Re: Tell me I didn't see this

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@nycap.rr.com>]

Pierce's form was great. But it was a choke big league time. And if you
think the supporting cast contributed, I went to the wrong picnic today!
Williams, Rogers, Battie, and Delk, STUNK. If *anyone* of these guys play
near to their capabilities (we don't ask much from them) we win by 10.

Changing my Celts win prediction from 6 to 7 games. New Jersey is that bad.

DanF

----- Original Message -----
From: "bird" <birdwl@earthlink.net>
To: <Celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Tell me I didn't see this


> > From: Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)
>
> > --- [Bob George] wrote:
> > Give Joisey credit for coming back with a lot of poise after Saturday.
> > But we
> > need to shoot better, defend better, and keep the refs who make calls
like
> > it's still the Philly series the hell out of here.
> > --- end of quote ---
> >
> > Well, I don't think the officiating has reached the Philly series
> > proportions
> > yet - it's nearly impossible to surpass... We're talking USSR-USA gold
> > medal
> > game in Munich '72-kind of officiating....
>
> There were definitely questionable calls, especially in the fourth.  You
> either think Kidd gets to the spot quick enough, or doesn't.  Me, I'm
> going with "questionable, very questionable", *but* the one thing you can
> say about the officiating is that it's curiously consistent.  Not between
> the teams, of course, but inasmuch as Kidd will never be called for the
> block there, probably not be called for the hack, etc.  The Celts need to
> adjust to this, perhaps even draw the refs into some preferential
> treatment themselves (well, for Pierce and Walker, anyway), as they were
> doing at certain points during game four.  Kidd getting the star
treatment,
>   as you say earlier in an unquoted part of your message, is nothing new.
> Pierce and Walker have to learn how to do the same.  It looks as if they
> are learning, but I think, somehow, that the refs have tagged the Nets
> with the "underdog from the East" moniker for this year.  It's no
> conspiracy, but it's a slight edge.  Couple that with the Nets coming out
> and really playing well, especially in light of game three, and the Celts
> digging the usual hole, not getting enough from the supporting cast, and
> not playing good enough defense, especially on the perimeter.  Still, they
> were there with the inevitable chance to win it at the end, and, except
> for some missed free throws, were on the way to another comeback victory.
>
> Can't blame Pierce for the misses, though.  I was prepared to, if he moved
> off the shot, but he stayed in there, had good form, just didn't go in.
> Then, he did the best he could, as far as keeping the team alive and
> missing the second one well.
>
> I actually think the supporting cast played reasonably well.  It's just
> that we expected more of Battie here in the playoffs, and that's his own
> damn fault.  (I couldn't believe Mike Breen: "He blocked it, but too hard.
> "  Too hard, Mike?  Well, he did erase the layup, Mike, but I guess,
> considering he's not Bill Russell and all, that it wasn't the worst play
I'
> ve ever seen.  I mean, geez, the guy was dogging him for not keeping the
> ball in play.  I think we can all agree it's great to do, but it's like
> dogging a guy for making a two-pointer instead of a three.  Aren't the
> announcers supposed to at least jock the guys who are playing well?
> Anyway, where was I?)  Only thing is that last miss as time expired.  And
> Kenny went on a great run there near the end.  Only things are all the
> misses before then.  Rogers did his usual quiet-but-explosive game.  Only
> thing was it just wasn't quite good enough to put him in the mythical
> "Third Option" category.  They played pretty well.  Not good enough.
>
> This one hurts, and it means a necessary victory in Joisey.  OK, let's
> face it, either this game spurs the team on to even greater success, or
it'
> s a nail in a coffin.  Of course, that's pretty obvious and nothing new in
> the playoffs.  It's just that I would have thought NJ to be more
> demoralized, or maybe demoralized for longer, and/or the C's to come out
> with more urgency at the beginning of the game.  (Without the hole, this
> one's easily winnable.  It's not like coming back is the *only* way this
> team has shown us it can win.)  Neither seemed to happen.  This 2002
> Celtics team is very surprising, most often in very gratifying ways; these
> sorts of not-so-tasty surprises are indeed bitter.
>
> Bird
>
> P.S. I can't believe I got through this entire post without using some
> really choice (and creative! and obscene, definitely obscene!) words I had
> picked out.  Ah, the medication must be kicking in... .