Criticism of Celtics is overboard

I turned on WEEI this morning to hear Dennis & Callahan blasting the Celtics Game 2 performance.

"You don't feel good about this team's chances of wining a ring do you?" was the question repeated by the hosts.

The national media is jumping all over the Celtics too. NBA.com's John Schuhmann cranked out this article titled "Celts in control of series, but it's hardly convincing."

The New York Knicks are the team with the 0-2 deficit and health concerns regarding two of their three best players. They're the team that let two very winnable games get away.

So why does it seem as if the Boston Celtics have the bigger issues as the first round series moves to New York for Friday's Game 3?

Weren't the Knicks labeled the most dangerous team in the playoffs? A team that could give the Celtics fits?

I realize Chauncey Billups went down in Game 1 and Amare Stoudemire went down in Game 2. But this is what the Celtics do – they play to the level of their competition. It happened all regular season long. Hell, it happened in 2008 vs the Hawks.

If the Celtics were playing their best, or even 80% of their potential, I would be concerned. But they aren't close to that. There's plenty of room for improvement.

And what about the many other teams that are struggling in the playoffs? The mighty Bulls have squeaked by the 8th seeded Pacers in Games 1 and 2. You could argue that if it wasn't for the injury to Darren Collision, that series might be 1-1. Yet all we hear about is how dominant Derrick Rose is.

In the West, the Lakers and Spurs lost their series openers. They played like crap and lost.

The Celtics have played like crap… and won. Yet Boston is the team with the bulls-eye. What the hell is wrong with this picture?