Fire Joe! ... or critique Joe ... or defend Joe... or worry about Joe's coaching

[Roy H.]

Like everyone, I want the Cs to win every game.  But come on, this 1st game against NY was an aberration...45 missed 3s isn't going to happen again anytime soon.  As far as blaming Joe for the loss, what about Cleveland, with 64 wins losing their 1st game...guess there are fans clamoring to fire Kenny.  Also, what about OKC, how could a team that won 68 games lose their 1st game...Mark Daigneault's job must be on the line.  Let's see how this series ends before we tear Joe a new one.

There are three questions here:

1.  Should we panic?

2.  Did Joe coach well last night?

3.  Should we panic about Joe?

To me, we shouldn't panic.  We're still the favorite in the series, we play well on the road, and we built a 20 point lead last night.

That said, it wasn't a well-coached game.  Joe has always struggled with in-game adjustments, and last night wasn't an exception.  The team also didn't seem as focused or aggressive as they should be, and that's part of coaching.

Should we be concerned about our head coach?  Not right now.  Joe is usually good about making series adjustments (just not in-game).  The team usually plays well after a loss, and I expect he'll coach up the team regarding both the offense and defense.

I'm hoping for 2024 Joe, rather than 2023 Joe.  Hopefully he proves that his 2024 playoff coaching wasn't improved simply because he had Charles Lee.

[SparzWizard]

C's were playing well in the 2nd quarter pounding the ball. Then suddenly in the 3rd quarter, they went away from all that and started clanking away from 3 every moment they held the ball.

[Vermont Green]

I can convince myself not to be worried or concerned.  OKC and CLE both lost their first games, the 2024 and 2025 coaches of the year.  I wonder if their forums are all over their coaches?  Also, we missed 45 3s.  We make one or two more of them and we win the game, a closer game than it should have been, but still a win.

I can just as easily convince myself to be concerned.  Why did we stop taking it to the hoop?  We were successful attacking Towns.  We had him in big time foul trouble, why did we stop doing that?  Same for Brunson.  Why not keep attacking him.  I am more concerned about these strategic things than missing shots.

I don't know what Mazzulla was telling them during time outs.  I doubt he was telling them to shoot more 3s but maybe he was.  Or maybe he was telling them the right things but the players just didn't execute.  When there is an execution breakdown, there is some blame on both the coach and the players.  Last night felt like more of a players thing to me, but Mazzulla has some culpability as well.  He is the coach.

[jpotter33]

I can convince myself not to be worried or concerned.  OKC and CLE both lost their first games, the 2024 and 2025 coaches of the year.  I wonder if their forums are all over their coaches?  Also, we missed 45 3s.  We make one or two more of them and we win the game, a closer game than it should have been, but still a win.

I can just as easily convince myself to be concerned.  Why did we stop taking it to the hoop?  We were successful attacking Towns.  We had him in big time foul trouble, why did we stop doing that?  Same for Brunson.  Why not keep attacking him.  I am more concerned about these strategic things than missing shots.

I don't know what Mazzulla was telling them during time outs.  I doubt he was telling them to shoot more 3s but maybe he was.  Or maybe he was telling them the right things but the players just didn't execute.  When there is an execution breakdown, there is some blame on both the coach and the players.  Last night felt like more of a players thing to me, but Mazzulla has some culpability as well.  He is the coach.

Can?t say about Atkinson, but they have a built-in excuse with Garland?s injury. It also wasn?t a collapse like the other two. As for Daigneault, he?s receiving his fair share of blame for the end-game strategy that led to the collapse as he should be, particularly the fouling up three timing.

This situation is a bit different. Mazz has implemented an extreme and controversial gameplan and strategy that has broken numerous all-time records (both positive and negative) this year. That?s almost entirely on the coaching staff when it?s a strategy issue that they?re following - just like Daigneault - and Joe essentially confirmed this in the post-game saying that he was overall satisfied with our shot selection. Similarly, Joe has long been criticized for being overly dogmatic and unwavering with his gameplans and unable to adjust in-games when needed. It doesn?t take a genius to see that the guys were out of sorts and trying to wrongly shoot themselves back into the game with home run three after home run three, yet Joe literally was powerless to stop it. Whether he was trying to stop it and adjust or not, it?s a coaching failure if he?s so ineffective in his role at in-game adjustments that he can?t stop the team from breaking all-time records for missed three point attempts.

We?ll get out of this series fine given how well this matchup favors us, but these kinds of fundamental issues that all stem from our coaching/strategy issues could very well be an insurmountable barrier to repeating.

[jpotter33]

https://x.com/byjayking/status/1919809314447097966?s=46&t=lGU0TGXtwjkuVuoin6WTNw

  Joe Mazzulla was asked today about the Celtics' help off shooters. Mazzulla responded by asking how the Knicks shot after halftime. He was informed that New York shot better than 50 percent from three.

Mazzulla: ?So they made them? Man, what a novel idea. That?s a novel concept, huh? Just make ?em when you?re open? Yeah.?

After being urged to answer the question, Mazzulla replied: ?I just did. Make ?em.?

The reporter tried to get Mazzulla back on track to answer the question. Mazzulla: ?I know. And I?m not ? I think I?m really just talking to you. It?s such a cool duality of your question to where I?m getting asked all the ones that we missed and you come in and start with, ?Well, they shot 50 percent (from three) in the second half.? And I?m like, oh man, the duality of that question is really cool to talk about. You know what I mean? So, sorry. We start the press conference off by saying, you know, you took all these and you missed ?em. And then you say they shot 50 percent in the second half from three. Yeah, you?ve gotta make them. Duality at its finest. Sorry, I just had to ? what was your question??

This guy is clueless, and his strange nature and defensiveness when his team?s approach/performance is reasonably called out only makes him that much more unlikable.

Joe, your team took an extreme 60 threes and missed more threes than New York even took, which broke an all-time record. These are NOT the same situations. If you?r only takeaway from rewatching that performance is ?just make them?, then you are absolutely the problem.

Ime really did us dirty.

[Vermont Green]

I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s.  Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s.  Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot.  Is that number 10?  15?  But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.

I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question.  When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer.  Every miss looks bad, every make looks good.  You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right.  I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be.  But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.

I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot.  They need to do it better than they did in game 1.

[Roy H.]

I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s.  Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s.  Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot.  Is that number 10?  15?  But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.

I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question.  When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer.  Every miss looks bad, every make looks good.  You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right.  I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be.  But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.

I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot.  They need to do it better than they did in game 1.

Here's my objection to "good" threes:  It's taught "if it's a good three, take it".  But, that ignores the reality of runs and momentum.

Let's take an example.  Your team has been shooting poorly, but you hold a 9 point lead in the fourth quarter.  You've just seen the opponent shave off 11 points from their deficit.

The "take good threes" strategy says keep shooting.  If you get five open looks from 3PT on five straight possessions, shoot them.  If they're misses, oh well, things will even out eventually.

The "you don't need to take every open shot" strategy says that momentum is a thing.  With every consecutive miss, your team loses confidence and the other team gains it.  It's better to work for a high percentage 2PT shot than an open but low percentage 3PT shot to "stop the bleeding".

We started the 4th quarter by not scoring for nearly four minutes.  That sequence was:

Missed close 2PT
Missed 3PT
Missed 3PT
Missed long 2T
Turnover
Missed 3PT
Missed 3PT
Turnover

That's just an example of how games are lost.  What would it have looked like if, instead of settling for threes, they'd attempted some drives? 

[SparzWizard]

I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s.  Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s.  Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot.  Is that number 10?  15?  But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.

I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question.  When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer.  Every miss looks bad, every make looks good.  You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right.  I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be.  But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.

I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot.  They need to do it better than they did in game 1.

I don't like it when they're trading 3 for 3. If the opponent makes a 3, don't just flex your macho and say "watch this" and clank one back. Go for a 2. Dish it to a post player and score at the rim.

I especially do not like it when the game is tied, 1 minute left in the 4th quarter and you dribble, dribble, take one big dribble step forward inside the arc for a fake and then take one big dribble step back out for a 3 and clank it. That's really selfish and obvious that you forgot your team's goal. The obvious shot would've been to drive in and take the 2. I bet I'll move the 3 point line to half court and Tatum will still find a way to take a step-back 3 and miss it.

I also don't like it when you're down 1 and you take a 3 to try and be up by 2. What logic is that lol

[Amonkey]

I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s.  Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s.  Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot.  Is that number 10?  15?  But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.

I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question.  When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer.  Every miss looks bad, every make looks good.  You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right.  I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be.  But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.

I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot.  They need to do it better than they did in game 1.

I don't like it when they're trading 3 for 3. If the opponent makes a 3, don't just flex your macho and say "watch this" and clank one back. Go for a 2. Dish it to a post player and score at the rim.

I especially do not like it when the game is tied, 1 minute left in the 4th quarter and you dribble, dribble, take one big dribble step forward inside the arc for a fake and then take one big dribble step back out for a 3 and clank it. That's really selfish and obvious that you forgot your team's goal. The obvious shot would've been to drive in and take the 2. I bet I'll move the 3 point line to half court and Tatum will still find a way to take a step-back 3 and miss it.

I also don't like it when you're down 1 and you take a 3 to try and be up by 2. What logic is that lol

I thought there were some 3's that we moved the ball around well and just missed. I can live with that. I also thought there were some forced 3s that we actually made. Some forced by Tatum and White that I was nervous but was thankful it worked. What I really hated were the forced ones, where they weren't really trying to move the ball around and just shot it.

[Goldstar88]

How dare Joe let the team shoot 35% from the field. I mean, what was he thinking! 

Seriously? Even you - the crown prince of Joe apologism - have to be disgusted with what you saw tonight, right? It's not that they missed shots; it's that they took terrible three point shots over and over and over again - which is clearly and indubitably a result of Joe's extreme three point philosophy.

Last time I checked the players were the ones on the court deciding the game, not the coach. They were settling for bad shots. JT and JB went 14-43 from the field. If your two best players are going to shoot that poorly, you?re not going to win the game.

I?m sorry, but that?s just an insanely shallow and naive view completely aimed at protecting the coach.

It must just be a coincidence that we?ve led the league in three point shooting attempts and have broken many all-time records for three point shots, makes, and misses since Joe was gifted the coaching spot. Clearly that has no impact on the gameplan, offensive philosophy, and how these guys play out there. Crazy coincidence here!

Yes, I?m the one with the naive take. Saying all along that the Celtics can win a championship with Joe, While you continue to whine incessantly about him. And what did they do? They won a championship.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s.  Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s.  Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot.  Is that number 10?  15?  But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.

I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question.  When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer.  Every miss looks bad, every make looks good.  You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right.  I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be.  But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.

I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot.  They need to do it better than they did in game 1.

Here's my objection to "good" threes:  It's taught "if it's a good three, take it".  But, that ignores the reality of runs and momentum.

Let's take an example.  Your team has been shooting poorly, but you hold a 9 point lead in the fourth quarter.  You've just seen the opponent shave off 11 points from their deficit.

The "take good threes" strategy says keep shooting.  If you get five open looks from 3PT on five straight possessions, shoot them.  If they're misses, oh well, things will even out eventually.

The "you don't need to take every open shot" strategy says that momentum is a thing.  With every consecutive miss, your team loses confidence and the other team gains it.  It's better to work for a high percentage 2PT shot than an open but low percentage 3PT shot to "stop the bleeding".

We started the 4th quarter by not scoring for nearly four minutes.  That sequence was:

Missed close 2PT
Missed 3PT
Missed 3PT
Missed long 2T
Turnover
Missed 3PT
Missed 3PT
Turnover

That's just an example of how games are lost.  What would it have looked like if, instead of settling for threes, they'd attempted some drives?

Yeah, sometimes there's just no room for variation in Boston's (Joe's) offensive philosophy. I understand that most of these Celtics are good 3pt shooters?and I still shake my head that a team can ever have 6-8 guys shoot horribly in the same game?but clearly that does happen occasionally, and everyone involved (players and coaches) need to be able to recognize and assess while things are in motion, then adjust accordingly. If a team cuts a big lead in half, the other team can sometimes halt their momentum with a couple easy buckets.

But what am I saying? This is a team that fairly often gives up open layups to kick the ball out to a 3pt shooter.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Like everyone, I want the Cs to win every game.  But come on, this 1st game against NY was an aberration...45 missed 3s isn't going to happen again anytime soon.  As far as blaming Joe for the loss, what about Cleveland, with 64 wins losing their 1st game...guess there are fans clamoring to fire Kenny.  Also, what about OKC, how could a team that won 68 games lose their 1st game...Mark Daigneault's job must be on the line.  Let's see how this series ends before we tear Joe a new one.

Perhaps it is, in fact, an aberration. Hopefully it is.

But I can't help remembering that lots of people were saying the same thing about Miami's hot shooting in the first game of that unfortunate series.

[Neurotic Guy]

I have not gone through the tape but I am all for taking "good" 3s.  Of the 60 taken last night, no doubt some number of them were not "good" 3s.  Those possessions that ended in a bad 3 would have been better served if someone had taken it to the hoop or generated some other shot.  Is that number 10?  15?  But that is in the range of 10% to 15% of the total possessions.

I am with Mazzulla on this, in terms of the question.  When asked the question about number of 3PA, there is no answer.  Every miss looks bad, every make looks good.  You can't say that tonight we took 60 which is wrong but if we took 50, it would have been right.  I don't think there were 60 "good" 3PAs tonight, but there could be.  But even if you took 50 or 40, if you only made 25%, it would still look bad.

I feel that coaches and players need to execute to find the best shot.  They need to do it better than they did in game 1.

I don't like it when they're trading 3 for 3. If the opponent makes a 3, don't just flex your macho and say "watch this" and clank one back. Go for a 2. Dish it to a post player and score at the rim.

I especially do not like it when the game is tied, 1 minute left in the 4th quarter and you dribble, dribble, take one big dribble step forward inside the arc for a fake and then take one big dribble step back out for a 3 and clank it. That's really selfish and obvious that you forgot your team's goal. The obvious shot would've been to drive in and take the 2. I bet I'll move the 3 point line to half court and Tatum will still find a way to take a step-back 3 and miss it.

I also don't like it when you're down 1 and you take a 3 to try and be up by 2. What logic is that lol

I thought there were some 3's that we moved the ball around well and just missed. I can live with that. I also thought there were some forced 3s that we actually made. Some forced by Tatum and White that I was nervous but was thankful it worked. What I really hated were the forced ones, where they weren't really trying to move the ball around and just shot it.

I thought the two missed Sam threes were backbreakers.  Wide open shots by 3-point specialist.  One was followed by a quick score by the Knicks, not sure about the other.  But they came at times those shots could have changed the momentum.  Shots that should have been made.  Obviously not Joes fault on those.  That said I could still scream thinking about two chances - one at end of regulation to win and one at the end of OT to tie - and neither play created a shot, never mind a makeable one.  Unless you consider Tatum?s 10-foot heave from three a shot. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

And what was up with Brown just letting Bridges punk him like that? It was like a bully stealing something from a little kid on the playground.

[jpotter33]

Legs - one of the most respected basketball minds today and a three point savant himself - eviscerated the Celtics? offense and decision-making from last night, labeling it as ?an abomination? and an ?insult to basketball?.

https://x.com/benritholtznba/status/1919833502532378723?s=46&t=lGU0TGXtwjkuVuoin6WTNw

Yet, Joe was largely okay with the shots we took and our offensive decision-making - because that performance was the entire embodiment of Mazzulla Ball and the only difference is whether the ball goes into the hole. It?s non-sense and tells you all you need to know.