atlanta game

[Ryan W]

Well said, Steve.  I've been disappointed these last 2 games (moreso on Thursday, after we gave that game away), but the signs are still there, provided we tweak things a bit.  

A lineup change is in order.  The silver lining of these recent losses is that they might help Doc realize that.  The crux of our issues are three-folded--not enough touches for Ray (which causes him to force things and commit turnovers and kill our ball movement), too many touches for House/Sheed, and a huge lack of perimeter defense.  Swapping TA for Ray in the starting lineup addresses all 3 issues. 

My big gripe, as stated in another post, is the extension of the 2007-2008 narrative (i.e., we're the big 3, we're all going to sacrifice shots to win, while having defensive discipline because we don't have to play as hard to get buckets).  The only leg of that narrative that still stands is the defensive one.  2 of the Big 3 have declined to non-Big status, one by age, the other by health.  It no longer makes sense to play them together; in fact, it makes sense NOW to funnel the ball to the one guy who's still BIG (Paul Pierce) and start giving more opportunities to the guy who's NOW moved into the Big 3 (Rondo).  It was awesome when Ray, Paul, and KG were each getting 12 shots a game...because usually 2 of the 3 had good games.  Now, we are lucky if ONE of them does, so it's not as cool when we're sharing shots at such an equitable rate. 

SO, yeah, the narrative has changed, and Doc needs to pull his head out of his ass and realize what's happening.  As I said above, the one narrative leg that still resounds is the defensive one, so if I were Doc I'd lean on that for the time being, especially in terms of my guiding substitutional philosophy--this means more time for TA (and Daniels, when healthy) and less time for Ray and House.  This means that Perk finishes games and we don't have to be subjected to 'Sheed's half-assed attempts at defensive rotations when the games on the line.  This means we put TA in the starting lineup to give us a perimeter defensive presence to start the game.

Last, the biggest change in the narrative between 07-08 and 09-10 is the emergence of Rondo.  The ball needs to go through him and the substitutional pattern needs to be tweaked to get more out of him--he's our best player now and we should put most of the offensive weight and responsibility on his shoulders. 

Best example of Doc's shortsightedness on this point?  3rd quarter against the Hawks, when we basically isolated Pierce the ENTIRE quarter.  Now, Paul definitely responded and we definitely got back into the game because of it.  The problem was, it basically NEUTERED the entire offense as a result.  We isolated Pierce all quarter, had about zero player movement, no picking, no passing, and you know what happened?  When Pierce rested, we had ZERO FLOW on the offensive end.  What's worse, Doc inserted the ENTIRE 2nd unit at about this time, saying to them: "Yeah, I know you don't have a real point guard leading you and I know we just spent the entire quarter isolating Paul Pierce, but still I expect you to play team offensive basketball, move the ball, set picks, and make jumpers."  What happened? We couldn't score and the Hawks went up by 10 in about a minute and a half.

You can't just flip a switch and play a whole new brand of offensive basketball with a whole new set of (lesser) players and expect it to work.  Yet, that's what Doc's substitution and offensive philosophy did last night. 

Of course, after the game, Doc blames the 2nd unit and pats himself on the back for 'getting Paul going'.  Yeah, good one Doc.  You got Paul going with a strategy which basically doomed us to lose the game.

When was the last time we won a game with a Pierce-centric, isolation-based offensive game plan?  I'll tell you--it was the 4th quarter against in the Nets in early November.  And I'll tell you something else--that's pretty much the only team against which that'll work.  Otherwise, a Pierce-dominated offense is basically a guaranteed loss and has been so since LAST SEASON.  And do you know what we do on offense pretty much 99% of the time when we win?  We put the ball in Rondo's hands and let him create.  Yet our coach was happy, very happy indeed, to basically abandon our one and only winning offensive strategy in order to 'get Paul going.'   Sure, it got us to within 3 and momentarily threw the Hawks off their game.  But it's a losing philosophy.

Doc likes to talk about growing and getting better--there's only one way to do that and it's by putting the ball in Rondo's hands.  EVERY other game plan is a stubborn and ultimately stupid denial of the fact that it's no longer 2007.  

Ryan



--- On Fri, 1/29/10, steve knight <stevebknight at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: steve knight <stevebknight at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: atlanta game
> To: celtics at igtc.com
> Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 11:33 PM
> bummer we lost, but an encouraging
> loss for several reasons: 
> 
> • tony allen is coming on. becoming more and more
> consistent. would love to see doc switch lineups and start
> tony, bring ray off the bench
> • paul looked as good as i've seen him all year
> • garnett is getting his legs, looking better.
> • baby is coming along. will be peaking as we near the
> playoffs. 
> 
> reasons not to be happy:
> • doc's rotations suck. i can't understand why when we're
> getting hammered on the boards he sends in scal instead of
> sheldon. makes no sense. 
> • eddie is not getting it done
> • can we please cut back on ray's minutes and get baby
> and tony more? 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> celtics at igtc.com
> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics