You were also wrong that they were built for the regular season. They've now won two series against two quality teams (the Bulls were clearly better than their record once healthy). They earned this 100%. Just because they haven't dominated every aspect of the game doesn't make what they've accomplished—best record in the conference, ECF appearance—any less impressive, which you seem to be suggesting.
No, winning two series is awesome. It's hard to do that in the NBA. I do think they'd have been eliminated by the Bulls if Rondo hadn't gotten hurt, but he did get hurt, and the Celtics won, and then they beat the Wizards. That's really good. They've gotten further than I thought they would, even though they probably should have won these two series.
And FWIW, no one is out there arguing that the Celtics are the most talented team in the NBA. No one. Even Stevens last night made clear that without KO going off that they probably don't win that game. So let's dispense with that particular straw man. No one thinks they are the "best" team in the NBA.
Yeah, I never claimed anything regarding the C's being the most talented team. That's not even a straw man in my imagination. Never brought that up.
But they are unquestionably one of the best coached and deepest – which thus far I think accounts for more in the playoffs than you acknowledged in your OP.
Yes, I acknowledged their depth in the OP - I think that, and Stevens, are their biggest strengths. I thought it would be reduced as a strength by (1) the adjusted schedule in the playoffs, and (2) shortened rotations, which can happen because of the adjusted schedule - i.e., no back-to-backs. But the depth really showed up last night for sure in a big way.
Rotations may get shorter but guys still can't play 48 minutes for 4-7 games. Wall was absolutely gassed by the 4th Q last night. That was the difference. And it was something that most of us were highlighting at the beginning of this series. And all things being equal, I don't think Brooks used his bench terribly effectively in this series, which contributed to their lack of depth. So score another one for Brad.
Yep, agreed.
Lastly, I also think the C's are among the toughest teams in the NBA. They aren't losing the rebound battles because of toughness, I'm sorry. They're losing it because of their size (and possibly their scheme as a function of having IT but that's another story). This is one of the toughest teams in the league – IT, Smart, Crowder are all really *tough* players, physically and mentally, a quality that has been essential to their overperformance relative to their talent. Perhaps you're just being defensive which I get. But as a high school coach, I would expect you to appreciate what they're doing despite their shortcomings not bemoaning the shortcomings themselves.
Yeah, I really didn't do a good job in my OP with respect to toughness, and I can see why it looked like I was questioning their overall toughness as a team. I think Bradley is very tough. I think Crowder and Smart and even IT are really tough players. I was talking more about rebounding toughness - they have been murdered on the glass in the playoffs, that is undeniable - and I don't think it's just "scheme" or "size". I DO appreciate what they're doing, for sure. I think they've done a great job in the playoffs.
So how about we adjust the title to reflect that they are built for the playoffs but that the jury on whether they are built for the championship is still out?
I have no idea how to change a thread title, but yeah that's fine with me.
If you had started a thread saying that Cs weren't built to win a championship, it would have gotten like 5 posts, most of them being, "Well, you're correct that the Cs don't have LBJ, Durant, or Curry so they are not likely to win the championship this year."
It doesn't take much basketball knowledge to figure that out.
It's hard to find a guy who can lead a team to a championship. Even if a team has the #1 pick, they have to have the #1 pick in the correct year and they have to make the correct choice. DA has done everything he could to maximize his chances. He has three lottery shots; he has cap space; and he has moveable assets. The rest is luck. And we'll find out pretty shortly whether DA will have obtained the guy who can lead the Cs to a championship.
Yep, which is why I have stated that I think they need another superstar to get to that next level. I still hold that opinion.
Being "built" for something is different than level of talent.
I think there is a discussion to be had about getting more out of the talent in the regular season, or whether against equivalent talent they would have a more difficult time in the playoffs. I don't think it's that interesting to just say "well they aren't as good as teams with LeBron, Kawhi, or Steph." No-one's going to really argue against that point.
This is a classic goalpost move. You started from a place where you could argue that the team overachieved, and was actually not as good as the other East playoff teams. There's a discussion there. We can talk about whether Stevens system handicaps them when the rotations shorten and everyone is more interested in playing defense and clogging up passing lanes. Now they've won two playoff series and it's "I only meant championship level." That's BS and uninteresting. If you only care about watching the team when they are Championship favorites then you are a front runner bandwagon guy. If you only care about being the guy who tells fans who are actually excited that they have false hopes then you're kind of a self-important douche. It sucks to be called out when you are wrong, sure, but only you can decide how to take it. Given the mood last night, that you chose to go with "yeah but RONDO!! REBOUNDS!!!11!!" tells us something about the honesty with which you are approaching the discussion.
I'm not remotely being dishonest in this conversation. Nor am I being a douche. I'm trying to explain my point of view. I've acknowledged that they've performed better than I anticipated given how I see this team with its relative strengths and weaknesses. I've admitted that I didn't think their depth - a strength in the regular season - would play up as well in the playoffs for reasons given above, but it has. I was wrong about that. I'm not sure how many times I need to say that before people agree that I'm admitting to having been wrong on that level.
In the OP I talked about winning a championship, so that's not at all a goalpost move.
I don't understand why you guys have to see this as an "all right" or "all wrong" kind of deal. I think I'm partially right and partially wrong. I don't know how that's "dishonest" or "being a douche". I think that's a fair assessment. And I've LOVED being wrong on the points where I've been wrong. I'm THRILLED that the Celtics have gotten this far.
And by the way, I didn't start this conversation last night. Someone, after the game, instead of just enjoying the win, decided to go here, so it was appropriate for me to respond. That's not being douchy, at least I don't think it is.
