We aren't invincible

[cfoo]

Even superman has his kryptonite. If anything the Miami game and the Toronto game show that we can be beaten. The good thing is we have gotten some experience in a couple close games, and we are 2-0 in both games so far. I do think we are playing well obviously but if a team comes along and plays really well we can be beaten.

I'm wondering what our weaknesses are at this point. I think our main weakness is taking care of the ball. Our defense also causes us to get in foul trouble sometimes. We also sometimes get too conservative at times trying to run the offense and the ball movement becomes predictable and we get stuck taking outside shots and 3's sometimes. I like the offense we are running. It's an old style celtics offense but at times I don't think we are doing our best to take advantage of our players strengths offensively.

Rondo really came alive distributing the ball the last game but I want to see more of this. I also don't want Garnett to become strictly a jump shooter. I know he is getting doubled inside and is being used mainly as a passer from the post at this point, but we need to find a way to get him easier buckets, whether that be running more pick and roll or whatever it may be. We also have to do a better job, playing off Garnett in the post. Ray Allen and Pierce struggled last game. They took some ill advised shots. If we are using the double teams that Garnett is seeing, that's going to lead to more open shots and lanes for Allen and Pierce.

That said I loved that we went to Pierce on the post at the end of the Miami game. He wasn't going to get doubled because of the attention being paid to Garnett. That was brilliant and won the game for us.

[Roadrunner]

The team's weakness is when all "3" of the big "3" are not playing up to par.

[DERRENMATTS]

I think our weaknesses have been rearing itself the past 3 games. Aside from our Trilogy, we haven't had any consistent scoring. During training camp, I posted that we need a 4th scorer--someone who can give us consistent scoring beyond our Trilogy.

Some nights, its been House, some nights, its been Posey. Some nights, its been Baby or TAllen. Lately, its been Rondo and Perk. But we really should have a scorer who we can count on to be our 4th scorer every night. One of the aforementioned players needs to step up and be that guy.

Also, I'm still for the idea of splitting up the Trilogy and have RAllen be our 6th man of the year. Actually, I toyed with the idea of putting Pierce in that spot, but it'll be harder to convince Pierce to accept that role than RAllen. When Tony Allen finally gets his groove back, I think I will think harder of this possibility.

[findawgg]

You always want your best five on the floor during the beginning and end of a game, unless you have a significant amount of depth at a particular position or in general. The Celtics can't boast a bevy of depth at any one position, so it makes much more sense to have all three on the floor to start and finish games as opposed to sitting Pierce or Ray. House was acquired to be a sixth man and the fourth scorer, a role he's been adept at when healthy. To date the role players have played very well, stepping up when necessary. Until Boston plays Detroit or west coast teams, it is difficult to point to any one deficiency as an Achilles. Yes they are inconsistent at times on defense, but they are one of the best defensive teams in the league, yes they do turn the ball over too much from time to time, but is that a result of sloppy play or transition? No matter how you slice it they do have short comings, the question is can they play consistent enough to compensate for them.

--Fin

[cfoo]

I also don't understand Derren's rational for using Ray or Pierce as a sixth man. Put your best team on the floor. I was more thinking along the lines of what Fin said. I don't think we are that deficient where if Pierce, Ray or Garnett aren't on their games we struggle. We have 3 of them, so they don't always have to be on and carry us. That's the advantage of having 3 players like that.

I just think we have to do a better job getting into our offense at times and not be careless on defense picking up unnecessary fouls. It's more an execution thing than anything is the point. We execute our gameplan and play smart and we shouldn't lose. Against tougher teams those weaknesses are going to be magnified.

I just think it's more an x and o thing then anything. We need to be more sound strategically and be able to combat various scenarios. They double Garnett in the post, we should be running more pick and rolls imo and playing off of garnett, kicking to the open man and the ball movement should be not as sloppy. It's more just knowing what to do, when teams play us a certain way. AS the season goes hopefully we get more experience against different scenarios and know what to do in that situation. I think if we lose it's because we didn't know how to combat a certain scenario. That's Doc's job to make the necessary adjustments and he has been for the most part.

The point is it's not a personnel issue with this team. We have the players at this point.... We could maybe use another guy off the bench but I think our bench is pretty good and deep. We are past that. We have the players......

[DERRENMATTS]

I bring it up because I think it would work. Its not easy to get all three members of the Trilogy their fair amount of shots early in the game to find their grooves. Consequently, the past 3 games, we've struggled to start the game getting Ray and Pierce in rhythm.

If Pierce and KG are the two stars on the court at the start of the game, we can focus on getting them two in rhythm first. Once that happens, we bring in RAllen off the bench midway through the 1st quarter and he gets his chance to get in rhythm.

But this experiment can only happen when Posey is playing consistently enough to merit him in the starting rotation.

Posey's defense is better than Ray's, and right now, we could use help defensively at the start of the game. The last 4 games, we have been giving up nearly 25 pts in the 1st quarter. And our offense during this time has also been shaky.

We could use offensive punch off the bench, and Ray would provide that.

[findawgg]

This may seem a little far fetched, but a key reason for the Celtics coming back down to earth a little bit, has more to do with the Intensity hangover that powered the first 5 or so games of the season. These guys were intense, they were playing with playoff type intensity. It was unreasonable to think they could maintain that level of intensity for the entire season and the playoffs, and consequently it has evaporated a little. They now have to execute instead of finding fuel from raw unchecked intensity. Considering the C's have the best record in the league, I don't think it's necessary or even wise to start rearranging the line up. I see your point, and it's not without merit, but the Celtics are unbelievable when the PGA tour is on the floor.

--Fin

[mev17]

I'm not sure Posey can handle being a starter -- he wouldn't have that "energy" advantage when coming off the bench, since the players he is up against as a starter would be just as fresh as he is. Plus since he had a herniated disk in his back, I prefer having him come off the bench to give us defense when needed.

Plus I worry about someone who is used to starting being able to give an energy lift off the bench -- it may take a while for Ray to get going if he starts coming off the bench.

[rockinrondo]

findawg said:

This may seem a little far fetched, but a key reason for the Celtics coming back down to earth a little bit, has more to do with the Intensity hangover that powered the first 5 or so games of the season. These guys were intense, they were playing with playoff type intensity. It was unreasonable to think they could maintain that level of intensity for the entire season and the playoffs, and consequently it has evaporated a little. They now have to execute instead of finding fuel from raw unchecked intensity. Considering the C's have the best record in the league, I don't think it's necessary or even wise to start rearranging the line up. I see your point, and it's not without merit, but the Celtics are unbelievable when the PGA tour is on the floor.

That is a very good point finda, i totally agree. I may be old school, but I am a firm believer in putting your best five on the court to start & finish the game. I really don't understand why anyone would consider a lineup change on a team with the best record in the NBA. I can not see any good coming out of "benching" R. Allen or Pierce, they are playing great together, and i only see them playing better ( as they build on their chemistry) as the season goes along.

Pierce and R. Allen have never came off the bench in their careers, and I don't think that either would take kindly to being benched for no reason ( and taking either out of the starting five, would be just that, a benching). The only reason you would take an all star out of the starting five, would be injury or if they lost their confidence, other wise I think benching either would be a bad mistake. The Celtic's need to stay with their current starting 5, and continue to work on their chemistry, it's only 9 games, for a team with two new starters. There is no reason to panic over one loss, I don't think anyone thought this team was going to go 82 - 0.

I think it would be nice to have one consistent scorer off your bench, but it can be done by committee, just like the big three, some nights it will be Pierce, some nights it will be R. Allen, and KG on others, who will be the go to guy (who ever has the hot hand). I think our bench is the same way, House on some nights, T. Allen on others, Posey on others and Davis sometimes. I think the team the Celtics are playing will sometimes dictate who the scorer off the bench is, it's all about match ups.

IMO, the bench has been great over all, at this early stag of the season, and I think they will only get better as they build chemistry, and get to know each others game. Three of our top bench players have only played nine games together, they are just getting to know each other.

[The Eye of the Q is upon you!]

In the course of 82 games, even San Antonio runs into buzzsaws. A loss to Orlando in Orlando does not concern me. What does concern me is the turnovers and the big man matchup problem with Dwight Howard. The athletic ability of the Celtics has tripled over last year in my opinion so I think there is more upside for the Celtics. That prospect is encouraging for a title run to be happening in 2008.

[eja117]

I think I'm the only person I know who thinks some day we'll see an undefeated season. After seeing the Bulls come within 10 games I don't see why this couldn't happen. Let's say be some miracle the Celts also had some phenomenal point guard like Chris Paul or a center like Duncan and another strong bench guy. I don't see why it couldn't happen.


81-1. That's my prediction. Aren't invincible? Speak for yourself.

[CelticsLoyalist]

I personally dont agree. Only for the fact that the nature of basketball makes it almost impossible to go undefeated for that many games. However, at the risk of contradicting myself, I still thinks its possible. If the Bulls could get within 10, anything is possible. Its just that in this day and age the league is more spread out talent-wise with no one team being as dominate as that. I just think the leagues style has changed so much (partly due to Jordans influence) that such a feat would be incredible. I would like to think the C's would be the franchise to pull that off considering our storied history. It would make it that much more legendary, but I fear the days of a team going 8 titles in a row is long gone. Ah but who knows...

[eja117]

I'm just looking at how Duke went undefeated for maybe 30 games with Laetner. There are like 200 something teams that they could have played and I think they would have beaten every one, just as long as they didn't have to play Kentucky again

[CelticsLoyalist]

Indeed. With the right mix of players, anything is possible. BUT...wouldn't it be kind of a stretch to go 30 games and lose 1 and go another 30 and lose 1 and finish strong without losing another? Essentially going 80-2. I mean it boggles my mind to even think about being able to do that let alone go 82-0. Maybe I just cant wrap my mind around it. It's something I would and wouldn't like to see. I would because I mean wow! It would be amazing. I wouldnt because it would show the disparity of one over the rest of the league. I like the fact that on any given night its possible for even a losing team to pull out a win over say the Spurs. I think it would be kinda of boring, in a way, after awhile to basically know your team is gonna win ever contest. I mean, after like win 50, you'd take your team and every other team for granted. That right there would also be something the players might start to do as well, which in turn would lead to a loss for not being able to get up for every game. I dont know I am rambling now on what ifs. Besides I am just playing devils advocate.

[findawgg]

Is it possible..............certainly, is it probable......................certainly not. The Bulls had 2 of the 50 greatest players of all time playing in their prime. They were playing during a time in which the NBA was in a state of decline/transition with regards to overall talent and team strength. They managed to stay healthy for the entire season, and not lose focus and they still lost 10 games. The league is much tougher now than it was then, it's nearly impossible to keep a team healthy for an entire season, and it's nearly impossible for a team to go 82 games and stay focused. I don't think it's a stretch to say that no team in the NBA will ever go undefeated over the course of an 82 game schedule.

--Fin