Why can't we have offense like that?

[jerrywest]

A large portion of the C’s offensive sets involve Ray Allen running through screens along the baseline and curling up along the wing or near the elbow. Ray isn’t always option #1 or even option #2 in those sets, but his presence creates options #3, #4 and #5, some of which are built-in parts of the C’s offense and some of which present themselves spontaneously as the defense moves around."

"#1#2#3#4#5" !!! Why do we have checkers offense when others have chess offense.

[spotatl]

You know the Hawks offense has been better than boston's this season right?

[DjGrizz]

You know the Hawks offense has been better than boston's this season right?

You know that is because the Hawks have better offensive weapons right?

[spotatl]

I'd easily take the Celtics weapons on offense over what the Hawks have. Are you serious? I'll take Pierce, Rondo, Allen, and KG any day on offense. I mean for how much the OP loves what the Celtics are doing with Ray Allen it sure doesn't seem to be working this year.

Edited February 2, 2010 by spotatl

[dlpin]

the hawks offense has been better because the hawks have much better offensive rebounding and fewer turnovers than the celtics, not because the hawks offensive sets are better. The hawks average 3 more offensive rebounds a game and 3.5 fewer turnovers, and yet the hawks scoring average is only 3 points better, despite playing at a similar pace.

Edited February 2, 2010 by dlpin

[MaceCase]

We run multiple stacks at the beginning of our offense to get Marvin open (though he is never passed to), Bibby open to get an easy jumper from the left side and Joe open from either the right side or isolated at the top of the key to pass to the rolling screener or go one on one. Sure there's no baseline stuff and the set is practically ran for only two guys but Bibby effectively operates in the same manner as Ray does out of the play.

[Supporter]

"#1#2#3#4#5" !!! Why do we have checkers offense when others have chess offense.

Those are just fancy ways of getting people open shots, which can also be done if you have a good player who knows how to iso.

[spotatl]

You don't think that a lot of superfulous movement and passing might lead to a few more turnovers? That having the Bigs run all over the place where they aren't actually useful might cause them to get fewer offensive rebounds?

[Atlantaholic]

I'd easily take the Celtics weapons on offense over what the Hawks have. Are you serious? I'll take Pierce, Rondo, Allen, and KG any day on offense. I mean for how much the OP loves what the Celtics are doing with Ray Allen it sure doesn't seem to be working this year.

Yeah, mostly due to the fact that Ray Allen is 40 years old.

Not even Boston fans would take their offensive talent over ours. I mean our offense has been collectively much better than Boston's, so it is either that we are just plain better or that we have a better offensive scheme. I mean, there is literally no statistical data from this year that can justify you picking any Boston starter over our starters (if we consider Crawford a starter over Marvin) other than Rondo over Bibby. So, considering there isn't any data that shows Boston being superior, than I guess what you are implying is that we are only better than Boston because of our scheme. I mean, ok. This seems insane to me, mainly because there is no scheme! All we do is go one on one. That's not a freaking scheme, I could coach that offense for chrissakes. I mean, your argument is that Jamal and Joe BOTH score more points on a per minute basis than ANY Celtic Player (Pierce leads them with 19.7 pp36 min.. Craw and Joe both average close to 21) because of brilliant gameplanning? really?

Here is a comparison of PERs for the year

JJ 19.5 > Pierce 18.8

Craw 18.7 >>> Ray Allen 13.7 (Marvin Williams Territory)

Josh Smith 21.5 > 19.6 KG (Not even taking into account that KG doesn't even play in half of the games.)

Horford 18.9 > 16.5 Perkins (Perkins averages almost THREE times as many TO as assists per36min)

Bibby 12.9 <<< Rondo

If you can convince me that Woodson is responsible for teaching Crawford how to shake three players and bank home four point shots with regularity... Than I'll start giving props to Woodson for his genius offensive coaching. Until then, Crawford and JJ need to be given credit for being possibly the best scoring duo in the NBA right now... Josh Smith and Horford are also one of the best scoring PF + C in the NBA. The Hawks lead the league in 10 point wins. We have more talent on offense than Boston. No question. And we would unquestionably be even better if we gave our more efficient scorers (Horf TS% 60, Josh TS% 547, Craw TS% 578) some of the shots that our least efficient scorers (Joe Johnson TS% 53) are taking.. Of course that would require for us to actually minimize the amount of times JJ goes one on one. Or in other words, to alter Mr. Woodson's ridiculously limited offensive system.

[spotatl]

I do thnk the Hawks scheme is better. Boston runs a lot of ridiculous plays that don't do anything to play to their players strenghts. They run plays to get Rasheed Wallace free from 3. They run Allen all over the place for a catch and shoot 3 when he isn't hitting them. They have perkins spend a whole lot more time setitng superfulous screens (and turning the ball over with offensive fouls) instead of just letting him concentrate on getting offensive rebounds. They will go through long stretches of Pierce not getting shots because of their scheme.

I think if you let Pierce and Rondo exploit their matchups and spread the floor I do think the Celtics would have a better offense than they do. MANY times coaches just do dumb things because they want to do SOMETHING. Joe Johnson has 370 more shots than Paul Pierce this season. I absolutely think that the Boston offensive system is worse than the hawks.

On Defense I think the Celtics system is better but thats an entirely different conversation

I'd easily take Pierce over Joe Johnson. Seriously you want ot make this argument? Joe is putting up better numbers because of the system since the offense does run through him. Pierce has had a higher TS% every year of his career compared to goe.

I'd easily take Rondo over Crawford.

Bibby, Smith, and Horford are not significant upgrades on Allen, KG, and Perkins on OFFENSE. Perkins has a lot of turnovers but MANY of those are from offensive fouls when he is setting those screens you think are so pretty.

Edited February 3, 2010 by spotatl

[tbhawksfan]

Looks like Atlantaholic wins the argument with an increadible flurry of solid arguments and irrefutable stats. KO in the second round.

Hawks have the better players(who should be even better) and Woodson is not a good coach strategy wize. He openly admits to not even working on or focusing on offense. How can anyone try to argue that Woodson is a good offensive coach?

[spotatl]

I think that doc rivers is an even worse offensive coach. Ray Allen has more shots this season than Paul Pierce even though Allen isn't playing well. Rasheed Wallace has attempted more 3 pointers than Paul Pierce. You want signs of a terrible offensive system- thats it. The #1 goal for the offense is to get players the ball in a position where they can do something useful with it. Boston is failing miserably at that.

Does anyone seriously want to argue that Joe Johnson is a better player on offense than Paul Pierce? Does anyone really want to say that they would rather have Jamal Crawford compared to Rondo? Bibby over Ray Allen?

Boston is running a terrible gameplan on offense that people here for some reason want to emulate. I just will never get it. If people want to talk about emulating Boston on DEFENSE then lets talk. I just find it hilarious that the Hawks have the 4th best offense in the league and the 15th best defense yet people still want to b*tch about the offense.

Edited February 3, 2010 by spotatl

[dlpin]

I do thnk the Hawks scheme is better. Boston runs a lot of ridiculous plays that don't do anything to play to their players strenghts. They run plays to get Rasheed Wallace free from 3. They run Allen all over the place for a catch and shoot 3 when he isn't hitting them. They have perkins spend a whole lot more time setitng superfulous screens (and turning the ball over with offensive fouls) instead of just letting him concentrate on getting offensive rebounds. They will go through long stretches of Pierce not getting shots because of their scheme.

I think if you let Pierce and Rondo exploit their matchups and spread the floor I do think the Celtics would have a better offense than they do. MANY times coaches just do dumb things because they want to do SOMETHING. Joe Johnson has 370 more shots than Paul Pierce this season. I absolutely think that the Boston offensive system is worse than the hawks.

On Defense I think the Celtics system is better but thats an entirely different conversation

I'd easily take Pierce over Joe Johnson. Seriously you want ot make this argument? Joe is putting up better numbers because of the system since the offense does run through him. Pierce has had a higher TS% every year of his career compared to goe.

I'd easily take Rondo over Crawford.

Bibby, Smith, and Horford are not significant upgrades on Allen, KG, and Perkins on OFFENSE. Perkins has a lot of turnovers but MANY of those are from offensive fouls when he is setting those screens you think are so pretty.

Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot here and basically admitted that the difference is the players, not the schemes?

After all, didn't you just admit that the celtics' offensive schemes get sheed and allen open looks all the time? Now, Sheed is a career 34% shooter from 3 points, and Allen is a career 40% shooter. If the scheme is getting them wide open looks, it is a great scheme, and the reason they aren't doing so well is because they are having a bad year individually, and not the scheme.

Now, Im not saying that Doc is a great coach. He has many flaws, especially ni managing his players minutes. He does these wholesale substitutions that really hurt the team and the flow of the game. But if you look at celticsblog.com, when it comes to offense you will see that nearly everyone agrees that when the celtics go to iso pierce, the offense becomes stagnant. Heck, the reason the celtics lost to the magic and the lakers this week is that down the stretch they went away from what they were doing early and started doing iso pierce to get time off the clock.

[spotatl]

The celtics shouldn't be running a double screen to get a 34% 3 point shooter a slight opening to take a 3 pointer. He should be finishing plays that other people create for him. He isn't getting wide open looks- he is having to catch and fire a 3 with someone closing on him after coming off a screen. At this point I want Ray Allen being able to set up and step into his shot.

Rasheed Wallace shouldn't be shooting so many 3 pointers. If thats the scheme the celtics are setting up then its a rookie mistake. He isn't that player anymore.

I think that Boston spends a lot of effort and takes unnecessary risks with the ball to get guys low percentage looks. Its a terrible scheme.

You can say many things about the Hawks scheme but the one thing it does well is not make people do things are terrible at. The Hawks don't ask Josh Smith and Horford to beat their guys 1 on 1- those guys tend to get the ball once the defense is already in motion. They don't ask Marvin and Bibby to shoot 3 pointers on the move. They tend to let Horford and Smith concentrate on offensive rebounding rather than setting picks on the perimeter.

The NBA makes 1 on 1 defense virtually illegal. The Hawks keep the ball in the hands of players who can exploit that and then gets it to other players when they are in a better position to do something useful with it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by spotatl

[spotatl]

Put it this way. If the Hawks had bibby coming off multiple screens to brick a 3 pointer I'd be right here complaining about how Woodson was using him. I'd be saying that he needs to recognize that Bibby just isn't htat player anymore.

If JOsh Smith were out there firing away from 3 like Rasheed Wallace has been then it would be a poor use of possessions. There are better ways to use Rasheed and better ways to allocate shots.

[AHF]

Rasheed's entire career is the story of a guy who could have been a dominant post player but chose to shoot perimeter jumpers at a modest rate of efficiency. Little has changed in that regard. He should not be getting as many shots as the Celtics are feeding to him.

In terms of scoring efficiency, PP >> Allen > JJ

[spotatl]

I'll just repeat this. Rasheed Wallace has attempted 40 more 3 pointers this season than Paul Pierce. How anyone can be jealous of that offensive scheme is just beyond me.

[AHF]

I'll just repeat this. Rasheed Wallace has attempted 40 more 3 pointers this season than Paul Pierce. How anyone can be jealous of that offensive scheme is just beyond me.

The Wallace issue for Boston is fundamentally the same as the jump-shooting-Smoove issue for us. While there are differences in effectiveness and rate the bottomline is the same - both are bad uses of a possession.

[spotatl]

Oh- and I forgot to put this in before. The Hawks have the best turnover rate in the league and the celtics are second worst in the league. Do you really want to say that this has nothing to do with the system the 2 teams run?

Edited February 3, 2010 by spotatl

[dlpin]

Oh- and I forgot to put this in before. The Hawks have the best turnover rate in the league and the celtics are second worst in the league. Do you really want to say that this has nothing to do with the system the 2 teams run?

You talk about his as if turnovers were part of the game plan. Turnovers in the celtics case are a result of having a 23 year old PG and a center that is a walking turnover machine. Kendrick Perkins is the worst in the league among starting centers for turnover percentage.

But I've already mentioned the definite proof: despite the fact that the hawks have 3.5 fewer turnovers per game, and despite the fact that the hawks get 3 more offensive rebounds per game, the hawks only score 3 points more. In terms of points per possession and points per shot the celtics are much better than the hawks. The hawks simply get more possessions, and that has everything to do with personnel. The celtics simply do not have athletic forwards to crash the boards and generate more possessions.