We are 4-1 with Pierce

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    Pud or Fierce,
    Who is Jeb? I have wondered about who that picture is?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    Kirk,
    I think Rondo would challenge your contention that Bradley is the fastest Celtic.  Rondo says he is faster than Derek Rose.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce:
    One of the biggest issues we have is that Rivers always plays players out of position. Bradley is not a 2. Moore should be the backup 2. Wilcox is not a 5. KG is not a 5. JO and Stiemsma should be the 5s, 95% of the time. Rivers also has this fetish with "going small." And he tells his team not go for offensive rebounds, but to get back on defense instead. As a result, we get killed on the boards. What coach tells his team not to go for offensive rebounds???
    Posted by Kirk6


    I agree with you about Moore and KG.  I think that Wilcox is ok at the 5, but Stiemsma is better.  KG should never play at this position.  We definitely need to improve our rebounding going forward.  Just not sure how this is going to happen. 
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce:
    Pud or Fierce, Who is Jeb? I have wondered about who that picture is?
    Posted by concord27


    http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2746-john-jeb-johnson-charter-member-of-sam-s-celtics-forum-hall-of-fame

    Jeb was also here at BDC too. Quite a character. He made everyone feel welcome at Sams.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce:
    One of the biggest issues we have is that Rivers always plays players out of position. Bradley is not a 2. Moore should be the backup 2. Wilcox is not a 5. KG is not a 5. JO and Stiemsma should be the 5s, 95% of the time. Rivers also has this fetish with "going small." And he tells his team not go for offensive rebounds, but to get back on defense instead. As a result, we get killed on the boards. What coach tells his team not to go for offensive rebounds???
    Posted by Kirk6



    Its popular for all of us to think we get killed on the Boards because Rivers tells the players to get back on D.  I watched this game against Indiana very carefully.  Our problem wasn't lack of offensive rebounds.  It was INDIANA's offensive rebounds.  As for our own o-rebounds, we weren't hustling back on D.....our players were taking terrible fall away jump shots so no one was in any position to rebound for us.  

    In this game and in others, did you see how many times someone came over our backs to get a rebound because they were hustling and we weren't?   We were in cement sneakers and they jumped straight up and grabbed boards while we stood there and got pushed away.  One time, I watched 2 Celtics stand there waiting on each other to get the defensive rebound so Hansborough picked it up and simply went up and scored while we stood there looking stupid.  That's not coaching and it has NOTHING to do with getting back on D because we were already there playing D.  That's just old legs with no lift and no speed which allows the young guys on the other team get to the ball first!

    To the point of this thread - that we are 4 and 1 with Pierce:  We beat weak teams and lost to everyone else.  We have yet to even play a full game well against a good team.  Yes, we came back against the Heat and Knicks when they relaxed, but in the end, we folded.  More than that, we started off weak in every game against a good team.  So, we happen to be 4 and 1 with Pierce only because we played the Wizards, Nets, and Detroit!

    The pattern of play is what bothers so many of us, not one game.  I could live with one bad game, but I've yet to see this team play well an entire game when they faced any opponent that's not an automatic lottery team.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce:
    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce : Its popular for all of us to think we get killed on the Boards because Rivers tells the players to get back on D.  I watched this game against Indiana very carefully.  Our problem wasn't lack of offensive rebounds.  It was INDIANA's offensive rebounds.  As for our own o-rebounds, we weren't hustling back on D.....our players were taking terrible fall away jump shots so no one was in any position to rebound for us.   In this game and in others, did you see how many times someone came over our backs to get a rebound because they were hustling and we weren't?   We were in cement sneakers and they jumped straight up and grabbed boards while we stood there and got pushed away.  One time, I watched 2 Celtics stand there waiting on each other to get the defensive rebound so Hansborough picked it up and simply went up and scored while we stood there looking stupid.  That's not coaching and it has NOTHING to do with getting back on D because we were already there playing D.  That's just old legs with no lift and no speed which allows the young guys on the other team get to the ball first! To the point of this thread - that we are 4 and 1 with Pierce:  We beat weak teams and lost to everyone else.  We have yet to even play a full game well against a good team.  Yes, we came back against the Heat and Knicks when they relaxed, but in the end, we folded.  More than that, we started off weak in every game against a good team.  So, we happen to be 4 and 1 with Pierce only because we played the Wizards, Nets, and Detroit! The pattern of play is what bothers so many of us, not one game.  I could live with one bad game, but I've yet to see this team play well an entire game when they faced any opponent that's not an automatic lottery team.
    Posted by Celtsfan4life


    I think its more we don't get offensive rebounds because we head back on defense which is a correct statement. Overall rebounding you are correct, we get outhustled too many times.  Obviously coaching does play a part in it if Doc allows people to not hustle stay in the game. Not sure who we blame if that happening if its not Doc. Your statement about us being 4-1 because we were playing bad teams could be true but also could be false. You don't know what we would have done against another opponent any more than I do. I do know the game were at home and teams tend to play better at home. So maybe us being at home had a little to do with it as well. The Lakers are 5-1 and 0-3 on the road. For the last 2-3 years we have played down to the opponents just as we have this year. Generally when when we play good teams we play better, (Miami, NY- both home openers for their teams) While we may not be as good as Kirk said we also may not be as bad as you say. I think we have to see a few more games to really get a handle on this team. Just my opinion, as you had one as well.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce:
    Doc does not focus on rebounding. All he talks about is moving the ball. In the in huddle conversations I have never heard him mention rebounding. He loves to go small, and so we get killed on the boards. Why is it that he never goes big?
    Posted by Kirk6


    I think that Doc is finding the best fit formula for the points/pieces that he has.  The piece that forces most contortions is Rondo.  It is hard for Doc to go big unless you have a dominating big man.  Otherwise, the combination of Rondo and a non-scoring big man will not work.

    Trading Rondo at this point, no matter how attractive, will be a disaster.  This team has been been forced to evolve such a unique style, over a long period of time, that the adjustment will not be easy.  The season is too compressed for that.

    I don't understand the JO bashing here.  I tought that he played very well yesterday.  Blocked shots, took charges and even made a shot.

    I think that team was too discombobulated.  Perhaps all the instruction during practice had them thinking too much.  The reads and reactions were pathetic. But it is inevitable.  In a short season with this many new pieces and such a schedule, we will see more ugly games.

    At this point the Celts have about a 20% chance to win it all.  Lets look forward to the suspense of Bradley becoming a quality NBA player and the Celts somehow finding a better backup 3.  The chances of finding an answer at 5 are miniscule.  So lets hope for quality improvements in the backup squad.

    And lets just sit back and enjoy the season.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In response to "Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce":
    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce : I think its more we don't get offensive rebounds because we head back on defense which is a correct statement. Overall rebounding you are correct, we get outhustled too many times.  Obviously coaching does play a part in it if Doc allows people to not hustle stay in the game. Not sure who we blame if that happening if its not Doc. Your statement about us being 4-1 because we were playing bad teams could be true but also could be false. You don't know what we would have done against another opponent any more than I do. I do know the game were at home and teams tend to play better at home. So maybe us being at home had a little to do with it as well. The Lakers are 5-1 and 0-3 on the road. For the last 2-3 years we have played down to the opponents just as we have this year. Generally when when we play good teams we play better, (Miami, NY- both home openers for their teams) While we may not be as good as Kirk said we also may not be as bad as you say. I think we have to see a few more games to really get a handle on this team. Just my opinion, as you had one as well. Posted by OneOnOne
    But we lost to Indiana at home with Pierce! How does that square with your theory? In fact, we didn't just lose, we stunk.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In response to "Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce":
    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce : Don't forget that the Celts were a very good rebounding team in 2008 and 2009. Same coach and basically the same group of players.  2008-2009 the Celts were averaging 42 rebounds per game. In 2010 and 2011 the Celts were just getting 39 rebounds per game. They just got old, that's why we need an upgrade. Posted by Fiercest34
    Exactly. Old legs that are out hustled is not coaching. You could try "punishment" by taking the players out but then you have to take out Pierce, KG, Bass, JON, and Wilcox who are the problem.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from futbal. Show futbal's posts

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    Rebounding involves four factors: 1 intention, obvious but Jeff Foster is an offensive rebound whiz, no gifts just determination,2 hops Rondo has hops, KG lost his, 3 boxing out, Paul does this, KG never does, 4 going to the ball, mind anticipates and legs get player there, Rondo has this, KG no longer has the legs to move for the ball. Stiemsma has 1, 2,4 not sure about his boxing out. Rebounding is a huge problem for this team.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    Their just is no substitute for size and youth when it comes to rebounding. Desire and effort are key, as well, Of course, but 8 out of 10 of the top rebounders are young and big. Very few (none?) of the leaders have legs are weary and as old as KG's. Check out the stats: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/rebounds/sort/avgRebounds
     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    Danny traded away our big, strong, young legs that focus on rebounding. He replaced them with JON and a bunch of mid sized forwards and a has been back up center (Wilcox). Give Steamer more minutes - he can't do worse than JON and Wilcox!
     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce

    In response to "Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce":
    In Response to Re: We are 4-1 with Pierce : Stiemsma will become a very good player some day, but we need a better big man now!  Posted by Fiercest34
    I agree. I just don't know who we can get. Petey asked me that question and I don't have the answer.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share