Hey criticize Doc all you want. In this case I think he deserves some defense.
There's plenty you can defend Doc about, there's no need to pick up a cause for the sake of defending him.
As I mentioned previously, I have no problem with Doc not playing Williams, but I do question if it was a wise move to do so.
Doc wanted to win the game, so he shorten the rotation - hey, I'm completely on-board with this, but start questioning why play Crawford at all if this was to be.
The only semblance that would make sense is that he wanted to give some time for our guaranteed contract player in Crawford, but that contradicts the wanting to shorten the rotation aspect + the wanted to win aspect because as far as fit and match-ups, Williams was the choice, if a choice between them had to be made.
Which simply adds to the fact that Green was horrible last night, particularly defensively, and on that respect, so was Pierce.
So the winning options in my mind were, limit Green's minutes (which he did, but could've used even less guarding Hayward). Then extend Lee's minutes, and Avery's so that they could guard Hayward through longer stretches, and also use less Terry in the first half. And no Crawford. If none of those works, then the next answer would've been Williams to me so that he could shadow Hayward a bit better, but I'm not sweating that he didn't get any playing time. I do question though the reasoning behind it when considering the Utah match-ups.
And I did see the Portland game, and thought Williams was horrible and quite disappointing, so I understand Doc's reluctance to use him, and I don't blame him for it. Just question if overall it was the correct call. Just because something can be reasoned or forgiven doesn't make it right, or wrong as the case may be. Just as I understood why Doc kept playing Cassell over Eddie House in our championship run, just like I understood why Doc went with James Posey despite us not being enamored with the small ball units.
What is your motivation for the criticism. To show Doc could have won the game easier? Maybe? Because let's face it, just because T Will would have been put in the game guarantees nothing. His entrance into the game for 5 minutes could have cost the Celtics the game.
Hence, why I think criticizing this coach for doing what just about any other coach would have done is ridiculous. After a loss in which Doc's coaching costs us the game...go wild. Timing here is stupid in my opinion as is the nature of the criticism
My motivation for the criticism? What? I thought we were in a discussion board, were people come and argue using their opinions, and sometimes they even use facts.
You know what could've cost us the game? Green and Pierce guarding Hayward for as long as they did, thankfully it didn't because Pierce went wild from the mid-range.
You want to pick a cause to defend Doc? Why not pick on the "play Green over Bass" against Utah crowd because that idea makes zero sense to me, or shouldn't make any sense to anyone who watched the game.
Let me put it this way, forget about Williams, my Doc criticism is that he should've worked better the Hayward match-up. Williams was merely a tool he could've used, a tool which made sense. Maybe that tool wouldn't have worked, who knows, but considering the way Pierce and Green defended him, I think there's a strong possibility he would've done better. But as mentioned, this wasn't his only recourse... Lee should've played more if anything.