Pride and Prejudice

In the days leading up to Super Bowl 25, Bill Belichick had a huge problem. He had to design a defense that could contend with the most prolific offense in football that season. The Buffalo Bills, led by Jim Kelly, steamrolled their way through the AFC playoffs. They put up 44 points against the Miami Dolphins and 51 against the Los Angeles Raiders. Kelly was a collective 36-62 for 639 yards in both games, with 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions and a 126 passer rating. If he had that kind of success against the Giants, Big Blue would be in deep trouble.

The defense that Belichick finally came up with was the 2-3-6 defense. It consisted of two defensive linemen, three linebackers and six defensive backs. It had one mission: to stop, or at least curtail the Bills passing attack, which was lethal. What Belichick and head coach Bill Parcels were basically saying was this: we'll let you run the ball, but we're going to take away your ability to throw the deep pass. All Bills head coach Marv Levy would've had to do was run the ball more and the Bills might not have needed Scott Norwood's 47 yard field goal attempt to win the game.

But Levy wouldn't, or couldn't bring himself to adjust his game plan. The Bills got there on the strength of Kelly's arm and they weren't going to fundamentally change who they were. And while Thurman Thomas did get 135 yards, he only touched the ball 15 times in the game. By comparison, Kelly was 18-30 for 212 yards, zero touchdowns and a passer rating of 81.5. Meanwhile the Giants, with a balanced attack, ate up most of the clock and hung on to win what many consider to be the most exiting Super Bowl in NFL history.

The moral of the story is this: pride kills. Levy's arrogance cost his team a Super Bowl win. The failure to make adjustments in sports is the primary reason most teams lose. I say "most" because sometimes, no matter how solid your game plan is, the other team is just better. But that being said, the purpose for having a coach is to anticipate what could go wrong and prepare accordingly; it isn't simply to make out a lineup card.

In the series between the Boston Celtics and New York Knicks, the Celtics are a collective 25-100 (25 percent) from three-point range. They have lost the first two games by a grand total of four points. They have blown consecutive 20-point leads to a team that, going into the series, was a decided underdog. And while most analysts have focused on their poor shooting, the real culprit has been the Boston strategy. 

The fact is attempting 60 three-point shots in a game is insane. There's no excuse for it. But when you listen to the players and the head coach attempt to rationalize it by insisting that this is who they are and they're not going to change, it is eerily reminiscent of that Bills team that lost to the Giants in Super Bowl 25. Marv Levy and Joe Mazzulla might as well be distant relatives.

The worst-kept secret in the NBA is that the Knicks have a terrible perimeter defense. And going up against a Celtics team that led the league in three-point attempts, it was incumbent upon them to tighten it up. But for all the talk about the Knicks shortcomings, it is, ironically, the Celtics shortcomings that are coming home to roost in this series.

Put succinctly, they are a one-dimensional offense. The reliance on the three-point shot has been both the Celtics greatest asset and their biggest vulnerability. It allowed them to go 16-3 in last season's playoffs. But it also masked weaknesses within their roster which have now been exposed this postseason by a Knicks team that is as relentless as it is resilient. And like the compulsive gambler who, having lost a month's wages in Vegas and insists his luck will change sooner or later, the Celtics find themselves two losses away from sports bankruptcy.

The more I think about it, the more this Knicks team reminds me of that Giants team in 1990. They, too, were underdogs, but found a way to overcome the odds and win. Tom Thibodeau is no Bill Belichick, that's for sure. But like Belichick, who had Lawrence Taylor, Thibs does have an ace in the hole. Jalen Brunson is, without question, THE best player in these playoffs, and it isn't even close.

Spare me all the nonsense about how great Jayson Tatum is. What has he done with the game on the line in this series? Hell, he wasn't even the MVP in last year's finals. Call me old-fashioned, but I'll take the player who has more clutch-time points (41) than the Minnesota Timberwolves (34), Celtics (26) or Cleveland Cavaliers (25).

The amount of disrespect the Knicks in general and Brunson in particular have gotten borders on pathological. It's one thing when fans do it; that's why they're called fans. But when so-called "professionals" who are paid to be objective do it, that's another story. Whether it's an anti New York bias or just plain ignorance is irrelevant. The fact is there isn't a professional sports league in the country that wouldn't benefit financially from having a New York team in its championship round. Ask Major League Baseball how much better their ratings were having the Dodgers and Yankees play in the World Series. I can tell you the sponsors certainly didn't mind.

And now these same geniuses who said the Knicks would be lucky to win one game against the Celtics are now saying that they need to win game three in order to win the series. You literally can't make this shit up. Sometimes I wonder how they show themselves in public.

There's no conspiracy here. The reason the Knicks are ahead 2-0 in this series is because in the fourth quarter they have been the better team. Period. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or a basketball "expert" to figure that out. You just have to take off the blinders that have prevented you from seeing the truth.