https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/what-is-fourniers-gangreneI’ve seen that a few times, and have no clue.
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/what-is-fourniers-gangreneI’ve seen that a few times, and have no clue.
The short answer is that no information can be better than flawed information.Giving nearly zero weight to player's first 650 NBA minutes is very strange to me, I'll be honest.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Very much agree. Admittedly, perhaps that flawed information is in my eye test, or perhaps (as I do believe) it’s the statistical analysis of a talented but often discombobulated young player on a talented but often discombobulated young team.The short answer is that no information can be better than flawed information.
If it were certain that his low usage was due to a lack of ability to make offesive plays in the NBA, then I think it would be completely fair to judge him harshly. But it is almost certainy due, in large part, to deferring to better teammates and not having enough practice time, especially this year.Very much agree. Admittedly, perhaps that flawed information is in my eye test, or perhaps (as I do believe) it’s the statistical analysis of a talented but often discombobulated young player on a talented but often discombobulated young team.
So the TL: DR version is he can shoot in garbage time.If it were certain that his low usage was due to a lack of ability to make offesive plays in the NBA, then I think it would be completely fair to judge him harshly. But it is almost certainy due, in large part, to deferring to better teammates and not having enough practice time, especially this year.
In his first 228 minutes of the regular season, he attempted 43 shots from the field (30%) and 4 free throws.
In his last 55 minutes of the regular season, with the Celtics resting almost every top player, he attempted 16 shots from the field (50%) and 8 free throws.
Then came the play-in game, all the starters except Brown were back, and he got 14 minutes and attempted only one shot.
Or he can shoot when he gets the opportunity.Yeah,
So the TL: DR version is he can shoot in garbage time.
No, but thanks for the substance-free drive-by.So the TL: DR version is he can shoot in garbage time.
There are always going to be better offensive players on the floor than Romeo Langford unless it's in garbage time.No, but thanks for the substance-free drive-by.
You clearly have a bias for tall guys who can shoot, even if they can't do anything else. Some people have a bias for guys who can initiate offense or play defense or do other things well.There are always going to be better offensive players on the floor than Romeo Langford unless it's in garbage time.
His only opportunity to shoot where he isn't the 5th option is garbage time.
You said it yourself, he doesn't shoot when the top players are out there. He only shoots when there are bums.
If Romeo Langford was on any other team, people would be a lot more harsh on Romeo Langford. This board trashes on people like Obi.
Not really. I have a bias towards 2s who can actually shoot the ball and add some value on offense. Langford is not even close to being a playmaker yet and may never get there. I doubt he gets to an acceptable level by the end of his contract, never mind next season.You clearly have a bias for tall guys who can shoot, even if they can't do anything else. Some people have a bias for guys who can initiate offense or play defense or do other things well.
If Romeo's role next year is tall, ballhandling, defensive 1-stopper on the second unit, and he's productive at that, that's a way more valuable player than Toppin who was garbage as a 22yo rookie.
His % rates on RBD, AST, and Steals aren't great. His Block% is 9th on the team, ahead of every other non-big but NG and GW (surprisingly).Romeo Langford also doesn't rebound, pass, steal or block.
He's still the youngest player on the team. And frankly, if RL had played like a top 5 pick (which he probably would have been pre-injury or even if he had sat out the rest of his freshman season), the Cs wouldn't be able to afford him when he got to RFA.
The whole Romeo debate here is whether his limited NBA experience is indicative of his future value. I mean there's no one here arguing that Romeo's is producing valueable wing offense. Rather than engage with the question, you simply assume your opinion on it is correct and then enage in drive-by posting to shit on those of us who have a different view.Not really. I have a bias towards 2s who can actually shoot the ball and add some value on offense. Langford is not even close to being a playmaker yet and may never get there. I doubt he gets to an acceptable level by the end of his contract, never mind next season.
All of his rate stats are terrible too, and he flat lined from last year. The only hope I see from Romeo is playing time.
He spent his abbreviated offseason rehabbing after wrist surgery, missed training camp, then had Covid, and when he finally did return it was to a team that has had very limited opportunities to practice as a team. Whatever expectations you have of year-over-year improvement by young NBA players were not based on circumstances like that.I was all aboard the Romeo bandwagon until he actually returned. He did not improve at all.
Something tells me if there was a “re-draft” of 2019, teams would put at least a moderate amount of weight on what players have done in the NBA. Both the good and the bad.The short answer is that no information can be better than flawed information.
You post stuff like this frequently, that you think people here "overrate" defense, which feels like a bizarre position to take. People here, correctly, realize that defense correlates with winning championships. I don't think any team that was outside of the top 10 in defensive rating has won a title in the last 20 years. The worst defensive team in recent memory to win a title was probably the 2015-2016 Cavs, and they were still in the top 10 in defensive rating and 4th in points allowed. Maybe Brooklyn will be the exception, but that's not exactly a realistic model for team building.Not really. I have a bias towards 2s who can actually shoot the ball and add some value on offense. Langford is not even close to being a playmaker yet and may never get there. I doubt he gets to an acceptable level by the end of his contract, never mind next season.
I think this board heavily favors players who are better on defense than offense. It's the only thing that explains last year's love affair with Grant Williams to me.
Of course you are going to say that. Romeo as you mention was top 5 in his recruiting class. He played something like six games in college before injuring his thumb. As this article points out, in his only two games against high-level competition — NCAA tournament No. 5 seed Marquette and NIT-bound Arkansas — Romeo averaged 22 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 3.5 apg, two steals and 1.5 blocks.That's a huge stretch. He was 5th in his HS recruiting class. Bol Bol was 6th. Players fall.
But yes, he can defend. So as is, he's a situational role player at worst. I think he ends up an ok player but it won't be on the Celtics and we won't cry over it.
As Brad said when asked about playing Parker, "We needed points."To finish up on my Romeo thoughts, on a night where we got little offensively from either Kemba or Fournier, and where Kemba is probably on some PT limit, and where many here believe Romeo is the Celts best on the ball defender, why against a team with two high-powered scoring guards, did he Romeo sit? I get it that his offense his nil, but maybe some defensive disruptions, etc would have been net (so to speak) positive.
I actually think it is very understandable. The Celtics were reasonably effective on defense but came up very far short on offense. But Langford's value at this point is defense. So he wasn't really a fit. Nesmith and Parker were each better bets to provide offense than Langford, so they played and he did not.I'm sort of neutral on Romeo, (I want him to suceed, but I haven't seen enough to convince myself he will) but I didn't understand last night's DNP.
Good things there are no "re-drafts" in the NBA.Something tells me if there was a “re-draft” of 2019, teams would put at least a moderate amount of weight on what players have done in the NBA. Both the good and the bad.
The idea that we should ignore it because it’s incomplete or might not tell the whole picture I think is not how any team or scout would go about it. More information always moves the needle to some degree.
Just because Romeo has reasonable excuses for sucking doesn’t mean we get to pretend it didn’t happen at all.
You can get points 2 ways. Scoring and defending-disrupting.As Brad said when asked about playing Parker, "We needed points."
Romeo wasn't going to help in this game because there was someone else they could ISO. Particularly with TL only going 20-ish minutes.
Not playing good enough defense wasn’t the problem last night. They defended really well. But they shot 37% from the field. You don’t win upset games shooting under 40%. Romeo isn’t the guy that helps you shoot better either. Tatum, Kemba, and Fournier need to make shots for this team to win and none of them did.To finish up on my Romeo thoughts, on a night where we got little offensively from either Kemba or Fournier, and where Kemba is probably on some PT limit, and where many here believe Romeo is the Celts best on the ball defender, (not me, though I like his energy) why against a team with two high-powered scoring guards, did Romeo sit? I get it that his offense his nil, but maybe some defensive disruptions, etc would have been net (so to speak) positive.
Maybe I wasn't clear. BRK was targeting several below-average defenders on virtually every trip down the court. BRK was switching TT or KW or JP onto Harden or KD. What use would RL have in that situation? How is he going to contribute to reducing points when he's off ball trying to figure out when and how he should help/rotate.You can get points 2 ways. Scoring and defending-disrupting.
Again I'm not killing Brad's decisions, just surprised on a night when his best guard options had way off nights, Romeo sat.
I'm on the Romeo train, but the team played good defense last night and needed scoring in the worst possible way.You can get points 2 ways. Scoring and defending-disrupting.
Again I'm not killing Brad's decisions, just surprised on a night when his best guard options had way off nights, Romeo sat.
Good things there are no "re-drafts" in the NBA.
I'm not really sure what your point is here. I think everyone agrees that RL has put up poor offensive numbers this season and last.
So what?
They were both not good last night. That doesn’t change the fact that the team needs their offense to compete. Their offense wasn’t there last night, but putting in a player that’s guaranteed to be bad offensively doesn’t solve that problem. It’s like if Tom Brady was having an off game throwing the ball and the running game is working so the game is close, you don’t play Michael Bishop in the second half because he’s better at moving outside the pocket.I guess you guys were more impressed with Kemba and Fournier's contributions last night than I was.
I thought there was little downside to getting fresh legs in there.
YMMV
Or its recognizing that maybe you can switch a -10 player for a -20 guy, who's having a brutal night and it might produce a net positive result.They were both not good last night. That doesn’t change the fact that the team needs their offense to compete. Their offense wasn’t there last night, but putting in a player that’s guaranteed to be bad offensively doesn’t solve that problem. It’s like if Tom Brady was having an off game throwing the ball and the running game is working so the game is close, you don’t play Michael Bishop in the second half because he’s better at moving outside the pocket.
I'm sure they would. But, a redraft is an evaluation of where a player stands relative to his draft class peers. Many of those players now have a more complete record on which to be judged than does Romeo. That added certainty has value.Something tells me if there was a “re-draft” of 2019, teams would put at least a moderate amount of weight on what players have done in the NBA. Both the good and the bad.
Your framing here ("excuses") is unnecessarily pejorative.The idea that we should ignore it because it’s incomplete or might not tell the whole picture I think is not how any team or scout would go about it. More information always moves the needle to some degree.
Just because Romeo has reasonable excuses for sucking doesn’t mean we get to pretend it didn’t happen at all.
There wasn't much reason to think that putting Langford in was going to help the team score points. I would have bet more heavily on either of them turning things around offensive than on Langford. (Kemba actually did, though way too late to matter.)I guess you guys were more impressed with Kemba and Fournier's contributions last night than I was.
I thought there was little downside to getting fresh legs in there.
Of course they would. The question becomes how much they would trust the analytics versus traditional scouting.Something tells me if there was a “re-draft” of 2019, teams would put at least a moderate amount of weight on what players have done in the NBA.
When the defense comes attached to a player who can't play offense at all, it is overrated. People were making Grant Williams out to be some savant who was supposed to be the next Draymond Green. That is people overrating defense. Both sides of the floor count. People on here seem to ignore that. They also hate strong offense/ weak defense players. They have a role too.You post stuff like this frequently, that you think people here "overrate" defense, which feels like a bizarre position to take. People here, correctly, realize that defense correlates with winning championships. I don't think any team that was outside of the top 10 in defensive rating has won a title in the last 20 years. The worst defensive team in recent memory to win a title was probably the 2015-2016 Cavs, and they were still in the top 10 in defensive rating and 4th in points allowed. Maybe Brooklyn will be the exception, but that's not exactly a realistic model for team building.
You also want to accuse folks of overrating Celtics prospects, but Grant Williams isn't a great example. Grant looked decent last year, and posters had a generally positive opinion. This year he has mostly looked awful and people have shifted their opinion. This isn't a green teamer forum, if anything, this board errs on the side of being intensely cynical of Celtics prospects and overrating prospects on other teams (usually based on stuff like raw 3 point percentage).
Why does it have to be one or the other? Anyone who bases their opinion solely on one or the other is by definition using incomplete information. There are always going to be mitigating factors in every players evaluation......it’s up to the evaluator to identify these clues and weigh them properly.Of course they would. The question becomes how much they would trust the analytics versus traditional scouting.
CC you create false narratives to support your hyperbole.When the defense comes attached to a player who can't play offense at all, it is overrated. People were making Grant Williams out to be some savant who was supposed to be the next Draymond Green. That is people overrating defense. Both sides of the floor count. People on here seem to ignore that. They also hate strong offense/ weak defense players. They have a role too.
And Grant did not look good last year. He sucked. You can all keep telling yourself he was good though.
Offensively, does Romeo rate well by analytics or traditional scouting?Of course they would. The question becomes how much they would trust the analytics versus traditional scouting.
CC you create false narratives to support your hyperbole.
Many here, myself included, liked the fact GW as a rookie did not look lost playing D last year and earned crunch time minutes late in the season. PERIOD. That was it. The hope I assume for many was that he would get better in year 2. He didn't.
Last year, he played well on D, could guard several positions, on a team that last year was a pretty decent defensive team. And many rookies look lost on D coming into the NBA that he didn't was viewed as a positive.Not looking lost on D is not being good or having a good year. So was he good or did he simply not look lost? He did not look lost, he just wasn't good.
Just like he earned his minutes this year. Health had nothing to do with it.Last year, he played well on D, could guard several positions, on a team that last year was a pretty decent defensive team. And many rookies look lost on D coming into the NBA that he didn't was viewed as a positive.
You can twist this however you like but he earned his minutes last year.
I gave some factors a couple of months ago I thought might explain his regression, in particular limited bubble play to '20-'21 season turnaround time, no real off-season, and not getting into game shape. I have hope a normal off-season and routine may help for him next year.But whatever it is, it does not mitigate the aggressive false narratives and hyperbole you seem to rely on.Just like he earned his minutes this year. Health had nothing to do with it.
Or maybe I just have a different opinion than you? I'm sorry I have a negative outlook on Grant Williams and thought he was a bad player in his rookie season. You are the one dismissing a take as false and aggressive because you disagree with it.I gave some factors a couple of months ago I thought might explain his regression, in particular limited bubble play to '20-'21 season turnaround time, no real off-season, and not getting into game shape. I have hope a normal off-season and routine may help for him next year.But whatever it is, it does not mitigate the aggressive false narratives and hyperbole you seem to rely on.
You too. Go make some non aggressive posts about Evan Fournier now.Always fun chatting with you CC.
mon dieu!You too. Go make some non aggressive posts about Evan Fournier now.
mon dieu!
Fournier?
Dude go to facts from time to time. The hyperbole heavy patois you rely on is a little thivk..
Unless I have an alter ego here, I don't think I've posted 10 words about Fournier in his entire NBA career.How is it hyperbole? Do you think Grant Williams and Romeo Langford have been good to date in their NBA careers? They've been awful. Even if you are one of the people who thinks Grant Williams was good his rookie year... he was so bad this year that it more than negates his rookie season.
If you want to make excuses for the results, that's fine. Some of the excuses are even valid. It doesn't change the fact they've both been awful to date. How is that hyperbolic?
And yes Fournier. You made an entire thread about him after 3 or 4 games ignoring the rest of his entire career. That is hyperbolic. I'm not focusing on 3-4 games. I'm focusing on Grant and Langford's entire career to date. They have been awful. I'm sorry you have a hard time accepting that FACT.