Lack of adjustment is why we lost.

[angryguy77]

I'm curious. This team was down by nine at the half and then lost by two. There were no adjustments?

Dont you get it? We have to pile on Doc after this loss. It doesnt matter that his players didnt show up for the first half. Surley you as an intelligent individuale has to know that he is the reason KG went down, he is the reason they have no intensity on d anymore. He should have used his Jedi mind control to make them play harder and not act like showing up was enough. I think we at Celtics Blog should start a pool at the begining of each season as to the over/under of threads that are going to unjustly pin losses on doc. Winner would get a free oven mitt or something

[Chief]

I'm curious. This team was down by nine at the half and then lost by two. There were no adjustments?

Dont you get it? We have to pile on Doc after this loss. It doesnt matter that his players didnt show up for the first half. Surley you as an intelligent individuale has to know that he is the reason KG went down, he is the reason they have no intensity on d anymore. He should have used his Jedi mind control to make them play harder and not act like showing up was enough. I think we at Celtics Blog should start a pool at the begining of each season as to the over/under of threads that are going to unjustly pin losses on doc. Winner would get a free oven mitt or something

If players are not playing well, then it's Doc's job to sit them. For whatever reason he did not do this, so I put a lot of blame on him.

[angryguy77]

In a perfect world that would be a great way to light a fire under them, But in the playoffs its not an option. This team did have bad d outings last year too and they played through them. He had to give his team the best chance to win and yanking the best players on the team even if they are as a unit playing bad would have not been a wise choice. A coach is no different than a teacher or manager. If thier students/employees dont want to listen and be instructed on the right ways of doing things, then their will be no good result no matter what cahnges they try.

[ScoobyDoo]

I think the adjustment that was made was that we actually decided to come out and play in the second half and that was about the only adjustment that was made.

Rondo made no adjustment in his effort to prove that he deserves being mentioned among the best defenders in the league at his position. For someone who's
stated he wants to make the all defensive team, it doesn't make sense.

The adjustment to actually play baqsketball with at least some passion in the second half was a very nice gesture by our boys in great. How nice of them that was to show some heart and effort.

However, had Doc ALSO made the adjustment of:

A) trying Rondo on Gordon and TA on Rose
B) Telling Tony to get physical with the kid in a fair defensive way, not thuggish
C) Instructed our bigs to level him when he came prancing down the lane. Again not dirty but good and hard...

I'd argue we would have blown them out by 10-15 or 20 in the second.

The guy had almost half their points for God's sake. Think we might try to get up into him?

Look, we're not here to re-establish old friendships with the Chicago Bulls.

As far as I'm concerned we're to kick them in the nuts and knee them in the teeth in a basketball sense.

The only player on our team who plays like that is Kevin Garnett, that's why he makes the difference, he makes everyone else do the same.

Until these guys start playing like they actually have some sack, they're a bunch of Edited for profanity.  Please do not do it again. as far as I'm concerned. Yes, they played like chics Sunday.

Seem harsh? Check out Larry legend's comments during the Lakers championships series in the 80's.

We're not here for a sunday brunch, we're here to kick them in the teeth when they are down.    

[Gomesfan]

We lost because Ray only had 4 points, bottom line!!!!

[ScoobyDoo]

I totally disagree. I think you absolutely sit guys down when they are either:

A) Having a bad day or game
B) aren't showing the effort demanded or necessary

It's the same in management with sales people. Someone's not cracking the account you change the sales person. Someone's not producing overall, you fire them.

I think sometimes as a coach , you need to save the players form themselves when they
re having a bad game and sometimes they'll appreciate it. Ray might have appreciated getting yanked.

He sucked, everyone in the building knew he sucked and he probably knew it more than anyone. He was probably thinking the same thing. Yank him.

It doesn't mean you like the guy less. He just happened to suck Sunday. No big deal.

You still love the guy and you also know he will most likely win you 4-5 games by himself if you make another title run.

It;s not a conviction of his lack of ability. It's just dealing with the reality of the day. He could just as well come out and put up 30 tomorrow.

Sunday? Get him out!

[angryguy77]

I totally disagree. I think you absolutely sit guys down when they are either:

A) Having a bad day or game
B) aren't showing the effort demanded or necessary

It's the same in management with sales people. Someone's not cracking the account you change the sales person. Someone's not producing overall, you fire them.

I think sometimes as a coach , you need to save the players form themselves when they
re having a bad game and sometimes they'll appreciate it. Ray might have appreciated getting yanked.

He sucked, everyone in the building knew he sucked and he probably knew it more than anyone. He was probably thinking the same thing. Yank him.

It doesn't mean you like the guy less. He just happened to suck Sunday. No big deal.

You still love the guy and you also know he will most likely win you 4-5 games by himself if you make another title run.

It;s not a conviction of his lack of ability. It's just dealing with the reality of the day. He could just as well come out and put up 30 tomorrow.

Sunday? Get him out!

I dont think that Ray is the type of player that needs to be pulled when he's shooting bad. You have to let him play through it. By that theory they should have yanked PP also because he didn't light it up in the first half either. But he did do well in the second half and almost led us to a w. Great players can play horribly at times, but what makes them great is that they can get hot and help pull the game out.

Doc might have been able to make a few better calls yesterday, but the absolute balme goes to the overconfident experienced guys we had playing for us.

[nickagneta]

So we sit Ray Allen because he isn't scoring and exactly who is coming off the bench to score the points he should be putting up? Tony Allen....please don't make me laugh. Marbury....even funnier? And if Rondo can't stop or won't stop Rose, who is going to guard him and run the point at the same time? Tony? Eddie? Satrbury? Oh puhlease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adjustments were not the reason we lost. Defensive intensity, bad offensive ball movement and moving without the ball and bad shooting from Paul and Ray lost this game.

A coach has to trust that his star players will eventually turn around a shooting slump. You can be yanking players in and out because of a bad half or three quarters of shooting. The concept is absurd!! Continuity and trust in your players will win you more games in the long run than switching guys in and out, left and right to try to attain instant success. Any good coach knows that. Doing what you guys are suggesting might, and I stress MIGHT, win you a game here or there but eventually it will lose you the trust and respect of your players and many, many more total games in the long run.

[ScoobyDoo]

Yes Nickagenta, you absolutely sit Ray. I would be incredibaly unconcerned about whether Tony Allen could replace the non-existent scoring of Ray Allen on this particular day. Atleast Tony might draqw a few fouls taking it to the rim. Conversely, I would be quite interested to see if could rough up Rose and perhaps disrupt the one guy who is annihilating me.

And to answer your other question...why on earth would I put Eddie house or Marbury on Rose or have have Tony Allen run the point? That's the most illogical match up I could think of.

I would have Tony GUARD Rose and Rondo GUARD Gordon or Heinrich. On Offense I would obviously have Rondo running the point and Tony playing Off guard.

Finally, to me there is a huge, huge difference between having and "off day" and having a "horrific day", Ray was having the latter. I'm not saying a guy misses a shot you yank him, but if he's missed 10 of 11, yeah, I might think about trying something different with the goal being to win the game. Sometimes when a guy is struggling, you sub someone else in. Let Tony run for 10-15 minutes if he's effective
on Rose.

And I hardly think these guys are glass figurines, their egos can't be that fragile or they never wouldn've have lasted this long or become the players they are.

I think, like everyone else, Ray probably understood he didn't have it going on. He's 4-12 or 5-12, differnet story maybe. 1-12, I'll try someone else for a few minutes, I don't care if it's Larry Bird...

I agree with you that overall lack of defensive intensity was an obvious over riding issue. This was a specific issue with Ray yesterday.

I also think we win this thing 4-1 or 4-2 if the guys decide they want to play with intensity.

 
I don't see why this would be such a foreign or ridiculous idea. Better to try something different to stop a guy dropping forty on you than to keep doing the same thing for 48 minutes. Rondo wasn't getting it done on D and Ray wasn't getting it done on O.

And I'm not saying you tell Ray to hit the showers, you obviously use try him again but if he doesn't have it he doesn't have it. Everyone in the building knew he didn't have it yesterday so what's the big deal. Eveeryone also knows he probably will light it up for 20+ tomorrow, no big deal. In the meantime, have Tony rough up Rose.   

[RockinRyA]

i wouldntve mind if ray sucked on offense but was okay on d.. but when he played bad on both ends of the floor, i think thats when you take him out

[ScoobyDoo]

Exactly, and I say yank him, I'm obviously not saying you send him to the showers. Just ry to mix it up, do something, ANYTHING, different to stop the freight train that was Derek Rose on Sunday.
We all know Ray will play like the all star he is 90-95% of the time. I don't see what is the big deal about saying hey, you suck today, let's give it a break and try something else for a few minutes, see what the result is? Most players know when it's not their day and are ok, perhaps thankful for being sat down rather than left out there to rot on the vine.

and I'm not saying you tell him he sucks, you just make the assessment and the appropriate adjustment.

And I'd expect nothing other than him cheering the team on from the bench even if he didn't play another minute in the second half.

[KCattheStripe]

I'm curious. This team was down by nine at the half and then lost by two. There were no adjustments?

Dont you get it? We have to pile on Doc after this loss. It doesnt matter that his players didnt show up for the first half. Surley you as an intelligent individuale has to know that he is the reason KG went down, he is the reason they have no intensity on d anymore. He should have used his Jedi mind control to make them play harder and not act like showing up was enough. I think we at Celtics Blog should start a pool at the begining of each season as to the over/under of threads that are going to unjustly pin losses on doc. Winner would get a free oven mitt or something

If players are not playing well, then it's Doc's job to sit them. For whatever reason he did not do this, so I put a lot of blame on him.

Sit the starters? In the playoffs?

[kenmaine]

KC-  Against my gut instincts while watching the game, I reluctantly agree with you.

I was yelling at Doc to get Ray out of the game after about his seventh miss in a row, but basketball is not like baseball, where you just yank the starter and put in a reliever when things are not going well. And unless Ray is injured, there's no way any coach benches him in the playoffs-   I remember being p---ed at Tommy Heinsohn a long time ago when he left JoJo White in a playoff game even though he was something like 0 for 13 in the second half.  As they say, you win or lose with the guys who got you there.
There aren't too many adjustments needed- Doc's not a moron, the C's are the defending champs, and they just won 62 games.
 

[kheeko]

I'm curious. This team was down by nine at the half and then lost by two. There were no adjustments?

Dont you get it? We have to pile on Doc after this loss. It doesnt matter that his players didnt show up for the first half. Surley you as an intelligent individuale has to know that he is the reason KG went down, he is the reason they have no intensity on d anymore. He should have used his Jedi mind control to make them play harder and not act like showing up was enough. I think we at Celtics Blog should start a pool at the begining of each season as to the over/under of threads that are going to unjustly pin losses on doc. Winner would get a free oven mitt or something

Yea Doc is at times just to soft on the guys from what it seems, he needs more authority he need's some Phil Jackson in him

[nickagneta]

Yes Nickagenta, you absolutely sit Ray. I would be incredibaly unconcerned about whether Tony Allen could replace the non-existent scoring of Ray Allen on this particular day. Atleast Tony might draqw a few fouls taking it to the rim. Conversely, I would be quite interested to see if could rough up Rose and perhaps disrupt the one guy who is annihilating me.

And to answer your other question...why on earth would I put Eddie house or Marbury on Rose or have have Tony Allen run the point? That's the most illogical match up I could think of.

I would have Tony GUARD Rose and Rondo GUARD Gordon or Heinrich. On Offense I would obviously have Rondo running the point and Tony playing Off guard.

Finally, to me there is a huge, huge difference between having and "off day" and having a "horrific day", Ray was having the latter. I'm not saying a guy misses a shot you yank him, but if he's missed 10 of 11, yeah, I might think about trying something different with the goal being to win the game. Sometimes when a guy is struggling, you sub someone else in. Let Tony run for 10-15 minutes if he's effective
on Rose.

And I hardly think these guys are glass figurines, their egos can't be that fragile or they never wouldn've have lasted this long or become the players they are.

I think, like everyone else, Ray probably understood he didn't have it going on. He's 4-12 or 5-12, differnet story maybe. 1-12, I'll try someone else for a few minutes, I don't care if it's Larry Bird...

I agree with you that overall lack of defensive intensity was an obvious over riding issue. This was a specific issue with Ray yesterday.

I also think we win this thing 4-1 or 4-2 if the guys decide they want to play with intensity.

 
I don't see why this would be such a foreign or ridiculous idea. Better to try something different to stop a guy dropping forty on you than to keep doing the same thing for 48 minutes. Rondo wasn't getting it done on D and Ray wasn't getting it done on O.

And I'm not saying you tell Ray to hit the showers, you obviously use try him again but if he doesn't have it he doesn't have it. Everyone in the building knew he didn't have it yesterday so what's the big deal. Eveeryone also knows he probably will light it up for 20+ tomorrow, no big deal. In the meantime, have Tony rough up Rose.   

Sorry, but you are absolutely and 100% positively wrong.

The more likely scenario in the fourth quarter of any game in which Ray Allen has stunk so far(1 for 9, 1 for 12, 0 for the game, whatever) is that Ray Allen will get it going and hit shots than Tony Allen could come in and be a factor. That's just pure logic. The man with the best shooting percentage in Celtic's history at the FT line, the man who shot 41% from threes and 48% overall, the man who is a perennial All-Star and future Hall or Famer is way more likely to get hot after a bad first three quarters, or even four quarters than Tony Allen is to come up clutch in any game ever. Sorry but Ray has come back after poor shooting starts in his career way more than Tony has ever come on to make an impact in a game in his career.

A smart coach plays the most likely scenario and that's why the saying "you play with who got you there exists". You play with the players that are most likely to do what you want and need them to do. I would bet my house that Ray would make a difference in a game after starting out horribly over Tony coming into a game and making a difference every single time, no exceptions.

And just so that we are clear with what you wanted, you wanted Tony Allen to come in, take Ray's place and do something. The same Tony Allen that played 8 minutes, went 0 for 1 from the field and had only one other number on his whole stat line, that being a -9 in the +/- area. He didn't grab a rebound, make an assist, block a shot, make a steal, take a free throw, or even commit a personal foul. So the man that did, according to his stats, NOTHING, is the guy you wanted replacing Ray Allen and guarding Derrick Rose?

And people think Doc is a bad coach?

Geesh!!