# Gerald Wallace: Celtics coaches don’t like criticism of team’s effort



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

> Gerald Wallace has been in the NBA since 2001, playing for five different teams. In that time, he’s gained a reputation as a hard-nosed player — leading the league in steals in 2006 and making the All-Defensive first team in 2010 (the same year he made his only All-Star team).
> 
> So Wallace isn’t someone to stand by silently if he feels his team isn’t giving maximum effort. The only problem is, his criticism came in the preseason, with a young team still trying to gel. So the Boston coaches have told him to tone down his comments.
> 
> ...


http://tracking.si.com/2013/10/23/g...cs-coaches-dont-like-criticism/?sct=nba_t2_a7


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

How does Stevens want them to defend? That doesn't sound good coming from an all-NBA defender


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

There are a couple of guys, Brooks and Crawford the most glaring examples, that I wouldn't mind the team losing for nothing just to bring in some hungry D-leaguers. This won't be the last time we hear from a ticked-off Gerald Wallace, but that's a good thing.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

A swarming college defense. We're in for a looooong year here.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Looks like Gerald's at it yet again:

http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/boston/basketball/celtics/2013/11/02/gerald-wallace-cant-stop-calling-out-celtics/



> “We got selfish,” he said after the Celtics blew a 22-point lead in a 105-98 loss to the Bucks. “We got selfish as a team. Instead of worrying about winning the ballgame, we were more worried about our stats, getting points. It showed. We went from a team that was together and moving and playing together in the first half to a team that was five individuals out on the court, everybody playing for themselves, and it showed on the defensive end.”
> 
> And who might be the stat-padding offenders?
> 
> ...


I'm officially on board with Gerald Wallace, by the way. This clubhouse needs a couple veteran ass-kickers to keep them from turning into Washington from two years ago. Ainge needs to find one or two more grumpy old men for Wallace to form locker room coalition with.


----------



## Boomshakalaka (Mar 24, 2011)

Crash is not gonna be happy this year, lol. This will be a regular thing.

I'm not sure guys were padding their stats last night, but the offense was definitely stagnant 1-on-1 garbage in the second half. Nobody was attacking and nobody was moving or screening, so they just jacked up a bunch of jumpers.

I expect the Cs to go hard tomorrow. I hope we see more Sullinger, too.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

"Movement" isn't magic. Boston will see this over and over again. Once defenses tighten up in the fourth quarter their lack of a go-to scorer is going to kill them. The floor spacing is also a major killer with this squad, there's no one that can shoot reliably outside 12' and their only three point threat is the über-streaky Lee.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> "Movement" isn't magic. Boston will see this over and over again. Once defenses tighten up in the fourth quarter their lack of a go-to scorer is going to kill them. The floor spacing is also a major killer with this squad, there's no one that can shoot reliably outside 12' and their only three point threat is the über-streaky Lee.


Granted, the offense is pretty much broken in terms of winning NBA games, but it's still actively unhelpful if every possession turns into a supporting-level scorer going one-on-one from twenty feet out. The team wasn't built to actually compete this year, but they (theoretically) can still play the game intelligently.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Once the tight zone kicks in you'll see this though. There just isn't going to be a lot of space for this team because there's no scorer that commands a doubleteam and no reliable shooter to take a defender out of the play. The problem isn't selfishness so much as it is that once opponents buckle down there's no real floor space for passing, no open lanes to the net, and, at this point, no Rondo to dribble around the floor in hopes of handing the ball to someone to make a shot.

This is why they had Olynyk and Sullinger heaving threes in the preseason, they're the closest thing this team has to reliable shooters.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

And can I just say "God how I wish that Boston had traded up a couple of more spots for Michael Carter-Williams"?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> Once the tight zone kicks in you'll see this though. There just isn't going to be a lot of space for this team because there's no scorer that commands a doubleteam and no reliable shooter to take a defender out of the play. The problem isn't selfishness so much as it is that once opponents buckle down there's no real floor space for passing, no open lanes to the net, and, at this point, no Rondo to dribble around the floor in hopes of handing the ball to someone to make a shot.
> 
> This is why they had Olynyk and Sullinger heaving threes in the preseason, they're the closest thing this team has to reliable shooters.


I still don't buy that you either have to have a premier scorer or have every fourth quarter turn into a series of Jeff Green backdowns from twenty feet out. I understand the offense just doesn't have the personnel to even be decent, but you can still run a set, even if the shot you eventually get is going to be contested most of the time.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Free Jimmer:cabbagepatch:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Bogg said:


> I still don't buy that you either have to have a premier scorer or have every fourth quarter turn into a series of Jeff Green backdowns from twenty feet out. I understand the offense just doesn't have the personnel to even be decent, but you can still run a set, even if the shot you eventually get is going to be contested most of the time.


The problem with their sets (in the 4th quarter) is that by the time the ball gets across the half court line the shot clock is usually under 16 seconds, severely reducing their options. Once Rondo's back they'll settle in (for a few weeks anyway) of running sets that result in bad jumpers. But for now this is the depressing reality.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> The problem with their sets (in the 4th quarter) is that by the time the ball gets across the half court line the shot clock is usually under 16 seconds, severely reducing their options.


Fair enough. I can live with that explanation. I'm kind of disappointed that Danny didn't bring Nate back instead of signing Pressey. Nate could have at least shouldered the ball-handling duties and made the squad a little more watchable.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yeah, I wish they had, as well. But goal #1 was to collect a fat rebate check this year and their available space under the luxury tax was barely enough for a rookie min deal, vet min deals are out until they make another trade and shed some salary.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Bogg said:


> Looks like Gerald's at it yet again:
> 
> http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/boston/basketball/celtics/2013/11/02/gerald-wallace-cant-stop-calling-out-celtics/
> 
> ...


Capt. Jack's available ! He and Wallace somehow got the Bobcats to the playoffs. That's a feat in itself . Stephen Jackson will have them in fighting shape in no time ! :boxing:


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> The problem with their sets (in the 4th quarter) is that by the time the ball gets across the half court line the shot clock is usually under 16 seconds, severely reducing their options. Once Rondo's back they'll settle in (for a few weeks anyway) of running sets that result in bad jumpers. But for now this is the depressing reality.


Why doesn't every point guard just do the Chris Paul role-the-ball-inbounds thing? I just don't understand it.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> Why doesn't every point guard just do the Chris Paul role-the-ball-inbounds thing? I just don't understand it.


Whoever it is bringing the ball up has enough trouble not turning it over as it is, nevermind while trying some trickery that makes the ball more vulnerable. They just badly need an actual point guard, but like EH said, it's not in the budget.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Whoever it is bringing the ball up has enough trouble not turning it over as it is, nevermind while trying some trickery that makes the ball more vulnerable. They just badly need an actual point guard, but like EH said, it's not in the budget.


The lack of a real PG is surely a good way to lose more games.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

RollWithEm said:


> The lack of a real PG is surely a good way to lose more games.


Ultimately even a scrap heap guard like Tinsley would have cost them millions (both in luxury tax this year as a repeat offender and in the future), so it just wasn't happening. It's one reason a lot of us were shocked they went with the big goofy white guy over the German fashion model.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> Ultimately even a scrap heap guard like Tinsley would have cost them millions (both in luxury tax this year as a repeat offender and in the future), so it just wasn't happening. It's one reason a lot of us were shocked they went with the big goofy white guy over the German fashion model.


I'm hoping against all probability that Charlotte's lack of outside shooting leads to them kicking the tires a Sessions-Lee swap. The extra two years on Lee's contract will wind up a deal-killer, but it'd be nice.


----------

