Re: is there...

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Er, Steve, um, uh, could you please PLEASE propose a stupid trade or demand that Vin sit so Kendrick can get 30 minutes a game, or something. I um, well, I get ...twitchy... when someone on the list has a whole succession of posts I agree with and think show nothing but good sense <g>

Seriously, I agree about the determination to find fault. What if he went to someone else and they missed. can't you hear the screaming about why not go to your best player in the clutch. 

People seem to be ignoring that this is a lot of the same behavior people screamed about with Paul during the past couple of years and especially in the playoffs. I think part of the problem then was fear of never getting the ball back from Antoine. I think part of the problem now is trying to figure out his own role. He's not Antoine, for good and evil, and I think partially from trying to take over some of Antoine's role (for which he's really not suited - a different game and personality), partially from the other changes with the team, he's trying to do too much. That's screwing up his own game and frustrating him and when that happens he responds by forcing things. You can practically FEEL the frustration.  He'll get over it. it's only 5 games into the season and about 2 weeks after the trade, on top of the other changes.

Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx
Sent: Nov 8, 2003 1:24 AM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: is there...

In a message dated 11/7/03 9:03:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
kkv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> >Coaches coach. Players play. O'Brien had nothing to do with Pierce's 
> failure >to execute and him committing three critical TO's at crunch time. I'm not 
> >suggesting he coached a perfect game and your disdain for him is well 
> documented >but I'm sorry, you can't pin this loss on O'Brien.         
> 
> 
> Well then, if Pierce was going off on his own and disregarding the game 
> plan,  then why didn't Obie yank him? Pierce played 43 mintues, and the entire 
> second half. Either way you want to have it, it's still Obie's fault - he 
> either told Pierce to play one-on-five, or allowed it contrary to his wishes.  The 
> only question is Pierce's part in it. - Kestas


Yank him so that the legion of Obie haters on this list could then second 
guess him just like you're doing? Either way in your eyes he's damned if he does 
and damned if he doesn't.  

Kestas, the game wasn't lost in that sequence you are citing in the second 
quarter. It was lost down the stretch with the score tied 82 - 82 and Pierce's 
succession of poor decisions and TO's over the course of the final 3 1/2 to 4 
minutes of the game.

And since you insist on questioning Pierce's part in that sequence, can there 
really be any question about Paul's part in it to begin with?  Nobody on this 
list, you included, is gullible enough to believe that OBrien purposely told 
Pierce: "Paul, on the next 4 possessions I want you to go one on five come 
hell or high water. Don't pass, don't drive and dish, don't do anything but put 
the whole team on your back and try to win this game right here and right now 
in the 2nd quarter before intermission. Whatever it takes, whatever bad shots 
you have to force or whatever TO's you have to commit while trying, win this 
game for us before half time all by yourself."

And I don't understand the hang-up about 43 minutes for Pierce, either. So 
what?  Like I said, it's obvious some folks are determined to find fault with 
OBrien no matter what he does. People scream when Walter gets minutes and he 
only played 4 minutes tonight. EWill is out. Kedrick got 35 minutes, Jiri got 10 
minutes, and Jones, coming of an injury to his hammy got 8 minutes. Who else 
is going to play for Pierce that could Obie have used but didn't?  Kidd played 
41 minutes and Kittles played 40 minutes. What's the big deal about Pierce 
getting 43?
                
CeltsSteve