Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Veterans Share Their Favorite Sports Memories

Jazz Tune Out Celtics

The C's failed to sweep their three-game road trip, as they suffered a 110-97 loss to the Utah Jazz.

  • The Celtics held a 54-49 halftime lead, only to see the Jazz embark on a 9-0 at the start of the second half, from which they never looked back.
  • Mehmet Okur, who failed to score in the first half, put in 11 of his 14 points in the pivotal third quarter in which the Jazz took control of this one. He added 15 rebounds to boot.
  • The C's held a convincing 15-6 edge on the glass at the end of the first quarter, but proceeded to be out-rebounded 34-22 from that point on.
  • Rajon Rondo had a tough time dealing with Derron Williams, to say the least. Williams' combination of speed and strength gave Rondo headaches for most of the evening. 22 points and 11 assists for Williams, compared to just 6 points and 6 assists for Rondo. 
  • Paul Pierce and Ray Allen combined to shoot 7-25 from the field. Yikes. Shots just weren't falling. 
  • Glen Davis put in an impressive 13 points in the first half, but failed to score over the final 24 minutes. 
  • No starter played more than 30 minutes tonight and Doc got ejected with just over a minute remaining. 
Are you satisfied with the Celtics going 2-1 on this three game road trip? There were definitely some good moments, particularly down in Texas. Texas was good to us. The C's now begin a six-game home stand, starting with the always lethal Denver Nuggets, Wednesday at 7:00pm. 

Comment 216 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from CelticsBlog

NBA Blog Previews: Utah Jazz

Oct 2011 by Jeff Clark - 4 comments

Daily Links  9/15

Sep 2010 by FLCeltsFan - 0 comments

Daily Links  3/23

Mar 2010 by FLCeltsFan - 0 comments

Comments

Display:

minutes

I didn’t watch the game so I’m wondering why the starters played so few minutes…

by overthebackboardooh on Mar 22, 2010 11:49 PM EDT reply actions  

I thought the minutes were fine tonight

PP and Ray played 30 mins each, KG 26 – maybe they could’ve played 3-5 minutes but Doc has stated that he wants to find ways to get them rest and he’s doing just that.

Rondo was in foul trouble, so he only played about 28. I expect that to increase.

Rondooooooo

by RJ87 on Mar 22, 2010 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well they came back later in the second quarter than usual, like with 5 minutes left. The second unit was actually playing pretty poorly it seemed like they were just throwing two out of three possessions right into the Jazz’s hand, but then Finley hit a three, and Nate hit a couple 3s with the starters waiting to come in so Doc called them back with the lead up to 8.

by Berkcelt on Mar 22, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

A solid 20-25 minutes tonight for the Celts

The rest — blah. Physically dominated by Utah in the second half and the C’s seemed to back down. With two minutes left in the first half and a 12-point lead, the Celts stopped playing defense, rebounding and moving the ball on offense. Rondo let Deron Williams get into his head and our big men, except for Davis, were not good. Successful road trip winning two out of three, but nothing I saw changes my mind about a second round exit. Another loss after having a double digit lead. How many is that now on the season, 17 or 18? They have to be closing in on some sort of record with this stat.

by vinnie on Mar 22, 2010 11:50 PM EDT reply actions  

Its a good thing

Your mind is not what is going to determine the C’s outcome this year.

This was just one of those games. You know, where. The other team shoots lights out and our guys stink up the joint. This happened even during the championship season.

I don’t know what will happen this year but they have been plying better lately, and to count them out would be foolish.

by KG's Knee on Mar 23, 2010 12:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Every 3 Utah made was a wide open shot

Unlike the last few games in which the Celtics were closing on shooters outside the arc, in the swecond half tonight they did not. They also stopped rebounding and stopped playing defense. As far as my mind, it is warped, however, I have maintained my opinion since January of this year. I hope I am wrong given that I will be at every playoff game.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

well, i will concede

I had to listen on the radio, so I don’t know about how open ther shots were. Just seemed to me when Utah went in their big run, they made everything the threw at the basket.

by KG's Knee on Mar 23, 2010 12:12 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

that's pretty much what happened.

The shooting percentages pretty much tell the story. We both shot 74 FGA – they just made 5 more of them. And it wasn’t just them shooting well (over 51%) – we also shot below our average (less than 45%). Hence the difference.

Not too surprising – they have a strong home court advantage already and then you factor in tired road legs for us.

All in all, its no more complicated than that.

by mmmmm on Mar 23, 2010 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Apparently we were not salty enough

I have faith….stay tuned

Is it Soup Yet?

by Master Po on Mar 22, 2010 11:51 PM EDT reply actions  

i thought the effort was there. slj did get physical but i don’t think we backed down. okur got hot and so did boozer. deron williams was allowed to drive into rondo and get away with it. it’s been a long trip and this was not one of those earlier low effort defeats.

by nazzbo on Mar 22, 2010 11:55 PM EDT reply actions  

Well I hate games in Utah, they are usually pretty ugly with a lot of (bad) calls. Tonight was no exception. Rondo has got to keep his composure. He should have gotten that charge on Williams but he started going mano-a-mano after that, and down the tubes we went. Gotta be better than that.

I thought Paul looked really good at the start, he seemed really high on that fastbreak dunk and seemed to be in on a lot of rebounds. He along with everybody else disappeared. Hopefully we show well against Denver. I think they’re a notch above Dallas and Utah.

by Berkcelt on Mar 22, 2010 11:55 PM EDT reply actions  

rondo was terrible
it looked like he was trying to impress somebody instead of just play the game. the box says that he had four turnovers... it seemed like way more.

by reggie35 on Mar 22, 2010 11:56 PM EDT reply actions  

15?

How did they allow Okur to grab 15 rebounds?? Geez….

I can because I will.. Makes sense?

by Mizzy21390 on Mar 22, 2010 11:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Agree

He killed us on the glass.

by fordescort on Mar 22, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

With two minutes left in the first half the Celts simply stopped rebounding

I have no idea why, but both Perkins and Garnett played soft tonight for the most part

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, that’s news to me. It would explain a lot.

by Berkcelt on Mar 23, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

the announcers (Donny & Mike) were talking about it during the game.

and its been mentioned in a few of the pregame shows.

Rondooooooo

by RJ87 on Mar 23, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

You're confusing "legs" with "feet"

All they said was that Perk’s legs look tired… that he wasn’t jumping anymore toward the end of the game. Not news.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

the quote was from tommy in post game about his feet

he talked about how baby and tony allen are the only players going up and getting the ball at the rim, or taking it to the rim. He questioned if perk was hurt because of how he’s looking out there.

malcontents....the lot of you

by dasandruler on Mar 23, 2010 5:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

he did look worse by the end of the game

I don’t know if that is worse == more tired or worse==more sore or both.

Perk looked pretty good to start the game, but by the end of it had no jump.

by mmmmm on Mar 23, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Plantar Fascitis?

He had that a couple years ago…

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Impressions

The Jazz were fantastic in the second half. Just took it to the Celtics, hit their shots, and were incredibly aggressive on offense and in denying penetration.

Rondo – against the best PGs in the league he gets WAY too focused on proving he’s better. Gets out of his game, loses control, starts gambling for steals more than usual etc. Williams is essentially unstoppable in transition, which also doesn’t help.

Pierce looked good for a while in the first half until the Jazz clamped down on him.

The refs had nothing to do with this loss.

Ray looked clumsy off the dribble.

Again – too many careless passes tonight.

Baby can get it done against teams without strong interior defenders. Which will be… uh… nobody in the playoffs. Maybe Toronto.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 22, 2010 11:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Rondo had a rough game tonight, he let DWill get in his head

but I disagree that it’s a pattern with him. Yes, he does seem to get more pumped for games against top PGs, but Rondo is one of the more even-keel guys on the team. He’s young, it happens.

Rondooooooo

by RJ87 on Mar 22, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not THAT worried about Rondo

But he’s done this before against the top guys.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

I Love how Pierce and KG went right at Rondo

To get him to calm down when he thought he drew a charge on Derron. I thought it was a charge, but I also thought Rajon was about to get a tech at the time so I loved that PP and KG stepped in there.

by rkls134 on Mar 23, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good summary, I’d add that we did not play with the same defensive intensity as the two earlier Texas games

by CoachBo on Mar 23, 2010 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

I was there

We played okay in the first half, but missed 2-3 chances to take it to a deep double digit lead, but we had no closing power tonight. We played soft. What killed us was Okur, he hit two 3’s that caught the entire team on fire.

The starters played so little because they played like hell, Rays first shot hit the side of the backboard. Combine that with about 10 shots that rimmed out.

by Celticnation on Mar 22, 2010 11:58 PM EDT reply actions  

Tonight was a clunker....

C’s have looked good lately so lets hope this was just a hiccup.
Team looked a bit tired tonight especially the starters.

Baby played great in the first half at least.
C’s especially Rondo and Robinson need to get Rasheed more involved with the half court offense and set him up more often down low.

Our defense overall was not great tonight.

Not a bad trip though since we won 2 out of 3.

by fordescort on Mar 22, 2010 11:58 PM EDT reply actions  

Ditto.

He still don’t get why Sheed just doesn’t go into the post more info, he’s so darn efficient down there but he just sits on top of the 3 pt line. Such a shame.

Rondooooooo

by RJ87 on Mar 23, 2010 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

The only three he should take

Is the wide-open three from the top of the arc.

But considering he should almost NEVER be standing there, he shouldn’t average more than 1-2 attempts per 48 minutes.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes he sets up on the arc alot....

because the offensive plays Doc sets up are designed to have him hang around the perimeter to stretch the floor.

But recently he has been getting in the low post more often and asking for the ball and the C’s are not giving him the ball.

Thats not Rasheeds fault its Docs , Rondo and Robinsons.

We all want Rasheed to get in the low post and when he does the C’s should utilize him and give him the ball as he is one of our best low post scorers.

by fordescort on Mar 23, 2010 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

hey, what do you know!

We lose, and ready there are as many posts as after our big won in Dallas.

Man, people around here sure do get over excited easily. We played a bad game no doubt, it happens. As long as the team continues to improve going into the playoffs, we should be fine. At least we will have ad good of a chance as any, anyways.

by KG's Knee on Mar 23, 2010 12:09 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

It's therapeutic!

I post sometimes after a win, but I’ll admit I post more often after a loss. The big question for me tonight is did we actually continue to improve?

by 34green on Mar 23, 2010 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

While I don't dispute that traffic often seems to spike after losses,

I’d offer another variable regarding the Dallas game and this one: time of week. I’d have to think more people are out (and thus not at their computers) on Saturday nights than on Monday nights after the game. Makes a difference, too.

-sw

Growing up in the Weinman household, you learn two rules very quickly if you aspire to reach double-digits in the years-of-age category: Hate thy Knick, hate thy Yankee.

Go Celtics, Go Dodgers. -sw

by Steve Weinman on Mar 23, 2010 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Deja Vu

I see we’ve gone back to 3rd quarter collapses. Well, actually it started a little before half. This team infuriates me sometimes. So which team are they? The team we saw the last three games or the team we saw tonight? And our player of the week was pretty much absent tonight. At least Atlanta lost, just too bad we couldn’t take advantage of it. Oh, and one more thing, why is Boozer (was he the one?) immune from a T when he hung on the rim waaay longer than Nate did the other night?

by 34green on Mar 23, 2010 12:10 AM EDT reply actions  

Celtics were basically the exact same across the shot attempts they just made 4 more shots, and had 3 more rebounds. There threes were raining in the third quarter. But look at the bright side… We had 11 offensive rebounds… 11 offensive rebounds! Yes that’s around good enought to crack the top 15 in average per game. But then again the celtics are at the bottom of the list with a 8.5… And between 11-12 offenisve rebounds rank from 15 place up to 4th!! Are they making the effort finally? I also wanted to point something out..
Celtics- (no one was in foul trouble)
Rondo 28 min
Allen 30 min
Peirce 30 min
Garnett 26 min
Perkins 24 min

Jazz (semi in foul trouble)
Williams 39 min
Mathews 37 min
Okur 32
Michaels 39 min
Boozer 31 min

To me it hasn’t seemed like doc is content with whatever spot we land in. I’m just not gonna feel really bad about a loss when none of the starters on our team averaged 25 minutes each started and the opposing team, also a contender for the finals is getting 36… That 11 minutes is 44 percent more time then our starters. Not really to many complaints but it was nice to only have 3 less rebounds then this team. Also saw the bench get alot of playing time, which wasn’t to upsetting. Docs trying to get the 2nd unit to mesh.. He knows the starters will. Aldo testing out Marquis at point and Nate at shooting guard.. Saw a few new things, guess docs taking the last few games to see bring any new ideas that may work to the table

by Pmartin60 on Mar 23, 2010 12:12 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Actually, Rondo was in a bit of foul trouble

He had 3 in the first half, and then picked up his 4th with about 7mins left to go in the 3rd.

Rondooooooo

by RJ87 on Mar 23, 2010 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry for the error, but honestly… Your telling me that doc was putting a serious effort in winning this game?

by Pmartin60 on Mar 23, 2010 12:18 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I didn't say that anywhere

but as I said in a post above, Doc has stated that he’s needs to try harder to get the Big 3 rest, and he’s doing it. He wants them rested (well, as rested as possible) for the playoffs.

Yea, I would’ve liked to win this one but I’ll take the low mins for the older guys any day.

Rondooooooo

by RJ87 on Mar 23, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

I keep hearing this line of reasoning

Every time the Celts lose one I read that it is because Doc or the players really did not want to win. Just ridiculous. At some point this team has to begin to build some momentum. There are 12 games left, so it is a good idea that they get started. Wednesday night will be extremely telling.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

totally agree

We should put a moratorium on claiming that an aging team that’s staggered through a three month stretch of bad basketball “doesn’t care” about winning. Especially when the players (aside from Sheed) claim exactly the opposite.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Why?

Who cares about this game, anyway? Utah seemed to think it was do-or-die in the playoffs. Ok. For the Cs, it was the 3rd game in 4 nights, and another meaningless game on the road. Why should they kill themselves? To make US happy? No… they put out the right amount of effort. About what this game was worth.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Come on Outlet, get with the program

If the Celtics win and happen to beat a good team, it is a sign of great progress. If these lose to a good team, much in the same fashion as they have lost many other games this season against good teams, then it is a meaningless game. Don’t you get it by now?

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

3 in 4 nights for the Jazz also

But I was glad to see the starters minutes limited, and Quis played better than he has lately

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

I gotta say

I don’t want anymore excuses either. But, if NO starter played more than 30 minutes…you gotta admit, that doesn’t happen often.

by Tai on Mar 23, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Also -- should not be outrebounded by a team like the Jazz

Mehmet Okur had 15 rebounds. Just should not happen. And, at one point, the Celts had a 10 rebound advantage in the first half. My biggest issue with the loss is that I saw a lot of the same things I have seen in other losses. Third quarter collapse, poor offensive execution in the second half, a defensive letdown in the second half, a lack of toughness and once again, losing a game in which they had a double-digit lead. Overall I am very happy with 2 out of 3 on the trip, but concerned that I saw a lot of the same old same old tonight.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Rbds

We DID control the glass in the first half. Most conspicuously the offensive glass, but most importantly the defensive glass. And you’re right, as Utah attacked in the second half, I feel like our bigs got back on their heels a bit. I’m guessing too – that there were fewer boards to get on the defensive side cause Utah shot the lights out.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

'agree about the minutes. On the rebounds

the key to what happened there is that we missed 5 more FGAs and 4 more FTs than they did. That’s 9 missed shots of which we did well to grab 3 (to get our 11-8 ‘edge’ in offensive rebounds) and they grabbed 6 to get their 32-26 ‘edge’ in defensive rebounds).

Note how the ratio is (as is typical) about a 2/3 advantage for the defense.

So basically, winning the offensive rebound battle isn’t something to cheer about here. It is simply a symptom of the fact that we missed more shots.

I personally would rather we missed fewer shots than our opponents. When that happens we can lose the offensive rebound battle but win the game.

Returning to the minutes – its silly by some to think you were suggesting that Doc was tanking it. You obviously weren’t suggesting that. Its just plain that Doc did set a high priority to stick to his substitution schedule to keep starter minutes down. Good observation.

by mmmmm on Mar 23, 2010 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Didn't see the whole game but...

What I did see was a steal by rondo, who then passed it to Ray for 3 to make it a 54-42 game late in the second quarter. After seeing that I thought the C’s would close the quarter strong and maybe have a 15-20 point lead at half time.
Instead it was the Jazz that closed the half on a 7-0 run. If I were Doc, I could not be happy with that, and I don’t know what he said to the players at half time, but for the Jazz to start the half on a 9-0 run is unacceptable.
These guys play in the NBA, you can’t let anyone especially a team as strong as the Jazz score 16 unanswered points, and expect to win. As bad as that was the C’s still cut the lead to 63-65 in the 3rd, but once again the Jazz made another run this time 8-0.
In basketball it is common for teams to make runs, but usually it is 6,7, or 8 in a row. I don’t think the game was decided on minutes played by starters, but by a huge run by the Jazz starting at the end of the 2nd and ending in the 3rd quarter. Ironically the starters were in the game during that spell

by celtic20 on Mar 23, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good to be Back!!

After a more than week with no internet or cable, good to be back and see our C’s play, too bad I missed the wins and got an L tonight.

I thought the barrage of 3’s in the third ended the game. We went from up 5 at half to down ten before I knew what happened. The Jazz has all the momentum and energy and maintained it until the end.

by rkls134 on Mar 23, 2010 12:12 AM EDT reply actions  

Ah, so it’s YOUR fault. Just joking! Really!

by 34green on Mar 23, 2010 12:16 AM EDT reply actions  

I don't have a problem with this loss

Jazz played the 2nd half like this was a playoff game or something. Don’t particularly like their brand of basketball. At least 20% of their points were scored by Williams and others simply putting their shoulders down and driving till a whistle blew. Is that how the game is played? I thought there was more to it than that. Pretty simple game, I guess. All you need are 3 moron refs.

Without reviewing the game at all, I saw five instances of Paul being fouled hard with no calls. Rondo called for a travel that was CLEARLY wrong. Multiple blocking fouls, especially on Rondo, that were clearly charges of the elbows-and-shoulders-flying-into-the-defender type.

On the other hand, guys like Okur, Miles and Matthews played great games. And the whole Jazz team played like this was a life-or-death game… in the 2nd half, anyway (and the end of Q2).

Whatever… Cs played an excellent first half right up to the last few minutes, but came out kinda weak in Q3 and then couldn’t catch up. Their effort level was about a B-… right about where it should be for this kind of game. No point killing yourself over another meaningless game on the road, last of 3 games in 4 nights. Want it that bad, Utah? Fine, take it.

Next.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Next . . .

as you know, is Denver at HOME, and I’m not feeling terribly confident right about now.

by 34green on Mar 23, 2010 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

I love the way the Jazz play

Smash mouth basketball, smart basketball, great passing, attack, attack, attack. And I just love Deron Williams. I refer to him around here as a “future Celtic”.

Not a terrible game, but not a meaningless one either.

Need to beat Denver on Wednesday.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Jazz have a team

The problem is when play offs come, all the fouls that don’t get called in regulation get called in playoff basketball. If the Jazz can play like this I don’t think a team in the league can touch them, but they don’t.

by Celticnation on Mar 23, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's the other way around

Fouls called in the regular season are often allowed in the playoffs. Or so it seems to me.

That said – the Jazz would need to make a leap to get out of round two.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

If the games are meaningless

Then why play the starters any minutes? So this game was meaningless, but Houston and Dallas games were meaningful. The hypocrisy continues. Plain and simple the Celts stopped playing with two minutes left in the first half tonight and got dominated the rest of the way. A lot of the same things that happened during the bad streak were there again tonight.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

again. agree.

If you can’t recognize this team has problems from tonight’s game, you can’t claim any improvement or victories from Saturday’s game. Intellectually dishonest to do so.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

Intellectually dishonest? Please!

so what you’re saying is this ONE loss counts for more than the ONE win against Dallas? Or is it their perceived “problems” in tonights game outwiegh the good points of Saturdays game.

This one loss menas nothing more than the one win the other night. The C’ took a step back tonight, but if they move foward and improve it will be nothing more than a bump in the road.

by KG's Knee on Mar 23, 2010 12:39 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

What I'm saying...

… is if you’re out there claiming that this game didn’t mean anything, you better be saying the same thing about the Dallas game. Most people who claim the former aren’t claiming the latter.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

No, it's not.

I’m saying all the games matter. Not just the ones you declare don’t mean anything.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

mis-typed there...

All the games matter. Except the Dallas game where the Mavs didn’t really care about winning.

See how random that is?

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Again, faulty logic

The great thing about the Mavs game… what they “proved”… was NOT that they won. Not at all. It was that they can play the game at that very high level. That is what they needed to prove, and to know. Winning or losing doesn’t matter… how they play is what matters. Of course, when they play great, they’re gonna win most of the time.

I don’t know what level of effort the Mavs put out. Looked pretty high to me. But it doesn’t really matter.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm telling you

The Mavs didn’t try hard. They didn’t care. It was meaningless for them.

So our effort doesn’t mean much.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

Outlet is right

The Mavs had just won 13 of 14 games and considered their game against the Celtics meaningless. This line of reasoning for losses is sheer folly.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Mavs know they can beat anyone

When they play their best.

So why try?

The only game that matters is the last game of the finals.

Why try before then?

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

Why is this argument good for Mavs

…but not for the Cs?? You’ve just stated almost exactly the logic I’ve been applying to the Celtics. Good for any team except your own? Man, I do NOT get that at all.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 7:58 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

this game was NOT meaningless

the celtics are going to have to win games against quality teams on the road. exactly like tonite.

look, we’re all bummed they lost. they played hard, but got out played in the 3rd quarter and couldn’t get stops down the stretch. it happens. but let’s not kid ourselves and say it’s a meaningless game. because it’s not.

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

for a team that is preparing for a deep playoff run in a few weeks

there is no such thing as a meaningless game.

every game is an opportunity to fine tune the sets and the rotations. the team knows that.

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

That is exactly, perfectly wrong

A team preparing for the playoffs needs to: #1 STAY HEALTHY. #2 Stay sharp. #3 Recognize when a game isn’t worth fighting for, when to save it for another night.

Further, all these games now are actually meaningless. As opportunities to improve, they are not… you are right about that. And they TOOK that opportunity. But that is NOT the same thing as winning.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Dude!

You keep claiming the games are meaningless.

It’s not a fact. It’s a highly debatable opinion.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Really?

They give out rings for winning these games?

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

who said anything about winning?

what’s at issue is whether the game is meaningless or not. whether they won or not is a different issue. stop putting words in my mouth.

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

If you are debating the fine semantic point

… of whether this game was meaningless in terms of its value as practice.. that was not what I was talking about. Was talking about its value as a win. If I was talking at cross-purposes to you, my apologies. As practice, it was certainly not meaningless. I just think that’s so obvious, it’s not worth pointing out.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

wrong!

you’ve said several times now that the c’s basically took the night off because it was the 3rd game in 4 nights, not worth it, stay healthy blah blah

if they’re fine tuning their game, they are most certainly not taking the night off.

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

Didn't say they took the night off

Said they didn’t put in more than B- effort. And that was the right thing to do.

We disagree less than you think.

But I gotta run. Hope somebody else continues the battle….!

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Putting in a B- effort is the right thing to do

Just classic non-logic. All games are meaningless.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

The pre-game meeting

Doc: “Okay guys – this one’s meaningless. So like we’ve done so many times before, play hard for a half and then back off the gas until the buzzer sounds.”

KG: “That sounds like about a C+ effort.”

Doc: “I was thinking more like B-”

Team: “1-2-3 – Ubuntu!”

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

When you 2 finish laughing, read and learn

Obviously, that’s not how it happens. The team’s understanding that this game is not important is manifested a little more subtly than that.

- It shows itself in the way the players on the floor play when adversity comes. Do they scramble every last bit of energy to turn the tide? Or do they continue to play hard but smart, without overexerting themselves? A lot of games are decided by pure energy. Who wants it more? The Celtics could not match the Jazz’ desire to win, because they just didn’t feel that way about this game. The Jazz are essentially meaningless to them. Winning the game is also not important, after winning 4 in a row and proving they can play at their high level. So they didn’t go all out on the court… they played normally. And that was not good enough to win this one.

- It shows itself in Doc limiting all his starters’ minutes to 30, and KG’s to 26. That’s what you do when it’s more important to preserve your players’ health than win the tough game at hand. That is surely true. Now, and for the rest of this regular season.

- And it shows itself in that none of the Cs will give this game another thought, except insofar as the tape can help them get better.

Doc has even said: the rest of this regular season is all about getting better. It’s not about winning games. Certainly not last night’s.

Doc’s got it right.

And btw – got a news flash for you. They’re gonna lose games in the playoffs too. That’s how it works. But this particular loss? Means nothing.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 7:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry, but from a coach’s standpoint this is just a rationalization. Can’t explain a game away where you reverted to a lot of your bad habits in the second half as getting better.

We were on an upswing, doing a lot of the things right that we haven’t done since December. We reverted to January and February form last night, and I guarantee you the staff’s not happy about it. Great teams do it right every night. I’ll use closeouts as an example – if you are trying to close and just can’t get there, that’s one thing. If not …

Could not disagree with you more strongly that there’s a meaningless loss. Guarantee you there isn’t a meaningless loss in Cleveland or LA.

This one definitely means something – it means we went back to the lazy basketball that’s harmed our season in the second half. Got to stop that.

by CoachBo on Mar 23, 2010 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

agree that no game is 'meaningless'

but I disagree strongly that this loss represents some sort of overly meaningful ‘step back’.

‘Reverted to bad habits’? I reviewed the game – this just ultimately came down to shot execution. We took the same number of shots. They made 5 more than we did. Give their shooters some credit. We missed some wide-open easy shots. Look at Paul & Ray’s shooting percentages – not good.

While it is a mistake to have gotten too high over the Houston & Dallas wins, it is probably more so to get too down after this one.

Houston, Dallas and Utah were all teams performing at a high level going into this trio of games.

The wins over Houston & Dallas, especially on the road, demonstrated what the Celtics CAN do. The loss to Utah, again on the road, only showed what they DIDN’T do (and what Utah did).

People need to chill on this whole argument. Just enjoy the games for what they are and stop trying to be the first person to call “I was RIGHT that they were {CRAP / CHAMPIONSHIP} quality all along!”

by mmmmm on Mar 23, 2010 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Believe me

I have no interest in finding excuses for the team. I am interested only in the reality. So it’s not “rationalization” (assuming you’re using the “excuse-making” definition of the word).

Please do not accept others’ definition of the word “meaningless” as I have applied it here. Some here have chosen to define that statement as applying to every aspect of last night’s game. That would be an irrational statement (which is why they use it). It was intended to mean that winning this game was not important enough to the Cs for them to put out more than a mediocre effort, because this win is meaningless to the end result of their season.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

But you forget

…that (1) this was the 3rd game in 4 nights. Doesn’t happen in the playoffs. (2) This is not the playoffs. These games are, actually, meaningless. (3) Therefore, these was no reason to kill themselves over this game. Utah came out and played super-hard, like this was a playoff game. Since it’s not, the Cs, tired and recognizing the unimportance of the game, let it go. I have no problem with that.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

dude they did not "let it go"

until it was out of reach. go back and re-watch. they just didn’t.

additionally, donny made a very apt comment at the end of the game, which was that even a loss can be productive if you take something away from it, which speaks to my point that for a playoff-bound team like the C’s, every game at the end of march has value.

it’s late. lets just agree to disagree :)

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

see my post above

…about cross-purposes.

The value you’re talking about is obviously true.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

None of these games are meaningless from here on out. It would be best to get that 3rd seed but we are tied with Atlanta and they hold the tie breaker. Let them play the Bucks in the ist round as the 4th seed. Bucks gave them fits last night.

by JPV on Mar 23, 2010 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry, but that's just silly

In prior games they proved they CAN play at a high level. That, and good health, is all they need going into the playoffs. Taking one night off, 3rd game in 4 nights… proves nothing. The results from the two events are NOT comparable, not on the same evaluation plane.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

You keep cherry picking the results you like

I could pick a whole lot more games this year where they DIDN’T play at a high level and conclude (rightly, I think) that this team is incapable of playing consistent championship level basketball on a regular basis.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

No... you are not getting it

Now is not the time to prove they can play 3 games in 4 nights at their highest level consistently. Not sure there is EVER such a time. And it would be foolish to try. First, because they never have to do that in the playoffs.

Second… and this is the key point that you are missing… they know they will put out their fullest effort in the playoffs. Don’t you? See… that’s what I don’t understand. How can all you fans not realize that there will be no shortage of motivation in the playoffs? Do you REALLY think they will blow off games then? Really? They worked this hard, through injuries and a whole season full of meaningless game… to blow it all off in the playoffs? That’s just really hard for me to believe. Or even understand.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think they blew off tonight's game

I think they got worn down by a younger, more energetic team and that’ll happen in the playoffs too. Your theory is that they weren’t putting out full effort. Mine is – by the time they stopped doing that, the game was way out of reach. And that’s the achilles heel of this team – they’re incapable of playing at an elite level ten games in a row.

Also – you’re missing the point about the second round. We need to win the remaining games to avoid ATL in the second round. ATL will beat us.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

If you believe ATL will beat us

Then you believe the Cs can’t win the ring. You just don’t think they’re good enough. If that’s the case, there’s nothing more to discuss. They are NOT gonna with the championship with trickery and luck of the draw. Is THAT what you’re hoping for? Forget it.

They either ARE healthy and play at their highest level – in which case they will win it all – or not, in which case they will not.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

the playoffs are about matchups

and we don’t matchup well against ATL. we actually matchup better against cleveland when they’re running their offense through shaq in the post like they did in the 1st half against the celtics last month.

that’s why the seeding does matter.

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Disagree

We are not going to win unless this team plays at its highest level. Occasionally, teams have gotten by playing the “matchup” game. But I seriously doubt that will happen this year. They will have to actually be better than every other team.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

wrong

unlike the regular season, you play the same team for up to 7 consecutive games. while the c’s can beat anybody on any given night, they will not necessarily be able to beat anybody 4 games out of 7.

this is why matchups matter big time.

by hooray on Mar 23, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Atlanta would beat us

We might be able to beat CLE.

I think we’ll beat ORL.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

CLE is the one I worry most about

…in the NBA.

But truth be told, they’re all going to be tough. Cs have to be healthy and at the top of their game.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sigh

That’s NOT what I’m hoping for.

But this team CANNOT play at their highest level all the way through the playoffs. The 08 team couldn’t so this group certainly can’t. Luck and matchups will have a ton to do with what happens. Matchups are determined by the regular season. Ergo, these games have meaning.

For everyone but DRJ1.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

Amazing

“this team CANNOT play at their highest level all the way through the playoffs.”

And you know this… how?

Sorry, but if you are dreaming of winning the championship with luck and matchups… dream on. That is NOT their goal, and NOT how they will get it done.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

My reasoning is this

A historically great defensive team (the 08 C’s) who steamrolled through the regular season were unable to do it. So it stands to reason that this older team, less effective on offense, defense and the boards cannot do it either. As evidence for my viewpoint, I’d submit the regular season up til now.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly. The schedule they are playing now is more intense that it will be in the playoffs. They will have more breaks between games, more practice time and stay in the same city for a few days. And they all know this. I did not get a chance to see much of the game last night, but from the comments that I have read, it sounds like the last leg of a tough road trip. In the playoffs, we will not be hopping to Houston, Dallas and Utah in the span of 4 days and play three different teams in the playoffs. The playoff schedule favors a team like ours that needs rest and practice. Not worried about last night. I am looking forward to the Nuggets game to see how well we play against a top tier opponent at home. All we want to see is progress and focus from now to the second season.

by JPV on Mar 23, 2010 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Starters need to play to stay sharp

Otherwise, your point would be a reasonable one. But the Cs don’t want to just throw games away. They put out the kind of effort it’s worth… well, more than it’s worth, because the game is actually worthless, but… enough of an effort to make the game a good exercise, valuable practice. That’s all. They played this one correctly, imo.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

And where has anyone posted that it is time to rebuild?

I have seen a lot of reasonable arguments here that the Celtics lost a game tonight in the same fashion that they have lost a lot of other games this year. I also have seen another argument that says this game is meaningless, but that the game against Dallas was meaningful. Sorry, but that is a dumb argument and it is intellectually dishonest. Now, about Bynum’s achilles tendon or Kobe’s knee or Paul’s near death experience………………………….

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well, what playoff seed do you want?

Do you care who we play when in the playoffs? If so, then these games matter. I didn’t like seeing a collapse again tonight starting towards the end of the half. You can say these games don’t matter, but VERY soon they will matter a lot, and we don’t want to be playing like this then.

by 34green on Mar 23, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

exactly

We WANT the #3 seed so ATL and CLE can play in the second round.

In order to do that we need to win.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

No, I do not care where they get seeded in the playoffs

Because it doesn’t matter. If the Celtics play at their highest level, they can beat any team, anytime. If they do not, they can’t beat any team. The only things that matter now are (1) Health, and (2) their readiness to play. They’ve already shown they are ready to play. Now they need to stay healthy, stay sharp, and continue to improve as possible in the remaining regular season. This does NOT include pushing themselves to win their 3rd game in 4 nights… for no good reason.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Also

We will need to beat Cle and/Orl anyway to get to the finals so whats the difference if we finish 3rd or 4th.

by Scal4theallstargame on Mar 23, 2010 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

Calls favored the C's quite a bit in the 1st half

But I agree – although it was 3 games in 4 nights for the Jazz also

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not a terrible loss at all...

Had Utah not played what was probably their best half of basketball all year {2nd half}, the Celts would`ve swept this road trip.

Boston`s effort was there, but the ball wasn`t bouncing their way.

They actually looked better tonight in defeat…than they did in some uninspiring wins earlier this year at home {LAC, NY}.

Now, all feel free to attack “Satan” : Celtics were out-rebounded tonight…and lost

by Title 18 on Mar 23, 2010 12:28 AM EDT reply actions  

Why can’t our bench and our starters both play a complete game. Our starters played bad and our bench good. Imagine how good we could be if they both played well the same night???

by Blackberry33 on Mar 23, 2010 12:31 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Yeah. Blow it up.

Trade KG, Paul, Ray, Rondo… and especially Sheed. Tonight.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not one person on this board has made the argument tonight to blow up the team

If so, please point me to those posts. I just want to get it straight — when they won four straight games, those games meant something. But tonight, when they were totally dominated by a good team, again in the third period, then the game does not mean anything. Really funny stuff.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

A request

Maybe we can use the power of Celticsblog.com to request that the NBA simpy cancel the rest of the season due to the fact that all of these games are meaningless. And, if they do not cancel the games, that all season ticketholders will get a 50 percent refund because they have to attend these games that have no meaning. In addition, we need to request that beginning next season there be no regular season and that the playoffs start on day one with teams seeded by the commissioner. That way we will not have to worry about 82 meaningless games and season ticketholders won’t get suckered into spending thousands of dollars to watch meaningless games about which no one cares and in which no one tries.

Good night.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 1:23 AM EDT reply actions  

This is preposterous

A team should have to play until it proves, by virtue of back-to-back wins in Texas, that is capable of winning a title. ONLY THEN should the rest of the regular season be cancelled.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ha! Ha!

Thanks for providing me with my laughs for the night (er, morning), vinnie and TOP. I’m going to bed smiling.

by 34green on Mar 23, 2010 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

Do you two believe

…that if you support each other, somehow that makes your point more correct? Or even reasonable? When two opinions are wrong, the sum of those opinions is still wrong.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Listen...

…I don’t mind arguing with you, and sometimes we even agree but your professorial declarative tone, particularly in matters where you usually hold the minority view, is pretty arrogant.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

That's confusing

1) We argue a lot on this site. You typically take the negative side (they’re gonna lose, they’re bad, they need lucky seeding to win, etc.), and I the positive. This thread is a pretty good example

2) You always say you are right, and I say I am right. Today, there are two of you attacking my views, and I have pointed out that this does not improve your level of correctness.

3) How is my saying “I’m right, you’re wrong” different from you, and vinnie, saying the same thing? Why is it “arrogance” when I say it, but not when you say it? Is it, perhaps, because when I say it I am being so “arrogant” as to disagree with you? What, are you unused to that?

I think if you are going to engage in debates in this, or any other blog, you should get used to people disagreeing with you. I have. Even when I know for certain that I am right. Heck, on this site you could post “the Earth is not flat” and somebody will argue with you.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 4:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

I am with you DRJ1. Much better energy to think positively. And all our optimism is well grounded in the make up of this team and the way we know they can play. One loss and folks are ready to jump off the ledge. I, like yourself, were one of the few posters who said to be patient and wait until the playoffs. No way these guys fold like many were saying. They are too good, too experienced and have too much pride. I like them in any 7 game series if they are healthy and focused. Hell, look at their roster. What a nice problem to have to decide whether to use a 10 man rotation. That does not even include Tony Allen, who in the right spots will help us defensively and bring his energy. I cannot wait for the postseason.

by JPV on Mar 23, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

You've positioned yourself

As the guy who really gets it, the one who truly sees beneath the veneer of what’s happening. I see it more as, you pick your conclusion first and then choose the facts that suit it. It has nothing to do with positive/negative thinking (says me anyway).

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

You need to answer #3

…to get away clean on this one, dontchya think?

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

You have a casual relationship with logic

Thusly, your indignation that people can’t see what you so clearly can strikes me as a hard proposition to swallow.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not indignant

“perplexed”, maybe. And there is nothing wrong with dressing casual.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think that

C’s management have decided that we will not get the number 1 or 2 seed anymore and are trying to keep minutes down. If we finish 3rd then most likely we will have to play Orl in the 2nd round and Cle in the CF. If we finish 4th then we’ll have Cle in the 2nd and (probably) Orl in the CF so whats the point in straining your aging stars and increasing their chances of injury with 13 games to go before the playoffs.

by Scal4theallstargame on Mar 23, 2010 1:44 AM EDT reply actions  

bad habits

celtics bad habits are hard to break——weakness in 3rd and 4th quarters will haunt celtics in playoffs——-that is the nature of a championship team is developing the team during the season with no bad habits -—unfortunately——-celtics are snake bitten

by zappo007 on Mar 23, 2010 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

These are not "habits"

…it’s one game, ferkrissakes.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

As usual

Cherry picking. How many double digit leads have we blown in the second half this year?

I know, I know. It’s all meaningless.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

What’s your record when playoffs start?

by Pmartin60 on Mar 23, 2010 9:06 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Every time they lose a playoff game

…will you come in here declaring the end of all life in the known universe?

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ok, I'll clarify

“Please ignore the exaggeration, intended for humorous purposes only.” (Should I add that every time now?)

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

You still don't make any sense

I rarely overreact to one game. I’m not saying the sky is falling after last night, but I’m also not whitewashing it as meaningless.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Did you see

…the response above, entitled “When you 2 finish laughing…”?

Also note that you cannot define my use of the word “meaningless” in the most unreasonable, irrational way possible, and then accuse me of it. I think you know very well what was meant… and if not, it’s described for you in the response mentioned hereinabove.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dude

You’re the master of seeing what you want to see and leaving the rest. I’m cool with that. Let’s get ready for Denver.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Uh, no. These are some of the same game deficiencies that have marked Celtics’ performances since January and February, losses that have a great deal of common denominators.

No one glories in victories more than I do. But the simple fact is this team played a decent “most” of a first half, then reverted to the same poor basketball that frittered away lead after lead in January and February.

If that doesn’t concern you, OK. If it doesn’t concern Rivers and his staff, they need to step aside. I guarantee you that at any level of basketball – from junior high on up – no coach dismisses a game as meaningless. Ever.

by CoachBo on Mar 23, 2010 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Reality intrudes

CoachBo – this kind of rational thinking ain’t gonna play well ’round these parts.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

That depends on what you mean by "dismisses"

Of course, they will scour the tape to find useful information, etc. And if by some (small) chance they meet Utah again, this game will certainly be used. But if you listened to Doc last night after the game, he sounded very much like a guy moving on, not very worried about that lost game. Even said that it’s all about getting better now, not winning or losing.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

And 1

Keeping them healthy now is, far and away, priority #1.

(Though I’m sure someone here will disagree. Lol.)

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

In the end

…there is no arguing with people who wanna believe whatever it is they wanna believe. Especially when they’ve got dark glasses on. We are just going to have to wait for the playoffs, and see.

Far as I can see, the Celtics are handling things very well these days.

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 2:35 AM EDT reply actions  

The Earth Is Not Flat

vinnie: Of course you think that. You want to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and winter will turn into spring, and then summer, etc. That doesn’t make it true. The Earth is not flat only if it PROVES it’s not flat EVERY SINGLE TIME we look at it. If it can’t prove it, it’s not true. I need PROOF before I believe that, or anything. I’m not drinking the Koolaid! And besides, one day the sun will become a reg giant and destroy the Earth. Betcha it’ll be pretty flat then!

hooray: No, that’s wrong! It’s flat if you carve out a flat area! I look out at my patio, and that is FLAT, sir; I checked it with a laser. That football field is absolutely FLAT. You can’t just make a general statement like that. The Earth is flat IN PLACES. You must be more accurate.

TheOutletPass: That’s pretty professorial and arrogant of you, DRJ1. Now come here and kiss my stinky feet, y’hear!?!

CavsFanfrLV: Uhh…umm… bla bla bla… I don’t know why you all hate me…I’m pretty flat, really I am…. blablablablablabla…. driveldriveldrivel…

by DRJ1 on Mar 23, 2010 5:05 AM EDT reply actions  

i dont know why you guys dont get the point of DRJ??

just think about the ‘Popovich philosophy’
Celts are trying to limit their minutes for the playoffs and fine tuning.
if the starters played more than 30+ minutes then you can compare it to the bad streak that we had.
its not really worth hustling for this game.. for me the way they played MAVS and ROCKETS. thats enough for me to believe that they truly have a switch!
and one good thing about this is for the 2nd unit to gel..
we cant win this with an average 2nd unit, they have to step up big time! especially you Quis! eyes on you!

i’d say stay healthy! and ohh beat DENVER!

by poezappa on Mar 23, 2010 7:14 AM EDT reply actions  

Agree - a lot of teams lose high-altitude games in SLC and Den

This team is what it is – NOT the same dominating defensive and rebounding team of 2 seasons past.

The team stayed within single-digits throughout the 2nd half, and Doc absolutely did the right thing in limiting the starters’ minutes.

Big positives in Davis, Daniels, and Robinson’s play.

Realisttically, the Celtics have a very slim chance to make the ECF – but criticizing the team for the way the game played out seems silly to me – like Brickowski said – it’s never as good or bad as it seems…

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Spurs NEVER lost more than 24 games in their championship seasons

And I am willing to waher that they NEVER lost as many double-digit leads as the Celtics have this year and that they NEVER got blown out in as many third and fourth quarters as the Celtics have this year. Other than that, good point.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’ll rephraise my last post a little. Docs trying to see the starters rest more… And wants to see the second string click note

by Pmartin60 on Mar 23, 2010 7:22 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

this puts us again tied for 4th because atl lost

and the young athletic bucks are 5th. great.

the few, the proud, the boston celtics

by bleedgreen34 on Mar 23, 2010 7:52 AM EDT reply actions  

As long as they are tied with the Hawks

The celtics will be the 3rd seed due to the division tile tiebreaker having priority over head to head.

So not losing the 3 seed is a positive…

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is not correct -- first tiebreaker is head-to-head games

Winning the division only guarantees the Celtics will be no lower than the fourth seed. NBA changed the rules a year or so ago.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

Lots of confusion on this point - including ESPN announcers

According to NBA.com:
TIEBREAKER BASIS:
(-) Tie breaker not needed (better overall winning percentage)
(1) Division leader wins tie from team not leading a division
(2) Head-to-head won-lost percentage
(3) Division won-lost percentage
(4) Conference won-lost percentage
(5) W-L Percentage vs. Playoff teams, own conference
(6) W-L Percentage vs. Playoff teams, other conference
(7) Net Points, all games

http://www.nba.com/ standings/team_record_comparison/confere nceNew_Std_Div.html< /a>

Therefore:

“(1) Division leader wins tie from team not leading a division”

This takes precedence over sub-paragraph a (refers to teams in the same division):
a. Two Teams Tied
(1) Better winning percentage in games against each other.

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

And here is what CBS Sports say, which is different from ESPN

The following is an explanation of NBA tiebreaking scenarios.

Determining Ties for Playoff Position
In order to break a tie for playoff positions, if one exists at the end of the regular season, the following criteria will be utilized in the order set forth:

TWO-WAY TIES

1. Results of games against each other.

2. Better winning percentage within own division (only if tied teams are in same division).

3. Better winning percentage against teams in own conference.

4. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).

5. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in opposite conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).

6. Better point differential between offense and defense.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Never mind -- Yours is from NBA.com

And I now understand. If C’s and Hawks are tied, but C’s win Atlantic, then they will get third.

by vinnie on Mar 23, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

IMO the rule isn't fair

But does favor the celtics should they be tied at season’s end.

And I’m STILL not positive I’m right!

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

tale of 2 teams

ok- it was only one loss but it was a real step backwards for a team trying to build some momentum. Last night we exhibited all of the flaws that have cost us so many games this year and will in the end cost us a chance at another title. Poor rebounding,poor transition defense,lack of ball movement,turnovers, lack of performance from our stars, too much individual play and not enough team play ,lack of focus and lack of toughness. We played a great second quarter up to about 3 minutes to go before the half. then the wheels came off and we never recovered. I agree with many of the posts that Rondo let his matchup with Williams affect his game and in turn that affected the rest of the team. IN fairness to Rondo though, the help D on Williams from KG,Perk etc was poor. We can’t win anything with KG getting 3 rebounds and playing passive defense. THe Jazz are better coached and execute better. They run their offense consistently and they stick to thier defensive assignments. We, on the other hand, go into panic mode and go away from our schemes the moment things go south. everyone tries to do it on thier own. Last night was another reminder of all of the problems this team has and the fact that we still haven’t fixed them. Again, it was one loss but it was the way we lost. I was very discouraged by last night’s performance.

by Red2 on Mar 23, 2010 10:24 AM EDT reply actions  

The loss was bad....

But we can’t take anything away from Utah in the second half, they came out with guns blazing and reallly could not miss, its just really one of those games that if another team gets waxing hot, there is nothing you can do about it, They stayed to their schemes and executed to perfection their second and third options on the drive and kick outside for the three ball and swiish..Its practically the same formula that made us lose to the Cavs the last time and these two games are reallly abit identical in the way we lost them.

Could we have prevented it sure…we should have closed out better to their three point shooters, PP was practically giving Miles 5 ft of shooting space for his three ball, and so was Okur free all day to take the three ball,…we chose to clamp down the inside lane for Deron but failed to execute defense on their perimeter game, and them shooting lights out from the outside in the second half didn’t help either.

But in a series, we would flat out win against the Jazz coz we would adjust our defense, this is why the Jazz won’t win against the Fakers…they would win a couple maybe, but the Playoffs are all about adjustments, so I really wouldn’t put much in this loss..we obviously didn’t scout them well and we thought we could come to their building and just win..Didn’t happen, so we move on.

"No I’m not KG. Not at all, but I’m Big Baby Glen Davis from LSU, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I’m not the Big Ticket. I’m the Ticket Stub. Don’t count the Ticket Stub out. You might need the ticket to get in the game, but you leave with the ticket stub, because you’ll never forget this game."

by bopna on Mar 23, 2010 11:05 AM EDT reply actions  

The other thing

Is the Jazz hit a whole lot of tough shots with hands in their face in the first half. We could have been up double-digits heading to halftime.

by TheOutletPass on Mar 23, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Miles was pretty impressive with the acrobatic shots in the first half

My brother in law and I both thought he looked reminiscent of Pierce, when he’s on.

by mmmmm on Mar 23, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

You are correct – and what is interesting is that Sloan used that blowout loss at the celtics early in the season to coach the Jazz to play more unselfish team ball.

The fact that they are #1 in assists and FG% speaks to that.

Ironic!

by nba is the worst on Mar 23, 2010 11:05 AM EDT reply actions  

Doc and the coaching staff will definitely look into this game also...

as to why we seem to choose our poison of letting a good threepoint shooting team open all day for the three ball…its a recipe for disaster coz if these teams start shooting well, we end up being blown out.

Look at our blown out losses to the Cavs, Denver ,Atlanta and This game…its a disturbing trend but how come we competesd very well against Dallas and the Fakers…Its how you close out thee shooters from giving them good looks from the outside..close them out and this is how we won in ’08. We were a defensive monster…I would expect this by playoff time, otherwise we exit round 2…round 1 if we meet the Bucks..Yikes!

"No I’m not KG. Not at all, but I’m Big Baby Glen Davis from LSU, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I’m not the Big Ticket. I’m the Ticket Stub. Don’t count the Ticket Stub out. You might need the ticket to get in the game, but you leave with the ticket stub, because you’ll never forget this game."

by bopna on Mar 23, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

last night did not bother me

I thought we had pretty good energy. Utah had tremendous energy in the second half. They were hungrier. But I like the development of our bench. I think they are going to become a factor for us come playoff time. I like that we are starting to rebound better. I think last night was more a case of another team just having a great second half, rather than us mailing it in. Plus it was the last game of a long travelled trip.

by footey on Mar 23, 2010 11:40 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

CelticsBlog is a growing interactive community dedicated to providing fresh, comprehensive coverage of the Boston Celtics.

CEO

Shamrock-blk-trans_small Jeff Clark

Authors/Editors

Hoosiers-dvdcover_small Roy_Hobbs

300h_small Wide Load

Big_4_small Jimmy Toscano

Leon_powe_small Green17

Ud_small Tom Bellinger

Grawful3_small Kiorrik

Authors/Mods

1_koolaid_avi_small FLCeltsFan

Po3_small Master Po

Images_small Bent

Green_avatar_small Fafnir

Small Tom Halzack

N23879518902_8484_small Jon Duke - CSL

Small jose3030

5bill_small Jack Jemsek

Small wjsy

Small Ryan Desmarais

250_small Brendan O'Hare

1119816_small JoshZavadil

Small TLayman

Small Anthony_Bruzzese

Small theoriginalhagrid

Sheed_small evansclinchy

Moderators

Photo_14_small Steve Weinman

Too_much_coffe_man_small Edgar

Small Chris72

Small thirstyboots18

Small CfanMissippi