So what did Boston do that we did not?

[ATL_BALLER]

I know the real answer is probably what they have - players with heart, hustle and championship pedigree. But from an Xs and Os standpoint, how did they succeed where we got slaughtered?

[KB21]

They defended, and the Hawks didn't. It really comes down to that.

[TomSelleck]

They played Howard one-on-one and used their other four defenders to stay on Orlando's shooters.

[99PROBL3MS]

They played Howard one-on-one and used their other four defenders to stay on Orlando's shooters.

Perkins, Glenn. Davis and Rasheed did an unbelievable job defending Howard. He had some good games but he had to WORK for it. He shot aqround 50% in this series and not 82% like he did against the Hawks. I can't be mad at Horford and Zaza. They were just completely overmatched against D12.

[capstone21]

They defended, and the Hawks didn't. It really comes down to that.

Yes, we played scared of Howard....every time he had the ball a guy would leave his man and go double Dwight. They had such good shooters we were always leaving them open. We should have done what Boston did and went one on one. However, our switching defense does not work in this situation either because Bibby could end up on DH.

Also, the celtics were able to score...our offense shut down during the Orlando series

[Jody23]

Simply put, the Celtics had the personnel to defend Howard and the Hawks did not. The Hawks could not prevent Howard from getting right to front of the rim whenever he wanted. That was the center of the problem. That was what opened the rest of the floor up for the Magic against Atlanta.

[NoJumpshotsNumber5]

Offensively the difference between us and the Celtics is they have a playmaking pg in rondo and their players are constantly cutting and setting screens for each other to get easy baskets, They were also fearless in attacking the rim and got to the free throw line. We'd rather shoot jumpers and watch joe johnson dribble out the shot clock only to pass it to Zaza with one second left. *ends rant that lacks proper punctuation *

[BusBoyIsBack]

All you guys hit on it:

Offensively: The ball movement and player movement they have without the ball is far better than our stagnant isolation offense

Also they had a PG capable of dribble penetration. And a coach who isn't afraid to use his bench players. Look at how he used Nate Robinson is such a pivotal game. Woody would not even do that for Teague in meaningless regular season games.

Defensively: They defended Howard one on one and even when he goes for 30 points, it still limits their offense because you're not leaving guys open for wide open 3s on a team that made more 3s than any team in NBA history.

Basically from and Xs and Os standpoint we did the complete opposite. We double teamed Howard where he either still scored or found a wide open teammate. And instead of moving the ball we ran that same losing formula in the playoffs that they run in Portland as well as Cleveland.

So as much as I like the fact that Woody helped build this team from the ground up, I'll always wonder how good we could have been if we had a coach who maximized the talent of this team. That and only if we got to play Cleveland again instead of Orlando.

Edited May 29, 2010 by BusBoyIsBack

[sturt]

Great question and insightful answers, guys... so, is the stable of Perkins, Wallace and Davis that much greater than Horford, Pachulia and Joe Smith, or is it really exclusively a matter of bad defensive coaching?

[Jody23]

Great question and insightful answers, guys... so, is the stable of Perkins, Wallace and Davis that much greater than Horford, Pachulia and Joe Smith, or is it really exclusively a matter of bad defensive coaching?

Honestly, defensively, Perkins, Wallace and Davis are better because they have both the size and skill to guard Howard single coverage with minimal help. In theory, one could say the Hawks should have done the same, but none of the Hawks bigs could hold their own and make it difficult for Howard the way the Celts did. I do think Woody had flaws that were detrimental to the team, but the fact that this roster has flaws cannot be ignored.

[Crank]

Bostons stars played like stars.

We were playing our own version of Where is Waldo with JJ and Josh basically quit .

[lethalweapon3]

Simply put, the Celtics had the personnel to defend Howard and the Hawks did not. The Hawks could not prevent Howard from getting right to front of the rim whenever he wanted. That was the center of the problem. That was what opened the rest of the floor up for the Magic against Atlanta.

Exactimundo. Behind Perkins, they were able to throw at Dwight: Baby, Sheed, KG, and even Shellhead in a pinch if necessary. Behind Horford, the Hawks had Zaza, RandMo, and Joe Smith. Ick.

The Hawks leaving Rashard and the shooters open to double/triple Dwight allowed the Magic to get Smoove and Al in foul trouble, and to go bombs-away from three-point territory.

Rashard needed to show Boston why he is the $20 Million Man. But his ineffectiveness from outside and lack of desire to go inside made it easier for the Celts to ignore him and help Dwight if necessary. The guards also clogged the passing lanes into/from Dwight, and forced him to receive the ball and make things happen from 10-plus-feet away from the rim.

~lw3

Edited May 29, 2010 by lethalweapon3

[gsuteke]

Great pg play which is why with or without joe johnson this team is fatally flawed when it comes to the 2nd round.

[dakast]

Gave some effort........

[BusBoyIsBack]

Great question and insightful answers, guys... so, is the stable of Perkins, Wallace and Davis that much greater than Horford, Pachulia and Joe Smith, or is it really exclusively a matter of bad defensive coaching?

Oh they were better but not THAT better. It was probably 80% Xs and Os 20% Jimmys and Joes.

Of course it doesn't help the big body we do have in say Jason Collins could not get the benefit of the doubt from the officials. Like 3 Dwight Howard charges were called blocking fouls on Collins. But again when you hardly play a guy like Woody does for our bench guys that lessens the chances of him getting that benefit of the doubt.

[Seano]

Oh they were better but not THAT better. It was probably 80% Xs and Os 20% Jimmys and Joes.

Of course it doesn't help the big body we do have in say Jason Collins could not get the benefit of the doubt from the officials. Like 3 Dwight Howard charges were called blocking fouls on Collins. But again when you hardly play a guy like Woody does for our bench guys that lessens the chances of him getting that benefit of the doubt.

I agree with Busboy here. Boston's bigs are better than ours, but not by THAT much, and certainly not enough to adequately explain or excuse us getting blown out of the building in 4 straight games. I mean let's be realistic here, look at what Charlotte was able to do in their series against the Magic. They did get swept, but they also managed to remain competitive in 3 out of the 4 games vs. Orlando, much, much, MUCH more competitive than we ever were in our series vs. Orlando, and look at Charlotte's big men. At center they ran Theo Ratliffe, Tyson Chandler, and Nazr Mohammed out there, and at times as needed they had Boris Diaw and Tyrus Thomas covering Howard. Now is that a world-class lineup of big men? No, of course it's not. But Charlotte had Larry Brown on the bench, and he is very adaptable to changing circumstances and also somewhat a master of improvisation, and so his game-plan was to have his big men swarm and hack at Dwight, slap him, punish him, push him around and make him work for absolutely EVERYTHING, and personal fouls to his own bigs be damned. He judged that to be his best course of action, figuring if he could get inside Dwight's head and throw him off his game, that might be his team's only chance, and as far as getting inside Dwight's head, Brown's plan most certainly did work. Dwight Howard was visibly frustrated and in foul trouble throughout that entire series, and was mostly a non-factor in it.

Sometimes I think we give Dwight Howard too much credit, 'we' meaning the Atlanta Hawks. Now he is a heck of a player, of that there is no doubt, but he is not the second coming of Moses Malone or Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and we seem to play him as if he were. We play like we're afraid of him. We certainly played him that way in our series, and the Bobcats and Celtics did not, and to me that was the biggest difference of all.

[drzachary]

I know the real answer is probably what they have - players with heart, hustle and championship pedigree. But from an Xs and Os standpoint, how did they succeed where we got slaughtered?

Offensively, they had a plan, and they implemented and executed it.

Defensively, they had a plan, and they implemented and executed it.

Sure, our players might be worse of a matchup with Orlando than Boston's, but not record-setting blowout bad. Our Thank-God-He's-Our-Ex "coach" never maximized our players' talents, defined a strategy, or in any other way, shape or form put the Hawks in a position to win. We almost lost to the Bucks!

[MrRyda]

Doc: We have to play TOGETHER!

Woody: We have to play 1-on-1

[Diesel]

I know the real answer is probably what they have - players with heart, hustle and championship pedigree. But from an Xs and Os standpoint, how did they succeed where we got slaughtered?

I watched and even watched the breakdowns. Defensively, they switched like us. The difference is that they have better defensive players. Players that don't quit. Rondo > Bibby. KG>Smoove Peirce>Marvin Perkin> Horf. Their Bench >Our bench.

Plus, they have heart. Plus they have won it before.

[Diesel]

All you guys hit on it:

Offensively: The ball movement and player movement they have without the ball is far better than our stagnant isolation offense

Actually BB, I disagree with this.

They made shots.. but it wasn't their ball movement. They can be just as stagnant as us. Their offense opens because they have Rondo willing to break down the defense with the drive. The closest thing we have to Rondo is Crawford and he wasn't driving.