and not the opponet in front of them, you still cant say the series wasnt close.

As far as talent, ability, experience, they Celtics are EONS better than the Hawks in just about every category.  That my friends is not even close.

But was that series close because the Celtics took a step back on road games to learn on the job how to play as a unit in the playoffs on the road, in a hostile environment?  Yes it was.

Ask Steve Bullpett or Danny Ainge....the REAL reason that series went 7 games was because Doc CHANGED HIS ROTATION that he used all season long( remember Eddie House NOT getting any playing time? )...He finally came to his senses about the middle of the Cavs series----and Walla---The C's were back on track....Didn't anybody actually watch these games???

so changing your back up PG also leads to the following in road games:

-makes your starters lackadsical on defense

-makes them all shoot playoff low percentages

-makes one of them go on the worst slump of his career

-makes yoru second year PG so tentitive to go to the rim due to getting his shot blocked that he wouldnt even drive on a fast break

- makes your defensive leader play with the least  conviction i saw all season

- makes your center go back to the ball hogging, shot clock killing big man he was 2 years ago.


huh....i didnt realize the starting 5 were that affected by eddie's minutes.

If he farts in the locker room in pre game, does it through rays shot off for the night? is this like some kind of crazy chaos buterfly effect theroy?

[moiso]

Playing Cassell over House didn't affect all of those things directly, but it certainly decreased the overall attack mode and energy of the entire team.  Eddie is always aggressive and attacking, Cassell was walking the ball up the court and looking for his own shot.
The Celts team that struggled against Atlanta was not the same Celts team that beat the Lakers.  The Altanta series was part of the process of learning to play playoff ball, and we came away a better team because of that.  I think the Celts will be far more efficient in the playoffs this year, and I don't see how the Lakers are the favorites even with Bynum.

[crownsy]

The Celts team that struggled against Atlanta was not the same Celts team that beat the Lakers.  The Altanta series was part of the process of learning to play playoff ball, and we came away a better team because of that.  I think the Celts will be far more efficient in the playoffs this year, and I don't see how the Lakers are the favorites even with Bynum.

this i agree 100% on, but changing sam and eddie around, while it had some effect, was negligable when compared to the putrid preformance that the starting 5 put on in road games that first series.

That had nothing to do with sam. that had everything to do with nerves and learning how to focus on the road in the playoffs.

the sam eddie thing affected the series, but i'd put it at like 5% of our problem. those road games weren't won or lost in the 10 minutes of backup PG playtime, they were lost in the 40 minutes of starter play time.

[moiso]

I think/hope that Rondo's consistency will be a lot better in the next playoffs.  This could help keep us in attack mode a lot more than last year.  I do think a timid (rondo at times) or ball pounding(cassell) point guard has a big effect on the overall fluidity and aggression of the whole team.  Rondo bringing his A-game every night instead of every 2 or 3 games will have a much bigger effect than whoever plays backup point.

[BballTim]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7.

If there was doubt as to its outcome then it was questionable at that time whether the Celtics would lose that series or not. In a seven game series if you are vastly superior to your opponent then allowing the series to go to seven games means you almost lost because anything can happen in a game seven.

That's my point and the last thing I have to say about it. We'll just have to have constant different opinions regarding the matter.

  The fact that the game wasn't 100% guaranteed doesn't mean that we almost lost. You make "anything can happen" sound like a 50-50 proposition.

"Anything can happen" does equal 50-50. Example: Feb 3, 2008 Super Bowl XLII Giants 17 Patriots 14.

The fact that the game wasn't a 100% guaranteed Patriots win beforehand doesn't mean that they couldn't lose it. Many thought the game was a foregone conclusion, much like what you are saying was the case before that game 7.

Go ask Bill Belichick about "anything can happen". I'd love to hear the answer.

  People who thought the game was a foregone conclusion never changed their opinion of the Pats after they beat Washington by about 50 points. The Pats weren't as dominant in the 2nd half of the season or the playoffs. The fact that Bellicheck might have been too arrogant to see the reality of the situation doesn't prove your point.

  And, yes, "Anything can happen" does equal 50-50. But one game playoffs (football) or game 7s aren't 50-50 games. That would imply that the road team or the team with the worst record would win approximately  half of those elimination games. That's not the case. Are you claiming that if they played that 7th game 10 times the Hawks would win 5 (or 4-6) times? If not, then you can't realistically call it a 50-50 game.

[MMacOH]

Considering most people thought the Hawks series was going to be a sweep, I think it is okay if someone says the Celtics were pushed to the brink.  People are always going to look for something negative to say about a champion from the year before.  That's what sells in media.

You guys should be more concerned about the team that really did take you to the brink in the second round last year.    Everyone is quick to point out that Lebron went off in Game 7, which was scary to Celtic fans, just don't forget that the Cavs were a missed 4 foot bank shot (game 1) from winning that series last year as well.

The Celtics are the favorites this year, as they should be, but the East is getting much tougher.  I can't wait for this season to start