Not All The Bench's Fault
by Jeff Clark on Jan 1, 2009 5:21 PM EST
in News/Links
38 comments
Jack Jemsek at the CSL blog has a good point about the bench.
True the bench failed to score against Portland, and perhaps must take blame for that loss. However, the Celtics starters gave up 6 points during a Portland run during the last 4:30 of the 2nd quarter, and then only played the Trailblazers to a stalemate during the opening 8:40 of the 3rd quarter.
Against the Warriors, it was the Celtics version of a small ball line-up of Rondo-House-RAllen-Pierce-Garnett that gave up 11 points and the lead in the middle of the 4th quarter. You cannot blame the bench for losing against Golden State – that’s on the starters.And against the Lakers, the 13-2 Lakers run at the end of the game to seal the victory was against the Celtics starters, not the bench. The Celtics bench with Ray Allen actually had an 8-2 run earlier in the 4th quarter that grabbed the lead temporarily for the Celtics.
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Not really, Jeff.
The only legitimate point of that group is the Laker fourth quarter – and that hardly mitigates any of the problems this bench is creating. In fact, one can argue that Doc would have the flexibility to shake up lineups with length and shooting off the bench – if he had it.
As for the Warrior game, Doc could have gone to his backup 5 if small ball wasn’t working – except he doesn’t have a competent backup 5.
Those are excuses, not mitigators.
by CoachBo on Jan 1, 2009 5:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As for the Warrior game, Doc could have gone to his backup 5 if small ball wasn’t working – except he doesn’t have a competent backup 5.
That was actually the game Perk sat out, and Powe put up 12 and 7, with 2 blocks (and held Beidrins to 4 pts), before picking up his 4th foul with 8:37 left in the 3rd quarter. The C’s were up 58-47 at that point. Doc never put him back in, even as that 11 point lead turned in to a 10 point defeat.
by MattD on Jan 2, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The cause for the lakers loss was turnovers and actually ray allen taking too many “hero” shots, he even missed a wide open 3 with the game tied with 3 minutes to go…but anywho
When the starters go to the bench, they usually come back with no rhythym at all..so yeah that isnt on the bench, who actually did give us a chance to win the LA game, as you said.
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 1, 2009 6:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Try playing the bench with Rondo at the point instead of House and wondrous things would happen.
by Brickowski on Jan 1, 2009 6:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
the main thing our bench is lacking is a legit backup center. You can’t send BBD out there against people like Oden and Gasol and expect to win
by hpantazo on Jan 1, 2009 6:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
How great is this?
I am a die hard Lakers fan, and I find myself coming around here just to see what the hated Celtics fans are talking about. Feels like old times, I remember when I was a kid how much I hated the Green Machine, and it is all back again! Gotta love it!
Anyway, my take on it right now is I think we are in better shape to make the finals again, cause you guys got that beast LBJ and his improved supporting cast to worry about, we got nothing, thought NOH was gonna be the test but they don’t look so scary this year, which is a surprise.
I think that with AB17 in the middle the depth that the Lakers have really puts a hamper on your guys. The starting five of the Celts is no doubt better than the LAkers, but as the Christmas game showed, when we go to the bench now, we are superior cause you don’t have the depth to match up. Good luck finding a big to help you guys out, but can’t wait till Feb 5
Go Lakers!!
BLF3408
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 6:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
AB17? LOL
And yeah, theres plenty of teams that can knock off the lakers in the west, so the overconfidence shown by you and most lakers fans is annoying, anywho, I wouldnt put to much stock in the xmas game, because as stated in the article the bench actually took the lead in the 4th, it was the starters who didnt execute down the stretch
You were at home, that game was no different than games 3 and 5 of the finals
lata
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 1, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plenty of teams?
No on in the West can rock with the Lakers. Lakers have too many match up problems for the rest of the West.
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Celtics, not OUR, bench won't play as much when it counts
Didn’t we hear the exact same thing last year about the vaunted Lakers’ bench last year? If and when both teams get back to the Finals again, the benches are just not going to be as much a factor as they are over the haul of the regular season. Doc played the exact same way he has all year, keeping the big 3’s minutes all under 40, closer to 35. He did not let that one game force him to play the starters 40+ minutes because he understood correctly it is 1 of 82. It is truly amazing how Lakers’ fans make so many judgments about that one game, as if it was a series.
If the Celtics starters are really better, than watch out, with the stretched out format, no back-to-backs, the starters are going to go 40+ minutes. Deep benches are for regular season success and endurance, to keep the starters fresh for the long haul. Once the playoffs begin, no way are you going to see a whole unit of reserves out there, so it absolutely does not matter if the Lakers bench is better, the benches are never going to play each other 5 on 5.
by KJ33 on Jan 1, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
To an extent. But if a team has to go through 7 game series in the first second and third round of the playoffs, then a solid bench is an awesome commodity to have. Not to mention that during the course of the season players can get worn down, but you have a valid point.
I like to think that the lakers will tighten thier rotation, therefore playing better players, where as the Celts got what they got, and thats all that they got
BLF
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 11:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spurs
A healthy Spurs team can certainly beat the Lakers with experience alone. So I think Lakers fans who think that they have nothing to worry about need to take a look at the never to be taken lightly Spurs.
by NoraG1 on Jan 1, 2009 7:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Did you watch the West Finals?
Don;t give me a"healthy" Ginobili theory either. he never hurts the Lakers. It wouldn’t t be the Spurs who would take the Lakers out.
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What do last years west finals have to do with it? havent the spurs and lakers gone back and forth year to year when they play in the playoffs? I would never underestimate the spurs especially on an odd year
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 1, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Odd year?
Please. How about some pixie dust?
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Last year showed
How much better the Lakers were than the Spurs. That’s what it has to do with. We’ve owned the Spurs up until Shaq/Kobe were broken up. They beat us ‘03 (when we were too dysfunctional). ’99 doesn’t count.
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
This is sports, anything can happen, and there a other teams in the west that I could see potentially beating the lakers in the playoffs if they are healthy and clicking at the right time…its so weird to see how annoying some lakers fans are…yup you’re guaranteed to make the finals..carry on
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 1, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Name a team clicking who will beat a healthy Laker team peaking at play off time.
…and please. Think this through and explain. I’m curious.
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said it was guaranteed, and I don;t come here to argue BUT
just as you feel your team is good, so do we. No other team should beat us if we are playing our best. Shouldn’t you feel that way? I know you do. What’s annoying to you is that it’s the Lakers, not my opinion.
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really believe that?
You think the Celtics have a thin bench, have you looked at San Antonio’s? I don’t think San Antonio is really in the title conversation this year (in spite of being “an odd year”) unless they make a move between now and the trade deadline. Tim Duncan is better than either Gasol or Bynum, but against both of them? The frontcourt matchup favors LA. Bruce Bowen is a shell of himself at his age, so I don’t know who the Spurs would put on Kobe nowadays; while LA could put Ariza and Kobe on Ginobili. Parker has the clear edge against Fisher, but he’s most effective if he can get into the paint, and with Bynum and Gasol back there I don’t know how much daylight he’s gonna have. But look at what the Spurs have beyond their “Big 3” and look at what the Lakers have. No contest.
I really don’t see any team in the West right now posing a serious threat to the Lakers. The Rockets look like the only team on paper who could give them a challenge, but Houston is not anywhere near as good on the court as they are on paper. New Orleans tends to match up exceptionally poorly against the Lakers: the Lakers have won their last four matchups with the Hornets and have had leads of at least 20 points in the second half of all four of those games (three of which were in N.O.).
Who else is there in the West? The Lakers have badly beaten the Nuggets 9 straight times. The Lakers have beaten Phoenix 5 out of the last 6 times they’ve played each other, and the one loss came in between Bynum’s injury last year and the Gasol trade. LA has beaten Dallas five straight times. They beat Utah 7 out of the 10 times they played them last year and pretty well dominated their series against them in the playoffs without Bynum or Ariza. Portland traditionally gives the Lakers some trouble, but I don’t think they’re old enough to pull it off this year; and the Spurs frankly are probably too old to pull it off.
I think LA will probably have a very easy time making the Finals this year, just like they did last year. Of course, just making the Finals doesn’t mean squat.
by WildYams on Jan 1, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with most of what is written here, particularly about San Antonio. Their top three players are superb and fully capable of leading a team to another title, but they don’t have the supporting cast around them. The Spurs role players are weak.
Lakers are in great shape in the West as long as they’re performing well and are healthy when the playoffs roll around.
by Who on Jan 2, 2009 5:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting Post.
Those are some valid points, but there is still a lot of pressure being put on the bench now. They’re being called out, and even the fans are turning on them. I’m curious to see how they respond, regardless of what is true about the concerns or not.
Will they fall into the trap of feeling the pressure of the hype?
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
They need more talent
I don’t think it’s necessarily a question of the bench players “rising to the occasion” so much as they just need to get some better, and specifically bigger, bench players. I don’t think any of the bench guys is really having an off year or anything, it’s just that last year these guys were the 8-11 players on the team, and now they’re the 6-9 guys. There needs to be a real clear 6th man (and probably 7th man as well) the way there was last year with Posey and PJ.
by WildYams on Jan 1, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
I couldn’t agree more. Last year PJ Brown really surprised me in the series. I didn’t see it coming from him. I mean a solid pick up, but nobdy saw him being a major factor as he was in the finals series. I mean, like i said about AB17, with him in thier now, you NEED a player like PJ because Leon Powe is now “Leon Powe.” He aint coming into the game and causing the havoc he did lasgt year cause the rotation is less deep (using your 6-9 versus 8-11 analysis)
BLF 3408
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that, but
As of tonight, the bench is the same, and they’ll still need to produce. That’s what I meant. Will they let it affect them?
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
which bench are u referring to?
I’m a bit confused
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoah!
I never said we were guaranteed to make the finals. Read my words. I said we are in better shape than you guys, cause you have a no crap legit threat. Hell I would even say that an arguement about which is the better team:
The defending Eastern Conference Champs or the previous years East Champs that have retooled after taking your squad to seven last year?
In the west the LAL are the #1 no questions asked. But I do not discount a healthy Rockets team, and to a lesser extent the Spurs and now the NOH
As for the starters losing the lead and all that, it is a byproduct of Doc Rivers HAVING TO PLAY HIS STARTERS MORE MINUTES than they normally would against us, cause your bunch can’t match up.
BLF3408
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 8:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Check the Cavs schedule, then get back to us
They have beaten every team under .500, which the Celtics have not done, but they have been very mediocre against good teams, and they have played ALOT of games against teams under .500. It is a sign of a good team to handle those teams, which they have, but you cannot compare records through 30+ games as a barometer of who the better team is. Until they have both played the full schedule, record alone is just not sufficient.
The starters didn’t play more against the Lakers, and besides, since all starters on all teams play more than their benches, especially in the playoffs, wouldn’t you rather have the league’s best starters than the league’s best bench? Fairly obvious answer. Benches are important, but when you think see you a weakness in your hated rival, you are inflating the importance of a superior bench. Again, every single pundit overwhelmingly said the Lakers bench was better last year, does that knowledge comfort you or make you feel like that is a better achievement than actually winning the Title?
by KJ33 on Jan 1, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LA’s taken advantage of two teams with key injuries to earn their last two trips to the Finals, Cassell in 04 and Manu last year. I’m amazed by how cocky their fans are.
by RebusRankin on Jan 1, 2009 8:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Injuries
are a part of the game. Last year we lost AB17 and Trevor Ariza, and it didn’t hurt us until the Finals. Does that mean Celts should not be as happy with thier win as they are????
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or for that matter
Should Detroit give back thier championship because our starting HOF power forward was injured and couldnt go in the finals that year (Karl Malone had a freak injury to his knee)?
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not all of us are cocky.
I was glad they won the Christmas game, but I’m not concerned with December.
But you’re assertions that, “LA’s taken advantage of two teams with key injuries to earn their last two trips to the Finals’” is ridiculous. Be serious. Manu doesn’t hurt LA.
by wondahbap on Jan 1, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course not. My point was that Wondahbap spoke of how the Spurs beating you was a fluke and that 99 didn’t count, which to me is selective memory and basically implied LA always wins or their is an excuse if they don’t and I just wanted to point out some big factors that helped LA win in the past.
by RebusRankin on Jan 1, 2009 9:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
oh
I am not one to make excuses. I always feel fortunate to be a Lakers fan becuase we have an owner that constantly tries to build a winner. Only 2 seasons out of my lifetime have the Lakers missed the playoffs! Some fans just expect the team to win every year, and because of the success we’ve had in the past sometimes ppl forget how hard it actually is. When the Lakes get beat I accept it, but it is awesome knowing that we will be back in the near future.
I felt bad for the Celts fans cause you guys went 20 years without a great season excpet that one with Antoine Walker, but ’i dont think anybody thought they had a chance anyway. Glad to say the Lakers have never had that long or deep of a drop off
by biglakerfan3408 on Jan 1, 2009 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
