I like Dwight Howard.

First, he looks good in a blue uniform, even if it does have a red cape hanging off the back of it.

Second, he seems like a genuinely good guy. He was robbed at the slam dunk competition. Nate Robinson won with a dunk jumping off someone's back, a dunk my sons do all the time, and with a dunk pushing up on a stationary player... a dunk I used to do back when my body let me. If Dwight was upset by that, no one could tell. Mr. Howard was as gracious and good natured as always.

Third, Dwight Howard is refreshingly not full of himself as most NBA players seem to be -- especially the elite ones. Shaq can be playful, but boy does Shaq pack an ego as well, but Dwight Howard can laugh at himself, and can do it without effort.

That said, Dwight sure disappointed me at the Olympics.

Spain learned that fouling Dwight Howard was roughly the equivalent of Dwight committing a turnover, seeing as Dwight was shooting 48.4 percent from the free throw line and Spain could get the ball back with little if any damage done.

But with the Orlando Magic this year, Dwight led the NBA in both blocked shots and rebounds, averaging 13.8 rebounds and 2.9 blocks per game this season. It was Dwight's second consecutive season at leading the NBA in rebounds.

I'm sorry, but regardless how you feel about the Dwight Howard, it takes some real hustle and work ethic to pull that off.

The only other players to lead the NBA in rebounds and blocks in the same regular season were Bill Walton, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon and Ben Wallace. There are some impressive defenders on that list.

And Dwight was just 23 years old when he did it. In fact, last year Howard was the youngest ever rebounding leader in the history of the NBA. This year, Dwight is the youngest person to ever receive the Defensive Player of the Year award.

Were there other worthy candidates of the honor?

Certainly.

The first person people are going to name is LeBron James, who came in distant second in the balloting. Then came Miami's Dwyane Wade, Houston's Shane Battier and Ron Artest, and New Orleans' Chris Paul, and the Lakers' Kobe Bryant. Also on the list of vote getters was the Lakers' Trevor Ariza.

If these canditates don't quite square with yours, blame the panel of 119 sportswriters and broadcasters from the United States and Canada, not me.

I think this award should be voted on by the coaches who face these players each game.

But congratulations to a genuinely good guy and, frankly, a good defender.

"Dikembe Mutombo asked me how I wanted to be remembered," said Dwight Howard. "Did I want to be remembered as a guy who win the slam-dunk contest in a Superman outfit? No, I want to be remembered as one of the greatest players. The focus had to be on defense."

Well done.

Howard received a car with his award which he immediately donated to an Orlando children's nursery.

Cleveland Cavaliers coach, Mike Brown, was named coach of the year.

I'm okay with that.

If you think the criteria for selecting an NBA MVP is vague, you should take a closer look at the Coach of the Year award.

Given there are no real guidelines for the award, there is no real reason why a handful of coaches shouldn't get this recognition each year.

I wondered if Brown would last with the Cavs, but have been impressed at how he has adapted and led.

But that's the good news.

The bad news is that out of the last 18 coach of the year winners, only 2 are still coaching with that team, Byron Scott, last year's Coach of the Year, and Greg Popovich of the Spurs.

Maybe they should rename the award, "Flavor of the Month."

By the way, if you are not convinced Mike Brown is as deserving of this award as other candidates, you really ought to check out this ESPN article on Brown. It's very good.

It sure would be easy to blame today's loss by the Boston Celtics to the Chicago Bulls, both of game 1 and home court advantage, on the fact that Kevin Garnett wasn't playing due to injury... easy, but not ENTIRELY correct.

Certainly if Garnett had played, the Celtics would have won, however, the Celtics still had ample ability and opportunity to win this game but failed to step up. For example,

__ Ray Allen definitely failed to step up. He shot 1 of 12 for a mind bending 8 percent. Of his 12 shot attempts, 10 were jumpers, and other 2 was a missed layup and a missed dunk. Had Allen had just an average performance, much less a stepped up one, the Celtics would have won in regulation.

__ It is a real shame Paul Pierce's only missed free throw of the game came at such a bad time, but I don't have much to say about that. Sometimes you miss. Sure, at THAT critical juncture he should have knocked it down, but it was pretty close and he did make all his other free throws. Where Pierce failed to step up was in the first half where he was M.I.A. The Celtics only scored 16 points in the second quarter and pretty much spent the rest of the game trying to overcome it. Paul Pierce only attempted 1 shot that dismal second quarter.

__ You might look at the box score and assume Rajan Rondo had a great night (29 points, 9 rebounds, 7 assists), but he gave it all back and more with the defensive job he did on Derrick Rose. Rose shot 63 percent, was 12 of 12 from the free throw line, had 11 assists and 4 rebounds against what is supposed to be one of the better defensive teams in the NBA. Rose, in fact, tied Kareem Abdul Jabbar for the best ever debut performance by a rookie in the NBA.

__ And what about the contribution of Stephon Maurbury? 10 minutes, 0 for 2, zero points. The Celtics should definitely play Gabe Pruitt more.

__ For the final shot of the game, Ray Allen had a clear pass to Paul Pierce who was open and closer to the basket, but Allen elected to take the shot himself. Now maybe that's how Doc Rivers drew up the play, but 3 seconds was enough time to make the better play. Speaking of 3 seconds, I've used my DVR's super slow mo and Ray Allen catches the ball, pivots, dribbles once and rises to shoot before the Boston clock operator starts the clock. Talk about home cookin'!

__ Chicago ended with a 24 to 13 advantage in fast break points... that is a lot of easy points to give up in a 100 point game, especially when you are the home team in the playoffs.

I'm thrilled for Chicago, and for the success of their budding young star, Derrick Rose.

But to my eyes at least, Boston played like it knew it had an excuse.

Oh sure, Boston WANTED a win, but they didn't hunger for it and fight with heart for it like they did in last year's playoffs.

Example? It's crunch time and all-star 6 foot 8 inch forward Paul Pierce has a breakaway... but instead of dunking the ball and sending the home crowd into a rabid frenzy he laided it in?! Huh?! Isn't this the guy who bragged after last year's playoffs that HE was the best player in the world? I thought I'd see Pierce in a Lakers jacket carrying Kobe's bags before I'd see him without his swagger.

Last year the Celtics looked like they were on a mission, like they believed the Larry O'Brian was theirs for the taking. Today, even the crowd looked like it didn't believe it was theirs any more, after all, Garnett IS out.

Yes, yes, yes, I agree that if Boston had Garnett, they would have won...

But even without him they should have and didn't.

That's why I say don't blame it on Garnett.

All things considered though, I guess I still favor the Celtics in this series. I just don't see Ray Allen (who has a career average of shooting 46 percent in the playoffs and is number 2 all time career 3-point shooting in the NBA) putting up a 1 for 12 performance again, or Paul Pierce taking the first half off again, or the Celtic defense allowing Derrick Rose to run where ever he wants again... unless the Celtics have just given up because they don't have Garnett and believe probably can't get past the Cavs without him anyway.

But they can and should win with what they have, assuming they still believe they can and should.

By now you have probably read articles that Kevin Garnett may not be back to the Celtics on time for the playoffs.

So, if you are a Celtics fan, the bad news is Garnett may be out... but the good news is last year Paul Pierce made quite the miraculous recovery, didn't he?

Pardon my skepticism, and this is in no way shape or form to be construed as an anti-Celtics post...

But given the recent history with this team (see clip below), I'm going to wait and see before I believe Garnett is that done for this year's playoffs, and I recommend everyone else do the same.

Don't misunderstand, I agree things look awfully bleak for Boston's favorite warrior, and don't be pulled off message by the anti-Celtic tone of the embedded YouTube clip.

I am not saying Garnett or the Celtics organization is faking.

I'm simply saying:

(1) The Celtics severely stretched the boundaries of credibility last season, and

(2) If Garnett was more severely injured in February than the Celtics were letting on, then the Celtics just strained credibility with us again.

(3) It's awfully weird for Garnett to come back and play 4 games in the regular season, when he apparently isn't even ready to ride a stationary bike much less play games in the post season. What organization is that unaware of their superstars' health, or decides to bring them back so prematurely as to risk reinjury in mere regular season games? It's all just too weird.

So I'm gonna ignore the cries of the sky falling until I actually get hit by a piece of it.

Meanwhile, get well soon, Kevin. Celtics fans and opponents alike want to see Boston at full strength in this year's playoff run.

If anyone has ever wondered if Phil Jackson still had the chops to coach a team to an NBA championship, maybe after the Lakers' loss today to the Trailblazers at the Rose Garden in Portland they'll appreciate the Zen Master a bit more.

Don't get me wrong, I like Kurt Rambis, but today it was painfully obvious Kurt is no Phil. Not yet anyway.

Before I get to the negative, I must point out there were things I really liked about Kurt's coaching today. For instance, I admired his confidence in newbie Shannon Brown. And I think it took some courage to stand up to Kobe Bryant and bench him that long in the first half when Kobe was hampered with 2 early (and questionable) fouls.

But there were some things Kurt Rambis failed to do that I believe Phil Jackson would have done, had he been in the coach's (elevated) chair. Like what? Well, like....

(1) Adjust to the officiating -

Ultimately the Lakers were called for 31 fouls as opposed to the 19 fouls called on the Blazers.

The funny thing was, the Blazers were a much more physical team than the Lakers. In fact, the Blazers physicality seemed to be modeled after the Celtics.

But it should have been apparent to Rambis and the Lakers early on how the game was going to be officiated when, with 2:03 left in the first quarter, the Lakers had been called for 8 fouls, and the Blazers just 2.

So what was the Lakers' team strategy to adjust?

Whine at the refs.

Brilliant.

Rambis should have seen that in the first quarter, the fouls were not being drawn by Blazer bigs, but it was the Blazer "quicks" (Brandon Roy, and even Nicolas Batum) that were getting fouled. Even when Laker bigs were being called for fouls it was because of Blazer guards (e.g. Lamar Odom fouling Steve Blake with 3:41 left in the 1st quarter). In short, Blazer dribble penetration got Blazers to the free throw line and Lakers to the bench.

Rambis should have made two adjustments, the first being to tell the players to quit whining.

Here's what happens when a team whines about officiating, especially early in the game.

(a) The refs get their pride hurt and tend to want to punish the whiners with further calls, or at the very least to not give them any breaks.

(b) The players slip into a victim mentality, and victims by definition do not feel like they are in control of their own destiny. You literally lose power when you complain. In sports, we call the ability to play through adversity "mental toughness" and the Lakers supposedly were taught this lesson by the Celtics in last year's NBA Finals.

The second adjustment Rambis should have made with the Lakers in the first quarter with regards to the foul disparity is to have the Lakers back off the Blazer guards and force them to be jump shooters. Brandon Roy was 8 of 18 from the field (44 percent), but he made all 6 of the free throws the Lakers gave him (100 percent). Similarly, LaMarcus Aldridge shot 33 percent from the field and 100 percent from the free throw line, and Batum scored as much from the charity stripe as he did everywhere else on the floor. 

More specifically, here are the shooting percentages of the Blazers on their jump shots:

Aldridge: 2 of 8 (25 percent)
Blake: 6 of 9 (66.6 percent)
Fernadez: 3 of 7 (42.8 percent)
Roy: 6 of 13 (46 percent)
Prizbilla: 0 of 2 (zero percent)
Oden: 0 of 1 (zero percent)
Outlaw: 2 of 8 (25 percent)
Batum: 1 of 3 (33 percent)
Rodriguez: 1 of 3 (33 percent)

Instead of adjusting, the Lakers overplayed the perimeter and made the lightening quick players drive, draw fouls, get to the line and put key Lakers on the bench in foul trouble.

I'd rather live with the Blazers shooting 20 of 52 on jumpers for 38 percent, than give them 37 free throws! Not to mention benching players such as Kobe Bryant because of foul trouble.

By the way, the Blazers played a zone defense to force the Lakers to be jump shooters, and they were. Kobe shot 19 jumpers and attempted only 5 layups. Even 7 foot Pau Gasol shot more jumpers than layups!

At any rate, 27 of the Blazers points came from the free throw line... that's more than the Blazers scored in 3 of their 4 quarters! Rambis did nothing to stop the bleeding.

(2) Player Rotations -

What's the sense in having two 7-footers in the starting line up if you aren't going to ever play them together during the game?

Rambis barely played Gasol and Bynum on the floor together which is dumb for a few reasons. First, the Lakers were out rebounded by the Blazers. Second, that combination would have given the Blazers fits and fouls. Third, the Lakers would have had more shot attempts from the paint. And fourth, isn't the idea right now to get Bynum re-integrated in the team? How do you do that when you don't put both 7-footers on the floor together and get everyone used to it?

Adding in "team rebounds" (rebounds a team grabbed that can't be credited to an individual player), the Blazers out rebounded the Lakers, the number 1 rebounding team in the league this game. Having a rebounding advantage is an important part of the Lakers' success this year. Given that the Lakers needed rebounds, Josh Powell should not have had a DNP - coaches decision, and have the coach decide to play Luke Walton big minutes.Luke Walton did NOTHING to justify all that playing time. He was 1 of 6 (17 percent) from the floor, 0 of 2 from the 3 point arc, had 2 turn overs and shot just 50 percent from the free throw line before he fouled out with 6 fouls. There was no need for Walton to play that much, other than to let the announcers reminisce about his dad's days in Portland.

Instead, Lamar Odom should have played small forward with Gasol at power forward and Bynum at center, erasing the Lakers rebounding deficit and moving shot attempts to the paint. Also, the Lakers have enjoyed considerable success putting Kobe at small forward. Also, if the Lakers meet the Blazers in the playoffs, I would definitely try Kobe at the point. Blake would be all but helpless against Bryant's size, quickness and tenacity, and Blake guarding Bryant would be like Hannah Montana guarding Michael Jordan.

At any rate, while the Lakers may be the number 1 overall rebounding team in the NBA, the are number 2 in offensive rebounds. The Blazers are number 1, and Kurt Rambis should have coached and rotated players in a way that shows he was aware of that.

(3) Time outs -

That was the first time in the Phil Jackson era I remember the Lakers not having enough time outs in the 4th quarter to move the ball to half court for a short clock. Usually, Phil is guilty of not using time outs enough and letting his players work through difficulty.

(4) Late Game Management -

This is related to the time outs, but the Lakers looked COMPLETELY lost late in the game. Pau Gasol even looked like he didn't want the ball -- all the Lakers did. It was as if the strategy was: We've got Kobe, I'm staying the !@#$ out of his way. Kobe has his moments, but they don't usually come if he is playing 5 on 1. 

(5) Defensive A.D.D.

Take away the points from the free throw line caused by the Lakers over defending the jump shot, and the Lakers actually had a good defensive night... for 3/4 of the game. The third quarter the Lakers were -8, giving the Blazers 32 points for the quarter.

There's more but it's late and I'm tired and you get the idea.

Had the Lakers made the adjustment to keep the Blazers from driving, they probably would have won. Had the Lakers played more logical rotations, that could have brought them a victory. In fact, any one of these adjustments could have carried the day, and all of them would have assured a Laker victory.

It is more than a little bit likely that the Blazers' hold over the Lakers in Portland would have ended today had Phil been up to the trip.

Get well soon, coach.