The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    I wonder why a GM who has been in basketball for all his life and played with the original Big 3, learned from Red, and has been involved in 3 or 4 franchises coupled with a coach who's been coach of the year, won an NBA championship, and been to the NBA finals twice stay with a plan that the fans so strongly think is wrong?   I wonder if Danny and Doc know what they are doing better than the fans?   Maybe there's a reason they think they have a better chance with the Big 3 all starting?

    Just wondering.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Obviously Ray Allen is a lot better than Dooling, Sasha and Daniels.  A lot better.

     It doesn't matter so much who starts.  What matters is that Doc tightens it up and goes with a three guard rotation,  Bradly gets 10 minutes a game or so backing up Rondo  out there with Allen, and gets another 20 playing alongside Rondo.  

    Rondo gets 38 minutes or so, Bradley gets 30 and Ray gets 28.  The other three sit.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from walk2run. Show walk2run's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Preaching to the choir....but Doc doesn't have the b@&&s!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamezHill24. Show JamezHill24's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting:
    [QUOTE]Obviously Ray Allen is a lot better than Dooling, Sasha and Daniels.  A lot better.  It doesn't matter so much who starts.  What matters is that Doc tightens it up and goes with a three guard rotation,  Bradly gets 10 minutes a game or so backing up Rondo  out there with Allen, and gets another 20 playing alongside Rondo.   Rondo gets 38 minutes or so, Bradley gets 30 and Ray gets 28.  The other three sit.
    Posted by snakeoil123[/QUOTE]

    thats true..i didnt think of it like that..but decreasing allens minutes to garnett minutes, and playing avery more would be okay.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Take a page out of history, Doc, and when RA gets well, simply say, "Bradley's my 2 guard". BB will be proud of you!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamezHill24. Show JamezHill24's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    welp...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    You can say whatever you want about Ray Allen but the guy is a pro.  He isn't going to complain about coming off the bench.  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting:
    [QUOTE]You can say whatever you want about Ray Allen but the guy is a pro.  He isn't going to complain about coming off the bench.  
    Posted by snakeoil123[/QUOTE]

    I agree snake.  After todays game it shows that Bradley can help this team at the 2.  He plays great defense and can score.  I like Ray off the bench because the second unit is always looking for scoring.  Rays defense might improve a bit too with less minutes.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting:
    [QUOTE]welp... http://www.celticslife.com/2012/04/ray-allen-doc-rivers-open-to-bench-role.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
    Posted by JamezHill24[/QUOTE]

    Wow by what Ray said "if it makes us better offensively"  wouldn't be the answer I would want to hear.  Its not just about offense.   Its does it make us a better team with him off the bench.  I can see Docs point about playing with Rondo though.  You would think they would still get a lot of time together though.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from edcap99. Show edcap99's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Ray Allen may be in great physical shape, but he has become slow and plays spotty defense. Playing Bradley in the starting lineup injects speed, hustle and lockdown defense that Ray can't provide. Rondo seems to play better also with Bradley running alongside him. I say give Ray his minutes, but make him come off the bench instead of playing him as a starter.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyCelt2. Show KyCelt2's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting


     Bradley's minutes don't need to come down, that's why Ray should have been traded for a big or a #1!!  When Ray comes back we won't see AB, but about 15 minutes a game!!
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyCelt2. Show KyCelt2's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting : If that's true, then Rivers is a complete idiot.
    Posted by Kirk6[/QUOTE]

     Doc got lucky with injuries and was forced to play Bradley and Steamer! If everyone was healthy AB would be getting 7 minutes a game and Steamer would be coming off the pine to mop up!!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In response to "Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting :  Doc got lucky with injuries and was forced to play Bradley and Steamer! If everyone was healthy AB would be getting 7 minutes a game and Steamer would be coming off the pine to mop up!! Posted by KyCelt2[/QUOTE] Bradley and the rest of the team are coming together. KG is playing great as is Paul. Bass is learning to play better D and Romdo is cutting down on his turnovers. All that started before the road trip so Doc didn't get lucky. The players started listening and doing what he asked. KG's play, in fact, has had the most impact. Bradley has played great and we've been UNLUCKY with Pietrus, Ray, and Wilcox going down.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from aciemvp. Show aciemvp's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    with pietrus out and very likely gone, does anyone think that even doc can make the right decision here to bring ray off the bench as a scoring punch? 

    it would seem to bode well for trying to start games out the way the c's did today- with high tempo, high intensity defense and trying to get ahead first.

    i know rondo did most of the heavy lifting on that but avery runs the floor much more than ray does and also stifled d-wade in the starting moments of the game to enable us to set the tone early.

    i dont' have a lot of confidence in doc as a coach- i mean ray-off-the-bench concept is 3 years late now, but it's not too late now, especially with how we have been playing
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyCelt2. Show KyCelt2's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting": Bradley and the rest of the team are coming together. KG is playing great as is Paul. Bass is learning to play better D and Romdo is cutting down on his turnovers. All that started before the road trip so Doc didn't get lucky. The players started listening and doing what he asked. KG's play, in fact, has had the most impact. Bradley has played great and we've been UNLUCKY with Pietrus, Ray, and Wilcox going down.
    Posted by Celtsfan4life[/QUOTE]

     I get it now, the reason we were losing, was the players weren't listening and  doing what Doc asked!!  You've got Doc way over rated!!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In response to "Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting :  I get it now, the reason we were losing, was the players weren't listening and  doing what Doc asked!!  You've got Doc way over rated!! Posted by KyCelt2[/QUOTE] I don't think so. Just like so many people on this Board said Bradley stinks ( including me) and so many said KG was done and it would be stupid to play small ball and so many other fan positions, fans are most often wrong. The Coach who got us to a championship in the first year when everyone said it would take 2 or 3, the coach who got these guys to game 7 in 2010 when all the experts here said we were done and we stink and we have no pride ( remember those quotes), and the coach who got Rondo, BBD, Perkins, and Powe to play great ball is a huge part of what's going on with this team. This is the same as Van Gundy being a part of why Orlando doesn't live up to its potential, why the Knicks were terrible under D'Antoni, why the Spurs keep getting written off but the best coach in the league (Pop) revives and redesigns them, and why Chicago is so good so fast (Thibs): The Coach makes a HUGE difference. You underestimate the impact of the coach.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    In Response to Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting:
    [QUOTE]In response to "....You underestimate the impact of the coach.
    Posted by Celtsfan4life[/QUOTE]


    You're only part right....   The Doc Haters  underestimate the impact of the coach when we win....   and overestimate the impact of the coach when we lose.   They blame him for losing when injuries plague the team, they even refuse to give Doc credit when he wins championship.......  instead giving it to assistant coaches...LOL      Blinded by their own negative opinions, most of the are even in denial about being Doc Haters...   they can't see the very clear evidence that is obvious to almost everyone else.  Doc is in the top tier of NBA coaches and every celtic fan shold be greatful that he is here.      

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Too bad Johnson still looks so skittish

    but a Dooling-Ray -Quis (then hopefully Pietrus in a month) - Steamer bench is pretty solid
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rajon-Hondo. Show Rajon-Hondo's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Defensively,we stop the ball and G penetration better,there is more movement on the offensive end and we're winning. It's hard not to say we are better without RA but 7 games is a short period of time,we need to get him and Michael back regardless of whether they're starting or not. Rondo and Avery are tearing it up defensively and Averys' game brings more ball and player movement reducing double teams and resulting in more open shots down low. One player that has benefited from this duo is Brandon Bass,he gets a wider variety of looks and has shown he has an all around offensive game. How ever it turns out this has been a great season so far this group has shown more tenacity and resolve than I've seen in while, we keep getting handed lemons and we keep making some sweet lemonade.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from michaelsjr. Show michaelsjr's posts

    Re: The Celtics are better without Ray Allen starting

    Somebody has to say it..."amored" is not a word.  "Enamored" is correct.
     

Share