Couldn't disagree with Jackie Mac more

[GreenFaith1819]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play. 

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

So Redz - Do you believe that Paul would've gotten some calls in his favor if he would've stayed in the game? I watched most of the game yesterday, and to me at least it appeared as if Boston would've had to have played a PERFECT game to beat MIA yesterday.

That is why I don't post so much in the game threads anymore - I spend more time actually watching the flow of games. It just seemed to me that Paul would not have received the benefit of the calls yesterday.

I don't know whether the calls would have improved or not, but I do believe his team would have had a better chance at winning the game if he was on the floor instead of the locker room.

Can't argue with you there, Redz....looking back at what Doc told him after the game, I can understand a little better why Doc approached it like he did.

[hangfan]

I think the 2nd T was largely the result of the refs feeling like they gave Pierce the benefit of the doubt not giving him the boot when he initiated facial contact with Jones.
[/quote]

Perhaps. So a "make-up" call, then. He could have gotten ejected for the facebump. Zaza & J-Rich got ejected for something similar in the Orl-Atl series. Though their dustup lasted longer.

[Redz]

I think the 2nd T was largely the result of the refs feeling like they gave Pierce the benefit of the doubt not giving him the boot when he initiated facial contact with Jones.

Perhaps. So a "make-up" call, then. He could have gotten ejected for the facebump. Zaza & J-Rich got ejected for something similar in the Orl-Atl series. Though their dustup lasted longer.

I can't think of any other reason why he was so quick on the 2nd one, except he felt like he gave Pierce a chance to hang around, and Pierce wasn't contrite enough for his liking.  That, and maybe he was caught up in the moment a bit himself.

[Redz]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play. 

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

So Redz - Do you believe that Paul would've gotten some calls in his favor if he would've stayed in the game? I watched most of the game yesterday, and to me at least it appeared as if Boston would've had to have played a PERFECT game to beat MIA yesterday.

That is why I don't post so much in the game threads anymore - I spend more time actually watching the flow of games. It just seemed to me that Paul would not have received the benefit of the calls yesterday.

I don't know whether the calls would have improved or not, but I do believe his team would have had a better chance at winning the game if he was on the floor instead of the locker room.

Can't argue with you there, Redz....looking back at what Doc told him after the game, I can understand a little better why Doc approached it like he did.

What did Doc say GF?  Missed that.

[GreenFaith1819]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play. 

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

So Redz - Do you believe that Paul would've gotten some calls in his favor if he would've stayed in the game? I watched most of the game yesterday, and to me at least it appeared as if Boston would've had to have played a PERFECT game to beat MIA yesterday.

That is why I don't post so much in the game threads anymore - I spend more time actually watching the flow of games. It just seemed to me that Paul would not have received the benefit of the calls yesterday.

I don't know whether the calls would have improved or not, but I do believe his team would have had a better chance at winning the game if he was on the floor instead of the locker room.

Can't argue with you there, Redz....looking back at what Doc told him after the game, I can understand a little better why Doc approached it like he did.

What did Doc say GF?  Missed that.

After the game, Doc made mention of not letting the calls affect you one way or the other...I'm assuming he was talking about Paul in this case. Doc's made mention of this before when the games have gotten chippy.

I would've been hard-pressed to remain calm in a game like yesterday, though. But yes - you are right - we would've had a better opportunity with Paul out there than not.

[hangfan]

"I was more disappointed in letting my teammates down," Pierce said Monday...

"I don't know if we need to talk to him -- we have -- but we talked to the team," said Rivers. "I didn't talk to Paul, I didn't seek Paul out to talk, I just didn't think we handled a lot of things well. Not only [the technical fouls], but just the way we played."

Those quotes are from an article by Forsberg today. You can find it here. http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=6466824

[Jaycelt]

I think the 2nd T was largely the result of the refs feeling like they gave Pierce the benefit of the doubt not giving him the boot when he initiated facial contact with Jones.

Perhaps. So a "make-up" call, then. He could have gotten ejected for the facebump. Zaza & J-Rich got ejected for something similar in the Orl-Atl series. Though their dustup lasted longer.

I can't think of any other reason why he was so quick on the 2nd one, except he felt like he gave Pierce a chance to hang around, and Pierce wasn't contrite enough for his liking.  That, and maybe he was caught up in the moment a bit himself.

Except the official said it wasn't a head butt, which it wasn't.
So if he obviosuly didn't think he let Pierce get away with anything there would be no need for a make up call.  That leaves the official got caught up in the moment.  Hardly Pierce's fault. 

[Celticsfan336]

Disapointed in jackie mac i usually like her

[Redz]

I think the 2nd T was largely the result of the refs feeling like they gave Pierce the benefit of the doubt not giving him the boot when he initiated facial contact with Jones.

Perhaps. So a "make-up" call, then. He could have gotten ejected for the facebump. Zaza & J-Rich got ejected for something similar in the Orl-Atl series. Though their dustup lasted longer.

I can't think of any other reason why he was so quick on the 2nd one, except he felt like he gave Pierce a chance to hang around, and Pierce wasn't contrite enough for his liking.  That, and maybe he was caught up in the moment a bit himself.

Except the official said it wasn't a head butt, which it wasn't.
So if he obviosuly didn't think he let Pierce get away with anything there would be no need for a make up call.  That leaves the official got caught up in the moment.  Hardly Pierce's fault. 

Whether he thought it was head butt or not, a player touching another's face like that could easily get him tossed (he just wouldn't get suspended for lack of a head butt).

[Tgro]

I don't think the players are soft, but the game sure has gotten soft. If you can remember the days of the Bad Boys of Detroit, everybody back then would be thrown out of every game today.

People don't come to games, especially Playoff games, to see the superstars get kicked out for what? Cursing??? Seriously???

I could see it if they're was a legitimate head butt. Take a swing at someone, get into a wrestling match....etc. But to take a couple of hard fouls, get mad because you're getting played dirty and get T'ed up both times and ejected having never thrown a swing or a headbutt (His head is attached to his body) He walked up to him to show him he ain't a chump.

It's taking the fun out of the game.

Let men be men.

Let physical basketball sort itself out. Let the boys play. This is the NBA Playoffs. It IS time to be tough.

What it's not is it's not time for the Ref's to help decide games.

[Celtics18]

Best description of the situation:

http://twitter.com/#!/freemaneric/status/64810414252363776

The answer to that twitter question: Yes.

[ThaPreacher]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play. 

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

I was just talking about the Indiana series the other day also.
And to compare these two games is simply foolhardy.  Not even close.  Not even in the same category.  Red Auerbach may stop his cardgame with Johnny Most just long enough to come back from the dead, log on Celticsblog and chastise you and Jackie MacMullen, Both!

I think that you and Jackie MacMullen are correct in one area: Paul Pierce needs to lead.
But her article lacks any real understanding of time era. Bird, Russell, Cowens, certainly Heinson would have been ejected many times in this era.  No not Havlicek.  Are you forgetting
Larry Bird once threw a ball at Bill Laimbeer.  He didn't get ejected.  Do you recall Robert Parish pummeling the same Piston.  Good gawd guys cut Pierce some slack.  He shouldn't have been ejected.

Let me ask you this question, do you think that Lebron James,
Dwade, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant would have had that second technical called?  Seriously?

Watch the video.  See the blatant shoulder Wade planted on Pierce.  Any decent referee would have warned Pierce, and dealt with the real baby faced assassin.

Pierce should have been cooler.  Smarter.  But lets not make this a character/leadership issue.  Its not even close.

Captain, My Captain, lead on.  I stand behind you.

[Moranis]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play. 

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

I was just talking about the Indiana series the other day also.
And to compare these two games is simply foolhardy.  Not even close.  Not even in the same category.  Red Auerbach may stop his cardgame with Johnny Most just long enough to come back from the dead, log on Celticsblog and chastise you and Jackie MacMullen, Both!

I think that you and Jackie MacMullen are correct in one area: Paul Pierce needs to lead.
But her article lacks any real understanding of time era. Bird, Russell, Cowens, certainly Heinson would have been ejected many times in this era.  No not Havlicek.  Are you forgetting
Larry Bird once threw a ball at Bill Laimbeer.  He didn't get ejected.  Do you recall Robert Parish pummeling the same Piston.  Good gawd guys cut Pierce some slack.  He shouldn't have been ejected.

Let me ask you this question, do you think that Lebron James,
Dwade, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant would have had that second technical called?  Seriously?

Watch the video.  See the blatant shoulder Wade planted on Pierce.  Any decent referee would have warned Pierce, and dealt with the real baby faced assassin.

Pierce should have been cooler.  Smarter.  But lets not make this a character/leadership issue.  Its not even close.

Captain, My Captain, lead on.  I stand behind you.

You, as well as a number of others, just aren't getting the point of the article.  It isn't about anything other then Pierce getting kicked out of what is now his second playoff game.  She certainly wasn't implying that Pierce's conduct was worse then Bird's et. al, but merely that Pierce should no better.  Pierce knows the rules of this era and his immature, retaliatory, and childish actions got him booted from a playoff game.  You can write 2004 off, but not 2011. 

Let me ask it this way, if Bird was in his prime right now, do you really think he would be playing the game the same way?  I mean come on, Bird would have adapted his game for the rules of the era, and Bird would have known better at this point in his career.

[ThaPreacher]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play.  

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

I was just talking about the Indiana series the other day also.
And to compare these two games is simply foolhardy.  Not even close.  Not even in the same category.  Red Auerbach may stop his cardgame with Johnny Most just long enough to come back from the dead, log on Celticsblog and chastise you and Jackie MacMullen, Both!

I think that you and Jackie MacMullen are correct in one area: Paul Pierce needs to lead.
But her article lacks any real understanding of time era. Bird, Russell, Cowens, certainly Heinson would have been ejected many times in this era.  No not Havlicek.  Are you forgetting
Larry Bird once threw a ball at Bill Laimbeer.  He didn't get ejected.  Do you recall Robert Parish pummeling the same Piston.  Good gawd guys cut Pierce some slack.  He shouldn't have been ejected.

Let me ask you this question, do you think that Lebron James,
Dwade, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant would have had that second technical called?  Seriously?

Watch the video.  See the blatant shoulder Wade planted on Pierce.  Any decent referee would have warned Pierce, and dealt with the real baby faced assassin.

Pierce should have been cooler.  Smarter.  But lets not make this a character/leadership issue.  Its not even close.

Captain, My Captain, lead on.  I stand behind you.

You, as well as a number of others, just aren't getting the point of the article.  It isn't about anything other then Pierce getting kicked out of what is now his second playoff game.  She certainly wasn't implying that Pierce's conduct was worse then Bird's et. al, but merely that Pierce should no better.  Pierce knows the rules of this era and his immature, retaliatory, and childish actions got him booted from a playoff game.  You can write 2004 off, but not 2011.  

Let me ask it this way, if Bird was in his prime right now, do you really think he would be playing the game the same way?  I mean come on, Bird would have adapted his game for the rules of the era, and Bird would have known better at this point in his career.

[ThaPreacher]

Just the other day I was venting about Pierce's antics in the `04 playoffs in the "can you forgive a player for a mistake that costs a game"  thread.  I had a real tough time with that one for quite some time.

I thought Pierce had grown up, but yesterday he let his emotions get the best of him.  In the Indiana game of yore Antoine bailed him out in OT.  Yesterday, no such luck (though I did like some of what I saw with the team - especially KG - stepping up in his absence). I'm not saying the Celts would have won if he was still in there yesterday, but he was starting to heat up.  Pierce is plenty capable of letting his vindictiveness show through his play.  

Hopefully he can do just that in Game 2.

I'm disappointed in Pierce. Not very "Captain like".

I was just talking about the Indiana series the other day also.
And to compare these two games is simply foolhardy.  Not even close.  Not even in the same category.  Red Auerbach may stop his cardgame with Johnny Most just long enough to come back from the dead, log on Celticsblog and chastise you and Jackie MacMullen, Both!

I think that you and Jackie MacMullen are correct in one area: Paul Pierce needs to lead.
But her article lacks any real understanding of time era. Bird, Russell, Cowens, certainly Heinson would have been ejected many times in this era.  No not Havlicek.  Are you forgetting
Larry Bird once threw a ball at Bill Laimbeer.  He didn't get ejected.  Do you recall Robert Parish pummeling the same Piston.  Good gawd guys cut Pierce some slack.  He shouldn't have been ejected.

Let me ask you this question, do you think that Lebron James,
Dwade, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant would have had that second technical called?  Seriously?

Watch the video.  See the blatant shoulder Wade planted on Pierce.  Any decent referee would have warned Pierce, and dealt with the real baby faced assassin.

Pierce should have been cooler.  Smarter.  But lets not make this a character/leadership issue.  Its not even close.

Captain, My Captain, lead on.  I stand behind you.

You, as well as a number of others, just aren't getting the point of the article.  It isn't about anything other then Pierce getting kicked out of what is now his second playoff game.  She certainly wasn't implying that Pierce's conduct was worse then Bird's et. al, but merely that Pierce should no better.  Pierce knows the rules of this era and his immature, retaliatory, and childish actions got him booted from a playoff game.  You can write 2004 off, but not 2011.  

Let me ask it this way, if Bird was in his prime right now, do you really think he would be playing the game the same way?  I mean come on, Bird would have adapted his game for the rules of the era, and Bird would have known better at this point in his career.

I won't write off 2004.  Pierce was childish.  The press conference was even worse.  So bad, that even 'Toine had to get up and remove himself from the podium, Pierce's antics were so embarrassingly wrong.

But you obviously missed the entire point of what I said.  Go back and reread it.  As I have reread the MacMullen article.
And I am critical of Jackie MacMullen who said:

"Shouldn't Pierce be past this? All indications were he had matured into a reliable elder statesman, a Celtics winner who had taken his rightful place among the greats in this storied franchise."

I don't believe Pierce should have been ejected.  I don't believe that the officials would have called it the other way.

Doc can say what he wants because he as a coach needs to ensure he doesn't lose any other players to emotionalism.  And in going forward Pierce needs to ensure he remains in the game.
But lets not compare the Pierce from Sunday's game to 2004.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Swearing at the opposition, after what is seeming a flagrant and intentionally hard foul should not be grounds of ejection.  (If it had been Dennis Rodman, not Dwade setting that pick, the pundits would have asked for his ejection and been decrying his nefarious ways).

I have sat court side at a number of playoff games.  I can assure you that there is a tremendous amount of swearing and trash talking going on.  "Taunting," if you want to really get technical. It is simply not called.  

Would you and Jackie been decrying Pierce's immaturity and poor leadership, if the officials hadn't made that call.  Would you have chastised him as she did?
 
saying: "It was an appalling development for the team captain and supposed leader, who, instead of helping Boston scratch back from a deficit that was as high as 19 points, lost his composure and was forced to watch the remainder of the game from the locker room in disgrace"

My guess is that you wouldn't have.  You wouldn't have been critical if he hadn't been assessed the technical.  Which is why the logic is flawed.

And while his ejection was untimely, to compare the incident to 2004 which was entirely different is simply unfair.

I couldn't disagree with Jackie MacMullen more, and neither can Red Auerbach.