ATL - Ham Slamwich to the Lakers

[greekbuck34]

It’s time to retire the shoulda coulda wouldas, we sound like the nets

The Nets changed their entire team, lost Harden and they don't know if they keep Kyrie or who will be healthy or even near their prime next post season.

For them it was a one of a kind lost opportunity.
For us it won't go anywhere because our basic core will remain unchanged. So it's good to know that we were still the best team in the nba this season at full health.

[skones]

It's insane how much the Celtics get away with defensively.

Part of me wants to give the Celtics credit for playing great defense.

But part of me knows that most teams in the league wouldn't be allowed to play defense the way the Celtics do.

Most teams don't get a 6'11 freak of nature initiating contact and bulldozing players on the way to the rim. Let's not act like we don't get the same benefit with our own physicality.

[soxperry]

[soxperry]

It's insane how much the Celtics get away with defensively.

Part of me wants to give the Celtics credit for playing great defense.

But part of me knows that most teams in the league wouldn't be allowed to play defense the way the Celtics do.

They do get away with a lot of contact but at the same time they are in position and giving the offense problems to begin with. They just have a ton of guys who are extremely athletic and long. The problem is that many of those guys are also skilled, all around basketball players who can pass, shoot, and get crafty. Tatum really hasn't even been "that guy" (a no doubt top tier superstar) for much of the playoffs and they are still two wins from the championship.

it's very spurs like, what they are doing.. and it's annoying, but they can be conquered. Middleton solves a lot of the problems we had against them and adds the exact type of scoring that we needed. Less obviously, he takes a huge burden off of Jrue and let's him pick his spots more instead of forcing things while devoting more energy to defense. Same with Giannis, although even when Giannis is forcing things it's still pretty good.

I feel great about us for next year. I do want to see us make some roster improvements. I dont think we need to be desperate. Let's run it back one more time and see what we got.

[BigO]

Right now, there's not one team that can solve the Celtics defense. It wasn't even a good defensive game from them, but another dominating fourth quarter holding Golden State down.

This is all based on the fact that the Celtics have 7 switchable players and rarely leave open shooters. The Bucks can't do that and neither can most teams. This is the necessary response to the domination of the three point shot. Get multiple players who can switch.

If Golden State can't beat the Celtics with the shooters they have (the series ain't over), then no one can. So instead of trying to get more and more shooters, concentrate on emulating the Celtics and get really good individual defenders who are switchable.
The Bucks have a few (Jrue, maybe Khris who had a really bad defensive year, Giannis). Need a few more.

[soxperry]

Right now, there's not one team that can solve the Celtics defense. It wasn't even a good defensive game from them, but another dominating fourth quarter holding Golden State down.

This is all based on the fact that the Celtics have 7 switchable players and rarely leave open shooters. The Bucks can't do that and neither can most teams. This is the necessary response to the domination of the three point shot. Get multiple players who can switch.

If Golden State can't beat the Celtics with the shooters they have (the series ain't over), then no one can. So instead of trying to get more and more shooters, concentrate on emulating the Celtics and get really good individual defenders who are switchable.
The Bucks have a few (Jrue, maybe Khris who had a really bad defensive year, Giannis). Need a few more.

Yes, that would be one part of it. If we could get enough switchable defenders we would no longer have to resort to leaving a "non shooter" (who will torch us) wide open every possession. We didn't learn from the prior year because in the end it paid off, but we left Green and Griffen open against the Nets and it very nearly cost us a title. Hopefully, now, we understand.

[JayMKE]

The thing is, the Bucks weren't far off beating Boston with Bud's silly drop defense and no Khris(who I do think we missed defensively) so I don't think there is a lot of reason to overhaul the whole team. Boston has had an incredible Raptors like run with their defense and insanely hot clutch shooting but I think most people here agree with that if the team advanced there's a good chance Bud would be raising #2 in the next week or so.

[LuessiT]

Can we stop pretending the drop defense is the root of all evil? It's not. The drop is a very efficient defensive system, especially in the regular season. The problem with our implementation of the drop is that when you face a team that can punish the drop efficiently enough, you need to switch it up and hedge/switch on a couple possessions. Brook can do neither of those things, which makes it a Brook problem and not necessarily a defensive system problem per se.

Imo we have 3 options:
A) Drop the drop entirely. Trade Brook for a non-drop player, take a beating during the regular season, but be better equipped for teams that can punish the drop (and worse versus teams who can't - allbeit most teams in the POs can)
B) Play mostly drop in the regular season, switch to switching in the POs. Either live with benching Lopez in these matchups or trade him for a lesser center you're willing to bench and something else
C) Trade for a drop center that is better equipped to deal with hedgeing/switching. Gobert is obviously the highest tier of drop centers available, but there are other options also like Miles Turner, etc.

To me it really depends on who's available for what price. If Gobert or another high tier drop center is available cheaply because the league is overreacting and moving away from that system, I'd want to upgrade Brook. If the league still thinks drop centers are highly valueable, I'm open to trading Brook for a non-drop player as long as we manage to upgrade the talent level. If it's somewhere inbetween it really depends on who we could bring in.

[leroyjw10]

Draymond's bark is way worse than his bite right now ... on either side of the ball.

[LuessiT]

The Celtics got crushed in game 1 because they couldn't deal with our size. Lopez was really big in that game 1. Then they adjusted, mostly shot 3's and only took it inside to kick the ball back out and Lopez became unplayable. If we bring someone in that can mirror Brook's defense but handle switches better and bring in players that can read those kick out passes and get deflections (like Donte used to), we're a much better defensive team.

[Ron Swanson]

This narrative of Boston's defense being the best thing since the 2004 Pistons is pretty hilarious when you actually look at the numbers (again, they weren't even the best defense these playoffs). They're winning because they have better half-court shot creators.

[raferfenix]

To me it really depends on who's available for what price. If Gobert or another high tier drop center is available cheaply because the league is overreacting and moving away from that system, I'd want to upgrade Brook.

How would we define a cheap price for Gobert?

Ainge might be backed into a corner where he needs to trade Rudy if he wants to keep Mitchell.

Alternatively Ainge has burned himself to spite his face plenty of times insisting on higher value for his assets than what they proved to be worth.

[Brewhoopfan]

This narrative of Boston's defense being the best thing since the 2004 Pistons is pretty hilarious when you actually look at the numbers (again, they weren't even the best defense these playoffs). They're winning because they have better half-court shot creators.

The defense is there too. But, yeah, Brown and Tatum are elite shot creators, and both White and Smart can get their own shot. Those 4 are entering their prime and are locked into contracts for 2 more years. They are set up nicely.

[sidney lanier]

If one of these odious teams has to win the title, I hope we are at least given the satisfaction of watching the loser get totally humiliated.

Yes, I'm a Gooey Soft Warriors hater. Dance, Steph, dance.

[LuessiT]

To me it really depends on who's available for what price. If Gobert or another high tier drop center is available cheaply because the league is overreacting and moving away from that system, I'd want to upgrade Brook.

How would we define a cheap price for Gobert?

Ainge might be backed into a corner where he needs to trade Rudy if he wants to keep Mitchell.

Alternatively Ainge has burned himself to spite his face plenty of times insisting on higher value for his assets than what they proved to be worth.

Value in equivalent of a mid lottery pick is cheap, imo. In a vaccuum, I think Gobert is worth a top pick in any given draft, assuming you still have the pieces around afterwards to make him work. I wouldn't want to trade for him as a struggling team, but as a top team he's the ideal target.

In the end I doubt he ends up being cheap, because it takes just one team to trade for him. And if they lose in the finals, that team might just be Golden State.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Are there actually people outside Twitter idiots who care that Draymond is doing a podcast after games?

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

[chonestown]

If one of these odious teams has to win the title, I hope we are at least given the satisfaction of watching the loser get totally humiliated.

Yes, I'm a Gooey Soft Warriors hater. Dance, Steph, dance.

Steph, for all his greatness, is oddly mechanical. When he goes into his dribbling, it smacks of reciting the code of Contra. Look man, I'll cop to unseemly pettiness, but tell me I'm wrong.

Jordan Poole is Jordan Clark Son with a Usinger's aftertaste. Dude is going to get paid and might even win a scoring title in the vein of Jerry Stack House's superfluous ppg honor.

The Celtics are merely a collection of vile individuals, each and every one of them.

The closing stanza to this season has been dispiriting. Vegas can't come soon enough. Mamu shall be a salve come July.

[BigO]

Can we stop pretending the drop defense is the root of all evil? It's not. The drop is a very efficient defensive system, especially in the regular season. The problem with our implementation of the drop is that when you face a team that can punish the drop efficiently enough, you need to switch it up and hedge/switch on a couple possessions. Brook can do neither of those things, which makes it a Brook problem and not necessarily a defensive system problem per se.

Imo we have 3 options:
A) Drop the drop entirely. Trade Brook for a non-drop player, take a beating during the regular season, but be better equipped for teams that can punish the drop (and worse versus teams who can't - allbeit most teams in the POs can)
B) Play mostly drop in the regular season, switch to switching in the POs. Either live with benching Lopez in these matchups or trade him for a lesser center you're willing to bench and something else
C) Trade for a drop center that is better equipped to deal with hedgeing/switching. Gobert is obviously the highest tier of drop centers available, but there are other options also like Miles Turner, etc.

To me it really depends on who's available for what price. If Gobert or another high tier drop center is available cheaply because the league is overreacting and moving away from that system, I'd want to upgrade Brook. If the league still thinks drop centers are highly valueable, I'm open to trading Brook for a non-drop player as long as we manage to upgrade the talent level. If it's somewhere inbetween it really depends on who we could bring in.

I can't disagree with this more. The drop defense, if implemented well (as the Bucks do), is good at stopping paint points, good at defensive rebounding and keeping fouling to a minimum. It is a passive defense that doesn't challenge other teams, particularly good teams.
It is bad, especially how the Bucks implement it, at keeping three point shots down.

And that's the real point. You have to look at the NBA, like anything else, in terms of trends and evolution. The game has evolved over time, to a 3 point league. I don't like it, but it's the reality. And eliminating paint points, while great, isn't as key as it used to be.

What the Celtics have done, either by luck or on purpose, is create a team that is interchangeable, thus eliminating the need to use gimmick defenses like the drop, which relies on leaving some players always open.

As to why the Bucks were, so far, the most competitive opponent against the Celtics (and I think would have won with Khris), is that the Bucks have a player that is so much better than anyone else on the floor, he can make up for a lot. We, and I include myself in this, tend to forget Giannis and what he does.

[sidney lanier]

Steph, for all his greatness, is oddly mechanical. When he goes into his dribbling, it smacks of reciting the code of Contra. Look man, I'll cop to unseemly pettiness, but tell me I'm wrong.

I get that Stepford Steph impression, too. Maybe because it looks like he's descended into self-parody with some of his play and some of his shtick.

Speaking of that annoying shtick, if the Dubs get booted in six I hope to see everybody in the Boston crowd doing this:

[CharityStripe34]

Can we stop pretending the drop defense is the root of all evil? It's not. The drop is a very efficient defensive system, especially in the regular season. The problem with our implementation of the drop is that when you face a team that can punish the drop efficiently enough, you need to switch it up and hedge/switch on a couple possessions. Brook can do neither of those things, which makes it a Brook problem and not necessarily a defensive system problem per se.

Imo we have 3 options:
A) Drop the drop entirely. Trade Brook for a non-drop player, take a beating during the regular season, but be better equipped for teams that can punish the drop (and worse versus teams who can't - allbeit most teams in the POs can)
B) Play mostly drop in the regular season, switch to switching in the POs. Either live with benching Lopez in these matchups or trade him for a lesser center you're willing to bench and something else
C) Trade for a drop center that is better equipped to deal with hedgeing/switching. Gobert is obviously the highest tier of drop centers available, but there are other options also like Miles Turner, etc.

To me it really depends on who's available for what price. If Gobert or another high tier drop center is available cheaply because the league is overreacting and moving away from that system, I'd want to upgrade Brook. If the league still thinks drop centers are highly valueable, I'm open to trading Brook for a non-drop player as long as we manage to upgrade the talent level. If it's somewhere inbetween it really depends on who we could bring in.

I can't disagree with this more. The drop defense, if implemented well (as the Bucks do), is good at stopping paint points, good at defensive rebounding and keeping fouling to a minimum. It is a passive defense that doesn't challenge other teams, particularly good teams.
It is bad, especially how the Bucks implement it, at keeping three point shots down.

And that's the real point. You have to look at the NBA, like anything else, in terms of trends and evolution. The game has evolved over time, to a 3 point league. I don't like it, but it's the reality. And eliminating paint points, while great, isn't as key as it used to be.

What the Celtics have done, either by luck or on purpose, is create a team that is interchangeable, thus eliminating the need to use gimmick defenses like the drop, which relies on leaving some players always open.

As to why the Bucks were, so far, the most competitive opponent against the Celtics (and I think would have won with Khris), is that the Bucks have a player that is so much better than anyone else on the floor, he can make up for a lot. We, and I include myself in this, tend to forget Giannis and what he does.

Some of the points LuessiT made were prescient in the sense that a mobile 5 can vacillate from dropping and/or hedging, or perhaps even switch onto a guard/wing with moderate success (contesting a jumper). The drop can be played to moderate success against crappy teams too (during the regular season). Obviously that is a very small sampling of players in the modern NBA. I.e. would Bamba (who's a decade younger and way more athletic than Brook) be able to learn how to hedge/recover? I'm not sure if Bud would go away from it as their base defense.

I agree the Bucks need a big and a wing that can defend and be able to switch without getting demolished. Would do wonders for defensive efficiency, especially flanked by two elite defenders in Gianni and Jrue, and a solid one in Khris.

I agree 1,000% that the all-time brilliance of Gianni nearly stole the series from them even without Khris present. People criticize his 46% from the field but that's not half bad considering how much pressure he was facing defensively. That Game 6 was comical with the amount of brick-laying going on from the Bucks roleplayers while Gianni was putting up a 44-20-6.

Watching that game last night there's a scenario where the Bucks could've beaten the Warriors in a series, even perhaps without Khris. But that would mean that Jrue's efficiency would have to be considerably better. And having to chase Curry wouldn't be any less tiring than guarding Tatum and Brown.