Do you think we can we go small with Marbury?

Ed Pinkney · Post #1 » by **Ed Pinkney** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:06 pm

In crunch time do you think we can we use a lineup of Rondo and Marbury in the backcourt, Ray, Paul and KG in the frontcourt?

I have read that Marbury is incredibly strong for his size so guarding bigger 2 guards shouldn't be a problem. I guess the key is then Ray and Paul playing the 3 and 4.

Thoughts? If it can work that is five All Star level players in the court at once.

Fencer reregistered · Post #2 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:18 pm

Against which team? If they have five guys who can score, that lineup is apt to cause unpleasant mismatches somewhere on the court.

Against the Cavs with Ben Wallace -- maybe. But KG wouldn't be happy banging with Z.
Against the Lakers -- no way.
Against the Magic -- KG is going to defend Howard? I don't see it.

I'm not seeing where this would work.

chakdaddy · Post #3 » by **chakdaddy** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:21 pm

I think so. It sounds like we lose a lot of size going from Posey to Marbury, but really Pierce can play PF about as well as Pose, Allen goes to 3, Marbury to 2 - none of these is really a stretch.

As far as matchups, a key one is, how can we make LA pay if they put Kobe on Rondo? I guess it's a matter of having a big 2 that can dominate Fisher, I guess Marbury doesn't help there. but - I think having a 2nd ballhandler/catalyst out there can really help.

Harison · Post #4 » by **Harison** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:22 pm

Depends on the match-ups, in the last finals Celtics did very nice spurts againts LA with small setup.

humblebum · Post #5 » by **humblebum** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:22 pm

Knowing Doc and his love of spacing I think the small lineups are more likely to be Marbury, House, Ray, Pierce, Garnett OR Marbury, Ray, Paul, Scal, Garnett... You're much more likely to see Rondo, Marbury, Ray, Davis, Moore or some variation on that lineup than the lineup mentioned above.

celticfan42487 · Post #6 » by **celticfan42487** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:23 pm

Yes, we could.

But Marb may be strong enough to guard 2-guards. Ray Allen isn't strong enough to guard SFs.

But we could role that out and we might as a change of pace lineup. I don't see a reason too, but I wouldn't be surprised if Doc says F defense let's play small ball.

Zin5 · Post #7 » by **Zin5** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Completely dependent on the matchup. We can put him at the 2 and slide Ray to the 3, but I really don't like the idea of putting Pierce at the 4.

Golabki · Post #8 » by **Golabki** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:58 pm

I think there is really two questions here...

1) Will the C's play Rondo and Marbs together, or will Marbs be a pure back up PG?
I hope they do this. Especially since Marbs is actually bigger than our current back-up SG (House)

2) Will the C's play Pierce at the 4, like they did with Posey last year?
I doubt it. If the celtics want a shooting 4 on the floor at the end of games it will probably be Scal (with Garnett at 5, Pierce at 3, Ray 2, and Rondo/Marbs 1). If we do go small I would rather get Pierce at 4 with Marbs of T. Allen at 2, but I don't think this is likely.

celticfan42487 · Post #9 » by **celticfan42487** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:47 pm

With Moore and Scal we do have 2 shooting 4s.

That should provide the spacing off the bench Doc could ever look for. But it's hard to deny the potential explosive offense of a

Rondo
Marbs
Ray
Pierce
KG

lineup.

Post #10 » by **ParticleMan** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:57 pm

that's a great offense/defense type lineup. if we need a score, that could definitely work, but we have to be able to switch up on D. when marbs first came in last night at the end of Q1 he was playing with rondo.

return2glory · Post #11 » by **return2glory** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 12:46 am

No. We tried to do that today and Detroit took advantage of that with a tall lineup. Herrmann was abusing Marbury for about 3 straight minutes until Doc finally made some adjustments.

Al n' Perk No Layups! · Post #12 » by **Al n' Perk No Layups!** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 1:59 am

return2glory wrote:No. We tried to do that today and Detroit took advantage of that with a tall lineup. Herrmann was abusing Marbury for about 3 straight minutes until Doc finally made some adjustments.

To be fair, Herrmann is 6'9" so that's not the kind of height Marbs will see at the two routinely.

Post #13 » by **sully00** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 2:36 am

I think Boston has to be able to go small with the big 3 Rondo and Marbury, because that is what other teams are going to do to Boston. CLE will look to move LeBron to the 4 and go with one big and 2 of Wally, West, Gibson, with Mo. Till now our only counter was with House Marbury makes that a little bit more dynamic, I hope.

armageddon · Post #14 » by **armageddon** » Mon Mar 2, 2009 6:03 am

Marbury has never had a reputation as a defender and is not long enough to defend starting 2's. As for offense, I feel that House at the off guard is better than Marbury. We have enough penetrators, we need floor spacers. But on occasion, sure.

GreenDreamer · Post #15 » by **GreenDreamer** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:42 pm

I think that the Celtics MUST use Marbury at the 2 whenever they can, so that Paul and Ray can get as much rest as possible. I also think that having two point guards out there can really open some interesting doors with regards to playmaking. There is no reason that Rondo and Steph cannot play together.

GuyClinch · Post #16 » by **GuyClinch** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:54 pm

Marbury is a bad fit for the two spot unless he is paired up with House - even then it's still too small a lineup. It's not fair to Marbury or the team. Marbury excels with the ball in his as does Rondo. They both are not great off the ball players. It makes both players less effective..and hurts the whole team defensively.

Doc needs to start playing the rookies - or we need TA back - or we need a D-League pickup.

MyInsatiableOne · Post #17 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:58 pm

^^If you pair Marbs with Eddie, that *is* a small backcourt and one that plays average D at best...tough proposition...

cisco · Post #18 » by **cisco** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:04 pm

MyInsatiableOne wrote:^^If you pair Marbs with Eddie, that *is* a small backcourt and one that plays average D at best...tough proposition...

Isn't Cleveland's starting backcourt just as small?

MyInsatiableOne · Post #19 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:23 pm

^yeah but DWest is playing out of his mind and unless I'm on crack, is a better defender than either Eddie or Marbs...

GuyClinch · Post #20 » by **GuyClinch** » Thu Mar 5, 2009 2:41 pm

Marbury + House is actually very good offensively though so if you can get away with playing it - it will help us. I do like that matchup with Cleveland. It's just when Marbury has to play a 6'5 - 6'7" kind of off guard with a J that we run into trouble.

I think we saw a bit of vintage Marbury with his kick to that "bum" Eddie House.

Ironically Marbury is well suited to be on a team with spot up shooters rather then creators. I'd like to see Marbury get some burn with House and Ray Allen..