Can the Celtics win a ring this year if KG goes down again?

balleramil · Post #1 » by **balleramil** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:44 pm

just your thoughts on if the Celtics could win it all even if kg goes down with another injury this year

Harison · Post #2 » by **Harison** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:47 pm

No, it wont be easy if KG will be <80% too :-?

JSABleedsGreen · Post #3 » by **JSABleedsGreen** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:05 pm

nope!

Hemingway · Post #4 » by **Hemingway** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:09 pm

I think we can. We almost got to the finals last year with out KG and this time we'd have Sheed, Baby and Williams. Beating LA would be hard, but it could be done. I don't think I would favor us to win a ring w/o kg but honestly how many teams are really better than us w/o kg? LA, CLE?, ORL? SA?

SonicYouth34 · Post #5 » by **SonicYouth34** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:53 pm

If Doc didn't have to run Ray and Paul into the ground just to get wins, I think we have enough depth to get us to the finals again.

JSABleedsGreen · Post #6 » by **JSABleedsGreen** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:54 pm

Hemingway wrote:I think we can. We almost got to the finals last year with out KG and this time we'd have Sheed, Baby and Williams. Beating LA would be hard, but it could be done. I don't think I would favor us to win a ring w/o kg but honestly how many teams are really better than us w/o kg? LA, CLE?, ORL? SA?

You mean we almost got to the Estern Conference Finals...not the NBA Finals. I think we would have lost to Cavs. They just had the Celtics number last year. They were walking all over the Celtics without KG.

As far as this year.....it's possible only if the other teams stay hurt like they are now. Once Orlando and LA goes back to full strength....i doubt the C's could do it....without KG.

Anyways KG is healthy and playing decent....enough with these if KG is hurt threads.

Prophet_C · Post #7 » by **Prophet_C** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:03 pm

chakdaddy · Post #8 » by **chakdaddy** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:35 pm

JSABleedsGreen wrote:You mean we almost got to the Estern Conference Finals...not the NBA Finals. I think we would have lost to Cavs. They just had the Celtics number last year. They were walking all over the Celtics without KG.

Don't forget it took massive underachieving by Orlando to get us that close also; they underachieved so badly that we HAD the series and choked away, but Orlando was vastly superior to us without KG. This year, with Rasheed, we'd have a better chance than last year when we had NO chance at the title; but this year without KG we're probably in the mix with Phoenix and Dallas as massive underdogs with a remote chance.

underneathtoDJ · Post #9 » by **underneathtoDJ** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Can the Spurs win without Tim Duncan? Can the Lakers win without Kobe? Can the Cavs win without LeBron? Can the Magic win without Howard?

If the C's lose KG, obviously it's going to be difficult to get past healthy teams, as it would be for any of the above scenarios. But we are better prepared than last year, I will say that.

JSABleedsGreen · Post #10 » by **JSABleedsGreen** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:50 pm

chakdaddy wrote:
JSABleedsGreen wrote:You mean we almost got to the Estern Conference Finals...not the NBA Finals. I think we would have lost to Cavs. They just had the Celtics number last year. They were walking all over the Celtics without KG.

Don't forget it took massive underachieving by Orlando to get us that close also; they underachieved so badly that we HAD the series and choked away, but Orlando was vastly superior to us without KG. This year, with Rasheed, we'd have a better chance than last year when we had NO chance at the title; but this year without KG we're probably in the mix with Phoenix and Dallas as massive underdogs with a remote chance.

100% agree

Avalanche · Post #11 » by **Avalanche** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:13 pm

We dont have the defense to win a title without KG, he changes the team completely

captain green · Post #12 » by **captain green** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:49 pm

Anything can happen but I say no, but I'd be rooting for em anyway.

Post #13 » by **sully00** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:51 pm

I think they could do it but it would take Pierce playing at a Kobe LeBron level at least in the clutch and just about everyone playing their best. I don't think we would be the favorites to win it that is for sure. I have to disagree with the Kobe, Duncan or Howard comparisons, losing KG now is more like losing Gasol, not a player comparison just that we now have some options to keep the ball rolling.

FeedReed · Post #14 » by **FeedReed** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:59 pm

hell no, it'd just mean a lot more rasheed chucking 3's losing them games. it pisses me off he closes games, man. perk should close, no question.

campybatman · Post #15 » by **campybatman** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:36 am

In my opinion, Ainge has provided the team with solid depth in the front court. That is, he'd signed R. Wallace and S. Williams, and resigned G. Davis. However, all the front court players (power forwards and centers) aren't without their question marks.

Garnett (must be more cognizant of his minutes after having surgery)
Perkins (always the concern for an injury)
R. Wallace (age and his unpredictable temper are concerns)
G. Davis (maturity)
S. Williams (playing time will be affected by Davis' return)

Nevertheless, Ainge has made it a point to address the team's depth issues from last season in case Garnett suffers a setback or what have you.

But to answer your question, I say no. With Garnett, Boston is a favored to win the championship this season. Without Garnett, the Celtics are a notch below the better teams in the eastern conference. Actually, they'll become more susceptible defensively. I mean Perkins is the anchor on defense, but Garnett is the one who dictates everything. He's the leader in that sense. You don't just replace a player of his defensive level. Not with R. Wallace, not with anyone else on the roster. That's like asking if Orlando has a chance without D. Howard. His lost will have a similar impact on what the team does defensively.

MyInsatiableOne · Post #16 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:57 pm

chakdaddy wrote:
JSABleedsGreen wrote:You mean we almost got to the Estern Conference Finals...not the NBA Finals. I think we would have lost to Cavs. They just had the Celtics number last year. They were walking all over the Celtics without KG.

Don't forget it took massive underachieving by Orlando to get us that close also; they underachieved so badly that we HAD the series and choked away, but Orlando was vastly superior to us without KG. This year, with Rasheed, we'd have a better chance than last year when we had NO chance at the title; but this year without KG we're probably in the mix with Phoenix and Dallas as massive underdogs with a remote chance.

Well said...that really puts it into perspective!

I think we *could* win without KG this year but it would make the task vastly tougher...

Why are we speculating on this already??

Wolves2011 · Post #17 » by **Wolves2011** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:09 pm

MyInsatiableOne wrote:
chakdaddy wrote:
JSABleedsGreen wrote:You mean we almost got to the Estern Conference Finals...not the NBA Finals. I think we would have lost to Cavs. They just had the Celtics number last year. They were walking all over the Celtics without KG.

Don't forget it took massive underachieving by Orlando to get us that close also; they underachieved so badly that we HAD the series and choked away, but Orlando was vastly superior to us without KG. This year, with Rasheed, we'd have a better chance than last year when we had NO chance at the title; but this year without KG we're probably in the mix with Phoenix and Dallas as massive underdogs with a remote chance.

Well said...that really puts it into perspective!

I think we *could* win without KG this year but it would make the task vastly tougher...

Why are we speculating on this already??

Don't forget we weren't just missing KG. We were also missing Powe. [and Scalabrini wasn't himself.] So three of our big men were not "really" in the rotation.

Even with all that, I think we could have beat the Magic if we followed the same strategy against the Magic as we did against the bulls. Put the ball in Rondo's hands and let him drive the lane. Howard is the best defender in the NBA, but Rondo is good enough to find Perk, if Howard helps out. Rondo should also have "gone to contact" with howard to get him out of the game.

That was our best chance to win, not Doc's "jumper" strategy.

tombattor · Post #18 » by **tombattor** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:44 pm

Wolves2011 wrote:Don't forget we weren't just missing KG. We were also missing Powe. [and Scalabrini wasn't himself.] So three of our big men were not "really" in the rotation.

Even with all that, I think we could have beat the Magic if we followed the same strategy against the Magic as we did against the bulls. Put the ball in Rondo's hands and let him drive the lane. Howard is the best defender in the NBA, but Rondo is good enough to find Perk, if Howard helps out. Rondo should also have "gone to contact" with howard to get him out of the game.

That was our best chance to win, not Doc's "jumper" strategy.

Yes of course. Just like how Rondo almost beat them single-handedly last year right? You got such a hard-on for Rondo, it's ridiculous. Orlando didn't even bother putting a guy on Rondo, yet he still couldn't make them pay. Where are you getting this crazy idea from? And Doc's "jumper" strategy wasn't Doc's. It was Orlando's. They knew Rondo couldn't make a jumper, so they left him open.

No matter how good a PG is, if they are playing him to drive, you can't just drive and be successful. If you don't have a jumper, there is no reason for the defender to come out to guard you. They can just wait for you to drive. But then you probably think Rondo can take on the entire team 1-on-5...

*sigh* only if all of the Big 3 will go down... Then Rondo will put the team on the shoulder and carry them to a championship. Why Danny Why? Why did you have to ruin our chances by bringing in the Big 3 when it's so obvious that Rondo can carry us to next 5 titles without them?

Mahoney_jr · Post #19 » by **Mahoney_jr** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:49 pm

Is a short answer enough for this question? Anyway...

nope

Wolves2011 · Post #20 » by **Wolves2011** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:19 pm

tombattor wrote:
Wolves2011 wrote:Don't forget we weren't just missing KG. We were also missing Powe. [and Scalabrini wasn't himself.] So three of our big men were not "really" in the rotation.

Even with all that, I think we could have beat the Magic if we followed the same strategy against the Magic as we did against the bulls. Put the ball in Rondo's hands and let him drive the lane. Howard is the best defender in the NBA, but Rondo is good enough to find Perk, if Howard helps out. Rondo should also have "gone to contact" with howard to get him out of the game.

That was our best chance to win, not Doc's "jumper" strategy.

Yes of course. Just like how Rondo almost beat them single-handedly last year right? You got such a hard-on for Rondo, it's ridiculous. Orlando didn't even bother putting a guy on Rondo, yet he still couldn't make them pay. Where are you getting this crazy idea from? And Doc's "jumper" strategy wasn't Doc's. It was Orlando's. They knew Rondo couldn't make a jumper, so they left him open.

No matter how good a PG is, if they are playing him to drive, you can't just drive and be successful. If you don't have a jumper, there is no reason for the defender to come out to guard you. They can just wait for you to drive. But then you probably think Rondo can take on the entire team 1-on-5...

*sigh* only if all of the Big 3 will go down... Then Rondo will put the team on the shoulder and carry them to a championship. Why Danny Why? Why did you have to ruin our chances by bringing in the Big 3 when it's so obvious that Rondo can carry us to next 5 titles without them?

The jumper strategy was bringing the ball up slowly and set up Ray or Paul or BBD for jumpers, rather than pushing the pace, doing more in transition and attacking the defensive post player.

If you know anything about basketball, you know that the only way to beat a shot blocker is to go right at him. Either that or never go inside. Doc chose the do the latter. We should have attacked Howard and found his man for layups and gotten him fouled out. Its elementary basketball, not rocket science.

You also make it sound like Rondo had a bad series against the magic.

Pt 14.3/gm
reb 10.0/gm
asst 8.0/gm
stl 2.3/gm

Most of Rondo's shots were jumpers, not in transition or going to the hoop. That was both Doc and the Magic's game plan. Keep Rondo shooting jumpers. Doc did what the Magic wanted.

You always attack a shot blocker. Its fundamental.