We did let PP take it the time before and he shoved off on Artest and turned it over… I have no problems at all letting Ray take a wide open three for the win. He'll hit it as often as he misses.
I would usually agree 100 percent, the thought of Ray taking a 3 to win the game is usually something I'm pretty comfortable with... but with Paul's play as of late, and the way he usually play's against LA in particular... it seems like that'd be just as logical as a choice.
Maybe, although he had been very quiet in the fourth (no points, one turnover, and only one shot attempt). Artest was playing good defense on him.
I know a lot of people are disappointed with the last shot, but I'm pretty comfortable with a wide-open Ray three. I probably would have had Rondo drive to the hoop (foul shooting be darned), but the play we did get was a great look.
Attackin the basket would've been my ideal choice... with either Pierce or like you said Rondo... both of those guys are so good at drawing fouls and LA had none to give at the time. I honestly hadn't even noticed the only 1 shot attempt by Pierce, he's gotta be more active in the 4th
Yeah, Rondo and Pierce are good at drawing fouls but every player in the league knows that the drive/penetration may not be the best choice at the end of games because refs usually don't whistle fouls on last plays like that.
Turkoglu acknowledged he was surprised when the refs gave him 2 free-throws on his last second drive against the Lakers last week.
And considering that Pierce is treated like a rookie by the refs or that Rondo chokes free-throws at the end of games...
But down by one, I would have preferred to see a play under the basket. Ray's shot was a great setplay and he had a good look (I thought it was going in) but we were down only by one so it wasn't necessarily the best choice. But once again, a good look with a three pointer may be a better gamble than expecting some calls from the refs on a drive.
Topic: woulda coulda shoulda (Read 2719 times)