Or TL. If two of those three break out significantly, things are suddenly looking much better for the C's.how good will the Cs be if both AN and RL pop next year?
Or TL. If two of those three break out significantly, things are suddenly looking much better for the C's.how good will the Cs be if both AN and RL pop next year?
When I was in college, I had a mid 70s MG convertible. Lovely car. Forest green, tan leather roof, 2 seater, wood dash and interior door panels (not wood grain, wood). Absolutely lovely car. Couldn't keep it on the road. British cars of that era were notoriously difficult to maintain. But I got one very cool summer out of it.Or TL. If two of those three break out significantly, things are suddenly looking much better for the C's.
Has it? From where I stand, even you say "accounting for age/injury/inexperience", you don't actually account for those things.
Isn't this going to be his role next year too though?Or another important one: when he has played, he's mostly been put in a role that doesn't suit him: low usage spot up shooter. That isn't what he was drafted to be or the reputation he had coming out of college.
I hope not. That role should belong to Nesmith.Isn't this going to be his role next year too though?
With a healthy offseason and a real preseason, the hope would be that our new coach will design a role for him in the offense that plays to his strengths. I don’t think Brad did that this year because he never really had the opportunity to and, obviously, designing a role for your 8th-12th man who isn’t healthy isn’t a high priority. Romeo just got slotted into the actions that had been designed for other role players like Ojeleye who shoot better but also lack any other offensive skills.Isn't this going to be his role next year too though?
You, Ben Hogan, and DeJesus were the guys I was thinking of when using the plural. It was easy for people to get down on Tatum after his second year struggles. But a lot of us saw the growing toolkit.
95% of the board has been predicting him to be a top 10 player a week into his career. Many thought he was already there before this season even started. This is some revisionist history.You, Ben Hogan, and DeJesus were the guys I was thinking of when using the plural. It was easy for people to get down on Tatum after his second year struggles. But a lot of us saw the growing toolkit.
most of this board wanted him shipped out for street clothes95% of the board has been predicting him to be a top 10 player a week into his career. Many thought he was already there before this season even started. This is some revisionist history.
We were talking about after the second season. Go back and a have a look, there were a lot of long faces around here and people calling for he and Brown to be packaged for another star to add to Irving and Hayward.95% of the board has been predicting him to be a top 10 player a week into his career. Many thought he was already there before this season even started. This is some revisionist history.
I dunno. I remember the Kobe stuff but I don't remember people lowering their overall opinion of Tatum. The board was mixed on Brown for the first 3 years and pretty down after year 3. And honestly, it feels kinda down on Brown right now too.We were talking about after the second season. Go back and a have a look, there were a lot of long faces around here and people calling for he and Brown to be packaged for another star to add to Irving and Hayward.
I tend not to have draft night takes. After I see a player in a few NBA games, I'll start to form an opinion. Summer league and preseason do not count. I'm guessing any negativity on Tatum draft night was due to his scouting reports which were totally wrong. "Hey, this 18/19 year old kid is pretty close to a finished product!"Brown you can understand as he’s been one of those classic Jimmy Butler stories where he’s worked his butt off at the NBA level to grow his game into star level production. Tatum’s obviously more of a natural (probably do to early work with Hanlen). On draft night I think I was about the only person here happy about the Tatum selection. (I’m not claiming to have forecast Fultz’s ensuing meltdown and Fultzing up his jumper, I just had them as interchangeable at the top spot on my board, and from Boston’s perspective was happy that they grabbed the 6’8” F.)
Nah, I’m wrong all the time so need to savor my winner #Tatum4EverThis is a results oriented forum (most discussion groups are because oddly enough humans tend to focus on results versus process). As such, people are going to react in real time to events. Many of those reactions are emotional and just flat out wrong. What value does going back over old takes offer? Except for *you* everyone on this board has been wrong at one time or another.
Back to Langford, I tend to follow actions rather than words. Given Stevens usage of him when he was available (availability being a Langford flaw thus far), I will be surprised if he isn't seen as a key rotational guy next season, absent a trade.
I watch waaaay too much college footage to get a handle on guys coming into the draft.I tend not to have draft night takes. After I see a player in a few NBA games, I'll start to form an opinion. Summer league and preseason do not count. I'm guessing any negativity on Tatum draft night was due to his scouting reports which were totally wrong. "Hey, this 18/19 year old kid is pretty close to a finished product!"
Scouting reports also tend to define athleticism as guys who can jump out of the gym.
I do recall a lot of posts during the first two months of his 2nd season when JT was struggling around the rim, he was shooting poorly within 3ft. His footwork, euro step and handle needed tweaking. Which he sorted out by Jan/Feb. There was a handful of "he'll be nothing more than a spot-up shooter and Reggie Miller upside claims".We were talking about after the second season. Go back and a have a look, there were a lot of long faces around here and people calling for he and Brown to be packaged for another star to add to Irving and Hayward.
As far as JT as a top 10 player, give me a healthy season without COVID/inhalers. He was a stick figure after he came back. When he adds 5-10lbs of muscle that's going to put him on the FT line all game long. I'd bet Hanlen/JT crack that code this summer95% of the board has been predicting him to be a top 10 player a week into his career. Many thought he was already there before this season even started. This is some revisionist history.
Btw, apologies. The *you* wasn't YOU. It was a poke at all of us. We are all flawed, just like Romeo Langford.Nah, I’m wrong all the time so need to savor my winner #Tatum4Ever
Shhhhh.... people dont want to hear that.Just perusing basketball reference.
Of all players drafted in the 1st round in 2019, Langford has scored the fewest points and has played the 4th fewest minutes. He also has the lowest FG% and 3P%
Hey now. I’m a much better shooter than Romeo Langford.Btw, apologies. The *you* wasn't YOU. It was a poke at all of us. We are all flawed, just like Romeo Langford.
Are we really using counting stats to project upside? Is this 1974?Just perusing basketball reference.
Of all players drafted in the 1st round in 2019, Langford has scored the fewest points and has played the 4th fewest minutes. He also has the lowest FG% and 3P%
Yeah, this is just getting dumb.Are we really using counting stats to project upside? Is this 1974?
It actually surprises me, because it wasn’t that long ago when half of the players drafted in the first round wouldn’t play at all. I suppose it’s a consequence of star players going from 40 MPG to 30.Just perusing basketball reference.
Of all players drafted in the 1st round in 2019, Langford has scored the fewest points and has played the 4th fewest minutes. He also has the lowest FG% and 3P%
Of all players drafted in the 1st round in 2019, Langford has scored the fewest points and has played the 4th fewest minutes. He also has the lowest FG% and 3P%
That, of course, is a straw man argument that no one is making.Brad just couldn't find the right role for him, remember? Plus the "eye test".
I think it would be equally concerning if a young player missed his first two seasons entirely.That, of course, is a straw man argument that no one is making.
Question: Would people feel better about Langford if he hadn't played at all and thus had no terrible numbers to look at? I think the answer is 'yes', people would feel better about it, because a blank slate is better too look at than Langford's actual numbers.* But I don't think there's a substantive difference between the two, other than an indication that numbers aside the coach did have some minimal level of trust in him.
* Not counting his playoff numbers against Brooklyn, because those were decent enough that no one would be dismissing him as a prospect over them.
If you take the last 2 games, it's a point every less than 2.5 minutes. and at the end of the day, if RL is making 35% of 3Ps next year, he's going to get a lot of minutes (assuming he's healthy).Romeo’s playoff offense this season was ok for a defensive specialist - a point every three minutes on 40/35% shooting, with over half his shots coming from behind the arc.
If he can stay on the court next season, and bump up his shooting percentage a bit from his playoff numbers, he could be an 8th man type rotation piece.
The question is should the Celtics be waiting to develop contributors like Romeo, or just sign minimum salary vets to plug in to the back of the rotation.
I'm guessing 99% of us would actually think WORSE of him for missing the first 2 years and would write him off completely. Do you not remember Joel Embiid?That, of course, is a straw man argument that no one is making.
Question: Would people feel better about Langford if he hadn't played at all and thus had no terrible numbers to look at? I think the answer is 'yes', people would feel better about it, because a blank slate is better too look at than Langford's actual numbers.* But I don't think there's a substantive difference between the two, other than an indication that numbers aside the coach did have some minimal level of trust in him.
* Not counting his playoff numbers against Brooklyn, because those were decent enough that no one would be dismissing him as a prospect over them.
I think with Embiib there were more compelling reasons to think his health issues were career threatening or ending.I'm guessing 99% of us would actually think WORSE of him for missing the first 2 years and would write him off completely. Do you not remember Joel Embiid?
Maybe but how many players have missed their first 2 years in the NBA due to injury and gone on to really do anything? There's one example I can think of.I think with Embiib there were more compelling reasons to think his health issues were career threatening or ending.
I prefer the Cs going the development route. If you develop them, you also eventually have to give them massive raises, or watch them sign elsewhere. In hindsight, if the Celtics just held on to two of the young players they developed, Rozier and Olynyk, they might still be playing.If you take the last 2 games, it's a point every less than 2.5 minutes. and at the end of the day, if RL is making 35% of 3Ps next year, he's going to get a lot of minutes (assuming he's healthy).
The easiest path for the Cs to get better is to develop AN or RL. (Note that Khris Middleton thinks AN will be an All-Star). One year minimum salary guys are a crap shoot and worse, you either have to find them year after year or you have to give them massive raises.
I did not utter a word about upside in my post. I just posted some interestign things I found on b-ref regarding just how little and how poorly he shot the ball.Are we really using counting stats to project upside? Is this 1974?
This is the EXACT augment some are making. Wrong role for him and he looks better than the stats.That, of course, is a straw man argument that no one is making.
Question: Would people feel better about Langford if he hadn't played at all and thus had no terrible numbers to look at? I think the answer is 'yes', people would feel better about it, because a blank slate is better too look at than Langford's actual numbers.* But I don't think there's a substantive difference between the two, other than an indication that numbers aside the coach did have some minimal level of trust in him.
* Not counting his playoff numbers against Brooklyn, because those were decent enough that no one would be dismissing him as a prospect over them.
When you say blank slate, do you mean like a freshly drafted player or a blank slate due to missing 2 seasons of play because of injury?And yes, blank slate would be better. Then we would have more unknown and leaves open the possibility that his early offensive nba career isn’t terrible.
Does Michael Porter Jr. qualify?Do people have any examples of players missing that much time at the beginning of their careers due to injury that went on to be worth something outside of Embiid?
So you were being a master baiter then?I did not utter a word about upside in my post. I just posted some interestign things I found on b-ref regarding just how little and how poorly he shot the ball.
I am sure there were PHI fans still very excited at the prospect of Zaire Smith in the summer of 2020. We would have found their takes to be a bit overzealous, don't you think?
My main point is that I don't think player development is linear or strongly predictable. If you are going to call Langford's first 2 years the equivalent of 10 bad data points out of the 100 you need to make a judgment, I don't think that gets you very far without making some unwarranted assumptions. Especially when there are factors in play that include some factors that are atypical of the NBA (covid and no offseason).If you need 100 data points to reach statistic significance for a positive effect, you’d feel better about 0 data and 100 unknown data points than 10 bad data points and 90 unknown ones.
Not technically but I'll allow it.Does Michael Porter Jr. qualify?
Another data point: The Celtics got 616 mostly forgettable minutes out of their two 2015 #1 draft picks. One of the two was maybe marginally better by the numbers although both were quite terrible. Celtics cut one of them, the one with marginally better numbers, after the following training camp and he never amounted to anything (RJ Hunter). The other began to carve out a role for himself the following year and now gets paid an awful lot of money to play NBA basketball (Terry Rozier). Moral of the story:Zaire Smith never showed the ability to compete against NBA level players. Romeo’s awful numbers are primarily due to his training camp occurring against NBA experienced players already in mid-season form. Once he got up to speed there was a pretty significant leap.....at least from my “eyes.”
Rozier was picked 16th, Hunter 28th. They were also both terrible their rookie seasons and Rozier was younger. It's not a surprise at all they kept Rozier.Another data point: The Celtics got 616 mostly forgettable minutes out of their two 2015 #1 draft picks. One of the two was maybe marginally better by the numbers although both were quite terrible. Celtics cut one of them, the one with marginally better numbers, after the following training camp and he never amounted to anything (RJ Hunter). The other began to carve out a role for himself the following year and now gets paid an awful lot of money to play NBA basketball (Terry Rozier). Moral of the story:
1. Sometimes teams know how to evaluate the value of their players.
2. Neither guy had to deal with some of the stuff that Langford has had to deal with.
Now, one could say that the gap opened up a little earlier than that, with Rozier making some positive contribution in the playoffs that year while Hunter crapped all over himself in the same series. But we could also say that (positive contribution) about Langford this year.
I can't think of any but the conclusion I get is that Romeo's career may be dersiled by health, not that he can't perform at a NBA level.Do people have any examples of players missing that much time at the beginning of their careers due to injury that went on to be worth something outside of Embiid?
Yeah, I'm just arguing the "blank slate after missing 2 full years due to injury" vs "ugly slate missing parts of 2 years with injury" scenario someone else brought up. I pick the latter every single time. I'd pretty much write the former off and would be shocked if he ever saw the court.I can't think of any but the conclusion I get is that Romeo's career may be dersiled by health, not that he can't perform at a NBA level.
Also, it should be noted that in two normal seasons, RL's wrist injury wouldn't have cost him 1/2 of the next season. the truncated schedules make a difference between RL and other players.
It’s obviously an incomplete hypothetical without the details of why someone could possibly miss 2 seasons.Yeah, I'm just arguing the "blank slate after missing 2 full years due to injury" vs "ugly slate missing parts of 2 years with injury" scenario someone else brought up. I pick the latter every single time. I'd pretty much write the former off and would be shocked if he ever saw the court.
The team was processing its way to high lottery picks.It’s obviously an incomplete hypothetical without the details of why someone could possibly miss 2 seasons.