Re: [Celtics' Stuff Poor coaching again by Obie loses game

[JB <james.metz@verizon.net>]

   This has become a superb thread, running across both boards like a beam
of light. 
I just got home from work and read through 54 respectful, intelligent posts,
taking both sides of the issue, which concerned O'Brien and whether he is
responsible for the inconsistent; selfish/unselfish  play.
   My first query, is whether O'Brien ever said he wants his players to take
the first shot that showed? I've never read that. He backs up his players
for taking open threes, but never has said it should be a first option. The
only time I remember him addressing the issue directly, he said he preferred
an inside outside concept, for finding open shots from the perimeter.
   On the floor, Walker takes the ball from Anderson, when the team won't
run, to keep up with Kenny, who wants to push the ball. Lance is correct
about this. Why doesn't he sub for Pierce and Walker for five minutes each
half, so they are fresh down the stretch? Why doesn't he try to integrate
the captains talents with a cutting motion offense? These are concerns and
led me to write a few days ago, that O'Brien, as successful as he has been,
might not be the coach to take this team up to championship contending
status. 
   In addition, O'Brien is not as flexible as I'd like to see. He uses a
small lineup at times, with great success. Why doesn't he try a big lineup
at times? What is wrong with a lineup of Walker, Battie and Vitaly/Rogers,
with Pierce and Anderson?
   These questions trouble me, but when all is said and done, I have to say
that O'Brien has gotten more out of the team that I thought he could. I've
posted a poll on the "CelticsStuff" home page as to your vote for coach of
the year. I'm a bit disappointed that more of you haven't voted. I'd like to
know who you think has meant more to their team's success.
   Those that ask for O'Brien to be a taskmaster and sit his stars for lack
of effort, would see this team in shambles. Even Jackson has torn his hair
out, for some of the games the Lakers have mailed in. Could Larry Brown sit
Iverson for choking his offense? Will George Karl last the season in
Milwaukee? Will Pat Riley dissolve in the light of day if he doesn't get
back in his coffin?
    
        JB

Link to current standings:
http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/sports/bkb/1995/nba/nba/stat/2000-01
confstands_lo.html



                Unchain My Heart !





on 3/23/02 5:12 PM, Kestas at Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu wrote:

> At 13:09 3/23/2002 EST, you wrote:
>> How is he NOT maximizing the team's abilities?  Why is the current strategy
>> 'flawed'?  It's not like he has the ability to use an inside game on a
>> consistent basis but he refuses to. We've all witnessed what happens when
> the 
>> C's face teams with a taller/superior front line and they try to go inside.
>> The few times that going inside on a consistent basis works is when the C's
>> have faced a smaller team or a team with no shotblocker
> 
> Steve,
> It's not like there are only two options - go inside or stand around
> waiting for a dump-off from Pierce or Walker to launch a 3. Obie's offense
> relies on spreading the defense by stationing 3-point shooters (or even
> non-shooters like Eric Williams or Pot) behind the line and then dumping
> the ball into Pierce or Walker and having them go one-on-however many
> defenders.  When Pierce/Walker are on, and the 3-pointers fall, it works.
> When they aren't/don't,  there's usually no one to rebound the ball and
> we're one-and-done. There's a reason why we're last in the NBA in
> rebounding differential. We've won 39 games based on our D and the genius
> of Pierce being able to score in almost any situation, and an occasional
> hot 3-point shooting streak. But it's a gimmick, not an effective solution
> on offense, just like Pitino's headless-chicken defense was a gimmick. You
> can't tell me that a motion offense, using plays designed to get the best
> shooters on the team highest-% opportunities wouldn't work better.
> Especially now that we have a bunch of NBA-level scorers on the team. You
> seem to suggest that Obie has done the absolute max. I say he's done well,
> but he could get more out of this team.
> 
>> Are you suggesting that after the 1st quarter of last night's game that he
>> instructed them to stop running and start playing a 1/2 court game of
> walking 
>> up the floor and then firing up ill advised 3's as the clock wound down
>> because neither Battie nor V are legit postup players but he should have
>> continued to go inside anyway to MAXIMIZE the team's abilities?
> 
> No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that an offensive philosophy
> based on taking the first semi-open shot available is not a prudent one,
> especially for a young team.  If this were a viable philosophy, Doug Moe's,
> Paul Westhead's ,and Jerry Tarkanian's teams would've done better in the
> NBA than they have.
> 
> 
>> You predicted the team would win 41 games.
> 
> This was a very conservative prediction,  for me. I had predicted more wins
> in the preceding seasons, even as it was obvious that the Pitino ship was
> sinking. This year I said to myself, they went 24-24 under Obie,  and
> that's without Kenny and Battie. With Kenny and Battie, and the rookies,
> and they should at least be able to break even, if not do a lot better. I
> for once wanted to be wrong by underestimating what they could do, not
> overestimating. I was wrong about the rookie contribution, but it has been
> replaced by substantial contributions from Rogers and Delk. So, they SHOULD
> be able to win in the mid-40s with Obie coaching the team. We don't have a
> good center, but Battie/Pot do average 12/12 combined. We have 2 All-Stars,
> 3 other good players (Rogers, Delk, Kenny), and a few decent scrubs to play
> defense. Does Detroit have a better lineup? Does New Jersey? I don't  think
> so. 
> 
>> Out of curiosity, how many SHOULD
>> they have won in hindsight using your  'X+N'  smarter formula/theory?
> 
> I don't know- whatever I say would be a wild guess anyway.  The best teams
> in the West have wins in the high 40s. We could've done that too, not
> because we're as good as them, but because we play in the East.
> Kestas