A couple blowouts & Momentum

[ScoobyDoo]

If there is one encouraging thing I can hang onto over the last few weeks is the fact that we have blown out two teams that WE SHOULD blow out; Indiana and Detroit.

What it says? It says, possibly, that we are starting to show show the willingness to put forth the effort required to beat the teams we should, and to beat them badly. It's a  "possible" stepping stone that says perhpas we are starting to get focused. I am "hoping" that committment to focus and effort against lesser compeitition will start translating to to games against the best competition; we will soon find out on our upcoming road tip and home game against Denver.

You have to start somewhere and usually it's at the bottom and upwards from there.

2. The memphis game was due to a complete alck of focus and energy, not talent or ability. I see it as a rather digusting anomaly.

3. The Cleveland game? Just watched it last night. I now know why we lost. Our lineup when Clevland opened the game up?

Rasheed with baby( which should never happen IMHO), TA, Quis and Nate. Enough said. That is not a lineup I would ever entertain actually, NOT EVER IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE; let alone against Cleveland, in the 4th, with LeBron on the court.

But that leads me to an earlier claim I made; I am more concerned about Doc's ability to decrease our chances of winning with his rotations, substitution patterns and inability to adjust in real time than I am about whether the player have the talent (they do) or the will(probably) to step it up when it's on the line in a month or so.

I am more concerned about the former than the latter.

My Evidence? If you are on the road against Cleveland, in the 4th, LeBron and most of their starters are on the floor, the Cavs are starting to open it up AND YOU ARE ONA MAJOR SCORING DROUGHT...instead of a lineup of:

Rasheed / Baby / TA / Marquis and Nate ( I mean who, outside of possibly Nate and Rasheed on the post, keeping in mind that Sheed and Nate were both stinking it up pretty good on Sunday) even haas a cahnce in that lineup of amnufacturing a high quality shot?)

Might you go with the following to tray and score some baskets:

Perkins / Garnett / Finley or Pierce / Ray and Nate?

Have we ever seen Nate with Pierce and Ray?
Or Big baby with Perkins?
Or Rasheed with Shelden?

Or KG / Baby / Pierce / Ray and Nate when we are really having trouble scoring? Maybe put five guys out there at the same time who are all fairly good offensive options on their own and see what happens?

maybe try it, DOC!!!?

Or conversely, if we're gettign toated put an all defensive team out there:

Perkins / KG / Pierce / TA and Rondo

Maybe try something new? EVER!?   

[ScoobyDoo]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

My main point was, you have to start somewhere when "gettign your crap together" and seeing two consecutive blowouts of teams we whould blowout is something I havent' seen since early in the year.

I amd "cautiously optimistic" that their might be some smoldering embers finally lit under theri collectives asses and that those emebers "might" continue to grow into a fire that puts them back where, frankly, I think they should be.

That is, if healthy and mentally dialed in, clearly the ebst team in the league, easily IMHO.

And that is waht has been so frustrating to watch this team all year. They have massivly underperformed and I've never thought it was due to age. Injuries a little but not age, it has mostly been the mental edge.

Starting to blow ou teasm you should, shows some sort of edge is forming.   

[Tai]

And honestly?

I think the only reach Doc plays 5 bench players now is because he's actually been listening to you guys when you've complained about running the Big 3 into the ground with too many minutes. 

[Ersatz]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

[ScoobyDoo]

Tai, it's not from Doc reading my post here; I have his cell phone number and we also Tweet alot. 

[ScoobyDoo]

Agreed that seeing some differnt lineups together would be nice.

Also I understand resting the big three, completely understand that and am on board with it.

But instead of :

Rasheed / Baby / Daniels / TA and Nate

Couldn't we sometimes try a little more aggression on the boards and more firepower at the wings when we are going 1 for 16?

Maybe, then:

Perkins / Baby / Finley / Quisy or TA / Nate

Or
Rasheed / Shelden / Finley / Quisy or TA / Nate

It just seesm that having both Marquis and TA on the floor at the same time isn't very good, zero outside shooting form the wings...

I'd really like to see some basic 101 creativity

maybe TA and Nate when Pierce or Finley are in.

maybe Marquis at small when Ray is in

But not TA and Quisy at the smae time when you're in a scoring slump...

Or maybe all toughness combos with Perk and either Shelden or Baby

Rasheed and baby is just too soft for me.

Baby is tough but he's not nasty.

That's why I like Baby with Perk better and Shelden with Rasheed better. Better compliments.
or

same with the TA / Marquis rotation. Put them along side a shooter, a slasher with a shotter at all times.

You cna still do this while playing your biug three 30 or under...

just rambling...

[BballTim]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

  He's also trying to load up on the minutes for Nate and Finley to get them integrated into the team.

[vinnie]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

  He's also trying to load up on the minutes for Nate and Finley to get them integrated into the team.

Yeah -- as shown by the 8 minutes Nate played against Cleveland Sunday.

[BballTim]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

  He's also trying to load up on the minutes for Nate and Finley to get them integrated into the team.

Yeah -- as shown by the 8 minutes Nate played against Cleveland Sunday.

  He's averaging 16 minutes a game for us, but the only game out of the 12 he's played less than 10 minutes shows that I'm wrong. The bench got killed in that game, but no matter. Complain when they don't go all out to win the regular season games against other contenders, then complain when they don't play the backups enough against the Cavs. You're nothing if not consistent.

[Neurotic Guy]

We don't know all of Doc's reasons for his decisions, but I have always believed that Doc has forgotten more about NBA basketball than I'll ever know. While I understand the Doc criticisms, I take them with a grain of salt.  My guess is that the team will do better with Doc coaching than anyone here. By no means am I saying that folks don't have the right and reason to criticise -- clearly they do, but at least acknowledge that Doc may know things about his team that we don't know, and may have a long-range plan that may make perfect sense given what he knows (and perhaps we don't) about his players.

Back to good signs and bad signs, I think the worst sign of all is that the starters seem to be outplayed in the first quarter with great regularity.  They continue to give up great looks leading to high shooting percentages by their opponents and always having to dig themselves out.  They used to have the best starting 5 in the NBA -- and I think they can get that back -- but I'd really like to see them show some first quarter dominance.  As for the OPs initial point about it being a good sign that they had a couple of wire to wire blowouts, I agree.  At least against a couple of bad teams they were able to dominate and keep the gas to the floor -- which they clearly hadn't been doing for months.  

[ScoobyDoo]

Agreed re Doc probably having forgotten more about NBA basketball than I'll ever know, that's a fact.

But...

I liken it to alot of the trades that happened over from the early 90's to 2000 or so, like:

1. Our #8 and Andrew Declerq for Potapenko.
and
2. Joe Johnson and change for Rodney Rodgers and Tony Delk ( a Rodgers who we knew wouldn't re-sign with us and a Delk who was the definition of an NBA journeyman).

It was crystal clear to me that:

1. Andrew Declerq was Potapenko's equal, perhpas his superior, based on the fact he made so much less and worked so much harder. Those two guys were apples to apples. But, for good measure we throw in our #8 lottery pick as well?

2. That weatching Joe Johnson was like watching Paul Pierce in his rookie year. Joe was tentative but I'm sorry I don't give up any sophormore rookie who puts up 20 points a night intermittently, or grabs 8 boards or gets a decetn line of 14, 6 and 5 or something along those lines in intermittent games. You could see where the kid was going.

So, my long winded point is, those trades, like Doc's rotations make you turn your head to one side like a confused dog and say "really, is that for real? That lineup, that trade".

I was always shocked that guys who spent their entire life evaluating NBA talent could possibly make those types of trades.

So while I agree he has substantial knowledge, I think he's significantly flawed re rotations, sub patterns and adjusting on the fly; that goes for when we were healthy in 2008 and now. His moves are real head scratchers to me.

It's particulalry frustrating to me to, because I actually relly like Doc alot in about 80% of his M.O.

Rotations?...my head's on it's side...and I think it makes things mroe difficult than need be for the team.     
 

[vinnie]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

  He's also trying to load up on the minutes for Nate and Finley to get them integrated into the team.

Yeah -- as shown by the 8 minutes Nate played against Cleveland Sunday.

  He's averaging 16 minutes a game for us, but the only game out of the 12 he's played less than 10 minutes shows that I'm wrong. The bench got killed in that game, but no matter. Complain when they don't go all out to win the regular season games against other contenders, then complain when they don't play the backups enough against the Cavs. You're nothing if not consistent.

Not complaining, just pointing out your theory was wrong. If the goal is to get Nate and Finley more minutes, why so few against the Cavs? You are the one with the theory, not me.

[Q_FBE]

If there is anything to learn about this team, it is the one game at a time mantra and when we get to the playoffs it is one possestion at a time.

[BballTim]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

  He's also trying to load up on the minutes for Nate and Finley to get them integrated into the team.

Yeah -- as shown by the 8 minutes Nate played against Cleveland Sunday.

  He's averaging 16 minutes a game for us, but the only game out of the 12 he's played less than 10 minutes shows that I'm wrong. The bench got killed in that game, but no matter. Complain when they don't go all out to win the regular season games against other contenders, then complain when they don't play the backups enough against the Cavs. You're nothing if not consistent.

Not complaining, just pointing out your theory was wrong. If the goal is to get Nate and Finley more minutes, why so few against the Cavs? You are the one with the theory, not me.

  Ok, so if Nate's gotten double digit minutes 12 times in 13 games, the one game that he didn't shows that Doc's not trying to get him minutes? Do you honestly think that you proved me wrong? Seriously? Wow.

[muddy02]

My apologies, after reading that, it's clear my post transgressed into a mini Doc rant.

After watching the Cleveland game and seeing Docs' lineup late 3rd and early fourth when the game got opened up, I saw all I needed to know why we lost the game.

Doc wouldn't have played that lineup in the playoffs; he seems to be pretty dead set on playing the starters no more than 33 minutes the last couple weeks, which I've been asking for for months, so I'm not going to complain. It's pretty hard to limit the minutes of the starters without cutting severely into the time they play together. I don't mind losing the game at this point for  these reasons.

But the other point you make that is good is trying out different lineups. I would really, really love to see Nate with the rest of the starters minus Rondo for some extended run. I would love to see small ball of Pierce-Daniels-Ray-Nate-KG for a little. Also BBD with some different combos, particularly with the starters minus Perkins, a good lineup against Atlanta.

Now is a great time to try that kind of stuff, but Doc doesn't appear interested. It's shame, because it'd be nice to have a trial run of it before the playoffs.

  He's also trying to load up on the minutes for Nate and Finley to get them integrated into the team.

Yeah -- as shown by the 8 minutes Nate played against Cleveland Sunday.

  He's averaging 16 minutes a game for us, but the only game out of the 12 he's played less than 10 minutes shows that I'm wrong. The bench got killed in that game, but no matter. Complain when they don't go all out to win the regular season games against other contenders, then complain when they don't play the backups enough against the Cavs. You're nothing if not consistent.

Not complaining, just pointing out your theory was wrong. If the goal is to get Nate and Finley more minutes, why so few against the Cavs? You are the one with the theory, not me.

  Ok, so if Nate's gotten double digit minutes 12 times in 13 games, the one game that he didn't shows that Doc's not trying to get him minutes? Do you honestly think that you proved me wrong? Seriously? Wow.

I'm with Tim on this one.  TP