79 replies to this topic

[BigSoxFan]

I can't understand why anyone would rather face Philly than Chicago right now. Chicago is a shell of a team and Philly (as you said) has been a horrible matchup for the C's this year. I'd be very much worried they'd run the C's out of the gym. Of course as some have said..if the Celts are hitting their shots then Philly will have to play halfcourt which swings things back in the Celts favor.

But still..if you're looking at the two teams straight up right now? Bulls are the easier team to beat. They played all year with the idea that Rose would be back at some point..now that it's clear he won't be they seem to have lost some of their heart/will (along with Noah be hurt of course).

Well, I'd much rather have home court advantage against a young team with little playoff experience than no home court vs. an experienced, albeit depleted, Bulls team.

[amarshal2]

Not that I disagree with your ultimate point but citing "little playoff experience" as a central point is weak to begin with and even weaker when you're talking about the 2nd round.

[TFisNEXT]

The Bulls would be an easier matchup this very second probably, but they are likely to have Joakim Noah back if they make it to the 2nd round. Playing the Bulls on the road with that type of size inside is a huge problem for the C's.

I'll take the homecourt advantage over an inexperienced Philly team (who Boston blew out last time at the Garden) over that Bulls team on the road with Noah back. I understand Boston looked bad twice down in Philly, but both of those were 2nd of a back to back on the road when the C;s were horrible all year in those situations. They would not have to worry about that this time around.

[BigSoxFan]

Not that I disagree with your ultimate point but citing "little playoff experience" as a central point is weak to begin with and even weaker when you're talking about the 2nd round.

Yes, because the 76ers are clearly a bunch of playoff stalwarts by handling a Rose-less Bulls team with no offensive scoring punch. Playoff experience does matter even though you apparently want to discount it. Regardless, my central point is having home court, not playoff experience.

Edited by BigSoxFan, 07 May 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

The Celtics have had problems with teams that have more overall athleticism than them. I still think they should beat Philly in a 7-game series, but if the Celtics aren't engaged and focused Philly can win at least 1 if not 2 games in the series(if it happens of course. Lots of basketball left to be played in both series).

This adage that the Celtics struggle against teams with more athleticism seems a little tired to me. Young, athletic teams can cause some problems for the slower veterans, but I really can't think of many times in the last few years where I was worried by one. Does anyone else feel like this belief is rooted in the battles that the Celtics and Hawks have had over the years? They've always been the team that came to my mind when someone mentions youth and athleticism, and we've seen what that gets them, they can give us a few fits, but in the end the better BASKETBALL PLAYERS always prevail, at least in the playoffs. As has been said by others, teams with size that rebound well are the ones that are dangerous for the Celtics.

[amarshal2]

Yes, because the 76ers are clearly a bunch of playoff stalwarts by handling a Rose-less Bulls team with no offensive scoring punch. Playoff experience does matter even though you apparently want to discount it. Regardless, my central point is having home court, not playoff experience.

So the Bulls are terrible/injured enough not to give the 76ers credit for experiencing a playoff series win but not so bad that you want to play them and give up a home game? Or do you really value home court advantage so greatly that you would rather play a stronger team with home court than a weaker one without it? The Bulls had home court AND experience, but it doesn't appear to be enough to overcome being the inferior team.

If the 76ers win the series, then they'll know what it's like to go out and get it done in the playoffs. The Bulls are still an NBA team. I don't know that experiencing another series or two is really going to have an impact on their ability to shoot or defend. It's not like the stage is that much bigger in the second round.

I'd rather play Philly because I think they're the weaker team. I think Philly is getting lucky playing the Bulls with Noah out. However, if Noah remains hurt, bring on the Bulls.

[deconstruction]

I'd rather play Philly because I think they're the weaker team. I think Philly is getting lucky playing the Bulls with Noah out. However, if Noah remains hurt, bring on the Bulls.

Well, if Noah remains hurt (and he's "likely out" for game 5), the Bulls have no shot at beating Philly.

[BigSoxFan]

So the Bulls are terrible/injured enough not to give the 76ers credit for experiencing a playoff series win but not so bad that you want to play them and give up a home game? Or do you really value home court advantage so greatly that you would rather play a stronger team with home court than a weaker one without it? The Bulls had home court AND experience, but it doesn't appear to be enough to overcome being the inferior team.

If the 76ers win the series, then they'll know what it's like to go out and get it done in the playoffs. The Bulls are still an NBA team. I don't know that experiencing another series or two is really going to have an impact on their ability to shoot or defend. It's not like the stage is that much bigger in the second round.

I'd rather play Philly because I think they're the weaker team. I think Philly is getting lucky playing the Bulls with Noah out. However, if Noah remains hurt, bring on the Bulls.

For one, I do think home court is very valuable when you're dealing with 2 teams that are pretty evenly-matched. I would much rather have a potential Game 7 in the Garden. Secondly, I was assuming that Noah would return for a theoretical series against the Celtics. Finally, as others have mentioned, the Bulls have a decided low post advantage against the Celtics (with Noah in the lineup). They have 4 legit big men whereas the Celtics have 1.5 or 2 (depending on how you value Bass). Quite simply, I think they would physically wear KG down. The Sixers, on the other hand, have a short PF in Brand that Bass could score on and very little post depth behind him. Yes, they're athletic but going up against the Hawks would be a fine tuneup to their athleticism.

[pedrosdaddy]

Yes, because the 76ers are clearly a bunch of playoff stalwarts by handling a Rose-less Bulls team with no offensive scoring punch. Playoff experience does matter even though you apparently want to discount it. Regardless, my central point is having home court, not playoff experience.

Do you have any proof that playoff experience does in fact matter?

[TFisNEXT]

I'll take the Bulls if Noah is out, but as someone already mentioned, they are unlikely to come back on Philly if Noah can't return after game 5 (and may not survive game 5 without him). Otherwise I'll take Philly. The Bulls have a ton fo size inside (esp with Noah in there) and that causes big problems for the Celtics, regardless of Rose being injured or not.

I think the Atlanta/Philly analogy is a good one. Atlanta is way younger and more athletic than the Celtics, but it doesn't mean they are good enough to beat the C's. Philly is a similar boat. I think some are putting a bit too much weight on the regular season losses to Philly on the road of which both were on the 2nd night of a back to back. That doesn't mean I think Philly has zero shot against the C's, but if the C's play their typical solid jump shooting game and tough defense, then it shouldn't be much a problem disposing of the 76ers. If they shoot like crap, then the 76ers could cause some problems in the transition game. But Philly cannot score worth a damn in the half court offense vs the C's defense.

[dolomite133]

So is that the way a dream run to the finals pivots to a nightmare first-round implosion or what? Yikes.

[Ed Hillel]

So is that the way a dream run to the finals pivots to a nightmare first-round implosion or what? Yikes.

Um, what? They are up 3-2 and heading home after playing like shit on the road and losing by one.

However, I am almost resigned to the fact that Pierce has a significant injury, and that this series doesn't much matter.

[dolomite133]

Um, what? They are up 3-2 and heading home after playing like shit on the road and losing by one.

However, I am almost resigned to the fact that Pierce has a significant injury, and that this series doesn't much matter.

Ed, you answered your own question there. We had a chance to close it out and get some rest. Instead we lose a heartbreaker, Pierce is apparently injured, and the Hawks have a healthy Horford back. That adds up to a pretty big shift. I can't help but think Jeff Green would have been huge for us if he was healthy right now. (Of course, one has to wonder if a healthy Green means we'd still have Baby).

Edited by dolomite133, 09 May 2012 - 01:32 AM.

[collings94]

Shaughnessy wrote a good article today in the Globe. Atlanta is just a wounded animal looking to be put out of it's misery. Sucks we couldn't get the job done last night, but we will put the bullet in their head back at the Garden.

[smastroyin]

Pierce basically played as badly as he can play while Horford had probably the best playoff game of his career, and the C's lost by one on the road. I was pretty pissed too, I'll admit, especially since they lost on a fluke bounce on the rim on a crappy shot taken at the buzzer after they played great defense, and that not a single one of these guys could get down the floor for an easy outlet creating a two-on-one after the steal. Shitty way for a game to end. But, overall, given how little they got from Pierce it's hard to take too much from that game. Obviously if Pierce has a long term problem then they are in trouble, but I have to have some belief that Doc wouldn't keep him out there for so much of the game if he was seriously hurt.

[BoredViewer]

Rondo needs to grow up.

You can't be 26 years old and get away with wearing that ridiculous post-game jacket.

http://sports.yahoo....-161311234.html

[Koufax]

I actually like the jacket and admire his style. I also think that he has every right to object to being put on camera under those circumstances. His language was restrained but clear. His is grown up plenty enough.

[smastroyin]

He does not have that right. He is in a press accessible area of the arena.

He has a right to be upset, because it kind of sucks. He has a right to not talk about anything. But he doesn't have a right not to be on camera if he is standing there. These things are all very well negotiated with arenas, the media, the league, and the players.

[lars10]

He does not have that right. He is in a press accessible area of the arena.

He has a right to be upset, because it kind of sucks. He has a right to not talk about anything. But he doesn't have a right not to be on camera if he is standing there. These things are all very well negotiated with arenas, the media, the league, and the players.

are you 100% sure about that?
Because what you're basically saying is that a reporter could be standing there taping/taking notes on a private conversation...which I don't think is the case. Just because Rondo is standing in a press accessible area doesn't mean that everything he says is allowed to be recorded.

[fairlee76]

Eh, he was pissed off after a tough loss. Certainly not a sign of maturity but not something I care about. I care a hell of a lot more about the fact that he single-handedly sparked that 3rd quarter rally.

[The Social Chair]

http://greenstreet.w...cs-boston-fans/

I feel it's inevitable that he'll be a Celtic at some point. He probably feels that way too.

“When you’re playing in an environment like the Boston Garden, they have probably the best fans,” Smith paused, and then thought better of completely throwing Atlanta fans under the bus, adding, “some of the best fans in the whole entire league. Like I said before, I was a little jealous, you know what I mean?
“The fans out here are so supportive of their team,” he said. “You go out and look in the stands, there’s nothing but Celtics jerseys and I don’t see a trace of red in there, you know what I mean? Understanding that the fans are that passionate, it adds an extra advantage for them. A bad shot can be as good as a turnover when you’re playing against a team like Boston, especially with the fanbase that they have.”

[bsj]

So...now there is bitching and moaning about not giving the Hawks two free throws on that inbounds play with 3 seconds to go.

[Sheets]

So...now there is bitching and moaning about not giving the Hawks two free throws on that inbounds play with 3 seconds to go.

I don't know who's bitching, I haven't read about it, but I don't blame them. I thought it should have been 2 shots, too.

[bsj]

I don't know who's bitching, I haven't read about it, but I don't blame them. I thought it should have been 2 shots, too.

It was an odd call. It seemed like you either dont call it (the same contact happens on EVERY play) or you give them 2 shots.

Almost like they tried to make a compromise call there which doesnt make sense.

[teddykgb]

I'm still not sure what the foul call was. If anyone was fouled there it looked to be Daniels, but the angle they showed on the Celtics broadcast was really poor.

[sachmoney]

It was an odd call. It seemed like you either dont call it (the same contact happens on EVERY play) or you give them 2 shots.

Almost like they tried to make a compromise call there which doesnt make sense.

It's not like Atlanta would've gotten the ball back after those free throws, right?

I think the only thing it changed was the time on the clock (for certain). The call you were referring to: Marquis Daniels fouls Al Horford [the foul to give]. Hawks take it out of bounds again, and Marquis Daniels fouls Al Horford again. Horford would've been at the line in either scenario, so it's not like the shooter changed where they would've had a better free throw shooter. Of course, you will never know what might have happened, but the Hawks had the exact same player at the free throw line with a chance to tie the game in both scenarios.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I'm still not sure what the foul call was. If anyone was fouled there it looked to be Daniels, but the angle they showed on the Celtics broadcast was really poor.

Daniels clearly holds him. His arm is wrapped around Horford as he breaks to the basket. Horford's contact against Daniels comes as a result of trying to get through Daniel's illegal hold. It's pretty clearly a foul. In that situation, it wouldn't be a crime for the refs not to call it, but once they have, they should have followed through and awarded the free throws correctly.

Although, watching it a couple of times it's really close as to whether or not the ball is in bounds. So, maybe they lucked out and got it right. Either way, if I were a Hawks fan/player/coach I'd be furious that there wasn't at least a video review.

[teddykgb]

I guess. The contact is really minimal and pretty par for the course until Horford gets his elbows up. To be honest, I think the ref saw the elbow and was afraid of some sort of escalation so he blows the whistle and everything after the fact is just trying to make sure that doesn't really affect the outcome of the game. Which wouldn't even be bad officiating, really. As it played out, there was no real reason for a foul to be called, but I can't hide my bias on that, I'm sure I'd be livid if I were a Hawks fan.

Gone unnoticed in all this is Doc's strange answer that Marquis isn't supposed to be on Horford on the subsequent play. It's total nonsense. If Daniels isn't supposed to be on Horford then they correct it after this play and before the next inbounds.

[slamminsammya]

Gone unnoticed in all this is Doc's strange answer that Marquis isn't supposed to be on Horford on the subsequent play. It's total nonsense. If Daniels isn't supposed to be on Horford then they correct it after this play and before the next inbounds.

This. It was an outrage that Daniels was on the floor in the first place.

[Sheets]

http://espn.go.com/b...-boston-celtics

The NBA acknowledges it was the wrong call. And seems like I/we got the rule wrong. It would have been one shot, not two, then the ball. Yikes, that would have sucked.