Reply With Quote
Unfreakin real. Jim Carrey is just as cement headed as Popped?
Or did his Indy Pacers fail to listen?
Ahead by 3 with Boston inbounding with about 10 seconds left.
What a farking giveaway. Game 1 Indy at Boston gifted to the Celts.
lol mute cancer. I like that, apologies for stealing that one.
Unfreakin real. Jim Carrey is just as cement headed as Popped?
Or did his Indy Pacers fail to listen?
Ahead by 3 with Boston inbounding with about 10 seconds left.
What a farking giveaway. Game 1 Indy at Boston gifted to the Celts.
Turns out Jim Carrey and Haliburton say the plan was to foul.
Now, both Rick Carlisle and Tyrese Haliburton said the intent was to foul on the play. But with the way Brown caught the pass already faced up to the basket with the threat of pulling the trigger immediately, Pascal Siakam made the quick decision to not risk fouling on a 3-point attempt.
However, Carrey then doubles down on Siakims uber low IQ decision to do the loser thing and not foul:
"That's probably the right decision, you don't want to give up a four-point play. Look, a lot of things had to go wrong for us and right for them. They did. We have to own it." end quote.
Mega dumb. Siakim had plenty of time and opportunity to foul as Brown shifted the ball rip thru style. All Siakim had to do was hack at the ball.
Link
Pacers will regret not fouling Celtics' Jaylen Brown, but the mistake was made before he ever caught the ball (msn.com)
while i know it’s the smart play i hate fouling when up 3. To me kills the spirit of the game.
but with the rules what they are it’s just a smart play
Also, a team that extensively employs hack a shaq to the point that the rules have to be changed doesn't give a about the spirit of the game.
I also mean from that fans perspective. Any one who ever played basketball by themselves just shooting around has done the whole “down by 3, last chance, 3, 2, 1 and then shoots” thing
game tying 3s are just good fun imo
I think you need to pick a lane and stay there. Either you always foul down 3, or you never do. Doing it situationally risks every choice going against you.
That would give your opponent the 100 knowledge of what your strategy and planned play is.
So? Are they going to NOT shoot the 3? There’s no way they change their strategy, down 3. They’re going to shoot it. The only question is, are you fouling or not?
If I'm playing you and CIA Dipstick, since i know Popped will never foul it allows to scheme for a play accordingly.
OTOH if playing a team that ALWAYS fouls, i know i have to plan to be shooting when that team fouls.
Siakim had every opportunity to foul, and only a 2 shot foul at that. Brown shifted the ball down low.
Lets get a clip up.
Okay, but no team says, "well, we lost in the NBA finals, but at least we didn't violate the spirit of the game".
i mean... i agree. ive said a couple of times already that fouling is the smart and correct move.
i just dont like that it is the case, to the point that i'd probably be in favor of exploring a rule change of sorts, though im not sure how that would even work.
The thought exercise here is what do you do, defensively,when you’re up 3. My suggestion is that you either always foul,or never foul. The assumption is that you’ll shoot a 3 ball. The only way to change the play is to NOT shoot a 3 ball,and ima let you do that.
There is no good way to do it. Pop's teams always used to play the odds: no going for offensive boards, no gambling for steals, no letting the opponent set up their defense. I guess whoever came up with all that stuff for Pop left.
Why not shoot the second you get the ball?
CIA Dipstick announcing his strategy to not foul is about par for coach overrated
probably not a quality shot at that point
Can you shoot free throws better than you can defend? Feel like this defines the Duncan era.
Brian Hill syndrome
Perhaps. I feel it's situational. In this case that is what Brown chose NOT to do.
Quality or not, watch as Brown pump fakes and bring the ball back DOWN.
That is where Siakim should have done Whack-a-Mole.
I’m surprised they didn’t call a foul on Siakam just for being nearby.
:25 second mark I'm not sure Kim didn't foul him.
Looks like he got zero ball (guessed wrong) and swatted Brown on the hand.
Next watch Kim do the Dindu Nuffin with his hands.
Good no call.
Of course if that is Steffi or Gaymond we're talking automatic foul call.
But ya that game 1 it seemed CelticRef was determined to keep the Green in int.
Regardless, Kim needed to hack hand and ball at the :25 mark.
He had a clear target. Just guessed wrong.
History.
Well mmmaybe Indy can semi shock and come back like they did against NY down 0-2.
Without Haliburton, don't think so.
Altho it wasn't a Craig Popplevich special, still a dumb strategy move by Indy with 1:12 to play.
Indy 111 Celtics 106.
5 point lead.
A duece still maintains a 3 point lead as you drop to under a minute to play with the ball.
Instead, Indy over guards Tatum on a drive to the hoop. Sensing the obvious double team, Tatum does a nice behind the back pass to a WIDE OPEN UNGUARDED Al Horford for the corner trey.
111-109.
Siakim misses, Boston rebounds.
Once again the worst you can do is give up a deuce for a tie, then get the final shot to win or at least secure OT.
Nope, freaking Indy fouls Jrue Holiday as he lays it in. 2+1 for the 1st Boston lead since early in the game.
Two farking 3 pointers in the last 1:12,
Intelligent strategy is gonzo from the NBA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
