Why letting James Posey go makes even less sense now

[twentythree9]

We did not let Posey go, he left on his own volition by taking a longer deal from NO.  While I am as grateful for what Posey brought to our team, he no doubt cashed out on his year with the C's.  NO committed WAY TOO MUCH to a 6th man/role player.  Also, I don't think Posey solves our biggest problem, which is the need to get more athletic.  If you watched NO games this past year, Posey was getting burned off the dribble a lot more than when he played for the C's.  I don't know whether that's because of the system, his injury (or not having KG behind him as the FORTRESS- don't underestimate that, I think Ray and PP's D also suffered as a result), but Posey wouldn't have made enough of a difference this year.

I also don't think Ainge had any intentions of making that trade.  He's clearly searching out there to see what Ray and Rondo are worth.  Both are up for extensions, the only way you can gauge their market value is to float these out there and see what bites.

[CoachBo]

Actually, I don't think Ainge ever grasped the necessity of a versatile wing on the bench, because he never filled any kind of a competent role behind Pierce.

Why people think we would have beaten the Lakers with Garnett and a gassed Pierce escapes me.

And until I see some proof that Ainge grasps the gravity of his failure to fill that wing role this summer, I'm not making any plans for 18.

[BballTim]

Actually, I don't think Ainge ever grasped the necessity of a versatile wing on the bench, because he never filled any kind of a competent role behind Pierce.

Why people think we would have beaten the Lakers with Garnett and a gassed Pierce escapes me.

And until I see some proof that Ainge grasps the gravity of his failure to fill that wing role this summer, I'm not making any plans for 18.

  A lot of the reason Pierce was gassed was not having KG.

[CoachBo]

Gosh, Garnett must be amazing - playing the 3 and 4 at the same time.

Wonder how I could have missed that.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one. Garnett's absence and Pierce's physical condition have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[Steve Weinman]

Gosh, Garnett must be amazing - playing the 3 and 4 at the same time.

Wonder how I could have missed that.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one. Garnett's absence and Pierce's physical condition have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Coach, as you know, I'm in complete agreement with your line of thinking re: Posey and re: the bench in general and the team's handling of it last year.

I think the lack of a competent back-up was clearly the primary reason Pierce was so run-down by year's end.  But I'd grant to Tim's point that KG's absence only put more of the onus - especially at the offensive end - on Pierce, and it had to force him to expend even more energy, which was an absurd thing to ask of him considering the aforementioned issue about the lack of a back-up.

I wouldn't agree that KG's absence made up a "lot" of the reason (again, I'm with you that this is on the bench issue), but I think there could be at least some relation there.

-sw

[CoachBo]

Gosh, Garnett must be amazing - playing the 3 and 4 at the same time.

Wonder how I could have missed that.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one. Garnett's absence and Pierce's physical condition have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Coach, as you know, I'm in complete agreement with your line of thinking re: Posey and re: the bench in general and the team's handling of it last year.

I think the lack of a competent back-up was clearly the primary reason Pierce was so run-down by year's end.  But I'd grant to Tim's point that KG's absence only put more of the onus - especially at the offensive end - on Pierce, and it had to force him to expend even more energy, which was an absurd thing to ask of him considering the aforementioned issue about the lack of a back-up.

I wouldn't agree that KG's absence made up a "lot" of the reason (again, I'm with you that this is on the bench issue), but I think there could be at least some relation there.

-sw

I'd buy that if there was some appreciable shift in the offenive point distribution with Garnett.

But I believe the numbers show we actually were a better offensive team with Garnett gone. My recollection from the playoffs is about six points better. Yet the numbers show Pierce sveraged less than a point and less than a shot more per game - which don't suggest that he assumed any great share of the missing scoring load. If the offensive load theory had any credence with me, I'd need to see at least a 2.5 shot per game movement.

The only credence I lend to that theory is on the defensive end, where Garnett was available to clean up some of the perimeter messes that were so evident in the playoffs.

Pierce averaged almost 40 minutes in the playoffs, which if memory serves is about six minutes more on the average than in regular season games. Given the physicality of his play, that number has to be mitigated off the bench, a need that grows more acute as he ages. He's got a lot of dents in the body.

It's surprising to me that so many think you can win a title with 5 players in this league. You can't even win a title with 5 players at the lowest levels of high school basketball, let alone in the association.

Did Garnett's absence cause some mental fatigue for Pierce? Perhaps. Physical fatigue? It's miniscule at worst, since the numbers don't support it.

Next season is going to rise or fall on whether we can assemble a competent bench. If we don't, the injuries are going to mushroom.

[BballTim]

Gosh, Garnett must be amazing - playing the 3 and 4 at the same time.

Wonder how I could have missed that.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one. Garnett's absence and Pierce's physical condition have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

  This might be confusing to you but when we had a big three in the playoffs Doc tried to minimize the time we had less than two of them on the court. It's a lot easier to give Paul a rest if you have Perk/KG/Allen/House/Marbury (for example) than when he's trying to scrape by with Perk/Davis/Allen/House/Marbury. See why one lineup's (much) better than the other? See why we're less likely to fall behind with Paul or Ray on the bench if the other's playing with KG? And that doesn't even factor in how much less of a struggle the games would have been or how much shorter the series' would have been with KG playing. Sorry I didn't explain it but I was assuming that you'd be able to figure out that I wasn't talking about playing KG at the 3.

[xmuscularghandix]

Posey couldn't have guarded Rashard Lewis either lets just get over all of this crap. The reason we lost is because KG was gone and BBD (who had grown into a very good bench player) was then made a starter. After BBD we had Scal (was out like a month and came back 2 games before the playoffs) Leon Powe got injured, then we had Mikki who is a superstar of a 12th man... only problem is that he was playing in an 8 man rotation.

[BballTim]

Gosh, Garnett must be amazing - playing the 3 and 4 at the same time.

Wonder how I could have missed that.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one. Garnett's absence and Pierce's physical condition have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Coach, as you know, I'm in complete agreement with your line of thinking re: Posey and re: the bench in general and the team's handling of it last year.

I think the lack of a competent back-up was clearly the primary reason Pierce was so run-down by year's end.  But I'd grant to Tim's point that KG's absence only put more of the onus - especially at the offensive end - on Pierce, and it had to force him to expend even more energy, which was an absurd thing to ask of him considering the aforementioned issue about the lack of a back-up.

I wouldn't agree that KG's absence made up a "lot" of the reason (again, I'm with you that this is on the bench issue), but I think there could be at least some relation there.

-sw

I'd buy that if there was some appreciable shift in the offenive point distribution with Garnett.

But I believe the numbers show we actually were a better offensive team with Garnett gone. My recollection from the playoffs is about six points better. Yet the numbers show Pierce sveraged less than a point and less than a shot more per game - which don't suggest that he assumed any great share of the missing scoring load. If the offensive load theory had any credence with me, I'd need to see at least a 2.5 shot per game movement.

  We had about 10 more posessions a game to get those extra points. Our offensive efficiency was 109 last year and 107 this year. And it's not just about how many shots he takes when he's in the game. It's about what happens to the offense when he's on the bench and the defense doesn't have to focus on him

[rondohondo]

Posey couldn't have guarded Rashard Lewis either lets just get over all of this crap. The reason we lost is because KG was gone and BBD (who had grown into a very good bench player) was then made a starter. After BBD we had Scal (was out like a month and came back 2 games before the playoffs) Leon Powe got injured, then we had Mikki who is a superstar of a 12th man... only problem is that he was playing in an 8 man rotation.

What makes you think Posey couldn't have guarded Lewis? He did it the year before. He is 6'8 with long arms and can defend, why couldn't he guard Lewis?  Of course the injuries hurt the Celtics, but Posey could have definitely helped our chances last year.