Eddie Down the Stretch

[nickagneta]

I couldn't disagree with you more, nick.  How many possessions were affected by on the ball pressure?  Two?  He didn't have any turnovers, and had two assists, a number only surpassed once by Sam in his 19 playoff games.  His shots, while not falling, were all generally pretty good looks. 

He only took two shots down the stretch.  Should he pass up wide open shots in favor of passing to a struggling KG or Pierce (8-for-35 combined)?  I can see the complaint if he was shooting when covered, or early in the shot clock, but Eddie wasn't doing either.

Eddie's contributions might not look great on a stat sheet, but the fact is the team outscored the Lakers by 7 when he was in there.  In the 3:34 stint in the fourth quarter when Eddie was replaced by Rondo, the team was outscored by seven, which proved to be the difference in the game.

For a point guard who was so ineffective on both offense and defense, it puzzles me that the team was +7 in the second half with him, and -7 without him.  It baffles me that despite that 14 point swing, Eddie could be accused of possibly shooting us out of the game.  Could it be -- unlike with Sam -- that Eddie does other things on the court that help his team win?

Sam was not the answer either. And Eddie isn't the reason for the loss. And I don't care what the +/- says, he played bad. The pressure effected more than 2 runs up the floor. And comparing his work as being good using a woeful Sam as the comparison is kinda ridiculous.

Eddie had to play well because he played ever so slightly better than a horrible Sam Cassell doesn't exactly sound like singing the praises of an All-Star.

Eddie shouldn't have been shooting because others should have been. Pierce shouldn't be throwing cross court passes to Eddie so that Eddie can take a shot he hasn't hit in a month. When was the last time Eddie hit a 15-19 foot shot. All his shots made recently have been threes.

Sorry but Eddie's +/- in this game was horribly deceptive and saying that he played well because he happened to play better than Sam Cassell has been playing is comical, IMO.

Wow you said Eddie House played bad?  I guess you only take into account shooting the basketball and not the other aspects of the game?  I'm still trying to see how bad Eddie House played.  If you want to talk about bad play you need to start with Paul Pierce and end with Paul Pierce.  Even some of the fouls that Pierce had was stupid and cost the team.

Pierce played bad. And looked bad, hurt I mean. No jump, no lateral movement. I did not like the way he moved last night.

KG had a horrible shooting night and made bad offensive decisions. He was emense on the defensive backboards and had some great blocks though.

No one else really impressed me with their play and Eddie wasn't good. He's a PG and he cost the team several very important possessions with his poor handling of pressure and some rushed, ill-timed shots. And he didn't give the team anything defensively or on the boards that Rondo, even hurt, couldn't have given us.

He's not the reason we lost. But he's not the reason we had a chance to pull out that game at the end either.

[wdleehi]

House played like a cold shooter.


But his defense was good enough.  His pushing the ball was ok. 


The spacing he created for KG in the low post was a key in the 3rd quarter run. 

[Ersatz]

House, unlike Cassel, plays in the flow of the offense. He missed a lot, sure, but he hasn't played in three weeks. Next game he makes those shots. Plus his defense and energy were invaluable. And he helped spread the floor. Like in game 7 against Cleveland, that was a great 25%-shooting performances.

[reggie35]

I couldn't disagree with you more, nick.  How many possessions were affected by on the ball pressure?  Two?  He didn't have any turnovers, and had two assists, a number only surpassed once by Sam in his 19 playoff games.  His shots, while not falling, were all generally pretty good looks. 

He only took two shots down the stretch.  Should he pass up wide open shots in favor of passing to a struggling KG or Pierce (8-for-35 combined)?  I can see the complaint if he was shooting when covered, or early in the shot clock, but Eddie wasn't doing either.

Eddie's contributions might not look great on a stat sheet, but the fact is the team outscored the Lakers by 7 when he was in there.  In the 3:34 stint in the fourth quarter when Eddie was replaced by Rondo, the team was outscored by seven, which proved to be the difference in the game.

For a point guard who was so ineffective on both offense and defense, it puzzles me that the team was +7 in the second half with him, and -7 without him.  It baffles me that despite that 14 point swing, Eddie could be accused of possibly shooting us out of the game.  Could it be -- unlike with Sam -- that Eddie does other things on the court that help his team win?

Sam was not the answer either. And Eddie isn't the reason for the loss. And I don't care what the +/- says, he played bad. The pressure effected more than 2 runs up the floor. And comparing his work as being good using a woeful Sam as the comparison is kinda ridiculous.

Eddie had to play well because he played ever so slightly better than a horrible Sam Cassell doesn't exactly sound like singing the praises of an All-Star.

Eddie shouldn't have been shooting because others should have been. Pierce shouldn't be throwing cross court passes to Eddie so that Eddie can take a shot he hasn't hit in a month. When was the last time Eddie hit a 15-19 foot shot. All his shots made recently have been threes.

Sorry but Eddie's +/- in this game was horribly deceptive and saying that he played well because he happened to play better than Sam Cassell has been playing is comical, IMO.

Wow you said Eddie House played bad?  I guess you only take into account shooting the basketball and not the other aspects of the game?  I'm still trying to see how bad Eddie House played.  If you want to talk about bad play you need to start with Paul Pierce and end with Paul Pierce.  Even some of the fouls that Pierce had was stupid and cost the team.

Pierce played bad. And looked bad, hurt I mean. No jump, no lateral movement. I did not like the way he moved last night.

KG had a horrible shooting night and made bad offensive decisions. He was emense on the defensive backboards and had some great blocks though.

No one else really impressed me with their play and Eddie wasn't good. He's a PG and he cost the team several very important possessions with his poor handling of pressure and some rushed, ill-timed shots. And he didn't give the team anything defensively or on the boards that Rondo, even hurt, couldn't have given us.

He's not the reason we lost. But he's not the reason we had a chance to pull out that game at the end either.

Agreed on Pierce, he was coming up short on a lot of shots which to me points to legs. I'm worried that his knee has caught up to him.

I disagree on Eddie though. True, he didn't shoot the ball well, but I'm not surprised since he's been used so sparingly. He did, however, open things up quite a bit which was a big factor in the 3rd quarter run. When Rondo was in there, Kobe was roaming around bothering the offense. The Celtics need to figure out a way to deal with that because I expect more of the same in the next game, if Rondo plays.

[Mr Mark]

I, for one, was very happy to see Eddie in da house!  He was part of the chemistry that got the Celtics their great winning record.  He was a great role player, and then Sam I Am came.  Sam comes in to add offense, but he hasn't delivered better than Eddie has.  When Sam comes in, he looks to shoot and the whole Celtic pick and roll, move the ball, and drawing double teams and passing that is trademark Celtic Offense goes out the window and they get a whole new tempo, that is forced and ineffective.  Scrappy Eddie was hustling on both ends, he was the short man grabbing the rebounds and moving the ball and shooting.  I think that he complements Rondo's game in that he provides offense and scores.  They still leave Rondo open as if he is not a shooting threat.  I'm glad to see him shoot more, but it is a part of his game that he will have to develop in his third year.  I say, let's give Eddie some more minutes and get him to a place where he can contribute big minutes off the bench the way PJ and Leon have.

Don't dispair fans, we've seen the Celtics defense do what it must to win this.  That is where our strength is.  With KG and Paul's shots not showing up, we had a nice lead in this game.  We will get a win in LA and we will win it in the Gaaaden!  Go Celtics!

[acieEarl]

ill take house any day than old Cassell. the issue is that he takes too long brining the ball up. they had screens set for him early 3rd and it worked, but they went away from that in 4th Q. if he can't bring the ball let ray bring it up, or just set screens for him. house spaces the floor for KG, and that crucial.

I hear you on this one. House missing his shots is still better than any of Cassell. One of the biggest reasons for giving House minutes is that he can bring up the ball against this team. Lakers don't have a pesky Linsey Hunter type of guy on that team that is going to strip him of the ball. The spacing did seem better with House but Rondo's still the man at the PG. I would have like to see the line up of Perk, KG,Pierce,Posey, and Allen. Allen and Pierce could bring the ball up on and Posey gives you that added defense + a guy who could knock down that open 3 to keep the floor spaced. I love House but because he's short which is why he needs to be wide open to get off his shot.

[Redz]

House played fine.  Just about about everything he put up was a good, open shot that you'll take your chances on with him.

[jay_jay54]

House played fine.  Just about about everything he put up was a good, open shot that you'll take your chances on with him.

Redz,i agree with you here...think the gas prices out west must be higher than the east coast,because it look like we (Celtics)simply ran out of gas in the fourth.