Celtics News

[Celtics4ever]

You got to have size, a rim protector & someone who can score down low to have a chance at a championship

I think the Bulls teams were exceptions to this rule.   They had dunkers but no true down low scorers and please do not say Longley was, and Rodmen could do a lot of this but a scorer he was not.

I think McHale has valid points.

[Vermont Green]

Not exactly Celtics news, but if you look at the final 4 teams in the NBA playoffs, they all have good big men.  Wemby of course, OKC has Holmgren and Hartenstein.  NYK has Towns.  And CLE has Allen and Mobley.  All these teams have solid or better bigs.  This seems to defy the modern day conventional wisdom of small ball.  So yes, BOS has a weakness there that needs to be addressed.

On McHale's comments, I am going to offer a different perspective on that.  So to me, what he is saying is that if the game plan going into a game is to take 3-point shots, that this is what you expect the defense to be giving you, that if you miss a few 3-point shots, you should go to plan B?  How about if the game plan was to pound the inside with McHale and he missed a few inside shots, would you then abandon that game plan?

To me, it is more about reacting to what the defense is doing.  If you planned to pound McHale inside but the other team changed their scheme and was doubling him, then yes, react and go to something else.  But if McHale is getting good looks but just missing them, do you abandon the game plan?  Same with the 3s.  If you are missing because the other team is over committing to defending the 3, yes, that means something else is open and you should be going to that.  But if you are getting good looks but just missing them?

[Goldstar88]

Not exactly Celtics news, but if you look at the final 4 teams in the NBA playoffs, they all have good big men.  Wemby of course, OKC has Holmgren and Hartenstein.  NYK has Towns.  And CLE has Allen and Mobley.  All these teams have solid or better bigs.  This seems to defy the modern day conventional wisdom of small ball.  So yes, BOS has a weakness there that needs to be addressed.

On McHale's comments, I am going to offer a different perspective on that.  So to me, what he is saying is that if the game plan going into a game is to take 3-point shots, that this is what you expect the defense to be giving you, that if you miss a few 3-point shots, you should go to plan B?  How about if the game plan was to pound the inside with McHale and he missed a few inside shots, would you then abandon that game plan?

To me, it is more about reacting to what the defense is doing.  If you planned to pound McHale inside but the other team changed their scheme and was doubling him, then yes, react and go to something else.  But if McHale is getting good looks but just missing them, do you abandon the game plan?  Same with the 3s.  If you are missing because the other team is over committing to defending the 3, yes, that means something else is open and you should be going to that.  But if you are getting good looks but just missing them?

He said if plan A isn?t working, you go to plan B and if that doesn?t work, you go to plan C, etc.  I?d imagine that same would hold true if plan A was to go inside and the team is struggling. You would try something else. I don't see him saying anything about abandoning a game plan. Seems like his point is that you need to adjust throughout the game.