Author Topic: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28  (Read 125683 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #390 on: March 28, 2011, 09:36:12 PM »

Offline radiohead

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7679
  • Tommy Points: 1380
Hibbert killed us today. We need the o'neals back asap. we're practically tied with Miami now, and we failed to capitalize on the Bulls impending loss. This just sucks big time. Even the Mavs have a better record than us now!

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #391 on: March 28, 2011, 09:36:17 PM »

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3501
  • Tommy Points: 545
Just gotta say it one more time:  Danny bamboozled Sam Presti.  Took him to the cleaners!

Are you serious?

No, not serious.  I'll probably express the sentiment many more times between now and the playoffs.

 ;D
In the summer of 2017, I predicted this team would not win a championship for the next 10 years.

3 down, 7 to go.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #392 on: March 28, 2011, 09:36:30 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Tired legs, second night of a road back to back.  This is not a surprise at all.  I am glad they seemed to care about this game though.  That's an improvement.

Thursday is going to be interesting though.  They have a couple nights off to get their legs back, and they should be up to play the Spurs.  That could be a real measuring-stick, even if Shaq isn't playing yet.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #393 on: March 28, 2011, 09:36:50 PM »

Offline Rondo No Look

  • Lonnie Walker IV
  • Posts: 54
  • Tommy Points: 3
Doc Rivers is shooting himself in the foot with his refusal to play Jeff Green with the starters

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #394 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:18 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
Just gotta say it one more time:  Danny bamboozled Sam Presti.  Took him to the cleaners!

Roy, do you honestly think having Perk in there tonight would have won us the game?  Would this team be so much better?  How great would this team be with Delonte, Von Wafer, and Glen Davis as our primary bench players? 

The Celtics CAN'T SCORE.  Late in games, they lose leads because they can't score, particularly inside.  They start shooting jumpshots, and they stop scoring.  They play decent defense; they just can't score.  Perk WOULD NOT help with that.

The trade is not the culprit here.  The team just doesn't have what it takes to be great at the moment . . . the core pieces just aren't enough.  I don't know if fatigue and injuries from age and lack of depth is finally catching up to them or what, but what I'm seeing out there is a team that is just not on the same level as Chicago, LA, Dallas, San Antonio, or half of the other playoff-bound teams. 

Blame the trade if you like, but it's a weak excuse.  I think Danny saw this coming, and tried to do something about it, but it was too late.  The window is slamming shut before our eyes.  We should all just be thankful it was even open as long as it was.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #395 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:23 PM »

Offline butterbeanlove

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1272
  • Tommy Points: 191
The worst part is that they tried...and lost...to the Pacers.

This isnt about being bored with the regular season, or coasting, or any of that nonsense. We are just BAD.

Yeah, no way to rationalize this loss except that the team tried and just simply came up short . . . to the Pacers.

Comparing this team to the Heat and the Bulls is painful.  I don't even want to talk about comparing them to the Lakers.

The Celtics are going to get their butts kicked in the playoffs by a team that is younger, deeper, hungrier, and more talented than they are.

That's the scary part. We played hard and we lost to the Pacers.

Oh wait, Shaq's coming back. I must have hope!

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #396 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:28 PM »

Offline Drucci

  • Global Moderator
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7223
  • Tommy Points: 439
Just gotta say it one more time:  Danny bamboozled Sam Presti.  Took him to the cleaners!

Are you serious?

Hes being sarcastic.

Perkins was the best player on this team and nobody knew it until he was traded. Guy was the REAL leader and backbone of this team.

Come on, let go the "Perk was the best player on that team", this is ridiculous and I hope you know it.

It's incredible that everybody keeps putting the blame on the trade while this would have still been a loss with Perk.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #397 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:38 PM »

Offline YouCantHandleTheTruth!

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 676
  • Tommy Points: 31
Tired legs, second night of a road back to back.  This is not a surprise at all.  I am glad they seemed to care about this game though.  That's an improvement.

Thursday is going to be interesting though.  They have a couple nights off to get their legs back, and they should be up to play the Spurs.  That could be a real measuring-stick, even if Shaq isn't playing yet.

Yep, time to be optimistic..  ::)
The Celtic in me.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #398 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:43 PM »

Offline bruinsandceltics

  • NGT
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2691
  • Tommy Points: 130
  • ANYTHING is posssiiibbbbllee
It's sad because you can tell people on this board care more about winning than some of the guys on the floor.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #399 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:58 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62688
  • Tommy Points: -25472
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Tired legs, second night of a road back to back.  This is not a surprise at all.  I am glad they seemed to care about this game though.  That's an improvement.

Thursday is going to be interesting though.  They have a couple nights off to get their legs back, and they should be up to play the Spurs.  That could be a real measuring-stick, even if Shaq isn't playing yet.

The Spurs should be playing without Duncan and Ginobili.  In other words, they should only beat us by 15.   :D


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

You guys didnt really expect to win tonight did you?
« Reply #400 on: March 28, 2011, 09:38:03 PM »

Offline Megatron

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1586
  • Tommy Points: 136
Celtics have something like a 2-10 record on the second night of back to backs, were the worst in the league when it comes to these games on the schedule, almost a guranteed loss. There are 3 more remaining and were going to lose those two.

They just cant win these games.

National TV is going to have a field day when the Spurs beat us without Ginobili and Duncan, arguably their two best players, C's also have a sub .500 record when facing teams missing their stars, so yes, thats a loss. Spurs will probably hit 25 threes and bury us in a blow out.

Get ready for it.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #401 on: March 28, 2011, 09:38:38 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13074
  • Tommy Points: 121
Just gotta say it one more time:  Danny bamboozled Sam Presti.  Took him to the cleaners!

Are you serious?

Hes being sarcastic.

Perkins was the best player on this team and nobody knew it until he was traded. Guy was the REAL leader and backbone of this team.

I still don't get why people think that Perkins was the backbone of the team.  It was CLEARLY Nate Robinson.

People are assuming that the Cs poor play is the result of losing Perkins, but Perkins was out most of the season, and the Celtics play didn't change when he started playing again.  

Instead, I think its due to Nate Robinson.  That little guy might not have been that effective on the court, but he sure did have a great, cocksure attitude that infected the team with a desire to win.  Now that he's gone, so are the Cs chances....
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #402 on: March 28, 2011, 09:38:48 PM »

Offline aporel#18

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2332
  • Tommy Points: 170
The Celtics have won games the whole season through injuries and without key players. Tonight they've been too short on the frontcourt, Baby and KG are great, but you need someone to play C. Krstic was out because of fouls. Even if he could play, at some point being shorthanded will catch up with your team.

I'm not worried about HCA, last year some of the most horrible officiating took place in the Garden. I'm worried about the Celtics having enough healthy bodies to play hard through the playoffs.

Good night, I feel like we can't play worse basketball, so it's all getting better from here on.

Go Celtics!!!

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #403 on: March 28, 2011, 09:39:02 PM »

Offline Drucci

  • Global Moderator
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7223
  • Tommy Points: 439
Frustrating loss especially after getting back in this one. At least the silver linings are that the team tried and played hard and Rondo got back to his formel self (before disappearing in the 4th).

What's more frustrating is that once again the Bulls are probably going to lose and we're not capitalizing on it while they lose like 1 time every 2 weeks.

Good night everybody.

Re: Celtics (51-21) at Pacers (32-42) 3/28
« Reply #404 on: March 28, 2011, 09:39:07 PM »

Offline Green Hell

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 419
  • Tommy Points: 58
So can we all finally agree that we are watching a repeat of last season?
Never stop believing baby~