Author Topic: No C + No PG = Loss  (Read 3405 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

No C + No PG = Loss
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:27:43 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
At the end of the day (and the end of the series), we had trouble running our offense and getting big stops.

and like Doc said postgame, at crunch time we had two new pieces in there. DWest for Rondo and Kristic/Green for Perk/Shaq/JO.

as a result, our interior defense was porous and our execution on the offensive end was erratic.

That's why we lost. Anybody who suggests that the Big 3 just got old is looking for a provocative story line. They're not describing what happened on the court.

Danny unfortunately hamstrung our interior defense by making us dependent on an injured JO and Shaq with the Perk trade and a freak injury took out Rondo.

So, for next season, Rondo get better, Danny please get us a starting C and someone figure out how to get Jeff Green to play up to his vast potential.

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2011, 10:44:32 PM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.


Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2011, 10:45:52 PM »

Offline Change

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6666
  • Tommy Points: 544
Puhlease!! Celtics collapsed with Rondo playing plenty of times. Frankly I would love the Celtics to get Chris Paul. A point guard to shoulder some scoring.

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2011, 10:46:12 PM »

Offline vinnie

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8654
  • Tommy Points: 429
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.



The interior defense tonight was brutal. Miami went to the hoop almost uncontested most of the night. Not sure how this team is going to get a real center for next year.

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2011, 10:47:40 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.



They hit a couple big threes but threes end up being open when you have an entire game of penetration to the basket.

Kristic had some nice buckets but he was late on most rotations...

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2011, 10:48:38 PM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides
No C? You forgot the offensively gifted stud we got in that robbery....Nenad Krstic. He'll play really well in the next game...really.



Oh wait....
"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi


Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2011, 10:51:00 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
The Celtics lost 4 games in this series the same way they lost Game 7 of the Finals last year and the same way they've lost countless regular season games over the last two years: they ran out of energy in the fourth quarter.  They couldn't get stops or score when they needed to in the crunch because the energy wasn't there anymore for the Big 3.

The Big 3 are still very good players, but they are past the point where they can expend full effort on both ends of the court all game and still compete late in the 4th quarter.

The only way this team can stay competitive with this group is a) either get Rondo scoring 15-20 a game or get a point guard who can and b) get a big man who can score 15 points a game inside.  The Big 3 can't be expected to carry the defensive load and lock down on D anymore.
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: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2011, 10:55:57 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37808
  • Tommy Points: 3030
D12 + CP3 = #18

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2011, 11:00:06 PM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.



The interior defense tonight was brutal. Miami went to the hoop almost uncontested most of the night. Not sure how this team is going to get a real center for next year.

Interior defense starts at the perimeter and at the point of attack.

If Shaq or Perk were healthy and here...they would be last line of defense in the paint.

Guess who still gets the calls?

Not us.

We had more control over other aspects of the game. Turnovers are the biggest reason we lost this series.

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2011, 11:00:16 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
The Celtics lost 4 games in this series the same way they lost Game 7 of the Finals last year and the same way they've lost countless regular season games over the last two years: they ran out of energy in the fourth quarter.  They couldn't get stops or score when they needed to in the crunch because the energy wasn't there anymore for the Big 3.

The Big 3 are still very good players, but they are past the point where they can expend full effort on both ends of the court all game and still compete late in the 4th quarter.

The only way this team can stay competitive with this group is a) either get Rondo scoring 15-20 a game or get a point guard who can and b) get a big man who can score 15 points a game inside.  The Big 3 can't be expected to carry the defensive load and lock down on D anymore.

We lost game 7 because we didn't have Perk. Give us a few more defensive rebounds in that game and we win. We had trouble keeping LA off the offensive glass and that was directly related to not having Perk in game 7...

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2011, 11:00:25 PM »

Offline rsan

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 90
  • Tommy Points: 12
a solid PF off the bench is what we need to spell KG. Baby was to much of a liability. Who that PF is, I dont know. Rondo and West were a solid PG group this year. Injuries hurt them, but they were great. C will be tough to find. Again I like DeAndre Jordan, but of course it does make it difficult to see him have a huge impact on the offensive end

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2011, 11:01:37 PM »

Offline Change

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6666
  • Tommy Points: 544
D12 + CP3 = #18


I like how you think  ;)

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2011, 11:02:18 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.



The interior defense tonight was brutal. Miami went to the hoop almost uncontested most of the night. Not sure how this team is going to get a real center for next year.

Interior defense starts at the perimeter and at the point of attack.

If Shaq or Perk were healthy and here...they would be last line of defense in the paint.

Guess who still gets the calls?

Not us.

We had more control over other aspects of the game. Turnovers are the biggest reason we lost this series.

but in order to be aggressive at the point of attack you need to know that you have guys behind you that will be in position. That just was not the case, so our wings needed to lay off more than they should....which led to more open threes...

CHI plays the same way...

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2011, 11:06:38 PM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.



They hit a couple big threes but threes end up being open when you have an entire game of penetration to the basket.

Kristic had some nice buckets but he was late on most rotations...

When you face superstars (who also receive the benefit of the doubt from the refs) you have to pick and choose what u want to defend and what you give them.

I guess we chose to try to defend the 3 and leave the paint open.

Re: No C + No PG = Loss
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2011, 11:09:42 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
It looked to me though, those new guys played well in there.

Our Big 3 didn't.

We didn't lose because of our interior defense in that 4th quarter....they were dropping 3's.



They hit a couple big threes but threes end up being open when you have an entire game of penetration to the basket.

Kristic had some nice buckets but he was late on most rotations...

When you face superstars (who also receive the benefit of the doubt from the refs) you have to pick and choose what u want to defend and what you give them.

I guess we chose to try to defend the 3 and leave the paint open.

you do have to pick your poison but it's easier to close out on shooters when you have faith that others will have your back on dribble penetration.