I'll say it again, we need Pierce off the bench

[CeltsAcumen]

I am sure Paul Pierce will be so happy you benched him for a guy who averages 5pts and 3rbs a game. 

Jeff Green is overrated.  Paul Pierce is a hall of famer.  Enough said.

[nickagneta]

I hope whoever is saying this will stop saying it because it is just a horrid idea.

Want to disrespect the team's captain and best player since Bird, sure throw him to the bench and have a guy that has proven nothing in this league into the starting lineup.

When are people ever going to get that managing actually NBA players is not the same as managing a fantasy basketball team?

[TitleMaster]

Ok, so what's the point of the whole thing?

Do we make Pierce a faux starter, where he's taken out as soon as the 1st break occurs and then, use him as a sixth man, just so it appears that he's still a starter for his ego and the media? I don't get it.

All and all, we need his minutes down to 24-28 per game. I don't see that happening as long as he starts.

Realize, reduced minutes=2004 Pierce, that's plain and simple. If anything, he really is the C's Ginobilli. Whenever I hear of what the Spurs chances are.... I look at Ginobilli's health. As soon as an issue arises, one can almost predict a loss to the Lakers or a 2nd round upset w/o much adieu. Healthy Ginobilli equals no 2nd Lakers Kobe-Gasol dynasty.

So why am I being obstinate here?

Here's why ... we have plenty of spare parts but we look towards this starting *five* (now 4) in much of a KC Jones manner. But yet, our bench is better than Thirdkill, Carlisle, & Kite. So while I agree, I wouldn't want a hapless Carlisle to start in place of Bird, I wouldn't mind if it were Big Baby, Green, Murphy, or Pavlovic with the idea that Bird would be coming in to fill-in, when the time was right. That didn't hurt Heinsohn any, when he did that with Silas.

[wdleehi]

Ok, so what's the point of the whole thing?

Do we make Pierce a faux starter, where he's taken out as soon as the 1st break occurs and then, use him as a sixth man, just so it appears that he's still a starter for his ego and the media? I don't get it.

All and all, we need his minutes down to 24-28 per game. I don't see that happening as long as he starts.

Realize, reduced minutes=2004 Pierce, that's plain and simple. If anything, he really is the C's Ginobilli. Whenever I hear of what the Spurs chances are.... I look at Ginobilli's health. As soon as an issue arises, one can almost predict a loss to the Lakers or a 2nd round upset w/o much adieu. Healthy Ginobilli equals no 2nd Lakers Kobe-Gasol dynasty.

So why am I being obstinate here?

Here's why ... we have plenty of spare parts but we look towards this starting *five* (now 4) in much of a KC Jones manner. But yet, our bench is better than Thirdkill, Carlisle, & Kite. So while I agree, I wouldn't want a hapless Carlisle to start in place of Bird, I wouldn't mind if it were Big Baby, Green, Murphy, or Pavlovic with the idea that Bird would be coming in to fill-in, when the time was right. That didn't hurt Heinsohn any, when he did that with Silas.

Pierce is going to play major minutes as long as the Coach does not trust his backup. 

If the untrusted player is starting, it just means Pierce will go in sooner. 




I don't see the point.  The only way minutes go down is if there is a player on the team the coach trusts enough to play the minutes to give guys like Pierce, Ray and KG longer breaks. 

So far, only Baby has earned that trust. 

[CelticsFanNC]

Kevion McHale came off the bench when he was clearly better the Cedric Maxwell.  John Havlicek came off the bench when he was clearly better then the guys starting in front of him

The difference was, McHale and Havlicek came into the league as bench players, and learned in that role behind excellent players.  The Celtics had cohesive starting units, and rather than inserting the more talented player into the starting unit, the team respected player roles and the chemistry that the starters had developed.  However, when the guys in front of them moved on, both McHale and Havlicek became starters; the team didn't make the decision to continue to bring them off the bench because of some notion that it would improve the team.  The Celtics recognized that your best players start the game, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.

In moving Pierce to the bench, you'd be doing the exact opposite of what happened with McHale and Havlicek.  Rather than keeping players in their roles, you'd be disrupting them.  Rather than boosting cohesion and chemistry, you'd be disrupting it.  Rather than elevating a great player into the starting lineup, you'd be demoting one.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.  The strongest part of our team is the starting unit; I don't see the logic in weakening that strength.  It's inconsistent with the Celtics tradition, and it defies common sense.

  That still doesn't address the NEED to change thing up because what we did this past season just wasn't good enough and wont get better going forward due to the age of the Big Three.

  You know what they say about people who do the same thing but expect a different result??

[CelticsFanNC]

I hope whoever is saying this will stop saying it because it is just a horrid idea.

Want to disrespect the team's captain and best player since Bird, sure throw him to the bench and have a guy that has proven nothing in this league into the starting lineup.

When are people ever going to get that managing actually NBA players is not the same as managing a fantasy basketball team?

  Any player with a team first mentality, a true leader should realize that starting isn't important, finishing is.

[Lucky17]

Pierce is the only guy on the roster right now who can create his own shot.

Benching him for half a game just doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me.

[wdleehi]

Kevion McHale came off the bench when he was clearly better the Cedric Maxwell.  John Havlicek came off the bench when he was clearly better then the guys starting in front of him

The difference was, McHale and Havlicek came into the league as bench players, and learned in that role behind excellent players.  The Celtics had cohesive starting units, and rather than inserting the more talented player into the starting unit, the team respected player roles and the chemistry that the starters had developed.  However, when the guys in front of them moved on, both McHale and Havlicek became starters; the team didn't make the decision to continue to bring them off the bench because of some notion that it would improve the team.  The Celtics recognized that your best players start the game, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.

In moving Pierce to the bench, you'd be doing the exact opposite of what happened with McHale and Havlicek.  Rather than keeping players in their roles, you'd be disrupting them.  Rather than boosting cohesion and chemistry, you'd be disrupting it.  Rather than elevating a great player into the starting lineup, you'd be demoting one.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.  The strongest part of our team is the starting unit; I don't see the logic in weakening that strength.  It's inconsistent with the Celtics tradition, and it defies common sense.

  That still doesn't address the NEED to change thing up because what we did this past season just wasn't good enough and wont get better going forward due to the age of the Big Three.

  You know what they say about people who do the same thing but expect a different result??

Who said do the same thing?


Most are saying keep what works (the starting 4)


Improve what didn't (the bench)


Why change the part that works?  Why create one more thing that has to be fixed? 

[CelticsFanNC]

Kevion McHale came off the bench when he was clearly better the Cedric Maxwell.  John Havlicek came off the bench when he was clearly better then the guys starting in front of him

The difference was, McHale and Havlicek came into the league as bench players, and learned in that role behind excellent players.  The Celtics had cohesive starting units, and rather than inserting the more talented player into the starting unit, the team respected player roles and the chemistry that the starters had developed.  However, when the guys in front of them moved on, both McHale and Havlicek became starters; the team didn't make the decision to continue to bring them off the bench because of some notion that it would improve the team.  The Celtics recognized that your best players start the game, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.

In moving Pierce to the bench, you'd be doing the exact opposite of what happened with McHale and Havlicek.  Rather than keeping players in their roles, you'd be disrupting them.  Rather than boosting cohesion and chemistry, you'd be disrupting it.  Rather than elevating a great player into the starting lineup, you'd be demoting one.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.  The strongest part of our team is the starting unit; I don't see the logic in weakening that strength.  It's inconsistent with the Celtics tradition, and it defies common sense.

  That still doesn't address the NEED to change thing up because what we did this past season just wasn't good enough and wont get better going forward due to the age of the Big Three.

  You know what they say about people who do the same thing but expect a different result??

Who said do the same thing?


Most are saying keep what works (the starting 4)


Improve what didn't (the bench)


Why change the part that works?  Why create one more thing that has to be fixed? 

  I guess if you're happy with a second round exit then everything is wonderful.  The issues were more then our starting five being gassed because they played too many minutes due to a poor bench.  If that were the only issue I'd agree with you but it wasn't. 

  In the new and improved Eastern Conference the biggest issue for the old Boston Celtics just aren't athletic enough to get the job done. 

[wdleehi]

Kevion McHale came off the bench when he was clearly better the Cedric Maxwell.  John Havlicek came off the bench when he was clearly better then the guys starting in front of him

The difference was, McHale and Havlicek came into the league as bench players, and learned in that role behind excellent players.  The Celtics had cohesive starting units, and rather than inserting the more talented player into the starting unit, the team respected player roles and the chemistry that the starters had developed.  However, when the guys in front of them moved on, both McHale and Havlicek became starters; the team didn't make the decision to continue to bring them off the bench because of some notion that it would improve the team.  The Celtics recognized that your best players start the game, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.

In moving Pierce to the bench, you'd be doing the exact opposite of what happened with McHale and Havlicek.  Rather than keeping players in their roles, you'd be disrupting them.  Rather than boosting cohesion and chemistry, you'd be disrupting it.  Rather than elevating a great player into the starting lineup, you'd be demoting one.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.  The strongest part of our team is the starting unit; I don't see the logic in weakening that strength.  It's inconsistent with the Celtics tradition, and it defies common sense.

  That still doesn't address the NEED to change thing up because what we did this past season just wasn't good enough and wont get better going forward due to the age of the Big Three.

  You know what they say about people who do the same thing but expect a different result??

Who said do the same thing?


Most are saying keep what works (the starting 4)


Improve what didn't (the bench)


Why change the part that works?  Why create one more thing that has to be fixed? 

  I guess if you're happy with a second round exit then everything is wonderful.  The issues were more then our starting five being gassed because they played too many minutes due to a poor bench.  If that were the only issue I'd agree with you but it wasn't. 

  In the new and improved Eastern Conference the biggest issue for the old Boston Celtics just aren't athletic enough to get the job done. 

So, get players on the bench that can earn more minutes so the starting unit doesn't play so many minutes. 


Then, the best unit on the team, play with more effectiveness. 


Just sticking an important member on the bench doesn't fix the issue with the players outside the starting 4.  It just weakens the starting lineup, one of the most effective lineups in the NBA. 



Fix what is broken. 


Leave what works alone. 



This is a tweak job.


Not an overhaul. 

[Lucky17]

It's really a shame that Rondo suffered that freak injury. I would have liked to see what the Celtics could have done at full strength against the Heat.

I suspect the series would have gone 7 games, and the tenor on these boards would be markedly different at this point.

[wdleehi]

It's really a shame that Rondo suffered that freak injury. I would have liked to see what the Celtics could have done at full strength against the Heat.

I suspect the series would have gone 7 games, and the tenor on these boards would be markedly different at this point.

Healthy Rondo and a healthy C rotation. 


Celtics was the best team in the NBA when those were in place. 

[CelticsFanNC]

Kevion McHale came off the bench when he was clearly better the Cedric Maxwell.  John Havlicek came off the bench when he was clearly better then the guys starting in front of him

The difference was, McHale and Havlicek came into the league as bench players, and learned in that role behind excellent players.  The Celtics had cohesive starting units, and rather than inserting the more talented player into the starting unit, the team respected player roles and the chemistry that the starters had developed.  However, when the guys in front of them moved on, both McHale and Havlicek became starters; the team didn't make the decision to continue to bring them off the bench because of some notion that it would improve the team.  The Celtics recognized that your best players start the game, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.

In moving Pierce to the bench, you'd be doing the exact opposite of what happened with McHale and Havlicek.  Rather than keeping players in their roles, you'd be disrupting them.  Rather than boosting cohesion and chemistry, you'd be disrupting it.  Rather than elevating a great player into the starting lineup, you'd be demoting one.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.  The strongest part of our team is the starting unit; I don't see the logic in weakening that strength.  It's inconsistent with the Celtics tradition, and it defies common sense.

  That still doesn't address the NEED to change thing up because what we did this past season just wasn't good enough and wont get better going forward due to the age of the Big Three.

  You know what they say about people who do the same thing but expect a different result??

Who said do the same thing?


Most are saying keep what works (the starting 4)


Improve what didn't (the bench)


Why change the part that works?  Why create one more thing that has to be fixed? 

  I guess if you're happy with a second round exit then everything is wonderful.  The issues were more then our starting five being gassed because they played too many minutes due to a poor bench.  If that were the only issue I'd agree with you but it wasn't. 

  In the new and improved Eastern Conference the biggest issue for the old Boston Celtics just aren't athletic enough to get the job done. 

So, get players on the bench that can earn more minutes so the starting unit doesn't play so many minutes. 


Then, the best unit on the team, play with more effectiveness. 


Just sticking an important member on the bench doesn't fix the issue with the players outside the starting 4.  It just weakens the starting lineup, one of the most effective lineups in the NBA. 



Fix what is broken. 


Leave what works alone. 



This is a tweak job.


Not an overhaul. 

  I live through the misery of the late 80's and early 90's.  This team is much the same.  Sure they can look dominant for stretches but when push comes to shove against other elite teams who are more athletic then the Celtics are they are  a step slow and that isn't going to get better it is going to get worse.

  We can be sentimental and hold onto something just just isn't good enough to get the job done or change things up and hope for a different result but the days of this starting five competing for NBA titles as is are over.

  It doesn't make me happy to say that but it is reality IMO.  Our starting four just aren't athletic(fast/quick/strong/hops) enough to compete with the Miami's and Chicago's and many of you want to trade the only elite athlete we have in our starting line up...Rondo.  If we go into next season with the same starting line up we will fall even further then we did this season.

[Lucky17]

It's really a shame that Rondo suffered that freak injury. I would have liked to see what the Celtics could have done at full strength against the Heat.

I suspect the series would have gone 7 games, and the tenor on these boards would be markedly different at this point.

Healthy Rondo and a healthy C rotation. 


Celtics was the best team in the NBA when those were in place. 

I think most people have forgotten that.

[wdleehi]

Kevion McHale came off the bench when he was clearly better the Cedric Maxwell.  John Havlicek came off the bench when he was clearly better then the guys starting in front of him

The difference was, McHale and Havlicek came into the league as bench players, and learned in that role behind excellent players.  The Celtics had cohesive starting units, and rather than inserting the more talented player into the starting unit, the team respected player roles and the chemistry that the starters had developed.  However, when the guys in front of them moved on, both McHale and Havlicek became starters; the team didn't make the decision to continue to bring them off the bench because of some notion that it would improve the team.  The Celtics recognized that your best players start the game, unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.

In moving Pierce to the bench, you'd be doing the exact opposite of what happened with McHale and Havlicek.  Rather than keeping players in their roles, you'd be disrupting them.  Rather than boosting cohesion and chemistry, you'd be disrupting it.  Rather than elevating a great player into the starting lineup, you'd be demoting one.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.  The strongest part of our team is the starting unit; I don't see the logic in weakening that strength.  It's inconsistent with the Celtics tradition, and it defies common sense.

  That still doesn't address the NEED to change thing up because what we did this past season just wasn't good enough and wont get better going forward due to the age of the Big Three.

  You know what they say about people who do the same thing but expect a different result??

Who said do the same thing?


Most are saying keep what works (the starting 4)


Improve what didn't (the bench)


Why change the part that works?  Why create one more thing that has to be fixed? 

  I guess if you're happy with a second round exit then everything is wonderful.  The issues were more then our starting five being gassed because they played too many minutes due to a poor bench.  If that were the only issue I'd agree with you but it wasn't. 

  In the new and improved Eastern Conference the biggest issue for the old Boston Celtics just aren't athletic enough to get the job done. 

So, get players on the bench that can earn more minutes so the starting unit doesn't play so many minutes. 


Then, the best unit on the team, play with more effectiveness. 


Just sticking an important member on the bench doesn't fix the issue with the players outside the starting 4.  It just weakens the starting lineup, one of the most effective lineups in the NBA. 



Fix what is broken. 


Leave what works alone. 



This is a tweak job.


Not an overhaul. 

  I live through the misery of the late 80's and early 90's.  This team is much the same.  Sure they can look dominant for stretches but when push comes to shove against other elite teams who are more athletic then the Celtics are they are  a step slow and that isn't going to get better it is going to get worse.

  We can be sentimental and hold onto something just just isn't good enough to get the job done or change things up and hope for a different result but the days of this starting five competing for NBA titles as is are over.

  It doesn't make me happy to say that but it is reality IMO.  Our starting four just aren't athletic(fast/quick/strong/hops) enough to compete with the Miami's and Chicago's and many of you want to trade the only elite athlete we have in our starting line up...Rondo.  If we go into next season with the same starting line up we will fall even further then we did this season.

Then you are not looking to bench Pierce.


You are looking to blow the team up.


Trade Pierce, Ray and KG. 

Get young talent worthy of replacing them. 




Or,


Take one more shot, in which case, add talent that will help them.