6 Reasons the Celtics Will Be on Vacation in June

[CoachCowens]

#1 -- the lack of quickness and mobility from the big men collectively which has decreased the Celtics ability to play high end pick and roll defense, transition defense and to make multiple defensive rotations on the same possession.

#2 -- the below average rebounding which is largely due to the very poor rebounding Boston is getting from Rasheed Wallace and the wing players (Pierce/Ray/Marquis).

#3 -- the decline offensively from Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett ... KG's problems appear to be more mental than physical. Not enough confidence in his body's health. Not enough urgency to take over. Paul Pierce's problems are more worrying, he just doesn't look consistently capable of being a dominant scorer anymore. A very good one, yes, but not a dominant one. Not the type of guy who could take over a game whenever his team needs him to.

I think part of #3 is in conflict with #1. The most mobile and best defender on this team for big men has been KG.  He has lost some quickness and hops. It has meant more contested shots and less rebounds for him. 

[Celts17Pride]

Rondo's outside shooting, allowing teams to double Ray Allen and Pierce.

[Drucci]

Nick, just to clarify : I didn't intend to "dismiss" PosImpos' thread because it was negative but I found it quite odd to pinpoint all our weaknesses after one bad game. We all know what the weaknesses of this team are for having witnessed it during the entire season and our terrible stretch after Christmas. But it surprised me to pinpoint all these areas of improvement just after a loss that was, in my opinion, nothing more than "it's not our night" loss (although the Spurs outhustled us, for the most part we weren't making any shots, even wide open so it was that "kind of night").

It disturbed me in the sense that I wouldn't have thought of creating a thread entitled "6 reasons why the Celtics will be holding the Larry O'Brien trophy in June" after one good or great game. Same thinking.

Also, I think you're underestimating Perk's impact in this loss, or lack thereof, because our defense in the paint was really suffering from him not playing.

[RAcker]

While I agree with a lot of what Pos said in his OP, this thread is still:

[RAcker]

Nick, just to clarify : I didn't intend to "dismiss" PosImpos' thread because it was negative but I found it quite odd to pinpoint all our weaknesses after one bad game. We all know what the weaknesses of this team are for having witnessed it during the entire season and our terrible stretch after Christmas. But it surprised me to pinpoint all these areas of improvement just after a loss that was, in my opinion, nothing more than "it's not our night" loss (although the Spurs outhustled us, for the most part we weren't making any shots, even wide open so it was that "kind of night").

It disturbed me in the sense that I wouldn't have thought of creating a thread entitled "6 reasons why the Celtics will be holding the Larry O'Brien trophy in June" after one good or great game. Same thinking.

Also, I think you're underestimating Perk's impact in this loss, or lack thereof, because our defense in the paint was really suffering from him not playing.

Great point about Perk's absense.  That wouldn't have helped our horrible shooting any, but we missed that inside enforcer and extra rebounder.

[mobilija]

While I agree with a lot of what Pos said in his OP, this thread is still:

Exactly, while I don't think the OP is far off in his observations about some of the qualitites of this team, I don't think they disqualify them from winning it all.

It's an I told you so Post, if the celtics lose.

[PosImpos]

While I agree with a lot of what Pos said in his OP, this thread is still:

Exactly, while I don't think the OP is far off in his observations about some of the qualitites of this team, I don't think they disqualify them from winning it all.

It's an I told you so Post, if the celtics lose.

Not at all.  It's a summary of the flaws I've seen in this team over the course of the regular season.  I chose the title because I think that will be the end result of these flaws. 

If the Celtics find a way to put it all together and transcend these flaws, beyond all reason, then I will be ecstatic.  But even in that scenario it won't invalidate my points - it'll just mean the Celtics somehow rose above them.  Another title of the thread could have been "This is your 2009-2010 Boston Celtics: Like it or Not.  This is the nature of the team this year, and that's not going to change, whether they win or lose (but they'll probably lose eventually).

If the Celtics do indeed lose, I won't be pointing to this post saying SEE!  SEE!  I WAS RIGHT!  Rather, I'll be hoping that Danny is aware of these flaws and looks to correct them as he rebuilds the team in the future.

[RAcker]

While I agree with a lot of what Pos said in his OP, this thread is still:

Exactly, while I don't think the OP is far off in his observations about some of the qualitites of this team, I don't think they disqualify them from winning it all.

It's an I told you so Post, if the celtics lose.

Not at all.  It's a summary of the flaws I've seen in this team over the course of the regular season.  I chose the title because I think that will be the end result of these flaws.  If the Celtics find a way to put it all together and transcend these flaws, beyond all reason, then I will be ecstatic.  But even in that scenario it won't invalidate my points - it'll just mean the Celtics somehow rose above them. 

If the Celtics do indeed lose, I won't be pointing to this post saying SEE!  SEE!  I WAS RIGHT!  Rather, I'll be hoping that Danny is aware of these flaws and looks to correct them as he rebuilds the team in the future.

I share this hope.  Just last night I was wondering what Danny's offseason thoughts were already.  There are a ton of decisions to make and each one will be crucial in where we go over the next 3 to 5 years.

[BballTim]

It's been the same story all season:

1) Poor rebounding - in part because our bigs don't block out and in part because our team has a general lack of athleticism.

  Sounds odd, but one of our bigger problems with rebounding seems to be that we actually try and rebound. A lot of the rebounds we don't get are because other teams send in players to crash the glass and just try and tip the ball away and not try and grab the ball.

2) Lack of interior scoring.  Our most reliable scorer within 5 feet is Perk, and he can't succeed on offense unless everybody else is hitting shots so he is left open.  He can't score 1 on 1.  KG is now primarily a mid-range jumpshooter and Rasheed...well, Rasheed is different things on different nights but in general he's not reliable from anywhere.  Davis is too stumpy to finish around the rim in traffic consistently, especially when the defense pays attention to him.  Shelden Williams is just not a good offensive player.

  Not suer anyone addressed this yet, but we take more shots from the inside than we did when we won the title and we make more of the inside shots that we take than we did in 08.

[More Banners]

It seems to me, every team that wins the title has some role player that shows up and plays at a very high level, making key plays or performing a role nearly flawlessly.  Of course, I agree with DA that the stars need to play like stars, but there is always someone else, too, and usually it's a stepping-up situation.

What is concerning is that our stars don't have the consistency of stars.  Some nights, one or more of them look unstoppable...some nights...but they look rather mortal most of the time.

And I don't really believe that anyone on the bench, anyone at all, has distinguished themselves.  We expect, rightly expect, that Sheed is/will be 'that guy,' but after 70 games, it's pretty safe to call him what he is...and is not.  He is not "That Guy" who makes the contribution that turns a contender into a champion.  Frankly, it's been a long time since he was.

On the backup wing, I wish we had ONE player with TA's aggressiveness and defense, Finley's shooting, and Daniels' length/handles, but instead we have three flawed players and a coach that doesn't "get" matchups making substitutions...  That ONE player could be "That Guy" we need now...and should be our MLE target this offseason, whoever he is.

What gives us hope for this postseason, I think, is our belief that on any given night, one or all of the Big 3 can have a throwback night, that they might carry the team (or drag the bench, as it were) to victory...

[mobilija]

While I agree with a lot of what Pos said in his OP, this thread is still:

Exactly, while I don't think the OP is far off in his observations about some of the qualitites of this team, I don't think they disqualify them from winning it all.

It's an I told you so Post, if the celtics lose.

Not at all.  It's a summary of the flaws I've seen in this team over the course of the regular season.  I chose the title because I think that will be the end result of these flaws. 

If the Celtics find a way to put it all together and transcend these flaws, beyond all reason, then I will be ecstatic.  But even in that scenario it won't invalidate my points - it'll just mean the Celtics somehow rose above them.  Another title of the thread could have been "This is your 2009-2010 Boston Celtics: Like it or Not.  This is the nature of the team this year, and that's not going to change, whether they win or lose (but they'll probably lose eventually).

If the Celtics do indeed lose, I won't be pointing to this post saying SEE!  SEE!  I WAS RIGHT!  Rather, I'll be hoping that Danny is aware of these flaws and looks to correct them as he rebuilds the team in the future.

I shouldn't have presumed to read your mind, but your title does sugest exactly that the celtics will lose the championship because of your observations.

[Mr October]

LOL Celtics blog is funny sometimes, after losses everyone overreacts and is quick to nitpick flaws. And vice versa the opposite say we beat Cleveland next week, there will be a influx of "...I beleive Banner #18 threads"

In my case, I have been consistent since early January that this team does not have the horses to win the title. Still love them and will still go to most homes games and watch every other home and away game. You can still be a fan of a team and take a step back and say, "I just don't think they are good enough."

Hehe, after a loss, the glass half empty posters go nuts. After a big win the glass half full posters go crazy.

Each time it is a the same names sticking to their sides of the glass debate.

Just like in politics (uh oh, i said it), the truth is somewhere in the middle. Pieces of both sides are correct.

1. The Celtics have flaws and are going to need things to click just right and have the health just well enough in order to contend.

2. The C's defensive strategy relies on them scoring, putting forth a minimal effort on the offensive glass (for the sake of getting back on transition defense).

3. This means if the C's score they do well. If the scoring drops they can get blown out against anyone who is hot.

In the playoffs you can expect to see more attacking of the rim, and close range shots. But no matter what, if the C's are hitting their 3's they are as dangerous as anyone. If they are cold from the outside, they are toast.

[More Banners]

1. The Celtics have flaws and are going to need things to click just right...in order to contend.

2. The C's defensive strategy relies on them scoring, putting forth a minimal effort on the offensive glass (for the sake of getting back on transition defense).

3. This means if the C's score they do well. If the scoring drops they can get blown out against anyone who is hot.

In the playoffs you can expect to see more attacking of the rim, and close range shots. But no matter what, if the C's are hitting their 3's they are as dangerous as anyone. If they are cold from the outside, they are toast.

Does anyone else think this sounds EXACTLY like the 2002 team that made the improbable run to the ECF?

[Mr October]

1. The Celtics have flaws and are going to need things to click just right...in order to contend.

2. The C's defensive strategy relies on them scoring, putting forth a minimal effort on the offensive glass (for the sake of getting back on transition defense).

3. This means if the C's score they do well. If the scoring drops they can get blown out against anyone who is hot.

In the playoffs you can expect to see more attacking of the rim, and close range shots. But no matter what, if the C's are hitting their 3's they are as dangerous as anyone. If they are cold from the outside, they are toast.

Does anyone else think this sounds EXACTLY like the 2002 team that made the improbable run to the ECF?

Similar. But he 2002 C's were way undersized. Walker was small for a 4. Rogers was way small for a 5. Battie was more the size of a 4 then a 5. Eric Williams was a solid 3 forced to play a little 4.

KG, Perkins, Wallace, Davis are a bigger than an average NBA frontline.

[moiso]

I don't think the teams are that similar.  The 2002 team sucked but overachieved by playing great defense.  This team is so much more talented.