Game 1 of the 2022 NBA Finals was extremely entertaining. How about the Boston Celtics and Golden State Warriors give us another pulse-thumping masterpiece in Game 2?

Adjustments must be made by both sides to ensure this matchup remains a wire-to-wire shot of adrenaline not just Sunday night but also for what better be another six meetings. Some were already made throughout Game 1. They won't be the only ones. More are on the horizon, and we've got a few for Boston and Golden State to consider.

Proposing wholesale shifts to the way each squad plays is off the table. Especially this early. Jordan Poole will not be bounced from the Warriors rotation because of one bad game. Al Horford should not attempt 57 threes in Game 2, even if the Golden State defense continues to ignore his existence. So on and so forth.

This space will also steer clear of any tweaks already made—like the Celtics' realization that "Hey, maybe dropping light-years below the level of screens set on Stephen Curry isn't such a great idea!" Everything else is on the table.

Let the chess match commence. Or rather, continue.

Golden State can wax all it wants about how so many Boston shooters were left unattended by design and about how Al Horford (6-of-8), Derrick White (5-of-8) and Marcus Smart (4-of-7) won't combine to drill 65.2 percent of their threes every game. Both points are fair.

That still doesn't negate the failure and overall frailty of the Warriors defense.

Ball-watching consumed Golden State, particularly when Jayson Tatum handled the rock. Its closeouts were overaggressive, lending to Boston fakes and ball movement that put the Warriors in rotation, which ranged from halfhearted to nonexistent. Mostly, it was the latter.

Almost 45 percent of the Celtics' three-point attempts were open (17.6 percent) or wide-open (27.1 percent). The Warriors haven't exactly battened down the hatches beyond the arc in the playoffs, but this was an uptick relative to the norm. About 41 percent of their opponents' long-range looks had qualified as open or wide-open entering the Finals.

Clinging to who made the threes in Game 1 is fine—to an extent. Horford has dropped in 46.3 percent of his triples in the postseason, and just as the Celtics can't count on White and Smart to go supernova from downtown, the Warriors cannot assume Tatum and Jaylen Brown will finish a combined 3-of-13 from distance.

Putting more pressure on the shooters won't require a wholesale shift in concept. Golden State can try moving Draymond Green into primary actions against Brown or Tatum so he's not helping off Horford, or it can, collectively, not have so many backs turned to what's happening on the ball.

Playing two bigs is ingrained in the Celtics' identity, and it's also part of their defensive charm. Having both Al Horford and Robert Williams III on the floor forces offenses to slog through a half-court gauntlet. Get through Horford, and RW3 is likely ready to swallow your shot whole after rotating back toward the rim.

Still, Boston reached the pinnacle of its success in Game 1 by downsizing up front. Lineups with Horford, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum and no other big outscored Golden State by 23 points in 10 minutes. RW3 spent five minutes on the court with Brown and Tatum and without Horford, Daniel Theis or Grant Williams, most of which came in the fourth quarter. The Celtics outpaced the Warriors by eight points.

Horford is the preferred 5 in those scenarios, if only because he's more reliable when switching on higher screens. Williams still seems to be grappling with a left knee injury, though even he showed flashes of brilliant mobility in Game 1, including some highlight transition stops.

Leaning on either for solo time is fine. Horford as the lone big shifts the Celtics to five out, and both lineups arm the offense with four ball-handlers.

And aside from souping up the offense, these combos force the Warriors to counter. Do they leave Draymond Green and Kevon Looney on the court anyway? Downsize to the "Poole Party" lineup that was outscored by nine points in three minutes and gives the Boston offense more weak points to poke and prod? Do they try Otto Porter Jr. instead of Poole?

Golden State's lack of definitive answers incentivizes the Celtics to keep going smaller. For now, so does the alternative. Boston was outscored by 10 points and unable to keep the Warriors off the offensive glass in the 16 minutes Horford and Williams played together in Game 1. That isn't necessarily a harbinger of doom, but it's certainly a sign to hit the shrink-ray button more often Sunday night.

Demanding the Warriors avoid lineups with two non-shooters is too much for this exercise. They aren't just going to ditch the Draymond Green-Kevon Looney duo. It helped get them here and is part of their DNA. It also wasn't the problem in Game 1.

Golden State was plus-12 during the duo's 16 minutes Thursday. Getting away from that pairing is akin to slashing Looney's minutes. I'm not sure that's the answer when he grabbed six of the Warriors' 12 offensive rebounds.

Strictly calling for more small-ball units isn't too drastic but doesn't feel like a solution. The Poole Party combination struggled in Game 1 and hasn't been what you'd call an extended staple of the postseason. If Jordan Poole's offensive rut spills into Game 2, the Warriors can only justify playing him and Stephen Curry together on the defensive end for so long.

Cutting down the amount of time Andre Iguodala spends alongside Green is more specific and less dramatic. Even though Iggy was 3-of-4 from the floor, Boston didn't respect him as a shooter any more than Looney. Golden State was minus-six in their 12 minutes, half of which came without Curry.

That probably needs to stop. Stealing minutes with two non-shooters when Curry plays is hard enough. Attempting to do it without him, while Poole isn't shooting well and Iguodala looks overmatched defensively, verges on self-sabotage.

Maximizing the Robert Williams III minutes goes beyond downsizing for the Celtics. You can argue that playing him independent of Al Horford and Grant Williams hurts him. He may get a dab more breathing room to roll on offense, but it doesn't allow him to sit on the corners and torment opponents around the rim as easily—or at all.

RW3's job gets a lot more manageable, if not outright favorable, in these situations if the Celtics mirror his minutes with those of Andre Iguodala. As Steve Jones Jr. of The Dunker Spot podcast noted:

Felt like the Celtics found a matchup for Williams with Iguodala. Able to stay in place on the screen thanks to White, recovers to Iguodala, helps vs. Curry at the rim. <a href="https://t.co/KS7Jz348uA">pic.twitter.com/KS7Jz348uA</a>

Guarding Iguodala affords RW3 so much more flexibility than if he's tasked with tracking Andrew Wiggins, who is not only the more bankable shooter on most nights, but the Warriors are also more likely to sprinkle him into primary actions. They averaged 1.34 points per possession when Williams registered as a defender on Wiggins.

This stands in stark contrast to how well the Celtics fared when RW3 was on the court versus Iguodala. They won those six minutes by nine points. Most of that damage came during the beginning of the fourth quarter, but so long as Golden State doesn't entirely nix Iguodala's role, the overarching sentiment stands.

Sometimes, it really is this simple.

Calling for the Warriors to better navigate their minutes without Stephen Curry rings hollow. That's a big ask even when Jordan Poole has it rolling. They're better off minimizing the time they spend without him, period.

Curry, for his part, sounded on board with the plan when asked about it Thursday night, noting that "at most, we got six games left."

The degree to which the Warriors can extend his playing time is debatable. He logged 38 minutes in Game 1. Handing him another four or five would not be egregious—not at this stage of the season. Would Boston have made that early fourth quarter run if Steph were on the floor from the jump? (Note: Head coach Steve Kerr did bring him back earlier than usual after the Celtics went kaboom.)

Golden State also has the runway to expand floor time for Draymond Green (38 minutes) and Andrew Wiggins (35 minutes) if it sees fit. And if shortening the rotation is (inexplicably) out of the question, it might be time to unbox Nemanja Bjelica or test Gary Payton II's recovery from a fractured left elbow (assuming he's available).

Jayson Tatum just turned in one of the most offensively impactful 3-of-17 performances you'll ever see. His drives still commandeered the attention of the Warriors defense, and he made them pay with some basic and not-so-basic kick-outs that turned into a career-high 13 assists.

That Tatum can leave his imprint on a game in which he's not scoring at an astronomical clip is massive—and not something you could've said about him even months ago. It's also not sustainable. The Celtics will inevitably need their best scorer to be a scorer. Go figure.

Believing otherwise presumes Boston's non-stars will continuing drilling 1 trillion percent of their threes or that Golden State won't make any adjustments in its approach to him. (Related: Putting Draymond Green on Tatum should be an option.) Subscribing to either slant is just a fancy way of crossing your fingers.

Granted, the Celtics may not have to do anything to get Tatum going. He is a career shot-maker. He'll hit shots. And taking the ball out of his hands feels counterintuitive given his importance as a playmaker. But it would also allow the C's to get him moving away from the action and vary his usage.

The first of Tatum's three buckets came after he caught a pass from Al Horford following a Marcus Smart screen on Andrew Wiggins. Boston can also experiment with using Tatum as the screener to try to improve his looks inside the arc or create rosier mismatches. Jordan Poole spent some time guarding Derrick White in Game 1, and the Celtics were averaging 1.38 points per possession entering the Finals when Tatum screens for White. Food for thought.

Unless otherwise noted, stats courtesy of NBA.com, Basketball Reference, Stathead or Cleaning the Glass. Salary information via Spotrac.

Dan Favale covers the NBA for Bleacher Report. Follow him on Twitter (@danfavale), and subscribe to his Hardwood Knocks podcast.

The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.

The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.