Paul Pierce = the blown leads?

[twinbree]

It was painful to watch PP last night. He's obviously not healthy. No one "ages" ten years in the middle of the season. Same goes for KG.

Where is the coach???  Pierce should have been yanked early in the second half. It's 90% Doc's fault for keeping PP in the game.

And has a team above grade school level ever shot free throws worse than the C's did last night?

Why isn't Pierce held responsible when he says his foot's not right and it could use the rest from the All-Star break--but he still plans to play in the All-Star game?

Agree 100%. He shouldn't even be thinking of the all-star game at this point.
But my point was that Doc should have made the in-game decision last night to sit PP when it became obvious that he couldn't function.

And this makes me wonder whether the team even has a clue about how to go about fixing their problems. They throw around vague comments about no ubuntu, people having agendas, sitting guys not playing well etc. And this is a case where Pierce wanting to be involved the All-Star weekend probably influenced his coming back to play at questionable strength. when what they should have done was make him sit until after the break. 

[BballTim]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

It's a mixture, but Doc has NEVER told Rondo to not be aggressive. Just the opposite. I would think that if Rondo were running the offense as it should, as he does when he's aggressive... opening tons of opportunities for our various players in the court, that Doc wouldn't go away from it. It just so happens that Rondo has this problem when he stops being aggressive enough, stops pushing the ball (as it has been asked of him countless times) and it makes our offense run that much worse. So they go through Pierce instead. Now if Rondo is doing as he should, and we go away from it, then that's another thing entirely... but before we start playing the "go to Pierce and clear out" game and the likes, Rondo for the most part has removed his feet from the accelerator.

Let me just say this, I think Rondo has been overall quite fantastic this season, but it's these little things that are quite lethal when he's not doing it correctly... or consistently.

There's a ton of blame to go around, but as I've said in the past countless times, it all starts with how Rondo is running the offense, and if he's pushing the ball and being aggressive. If at the very least he's doing the last two, then we should be good to go as long as he's sharing the ball while doing so.

[Birdbrain]

I know the starters should be blamed as a unit for the blown leads so my point may seem useless.

But as I recalled which games we lost after leading big at halftime and which games we won by hanging on to our 10+ points lead after halftime, I see only one common factor in the losses : Paul Pierce.

Don't want to make him a scapegoat or anything but look at this :

In the games against Orlando and the Lakers in late January, when we had a 10+ points lead at halftime, we collapsed in the second half. Pierce played in both of these games.

Then Pierce plays against the Wizards but gets hurt and he doesn't play in the 4th quarter, when we make our comeback to win the game.

Against Miami and NJ, Pierce doesn't play either. Same scenario everytime, we hang on to the lead and win it or make a comeback and win it in the second half.

Against Orlando, Paul plays and we collapse in the second after having a big lead. Same thing tonight against New Orleans.

If you take into account the only game we won against the Magic on Christmas... we had a 10+ points lead at the half and managed to hang with it to win the game... again, no Pierce.

So basically, of our latest 4 collapses, Pierce was playing in 4 of these games.

On the other hand, out of the 3 games we won while keeping our big lead (not including the Nets one since we were down at halftime) Paul wasn't playing (or not playing in the second half - see Wizards game - ).

I think it's more than a coincidence, especially considering how poorly Paul has played in the second half of games lately.

With 8 TOs you are big part of the blame but, I have hard time understanding how him playing during the games they happen to lose as ' the reason '.  This type of logic means that when they win the games he plays in then he also ' the reason '.

No one is playing well right now.

KG is shell of himself.

Perkins and Wallace are non existent.  I guess they can't really impact the game if they don't do anything.

Rondo played like garbage last night.

BBD and Daniels are the only ones that seemed to even have a pulse last night.

Maybe something is brewing that is leading to the lackluster play.

[Birdbrain]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

[Drucci]

I know the starters should be blamed as a unit for the blown leads so my point may seem useless.

But as I recalled which games we lost after leading big at halftime and which games we won by hanging on to our 10+ points lead after halftime, I see only one common factor in the losses : Paul Pierce.

Don't want to make him a scapegoat or anything but look at this :

In the games against Orlando and the Lakers in late January, when we had a 10+ points lead at halftime, we collapsed in the second half. Pierce played in both of these games.

Then Pierce plays against the Wizards but gets hurt and he doesn't play in the 4th quarter, when we make our comeback to win the game.

Against Miami and NJ, Pierce doesn't play either. Same scenario everytime, we hang on to the lead and win it or make a comeback and win it in the second half.

Against Orlando, Paul plays and we collapse in the second after having a big lead. Same thing tonight against New Orleans.

If you take into account the only game we won against the Magic on Christmas... we had a 10+ points lead at the half and managed to hang with it to win the game... again, no Pierce.

So basically, of our latest 4 collapses, Pierce was playing in 4 of these games.

On the other hand, out of the 3 games we won while keeping our big lead (not including the Nets one since we were down at halftime) Paul wasn't playing (or not playing in the second half - see Wizards game - ).

I think it's more than a coincidence, especially considering how poorly Paul has played in the second half of games lately.

With 8 TOs you are big part of the blame but, I have hard time understanding how him playing during the games they happen to lose as ' the reason '.  This type of logic means that when they win the games he plays in then he also ' the reason '.

No one is playing well right now.

KG is shell of himself.

Perkins and Wallace are non existent.  I guess they can't really impact the game if they don't do anything.

Rondo played like garbage last night.

BBD and Daniels are the only ones that seemed to even have a pulse last night.

Maybe something is brewing that is leading to the lackluster play.

Yeah, I know the blame can't be put on one player only and I precised it in my OP but I have the impression that whenever Paul is on the court in the third, at one time or another, Rondo will drop him the ball on multiple possessions, waiting for him to go on isos. Then the Celtics watch him turn the ball over or shoot a brick. They just don't do that in the first half or a very few times, but they suddenly go for Pierce isos  very often in the third (or in the 4th, too).

Of course it can be a good strategy when Pierce is is good shape but he has been terrible for the past few weeks and this strategy is just killing us, so yeah, I see him as the biggest reason for our struggles in the third. Not saying that he wants to hog the ball or something but his mere presence change the team's offensive schemes, for the worst.

[Birdbrain]

I know the starters should be blamed as a unit for the blown leads so my point may seem useless.

But as I recalled which games we lost after leading big at halftime and which games we won by hanging on to our 10+ points lead after halftime, I see only one common factor in the losses : Paul Pierce.

Don't want to make him a scapegoat or anything but look at this :

In the games against Orlando and the Lakers in late January, when we had a 10+ points lead at halftime, we collapsed in the second half. Pierce played in both of these games.

Then Pierce plays against the Wizards but gets hurt and he doesn't play in the 4th quarter, when we make our comeback to win the game.

Against Miami and NJ, Pierce doesn't play either. Same scenario everytime, we hang on to the lead and win it or make a comeback and win it in the second half.

Against Orlando, Paul plays and we collapse in the second after having a big lead. Same thing tonight against New Orleans.

If you take into account the only game we won against the Magic on Christmas... we had a 10+ points lead at the half and managed to hang with it to win the game... again, no Pierce.

So basically, of our latest 4 collapses, Pierce was playing in 4 of these games.

On the other hand, out of the 3 games we won while keeping our big lead (not including the Nets one since we were down at halftime) Paul wasn't playing (or not playing in the second half - see Wizards game - ).

I think it's more than a coincidence, especially considering how poorly Paul has played in the second half of games lately.

With 8 TOs you are big part of the blame but, I have hard time understanding how him playing during the games they happen to lose as ' the reason '.  This type of logic means that when they win the games he plays in then he also ' the reason '.

No one is playing well right now.

KG is shell of himself.

Perkins and Wallace are non existent.  I guess they can't really impact the game if they don't do anything.

Rondo played like garbage last night.

BBD and Daniels are the only ones that seemed to even have a pulse last night.

Maybe something is brewing that is leading to the lackluster play.

Yeah, I know the blame can't be put on one player only and I precised it in my OP but I have the impression that whenever Paul is on the court in the third, at one time or another, Rondo will drop him the ball on multiple possessions, waiting for him to go on isos. Then the Celtics watch him turn the ball over or shoot a brick. They just don't do that in the first half or a very few times, but they suddenly go for Pierce isos  very often in the third (or in the 4th, too).

Of course it can be a good strategy when Pierce is is good shape but he has been terrible for the past few weeks and this strategy is just killing us, so yeah, I see him as the biggest reason for our struggles in the third. Not saying that he wants to hog the ball or something but his mere presence change the team's offensive schemes, for the worst.

Yes I got that you said it wasn't only his fault but, then you go into saying it his fault.  So I'll stay with everyone playing horribly as the primary reason.  Again to think it's not game planned this way is basically saying Paul is going against Doc and the whole team when they go with iso's.  That doesn't pass my logic test. 

Your argument is akin to saying.. I don't mean to offend you but, you suck. 

[BballTim]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

  If Rondo's talking to reporters about the offense going through Paul and not him or Doc or Paul taking the ball out of his hands then things are worse than anyone thinks. That's not the kind of thing you'd ever want him discussing with reporters.

[ManUp]

I think the big 3 all share the blame in our blown leads. Pierce takes the ball out of Rondo's hands. Ray doesn't knockdown the open jumpers when they present themselves. KG doesn't give us generate high percentage shots like he used to. Pierce taking over the offense and shooters not knocking down open jumpers top my list on what's causing the blown leads.

[Birdbrain]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

  If Rondo's talking to reporters about the offense going through Paul and not him or Doc or Paul taking the ball out of his hands then things are worse than anyone thinks. That's not the kind of thing you'd ever want him discussing with reporters.

Exactly which is why it was bad move for him to do it as well the fact that both Doc and Danny thought it was bush league move as well.

[BballTim]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

  If Rondo's talking to reporters about the offense going through Paul and not him or Doc or Paul taking the ball out of his hands then things are worse than anyone thinks. That's not the kind of thing you'd ever want him discussing with reporters.

Exactly which is why it was bad move for him to do it as well the fact that both Doc and Danny thought it was bush league move as well.

  First of all, he *didn't* do it. Secondly, his approach may have been wrong but at least he's trying to take the reins and be a leader. We seem to be lacking tthat when KG's not playing. I'm sure that Doc and Danny would prefer to see him make a few mistakes as he grows than not have him step forward.

[ejk3489]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

  If Rondo's talking to reporters about the offense going through Paul and not him or Doc or Paul taking the ball out of his hands then things are worse than anyone thinks. That's not the kind of thing you'd ever want him discussing with reporters.

Exactly which is why it was bad move for him to do it as well the fact that both Doc and Danny thought it was bush league move as well.

Actually Doc, as well as Wyc, thought it showed a sign of maturity...Danny was the only one who said something bad about it. But whatever it doesn't really matter anymore it's old news.

[Birdbrain]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

  If Rondo's talking to reporters about the offense going through Paul and not him or Doc or Paul taking the ball out of his hands then things are worse than anyone thinks. That's not the kind of thing you'd ever want him discussing with reporters.

Exactly which is why it was bad move for him to do it as well the fact that both Doc and Danny thought it was bush league move as well.

  First of all, he *didn't* do it. Secondly, his approach may have been wrong but at least he's trying to take the reins and be a leader. We seem to be lacking tthat when KG's not playing. I'm sure that Doc and Danny would prefer to see him make a few mistakes as he grows than not have him step forward.

I'm confused by what you mean by he didn't do it.  Are you pointing out that was asked so he answered?  If so we agree he just should have said no comment.  So he did do it.  Like was mentioned it's hardly a big deal just doesn't jive with someone being forced out of initiating the offense like it seems that some believe.

And no I'm pretty sure Doc didn't think it was good idea because as you can see from last nights game Rondo's attitude and play need some work as well.

Maybe Rondo is just so frustrated with having to play with all these HOFs that he has given up as well....  Poor guy.

[BballTim]

I'm usually looking at Rondo. If Rondo was playing aggressive, they'd have no need to play through Pierce. So even though Pierce might not be as effective as he has been in the past to finish up games, it all starts with Rondo and how he's running our team. Just check all the games and the various points during which Rondo is aggressive and when he's not, and you'll see a pattern of when we play well and when we struggle.

  But does Rondo decide on his own not to be aggressive or does Doc or Paul decide that they should run the offense through Paul more? I've never understood the thinking that Rondo decides on his own that he'd rather, for instance, give the ball to Paul and stand in the corner than run the offense. I think it's more likely that Paul or Doc makes that decision. I do think that he starts the game trying to get his team involved instead of trying to take over the offense, though.

This is vexing for sure.  I thought Rondo was mr. team spokesman one would assume if he was man enough to speak out he would be man enough to say he's running things.   

  If Rondo's talking to reporters about the offense going through Paul and not him or Doc or Paul taking the ball out of his hands then things are worse than anyone thinks. That's not the kind of thing you'd ever want him discussing with reporters.

Exactly which is why it was bad move for him to do it as well the fact that both Doc and Danny thought it was bush league move as well.

  First of all, he *didn't* do it. Secondly, his approach may have been wrong but at least he's trying to take the reins and be a leader. We seem to be lacking tthat when KG's not playing. I'm sure that Doc and Danny would prefer to see him make a few mistakes as he grows than not have him step forward.

I'm confused by what you mean by he didn't do it.  Are you pointing out that was asked so he answered?  If so we agree he just should have said no comment.  So he did do it.  Like was mentioned it's hardly a big deal just doesn't jive with someone being forced out of initiating the offense like it seems that some believe.

And no I'm pretty sure Doc didn't think it was good idea because as you can see from last nights game Rondo's attitude and play need some work as well.

Maybe Rondo is just so frustrated with having to play with all these HOFs that he has given up as well....  Poor guy.

  What Rondo didn't do is talk to the media about how Doc and/or Paul sometimes switch the offense to being "Pierce-centric". The fact that he had a bad game doesn't mean Doc doesn't want Rondo to try and be a leader, just like Paul and Ray and KG's bad games doesn't mean that Doc doesn't want them to be leaders. And are you really trying to say that you think that Paul and Ray and KG are playing like HOFers? 2008 is over. Not only has Rondo been putting up numbers since Xmas that are as good as anything you'll see from any of the big three this year, but he's by far the player on the team that's stepped up his game the most since all the injuries struck.

[Vermont Green]

We lost to a pretty mediocore team last night and we have been a pretty mediocore team for some time.  I think the problems are, in no particular order:

KG is still not 100%.  Last night there was a play where West dribbled right by him for a basket.  That doesn't happen to the real KG.  Others are doing that to him also.  KG's defense anchors the whole team.  It is just not there right now.

Rondo still can't shoot.  Teams sag off him and clog the middle so we have no low post game.  We become a jump shooting team and inherent with that is hot and cold spells.  Last night, without Ray, we didn't have even close to enough perimeter threats to be a perimeter team.

Pierce is not 100% either.  With Rondo's man sagging off to clog the middle and really no other perimeter shooters other than Ray, Pierce has to work very hard to get any shot and not being 100% right now, he is not going to come through with the big baskets very often.

Other than that, we are fine.