Nalod wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:

Rondo is just dribbling around for 3-4 seconds. rondo was 4 for 7 from the line in that game, and is a 60% FT shooter on the year. i can think of no better guy to foul than him, as he dribbles and waits for them to run a freaking play.

i don't understand the strategy. you're up by 3 points. you didn't have a chance to sub in some defenders. the C's are out of timeouts while the knicks had TWO timeouts. given all of that, fouling is the play. even if they hit both, you can call a timeout and inbound at halfcourt. lets say they fouled at 15 seconds, the C's hit both, knicks are up 1, you call a time out. inbound takes 3 seconds off. you can also set up your defense for after.

why is rondo's name floated around in trade rumors? its not because he's on a team friendly deal and drops insane triple double lines. its because he can't shoot it and gets especially gun shy late in the game. pressure rondo and foul him again if need be. rondo had already killed us at that point; i'd much rather put him on the line and make him uncomfortable than let the C's run a freaking play for pierce who kills us time and again.

By many accounts read over the years Rondo is a bit of a strange dude who clashes with his coach. Its the reason why his draft position was not higher. Its the reason many teams did no take him in the draft earlier.

They are not bashing him because they don't want to kill his value.

Celts look to be in a pre-rebuilding mode. They might prefer to draft a new point then have him lead with youth.

NObody disputes his talent, its his head.

if you read any bill simmons, arguably the biggest celtics homer in the world, he complains like once a week about how defenses sag off rondo and how you can easily defend against him because of his shooting issues. look how far novak is playing off of him in the clip! the guy clams up when D's force him to shoot; fouling him is definitely the right play.

i agree with you that he has mental issues too and is a strange guy, but the ONLY real complaint of his actual game is his shooting and the reprecussions it has for the rest of the offense (defenders sag off 4 feet, easier to double down in the post, harder to slash/cut through, etc).

he was 4 of 7 yesterday and thats about par for the course for rondo from the line. he's like a point guard version of tim duncan. he should've been fouled.

franco12 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:MDA seems to eff this one up all the time

I'm ok with MDA having this as a rule - but, yesterday should have been an exception. Celts had no time outs! Its maybe a bit different if they had one. Maybe.

And second - its the celtics. If this had been the bob cats or someone else that doesn't have championship tested shooters, I say, playing it straight up isn't the worse thing.

that's the problem with having global rules... in yesterday's situation, for all the reasons you mentioned, the Knicks absolutely hsould hav efouled, no questions asked. You know Pierce or Allen is getting the ball, you know this is a superstar's league, you know if the Knicks breath on on eof them they are getting the and one...

Nalod wrote:Up by three and scared of a team tying with 18 seconds? No, I don't think you foul.

Maybe the morning after you do. AFTER the fact. We had 4.9 left to win.

I agree. Pierce took a 25 foot shot fading away to his right. Pierce just made a great shot.

NYKBocker wrote:

Nalod wrote:Up by three and scared of a team tying with 18 seconds? No, I don't think you foul.

Maybe the morning after you do. AFTER the fact. We had 4.9 left to win.

I agree. Pierce took a 25 foot shot fading away to his right. Pierce just made a great shot.

SupremeCommander wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

Nalod wrote:Up by three and scared of a team tying with 18 seconds? No, I don't think you foul.

Maybe the morning after you do. AFTER the fact. We had 4.9 left to win.

I agree. Pierce took a 25 foot shot fading away to his right. Pierce just made a great shot.

I wanted him to foul while I was watching the game

So did I- especially when the announcers said the celts had no time outs left.

Yes- we played pretty good defense, but the fact is, we gave them a better shot there, than if we had traded FTs with them, and given them the last position with 5 seconds left with the entire length of the court to go to get the shot off.

mrKnickShot wrote:Under 20, 10, 5 - seconds, do you foul or not? I know it is possibly more complicated of a question as to the other game variables but it is a philosophy that a coach chooses. Some coaches would and some like MDA don't. I feel like we have gotten killed in the past in this scenario and I would have loved to foul in that situation.

MDA says "we don't do that", that he would foul if < 3 seconds or if it was not beyond the arc (because we might end up fouling in the act of shooting a 3).

Below is MDA's explanation which I HATE!! Especially when at the end he says "That's what Paul Pierce does"

Than why not foul the Mother Effer???

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/13556/would-you-have-fouled-pierce

Thoughts?

the problem wasn't the lack of foul but the way Shump stood. He gave him a great view of the rim because he standing sideways instead of facing up and putting his hands strait up.

I understand he was afraid of drawing a foul at the moment but you have to defensively square up with the guy in that position and put a hand up. You don't worry about the drive because they need a 3 to win.

If you can't play tight D on the shooter and they have time to get the shot off, it is an accident waiting to happen.

Nalod wrote:

93BUICK wrote:I think the problem with fouling is not having an estabished D in place that the coach trusts and knows how and when to foul w/out screwing it up- My problem w approach is twofold- it's predictable that he never fouls in that situation so opposing teams don't have to worry about it and it shows lack of faith in the teams D.
I like but I don't have a lot of faith in him in the final moments of tight games. I love the moments this season when Iman or even Lin put pressure on guards bringing the ball up like the Pistons did all the time in 2004 (Mike Woodson assistant coach)

Rondo is not easy to guard in that situation. Chance we foul very early in the sequence. Pressure works good with a trap but you put yourself short handed with Ray and Pierce. Even KG can take a three. YOu have 3 very proven dudes who could hoist it.

And we have yoot Shump and LIn, basically two rookies prone to rookie mistakes.

Rondo hadn't been looking to shoot all day and, isn't a good foul shooter anyway so, not as big a risk imo.

Rookie - Great point. Just his length is the point. If Shump is told not to play tight D (And he was), then you might as well put length on him. Great point. Both Individually & Collectively we are deeper thinkers than Coach.