I had the Celtics blowing out the Hawks today, but I think they're issues have already been revealed, and good coaches will eventually exploit their major weaknesses. If there was anything about them I was most surprised about, it was their failures on the road, especially in front of an Atlanta crowd that didn't seem that overwhelming. I want to run down their main issues:
1. Lack of Playoff Experience/Chemistry
What the Spurs and the early-90s Lakers teams have shown us is chemistry come playoff time is paramount to playoff success. Sometimes great teams can overcome chemistry issues, but the Celtics appear to not be one of those teams. We saw very similar problems with the Suns in their 1st Round series; they botched multiple huge, late-game plays, and one of the reasons had to be they had trouble playing with new teammates. It is rare for teams to make a leap from the lottery to instance playoff success, and the teams that do usually have a point guard or key player to hold the team together (think Steve Nash and Chris Paul). There have also been countless examples of teams failing when doing what the Celtics did (think the Lakers after adding Gary Payton and Karl Malone).
2. Lack of a Clear Cut Rotation
I don't know if Danny Ainge or Doc Rivers deserves more of the blame here, but the Celtics continued adding veteran players throughout the season to a point where they are now experiencing diminishing returns. The more veterans you have, the more playing time is expected, the more the coach feels obligated to find them minutes, and the more the coach ignores the younger players on the bench. This does not sound like a formula for success. The entire year the Celtics relied on key contributions from guys like Big Baby and Eddie House; now, Sam Cassell is playing huge minutes. There is something to be said for experience; but there is also something to be said about how the Celtics actually got to where they are.
3. The "Big Shot Allergy" Afflicting KG
No need to discuss. Just a mesmorizing flaw of one of the best players of all time.
4. Doc Rivers
I was not alone in being very impressed with Doc Rivers' regular season. He did alot of things right, but his most important qualities were taking a step back and letting his team grow on the court. He rarely overcoached which really helped guys like Rondo and Perkins develop confidence. But in Game 6, Rivers made an inexplicable and possibly unfixable move: after Rondo missed a tough layup (in which he tried taking the ball to the rim for the first time in about 6 Celtics possessions), Rivers yanked Rondo. This would not have happened during the regular season; but Rivers is becoming a little too impatient and reluctant to let his youngsters rebound from mistakes when he can substitute in a veteran. This is an offshoot of Ainge's veteran-signing spree - the oversight I discussed on the part of Steve Kerr and Donn Nelson has plagued Ainge too; he has a history of struggling to control rotations and right now, for a coach with those problems, his bench is a nightmare. But Rivers also has to believe more in his players and give them a chance to develop that thick shell characteristic of any big-time player.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
The only guy that can lose it for the celtics
I gotta agree with Fabs that Doc really is a horrendous coach for letting Ray Allen get consistently burned by Joe Johnson in Game 4 and refusing to play Tony Allen in stretches (their best perimeter defender, yet most turnover-prone guy). However, I think Ian Thomsen and I disagree with Fabs about the whole lack of intensity issue. Now a few thoughts on some Celtics players after watching Game 5 from the balcony:
KG:
Although this may sound absurd, given how intense he is, I really think KG has to step his up aggresiveness, especially on the offensive end. Josh Smith (although a great shot-blocker) can't guard him in the post. So instead of settling for 15 footers (which he usually makes anyway), let's see him use his quickness to drive to the rim or use a couple quick post moves and his absurdly long arms to angle shots over his man. Maybe even get to the foul line for once? No one on the Hawks (or most other Eastern Conference teams for that matter) can guard him due to superior athletic ability.
Sam Cassell/Rondo:
His ability to spot up and shoot really mixes it up for the Cs and allows them to rest Rondo (whose quickness and slashing can scare defenders). The Hawks defenders appeared confusing at first when Cassell came into the game as they had been playing back on Rondo (due to his utter lack of shooting skills) and now were forced to really get out and defend the jump shot (of which Cassell made 6/8). However, Cassell really has lost a step in his old age and can barely defend the quicker Hawk guards. I saw him get burned back door 2 plays in row; by the time he realized his man was by him, he was about 5 steps too late to make a stop. He barely played 7 minutes in the 1st half and still came out of the locker room with ice bandages wrapped around his entire upper body. That's when you know you're getting old. Cassell's defensive liability may come back to haunt the Cs late in a big game down the road. Thus, Doc faces a decision: leave Cassell in at the end of games for his superior shooting (especially foul shooting) or play Rondo who can't hit the back side of a barn, yet whose slashing ability and defensive tenacity could be key in big games.
Pierce: I really liked the way he drove to the basket in Game 5 instead of settling for long jumpers. Although a great shooter, I'd like to see him drive more and use all of his 240 lbs to muscle the leaner Hawks players around the basket. Even backing a guy into the post and hitting on of his trademark turn-around Js should be easy. No one on the Hawks can guard him one on one and he's gotta take advantage of that.
Perkins/Powe: Powe is much better defensively and offensively for this team. It's not even close. Perkins can't stay in for more than 4 minutes at a time without looking completely exhausted (I'm not kidding). On top of that, he's one of the slower players I've ever seen and although a decent shot-blocker and dunker (when within 1 foot of the basket), he's got nothing on Powe. Powe plays tenacious defense and really works well around the rim, especially his little up and under reverse that he has been using.
Unfortunately for the Celtics, Doc is a horrendous coach and so he probably hasn't told them any of this. However, the Celtics veteran core are old enough that they've got to realize these things on their own and take control. Should the Celtics lose before the finals this year, Doc should (but probably won't) be on his way out of town. Epstein for Celtics coach 2008-2009?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Quick Thought on the Celtics
I saw an interview with Kevin Garnett, I think after their Game 5 blowout of the Hawks, where he was offering an explanation of why the Celtics lost Games 3 and 4 in Atlanta. He said that the team came out slow and uninspired in the wake of two routs in Games 1 and 2.
That may absolutely have been the case, and, who knows, maybe that's the last time they take any of their opponents lightly. But if I were a Celtics fan, I'd be a little concerned. And you know why? Because if there was one thing the Celtics didn't do all year, it was take teams lightly!
The Celtics won during the regular season by decisive margins, night in and night out. Just for a frame of reference, they played the Nets twice in three games towards the end of the season, one in Boston and one in New Jersey. After beating the Nets by 20 in the first game at home, did they take the Nets lightly the next game? No, they won by 12. This might not be the most damning of evidence, but if you consider it in context, it can mean alot more than what it may seem. (And if you want to argue that the Hawks are a better team than the Nets, I'd say that the different between the Celtics and the Hawks and the Celtics and the Nets is very similar; that is, the Celtics are vastly superior to both.)
So now in the playoffs, the Celtics drop consecutive road games to an inferior team, and they blame it on a lack of intensity. It's very easy to brush off losses employing this excuse. But I just don't buy it. For a team to play as intense for 80 straight games as the Celtics did this season, it's pretty hard to imagine that, here in the post-season, they decided to let off steam for not one, but two games. If this was the Pistons, I would understand; they have a history of taking breather in big spots. But the Celtics played harder over a season than any team I can remember watching; and now they want us to think they dogged it in the playoffs.
Celtics fans should not be so quick to take Garnett's word as truth on this one. I think they are either running on fumes or finally realizing they have one of the weaker coaches still manning a bench. A ray of hope for the latter: every year the West weeds out the bad coaches, but that doesn't always happen in the East.
But I think it's more than that. If losing those games did anything, it hurt their confidence. The playoffs will continue to get more difficult, and if the Celtics keep losing games on the road, with 4th quarter leads, to inferior teams, that sense of dominance will continue to recede.
My prediction: If the Pistons make the Eastern finals, they will beat the Celtics. That is the one series in the East the Pistons will wake up for, and if Doc Rivers makes mistakes (like keeping Ray Allen on Joe Johnson in Game 4) he may find himself without any extra games to correct them.
That may absolutely have been the case, and, who knows, maybe that's the last time they take any of their opponents lightly. But if I were a Celtics fan, I'd be a little concerned. And you know why? Because if there was one thing the Celtics didn't do all year, it was take teams lightly!
The Celtics won during the regular season by decisive margins, night in and night out. Just for a frame of reference, they played the Nets twice in three games towards the end of the season, one in Boston and one in New Jersey. After beating the Nets by 20 in the first game at home, did they take the Nets lightly the next game? No, they won by 12. This might not be the most damning of evidence, but if you consider it in context, it can mean alot more than what it may seem. (And if you want to argue that the Hawks are a better team than the Nets, I'd say that the different between the Celtics and the Hawks and the Celtics and the Nets is very similar; that is, the Celtics are vastly superior to both.)
So now in the playoffs, the Celtics drop consecutive road games to an inferior team, and they blame it on a lack of intensity. It's very easy to brush off losses employing this excuse. But I just don't buy it. For a team to play as intense for 80 straight games as the Celtics did this season, it's pretty hard to imagine that, here in the post-season, they decided to let off steam for not one, but two games. If this was the Pistons, I would understand; they have a history of taking breather in big spots. But the Celtics played harder over a season than any team I can remember watching; and now they want us to think they dogged it in the playoffs.
Celtics fans should not be so quick to take Garnett's word as truth on this one. I think they are either running on fumes or finally realizing they have one of the weaker coaches still manning a bench. A ray of hope for the latter: every year the West weeds out the bad coaches, but that doesn't always happen in the East.
But I think it's more than that. If losing those games did anything, it hurt their confidence. The playoffs will continue to get more difficult, and if the Celtics keep losing games on the road, with 4th quarter leads, to inferior teams, that sense of dominance will continue to recede.
My prediction: If the Pistons make the Eastern finals, they will beat the Celtics. That is the one series in the East the Pistons will wake up for, and if Doc Rivers makes mistakes (like keeping Ray Allen on Joe Johnson in Game 4) he may find himself without any extra games to correct them.
Costas Now
If you haven't seen the new episode of Costas Now on HBO, please watch it. It's as fascinating and entertaining as any sports show I have seen in a while.
The NBA Playoffs and Avery/D'Antoni
This year more so than any in recent memory, the best teams added and subtracted key players at various points during the season, and some teams were able to cope better than others. The Lakers and the Celtics were two examples of teams incorporating new guys into their systems without missing a beat. The Mavs and the Suns, however, had their share of problems. I wrote about this before, but I have a few more thoughts after witnessing the demise of both teams this playoffs.
Let's start with the Mavs:
They traded away Devin Harris, bright, young point guard and DeSagana Diop, an average big man, and in turn received Jason Kidd. This was widely considered a questionable move but there was reason to believe the Mavs were onto something. And then Dirk got hurt and the team lost some games, and it seemed like their season was unraveling. Ok, so they experienced a far more troublesome honeymoon period than the Lakers did after getting Pao Gasol, but towards the end of the season it appeared as if the Mavs had regained some sense of unity as a team. Then they collapsed in the playoffs and Avery Johnson was immediately fired. Well, you know what? To fire a guy you must examine his situation closely, and you know what I see when examining this Mavs' season? A situation in which Avery was set up to lose.
It would have been one thing if the Mavs faced the Rockets or the Lakers in a first round match up and got beat in 5. It's quite different when you trade away your fast, athletic point guard in return for a slow, unathletic one and expect him to compete in the West. I mean, come on, Kidd got beat all year by better point guards, and now you put him in a position where, to make it through to the finals, he would have had to face either 2 or 3 of the following guards: Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Steve Nash, or Deron Williams. How is that Avery Johnson's fault? The correct answer? It isn't.
What happened was exactly what happened with the signing of Shaq: a tremendous oversight by the general manager. Donn Nelson thought that what the Mavs needed was a facilitator who could run the offense in both transition and in the half court. What he failed to consider was how terrible his defense had become, and how it would reflect poorly on a coach who realized this much but had few alternative options to playing him.
As for Mike D'Antoni and the Suns, a very similar pattern developed early in the playoffs. Steve Kerr thought the team needed an inside presence who could dominate at times. They needed that prototypical big man in the middle. But he failed miserably in recognizing that, even though Shaq may beat the Spurs in the regular season, Greg Popovich figured out a pretty simple method of containing him come playoff time: Hack-A-Shaq.
How can D'Antoni be expected to fulfill his duties as coach when his key new addition is as close to useless on the court as their Sean Marx would have been. This is not a knock on Shaq. It is entirely a knock on Steve Kerr and how his images of a future with Shaq failed to consider the infamous defense tailored to stop him in the playoffs.
Avery Johnson and Mike D'Antoni gave their owners and fans exactly what they could: a great regular season. But those two additions proved to be of no help, and even somewhat of a detriment, when the post-season rolled around. I'm not sure how any of that is their fault.
Let's start with the Mavs:
They traded away Devin Harris, bright, young point guard and DeSagana Diop, an average big man, and in turn received Jason Kidd. This was widely considered a questionable move but there was reason to believe the Mavs were onto something. And then Dirk got hurt and the team lost some games, and it seemed like their season was unraveling. Ok, so they experienced a far more troublesome honeymoon period than the Lakers did after getting Pao Gasol, but towards the end of the season it appeared as if the Mavs had regained some sense of unity as a team. Then they collapsed in the playoffs and Avery Johnson was immediately fired. Well, you know what? To fire a guy you must examine his situation closely, and you know what I see when examining this Mavs' season? A situation in which Avery was set up to lose.
It would have been one thing if the Mavs faced the Rockets or the Lakers in a first round match up and got beat in 5. It's quite different when you trade away your fast, athletic point guard in return for a slow, unathletic one and expect him to compete in the West. I mean, come on, Kidd got beat all year by better point guards, and now you put him in a position where, to make it through to the finals, he would have had to face either 2 or 3 of the following guards: Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Steve Nash, or Deron Williams. How is that Avery Johnson's fault? The correct answer? It isn't.
What happened was exactly what happened with the signing of Shaq: a tremendous oversight by the general manager. Donn Nelson thought that what the Mavs needed was a facilitator who could run the offense in both transition and in the half court. What he failed to consider was how terrible his defense had become, and how it would reflect poorly on a coach who realized this much but had few alternative options to playing him.
As for Mike D'Antoni and the Suns, a very similar pattern developed early in the playoffs. Steve Kerr thought the team needed an inside presence who could dominate at times. They needed that prototypical big man in the middle. But he failed miserably in recognizing that, even though Shaq may beat the Spurs in the regular season, Greg Popovich figured out a pretty simple method of containing him come playoff time: Hack-A-Shaq.
How can D'Antoni be expected to fulfill his duties as coach when his key new addition is as close to useless on the court as their Sean Marx would have been. This is not a knock on Shaq. It is entirely a knock on Steve Kerr and how his images of a future with Shaq failed to consider the infamous defense tailored to stop him in the playoffs.
Avery Johnson and Mike D'Antoni gave their owners and fans exactly what they could: a great regular season. But those two additions proved to be of no help, and even somewhat of a detriment, when the post-season rolled around. I'm not sure how any of that is their fault.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Yea I wouldn't want to run into him either
The next scrub QB for the Miami Dolphins can rest easy. At 6' 7", 315 lbs, top pick Jake Long will be protecting him for a long time to come.
Thoughts from the Weekend
The NBA and NHL Playoffs, early-season baseball and a couple of fantastic finishes in golf, but all anybody wants to talk about is the NFL Draft (OK, the golf one was a stretch...)
Some thoughts about the draft:
- Too bad the Giants didn't deal Shockey. Coming out of last season they had one glaring tradeable commodity, the perpetually-discontent tight end who almost singlehandedly killed Eli Manning's confidence over the past 3 seasons. That the Giants won the Super Bowl without him was in no way a coincidence: his absence gave Eli some breathing room and allowed him to seize control of his offense. Here's hoping the Giants' winning without him will bring Shockey down a few notches - I just can't wrestle the image from my mind of a Week 3 overthrow leading to Shockey chewing out Eli.
- At the top of the draft you will inevitably have some teams in need of a makeover, some more so than others. Teams have unsuccesful seasons for a number of reasons - injuries and/or off-the-field problems, player discontent or failure to connect with the coach, or a simple lack of personnel - and the function of the draft is to address the problems of the season before. Well, the Atlanta Falcons had to right a ship that was torn apart by every feasible problem that could plague a franchise, and, in doing so, they were forced to select a player who would immediately boost fan morale.
The Dolphins were in the position of having decent talent at a number of positions and had only to focus on specific needs. The Falcons, on the other hand, had to focus on "making a splash", even if it meant not necessarily choosing their highest rated prospect. That is why the Falcons, and the Raiders as well, are so much farther away from success than the other high-drafting teams. Those other teams, while having problems of their own, did not need an image makeover. That was not the case with the Raiders and the Falcons.
- Just to provide an example of what I discussed above: For the 2nd year in a row, the New York Giants selected a well-known, big-name wide receiver in the 2nd Round. Now, I am not contending that they did so to boost fan interest, because fan interest is at an all-time high. But drafting someone like Mario Manningham does provide the fans with a great offensive threat they remember from college, and that makes that guy all the more appealing. Being able to monitor the progress of big-time collegians does add some new level of interest for the team.
Do you know what can sometimes happen, though, when that philosophy wins out? You get last year's debacle in Miami in which the Fins drafted a big-name receiver way too high. Yes, they may have truly wanted Ted Ginn Jr, but the fact that fans already know him and like him makes the pick that much more enticing.
- Prediction: Ray Rice will be either as good or better than Darren McFadden over a 7-year span. For every Adrian Peterson, they are 4 Curtis Enis's. The same might be said for later-round running backs, but team's dont wager the future of the organization on it.
- Prediction: Matt Ryan is a great quarterback in this league for years to come. How quarterbacks play in the 4th quarter under pressure tells the most about long-term sucess, and he was built to lead that 2-minute offense.
- Prediction: Vernon Gholston is not with the Jets after his rookie contract expires. That was not the right pick for a Jets team that needs an Antonio Pierce-type on defense: a vocal leader who gives his all on every play.
Some thoughts about the draft:
- Too bad the Giants didn't deal Shockey. Coming out of last season they had one glaring tradeable commodity, the perpetually-discontent tight end who almost singlehandedly killed Eli Manning's confidence over the past 3 seasons. That the Giants won the Super Bowl without him was in no way a coincidence: his absence gave Eli some breathing room and allowed him to seize control of his offense. Here's hoping the Giants' winning without him will bring Shockey down a few notches - I just can't wrestle the image from my mind of a Week 3 overthrow leading to Shockey chewing out Eli.
- At the top of the draft you will inevitably have some teams in need of a makeover, some more so than others. Teams have unsuccesful seasons for a number of reasons - injuries and/or off-the-field problems, player discontent or failure to connect with the coach, or a simple lack of personnel - and the function of the draft is to address the problems of the season before. Well, the Atlanta Falcons had to right a ship that was torn apart by every feasible problem that could plague a franchise, and, in doing so, they were forced to select a player who would immediately boost fan morale.
The Dolphins were in the position of having decent talent at a number of positions and had only to focus on specific needs. The Falcons, on the other hand, had to focus on "making a splash", even if it meant not necessarily choosing their highest rated prospect. That is why the Falcons, and the Raiders as well, are so much farther away from success than the other high-drafting teams. Those other teams, while having problems of their own, did not need an image makeover. That was not the case with the Raiders and the Falcons.
- Just to provide an example of what I discussed above: For the 2nd year in a row, the New York Giants selected a well-known, big-name wide receiver in the 2nd Round. Now, I am not contending that they did so to boost fan interest, because fan interest is at an all-time high. But drafting someone like Mario Manningham does provide the fans with a great offensive threat they remember from college, and that makes that guy all the more appealing. Being able to monitor the progress of big-time collegians does add some new level of interest for the team.
Do you know what can sometimes happen, though, when that philosophy wins out? You get last year's debacle in Miami in which the Fins drafted a big-name receiver way too high. Yes, they may have truly wanted Ted Ginn Jr, but the fact that fans already know him and like him makes the pick that much more enticing.
- Prediction: Ray Rice will be either as good or better than Darren McFadden over a 7-year span. For every Adrian Peterson, they are 4 Curtis Enis's. The same might be said for later-round running backs, but team's dont wager the future of the organization on it.
- Prediction: Matt Ryan is a great quarterback in this league for years to come. How quarterbacks play in the 4th quarter under pressure tells the most about long-term sucess, and he was built to lead that 2-minute offense.
- Prediction: Vernon Gholston is not with the Jets after his rookie contract expires. That was not the right pick for a Jets team that needs an Antonio Pierce-type on defense: a vocal leader who gives his all on every play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)