When did the Celtics stop using common sense?

[star18]

When you are on a 24-4 run why not take out all 5 players on the court and put in your best 5 bench guys, that is what Doc should have done. We are not going to go on a 34-4 run, the only way we can keep the momentum is to bring in the bench.

[guava_wrench]

When you are on a 24-4 run why not take out all 5 players on the court and put in your best 5 bench guys, that is what Doc should have done. We are not going to go on a 34-4 run, the only way we can keep the momentum is to bring in the bench.

Haha. Love the sarcasm!

It is bizarre to hear people complaining about the players on the court during our run, the time that we normally would have subbed more if not for the run.

[vinnie]

The problem is, Doc subbed for everyone on the court during the run except Rondo and then Rondo proceeded to turn the ball over on three or four crucial plays in the fourth. Everyone else was subbed for during that period except Rondo.

[star18]

"It is bizarre to hear people complaining about the players on the court during our run, the time that we normally would have subbed more if not for the run"
You make absolutetly no sense.  Nobody in the NBA goes on a 34-4 run. Yes we went on a 24-4 run, but towards the end of the run the players on the court are going to get a little tired they are not superhuman.  Sub in all 5 guys of the bench, then if you go on another little run the crowd will go crazy and the team will pick up huge amounts of energy.  You can say all you want about what I posted but the fact is that we played 7 close games in our last 8. We only had 1 blowout. We should have had 3 or 4 blowouts already. You do that with the bench. If one guy gets hot, get another guy hot, its not about just 1 player or a team of 5. Why did we blowout Chicago in Game 3, because Marbury turned things around and went on a run of his own. Because of the bench, that is why we had our only blowout so far in Game 3

[Steve Weinman]

"It is bizarre to hear people complaining about the players on the court during our run, the time that we normally would have subbed more if not for the run"
You make absolutetly no sense.  Nobody in the NBA goes on a 34-4 run. Yes we went on a 24-4 run, but towards the end of the run the players on the court are going to get a little tired they are not superhuman.  Sub in all 5 guys of the bench, then if you go on another little run the crowd will go crazy and the team will pick up huge amounts of energy.  You can say all you want about what I posted but the fact is that we played 7 close games in our last 8. We only had 1 blowout. We should have had 3 or 4 blowouts already. You do that with the bench. If one guy gets hot, get another guy hot, its not about just 1 player or a team of 5. Why did we blowout Chicago in Game 3, because Marbury turned things around and went on a run of his own. Because of the bench, that is why we had our only blowout so far in Game 3

So are we to take it that you weren't being sarcastic?

-sw

[star18]

No I'm not being sarcastic.   Coaches in the NBA play by the book too often. They always do what you are supposed to do and it gets repetitive.  If you go on say an 18-2 run and have huge momentum, take out those 5 guys and put our next best 5 guys out on the court. It will total confuse the opposing team, and then if those 5 guys get it going we can win easily. The thing is if you can win a game easily go for it. Your not going to do it with the same 5 players over and over again it gets stagnant, you have to mix it up and get other guys going.  It is the same thing when 1 player gets hot. 1 player hits 3 or 4 shots in a row and then everybody stands around and watches and expects that player to throw in some off balanced 40 footer for 5 in a row, it doesn't work like that. Get everybody on the court hot. Matter of Fact GET THE WHOLE TEAM HOT THAT IS HOW YOU WIN A TITLE. WE DIDN'T PLAY WITH 5 GUYS LAST YEAR WE PLAYED WITH 12.

[vagrantwade]

Is it Celtic's tradition to hate newer players?

[guava_wrench]

"It is bizarre to hear people complaining about the players on the court during our run, the time that we normally would have subbed more if not for the run"
You make absolutetly no sense.  Nobody in the NBA goes on a 34-4 run. Yes we went on a 24-4 run, but towards the end of the run the players on the court are going to get a little tired they are not superhuman.  Sub in all 5 guys of the bench, then if you go on another little run the crowd will go crazy and the team will pick up huge amounts of energy.  You can say all you want about what I posted but the fact is that we played 7 close games in our last 8. We only had 1 blowout. We should have had 3 or 4 blowouts already. You do that with the bench. If one guy gets hot, get another guy hot, its not about just 1 player or a team of 5. Why did we blowout Chicago in Game 3, because Marbury turned things around and went on a run of his own. Because of the bench, that is why we had our only blowout so far in Game 3

So 24-4 is the limit? Ok to keep the starters in if the run is 20-4, but take them out when it hits 24-4? Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

Regarding game 3 - are you aware that Marbury scored like all but 2 points with a double-digit lead? The bench guys get more minutes in blowouts because they blowouts. You have things backwards. They aren't blowouts because the bench guys play more.

Btw, it isn't clear to me that our guys looked tired at the end of game one. They kept playing hard defense and pushing the ball until the end. In fact, Ray is the only player who hit 40 minutes. Check out the minutes for Orlando. They played much less bench than we did.

Also, did you ever think that if no coach does what you suggest (subbing all 5 guys because they are doing too well to be sustained) it might be because your idea is bizarre and they understand it is a horrible idea? Who knows? Maybe you are the Tony Larusso of basketball.

[slamtheking]

No I'm not being sarcastic.   Coaches in the NBA play by the book too often. They always do what you are supposed to do and it gets repetitive.  If you go on say an 18-2 run and have huge momentum, take out those 5 guys and put our next best 5 guys out on the court. It will total confuse the opposing team, and then if those 5 guys get it going we can win easily. The thing is if you can win a game easily go for it. Your not going to do it with the same 5 players over and over again it gets stagnant, you have to mix it up and get other guys going.  It is the same thing when 1 player gets hot. 1 player hits 3 or 4 shots in a row and then everybody stands around and watches and expects that player to throw in some off balanced 40 footer for 5 in a row, it doesn't work like that. Get everybody on the court hot. Matter of Fact GET THE WHOLE TEAM HOT THAT IS HOW YOU WIN A TITLE. WE DIDN'T PLAY WITH 5 GUYS LAST YEAR WE PLAYED WITH 12.

Just a helpful tip for you to keep some credibility, if someone thinks you're being sarcastic with one of your replies and you aren't being sarcastic, you may want to reconsider what you've just stated.

In this case, your line of thinking is, well, unfathomable to be kind.  No intelligent coach substitutes a complete unit nor is there any link to reality that would suggest taking out a red-hot 5-man unit in its entirety would automatically mean 5 cold (probably) players coming in would carry on an ongoing run.  This doesn't work, period.  You don't have to watch the entire NBA to see this, you could have just watched Doc's tenure with this team when he's done that very type of substitution in the past and it's backfired every time.  There's no continuity of play, no opportunity for incoming players to get in a good flow or to get warmed up for a few plays to be productive while players that have been in the flow can incorporate the new player into the game. 

You can disagree and hold onto your viewpoint -- I don't expect it to change based on what I've stated -- but your viewpoint is one that's not supported in any way by what's actually occurred in an NBA game. 

[guava_wrench]

36-ish seconds left...Why on earth would Pierce dribble the ball out past the 24 second mark?  They were only down by four...they needed a quick shot, some defense and would get the final shot to tie/win the game.  This was a prime 2-for-1 opportunity.  What is so difficult to understand about that?

There were several instances last series that also had me wondering what they were thinking.  When they were up by 3 and didn't foul, allowing Gordon to tie it with a three I almost lost my mind.

Where is this terrible decision-making coming from?

I hated that play. Wanted a 2 for one. Seemed to me though that Pierce was waiting for a play to develop, i.e. for Ray to run through screens. Nevertheless, too much time was wasted.

[Jaycelt]

36-ish seconds left...Why on earth would Pierce dribble the ball out past the 24 second mark?  They were only down by four...they needed a quick shot, some defense and would get the final shot to tie/win the game.  This was a prime 2-for-1 opportunity.  What is so difficult to understand about that?

There were several instances last series that also had me wondering what they were thinking.  When they were up by 3 and didn't foul, allowing Gordon to tie it with a three I almost lost my mind.

Where is this terrible decision-making coming from?

I hated that play. Wanted a 2 for one. Seemed to me though that Pierce was waiting for a play to develop, i.e. for Ray to run through screens. Nevertheless, too much time was wasted.

That's what it looked like to me as well. It looked like Doc called for the play for Ray to get the shot but he was never able to get open.

[Jaycelt]

The problem is, Doc subbed for everyone on the court during the run except Rondo and then Rondo proceeded to turn the ball over on three or four crucial plays in the fourth. Everyone else was subbed for during that period except Rondo.

Impossible.  Pierce played the entire second half. Of course he played less then 15 in the 1st so it's not like he was tired.

[nickagneta]

I too have to question the decision making process of one Rajon Rondo last night.

1.) His matador-reach-from-behind philosophy on a PG that he has obvious speed, quickness and dribbling ability over.

2.) His constantly trying to force passes that weren't there.

3.) His not picking up the ball earlier in the now famous roll-the-ball-up-the-court-to-save-time play.

4.) His dribbling the ball in Sam Cassel fashion for long periods of time before finally initiating the offense.

5.) His showing up one hour before the game, although to be fair if the Celtics allowed it or Rajon had a pressing personal issue, he gets a pass as we have no idea what is happening in his life off the court and it is none of our business.

6.) His not driving to the basket all game long as, except for Howard, the Magic have no one to stand in his way of being successful with this style. Even then, as seen by his near facial on Howard for Howard's third foul, it's a good way of getting a guy who had 21 boards out of the game.

And there are more decisions of his that were not good. What really surprises me is that a game like this comes so soon after a seven game series where Rondo made nothing but great decisions all the time. The man had close to a 5 to 1 assist to TO ratio. Thta's astounding!!!

[ScoobyDoo]

I don't understand and can't stand why this team comes out with such incredible apathy on alot of nights and also on games that would appear to me to be statemetn games. Like last night...

I mean, I can understand maybe they don't play well. But I'm talking about the effort and energy. They baiscally stood around, tossed the ball around and had an incredibly non-chalant attitude in the first half. Baffling, I just don't get it.

You play with intensity, effort, hustle and aggression and you're still playing like crap, fine...but to play with apathy and play like crap, unacceptable.

Can't they tell they're giving no effort.

They did the same thing with Chicago and then turned it on in the second half a few of the games.

Very aggravating.

I suppose if I started sniffing that lack of effort and desire early on I'd sub out the entire first unit and tell them to let me knwo when they were interestd in playing basktball, I might let them back in.

I'd rather loe by 70 with scrubs giving 100% than watch that.

Alos, yeah, so many things last night that were head scrathers to me with rotations, players plays, etc...I couldn't beleive Pierce threw the ball across the court after his steal, that's like BBall 101 in 6th grade, "don't throw the ball across the entire court...

And I think Pierce and Ray are inconsistent because they are dead tired, because Ainge gave us no bench and because Doc has refused to use what bench he does have to get them at aleast 10-12 minutes rest a night all season and into the playoffs becasue he suffers from a lack of knwoing how to mix and match his bench.

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

36-ish seconds left...Why on earth would Pierce dribble the ball out past the 24 second mark?  They were only down by four...they needed a quick shot, some defense and would get the final shot to tie/win the game.  This was a prime 2-for-1 opportunity.  What is so difficult to understand about that?

There were several instances last series that also had me wondering what they were thinking.  When they were up by 3 and didn't foul, allowing Gordon to tie it with a three I almost lost my mind.

Where is this terrible decision-making coming from?

What about inserting "Turnover" Tony Allen into the game? Where's the common sense in that? When he walks to the scorers table/enters the game...I scream "why Doc? Why are you putting him in?". And when Tony touches it I scream "don't turn the ball over or go 1-on-5 Tony!".