I think that there have been adjustments made by both teams. The Cavs made an adjustment in really trying to take advantage of smaller guys in the post when they P&R. The Celtics have countered by immediately bringing big man help to guys like Rozier. The Cavs adjusted to THAT by running some action where, say, LeBron is backing Rozier down, who gets help from Horford, which leads to Rozier sprinting out to cover Love at the perimeter, and LeBron finds Love for open jumpers because the ball gets there faster than Rozier can. On the other end, the Celtics were far more purposeful about getting Horford the ball in the post. Interesting chess match.
But at the end of the day, the saying that the NBA is a "make or miss league" is true. It's been especially true with Cleveland's role players.
G1: Bos 108, Cle 83
Korver: 2-6 (1-5), 5 points
Smith: 2-9 (0-3), 4 points
Clarkson: 4-11 (1-2), 10 points
Hill: 2-4 (1-2), 5 points
TOT: 10-30 (3-12), 24 points
G2: Bos 107, Cle 94
Korver: 4-8 (2-5), 11 points
Smith: 0-7 (0-4), 0 points
Clarkson: DNP
Hill: 1-4 (0-2), 3 points
TOT: 5-19 (2-11), 14 points
G3: Bos 86, Cle 116
Korver: 5-5 (4-4), 14 points
Smith: 3-8 (3-4), 11 points
Clarkson: 3-11 (3-7), 9 points
Hill: 4-11 (3-9), 13 points
TOT: 15-35 (13-24), 47 points
G4: Bos 102, Cle 111
Korver: 4-7 (2-5), 14 points
Smith: 3-9 (3-6), 9 points
Clarkson: 0-0 (0-0), 0 points
Hill: 6-9 (1-3), 13 points
TOT: 13-25 (6-14), 36 points
G5: Bos 96, Cle 83
Korver: 2-6 (2-5), 7 points
Smith: 1-6 (0-4), 2 points
Clarkson: 3-10 (2-7), 8 points
Hill: 1-5 (0-0), 7 points
TOT: 7-27 (4-16), 24 points
So in Boston, these four guys have shot a combined 22-76 (28.9%), 9-39 (23.1%) from three point land, for a total of 62 points (5.2 points per game per guy).
In Cleveland, these four guys have shot a combined 28-60 (46.7%), 19-38 (50.0%) from three point land, for a total of 83 points (10.4 points per game per guy).
So far, it's been a "make or miss league" with the other adage of "role players play better at home than on the road" type of series. Dramatically so, in fact.