Do the Celtics have any players who are very good?

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,626
39
That's what she said.
Isaiah got another tech tonight. He is close to being suspended a game. Does that carry over into the playoffs?

Another point about good Celtic players on this team; Smart has become a fantastic rebounder. He is second amongst guards in offensive rebounding only to Russell Westbrook. And in the small sample size Rozier looks far above average at rebounding. Good times and good players on this team.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
Terry Rozier is quickly earning his way into this thread. He's always had all the physical tools and now that he's getting consistent second unit minutes the game is slowing down for him and he's figuring out how to use his physical gifts to be productive.

His leap over the past month is making Evan Turner's return even more unlikely than it already was.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
Terry Rozier is quickly earning his way into this thread. He's always had all the physical tools and now that he's getting consistent second unit minutes the game is slowing down for him and he's figuring out how to use his physical gifts to be productive.

His leap over the past month is making Evan Turner's return even more unlikely than it already was.
His shooting percentage going into tonight's game was .258. Despite his obvious talents he has to do better than that.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
His shooting percentage going into tonight's game was .258. Despite his obvious talents he has to do better than that.
I think he'll be fine as he has a nice stroke, soft touch and good mechanics. He reminds me a lot of Chauncey Billups when he came out of Colorado in everything he does......and it took Billups 4 years for the game to slow down enough to get his FG% out of the 30's. I'd say Rozier is the more explosive athlete and Billups the more fluid offensively but they have a lot of similarities in being scoring 1's who can also play off the ball.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
20,947
47
Melrose, MA
Terry Rozier is quickly earning his way into this thread. He's always had all the physical tools and now that he's getting consistent second unit minutes the game is slowing down for him and he's figuring out how to use his physical gifts to be productive.

His leap over the past month is making Evan Turner's return even more unlikely than it already was.
Rozier's emergence puts the C's in the position of having 4 guards who demand minutes. I suppose in the short term they can go with some small lineups, Smart taking Turner's minutes at the 3 if (more like when) Evan moves on, but I wonder if someone gets dealt. (I'd think that Bradley would have significant value to certain teams).
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
It seems that there is a consensus that IT is very good. Does anyone else on the Celtics deserve that rating? Jae Crowder? Avery Bradley?

While that term is necessarily vague, let me try to define is as someone who would be either a starter or a sixth man on a championship team and a serious contributor to its success. Thoughts?
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
20,947
47
Melrose, MA
Crowder strikes me as a guy who could be the 4th/5th/6th man on a lot of championship teams. (For perspective, the 4-5-6 on the 2008 Celtics were Rondo, Perk, and Posey).

Bradley, too, on some teams. That Bradley has PG size but not PG vision and ball handling limits him, but he'd still fit well on a team that could handle those issues. (I think he'd be great on, say, a Houston type team with a 2 guard who runs the offense).
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,930
36
East Village, NYC
Visit site
I think IT is a really solid player, being used correctly, on a great contract. I'm not sure I'd say he's "very good"--but I am, admittedly, sort of splitting hairs. He's a huge bargain, and a really, really good offensive player.

That said, Jae Crowder is the Celtics best player and I'm not sure it's even particularly close. He doesn't really have any weaknesses in his game, is a solid offensive player, great defensive player, and at 25 should just be entering his prime playing (primarily) a position that's very shallow across the league.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
47
I think the definition of very good is far too vague. How many very good players do you think are in the league? Is it an average of one per team, with many teams having none?

There are 180 starters+sixth men. Let's say that anyone who isn't top 6 in the rotation isn't "very good" yet. Is the median guy in the league 180? So "average" might be 150-210, "good" might be 50-150, "very good" 50 and above? I realize there isn't actually a bell curve of talent in the league, just making the point.

As for the Celtics, they will win between 47 and 49 games this year. They have a few too many bad losses (especially that stupid Lakers game, and losing 2 to BKN (I understand HRB's matchup argument)) but have also been competitive against the top teams in the league. So, it's kind of hard to take on face value that they have no "very good" players, but again, this gets into definitions.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,239
Newton
Crowder strikes me as a guy who could be the 4th/5th/6th man on a lot of championship teams. (For perspective, the 4-5-6 on the 2008 Celtics were Rondo, Perk, and Posey).
Understand it isn't apples to apples since they had KG/Pierce/Ray in the 1-2-3 roles and obviously he isn't a center. But it's hard to see how Crowder isn't a better, more complete player than Perk or Posey, who was the definition of a sixth man. The guy would be a third or fourth guy at worst on most championship teams. He's the 2 guy here at worst by virtue of there being less scoring talent.

But let's not talk about him as some complementary player were he on a better team. Crowder would be every bit as essential on, say, a Popovich coached team.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
I'm not an expert in statistics by any means, but note that Basketball Reference ascribes a VORP of 3.1 to IT; 2.8 to Jae Crowder; and 1.3 to Avery Bradley. IT's defense is rated as a significant negative, but his offensive numbers swamp the defense. Measured by BPM, Jae edges out IT 3.1 to 3.0. My eyes tell me that Avery Bradley is closer to those two than he is to, say, Marcus Smart (VORP 1.1).

PER places IT (21.6) much higher than Jae (16.2) or Avery (13.1), My spidey sense tells me that VORP is measuring these players better than PER.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,321
Bradley, too, on some teams. That Bradley has PG size but not PG vision and ball handling limits him, but he'd still fit well on a team that could handle those issues. (I think he'd be great on, say, a Houston type team with a 2 guard who runs the offense).
On a PF who runs the office, like that mistake by the lake. . . .
 

GreenMonster49

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
333
www.kmarx.com
Isaiah got another tech tonight. He is close to being suspended a game. Does that carry over into the playoffs?
The technical foul totals reset at the start of the playoffs:
https://turnernbahangtime.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/official-nba-rule-book-2015-16.pdf, pages 42-43

a. The following progressive technical foul and ejection schedules will apply.
(1) REGULAR SEASON
Technical Fouls 1-5: $2,000 fine each
Technical Fouls 6-10: $3,000 fine each
Technical Fouls 11-15: $4,000 fine each (with a warning letter sent when the violator reaches his 10th technical foul)
Technical Foul 16: $5,000 fine plus one-game suspension
Each Additional Technical Foul: $5,000 fine
Each Two Additional Technical Fouls (18, 20, 22, etc.): $5,000 fine plus one-game suspension

(2) PLAYOFFS
Technical Fouls 1-2: $2,000 fine each
Technical Fouls 3-4: $3,000 fine each
Technical Fouls 5-6: $4,000 fine each (with a warning letter sent when the violator reaches his 5th technical foul)
Technical Foul 7: $5,000 fine plus one-game suspension
Each Additional Technical Foul: $5,000 fine
Each Two Additional Technical Fouls (9, 11, 13, etc.): $5,000 fine plus one-game suspension
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,306
Crowder strikes me as a guy who could be the 4th/5th/6th man on a lot of championship teams. (For perspective, the 4-5-6 on the 2008 Celtics were Rondo, Perk, and Posey).

Bradley, too, on some teams. That Bradley has PG size but not PG vision and ball handling limits him, but he'd still fit well on a team that could handle those issues. (I think he'd be great on, say, a Houston type team with a 2 guard who runs the offense).
I know Ainge loves him and that Bradley can be useful, but he lacks the versatility of a really good shooting guard on both ends of the floor. He's hell on point guards when he's engaged, but he has trouble with bigger 2's and can't guard 3's for any sustained portion of time. I've been impressed with the strides he's made offensively -- he has a real crossover now, has shown minor competence in the p&r, and has even managed to finish at the rim occasionally -- but I'm only impressed because he was once so bad. He still does stupid shit and misses easy layups all the time.

Crowder is the better offensive player and he can guard 1-4, with the caveat the 4's obviously give him trouble w/r/t size. Almost every top team has a player with his defensive capability -- a team like the Clippers would kill to have him over Jeff Green.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
I think the definition of very good is far too vague. How many very good players do you think are in the league? Is it an average of one per team, with many teams having none?

There are 180 starters+sixth men. Let's say that anyone who isn't top 6 in the rotation isn't "very good" yet. Is the median guy in the league 180? So "average" might be 150-210, "good" might be 50-150, "very good" 50 and above? I realize there isn't actually a bell curve of talent in the league, just making the point.

As for the Celtics, they will win between 47 and 49 games this year. They have a few too many bad losses (especially that stupid Lakers game, and losing 2 to BKN (I understand HRB's matchup argument)) but have also been competitive against the top teams in the league. So, it's kind of hard to take on face value that they have no "very good" players, but again, this gets into definitions.
I'd go for "Top 50 in the League" as a good line of demarcation for "very good". James Posey and Perk wouldn't qualify; 1986 Bill Walton, a 6th man, would.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
Using top 50 in the league as a requirement, and looking at VORP, we have IT as #20 in the league, Jae Crowder at #24 and Amir Johnson (!) at #49. Jared Sullinger (85) beats out Avery (95).

Looking at PER, we have IT (30), Jae (126) and Amir (134).

Either way, IT is in the top 50. The differences between PER and VORP for Jae and Amir are huge and beyond my comprehension. Personally, I'd say that Jae is on the bubble of very good, and Amir is simply good.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
31,154
57
Haiku
I'd say that Crowder and Bradley are good players, and better on a team built around a trapping defensive scheme where all players need to participate; and they both have great contracts, making them excellent assets. That's very good enough.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,385
Using top 50 in the league as a requirement, and looking at VORP, we have IT as #20 in the league, Jae Crowder at #24 and Amir Johnson (!) at #49. Jared Sullinger (85) beats out Avery (95).

Looking at PER, we have IT (30), Jae (126) and Amir (134).

Either way, IT is in the top 50. The differences between PER and VORP for Jae and Amir are huge and beyond my comprehension. Personally, I'd say that Jae is on the bubble of very good, and Amir is simply good.
VORP is a counting stat, so it's reflective of minutes played, as well as how well you play. PER is a rate stat, and thus independent of minutes, but depends mostly on offensive stats and rebounding.

RPM would seem to have the best shot at capturing your overall impact on the game, and ranks the Celtics thus:

Sullinger (21)
Crowder (23)
Olynyk (27)
Johnson (48)
Thomas (69)
Smart (102)
Jerebko (163)
Bradley (188)
Turner (299)
Zeller (361)

Can't say that list really makes any more sense than any of the others though. To say that Thomas is very good, Crowder on the cusp, and a bunch of other guys are good seems to me to capture it as well as anything.

If I was going to make up a list it'd look something like:

Thomas (25)
Crowder (50)
Sullinger, Bradley, Johnson (100)
Olynyk, Smart, Turner (150)
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
VORP is a counting stat, so it's reflective of minutes played, as well as how well you play. PER is a rate stat, and thus independent of minutes, but depends mostly on offensive stats and rebounding.

RPM would seem to have the best shot at capturing your overall impact on the game, and ranks the Celtics thus:

Sullinger (21)
Crowder (23)
Olynyk (27)
Johnson (48)
Thomas (69)
Smart (102)
Jerebko (163)
Bradley (188)
Turner (299)
Zeller (361)

Can't say that list really makes any more sense than any of the others though. To say that Thomas is very good, Crowder on the cusp, and a bunch of other guys are good seems to me to capture it as well as anything.

If I was going to make up a list it'd look something like:

Thomas (25)
Crowder (50)
Sullinger, Bradley, Johnson (100)
Olynyk, Smart, Turner (150)
What you need to do now is come up with a proprietary stat that yields that result, which looks about right to me.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
Keep in mind that PER has a long history of overvaluing backup bigs due to it being a rate stat heavy dependent upon rebounding. For a backup big to be effective in the league they typically provide energy/effort in short minutes that cannot be sustained in longer stints and/or against starting units. Looking at PER to justify Amir being as valuable as Crowder would be that you can justify Enes Kanter being nearly as valuble as Anthony Davis......this is a stat that shows Carl Landry, David Lee, and John Henson all in the leagues Top-10 among PF's.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,105
Rotten Apple
Keep in mind that PER has a long history of overvaluing backup bigs due to it being a rate stat heavy dependent upon rebounding. For a backup big to be effective in the league they typically provide energy/effort in short minutes that cannot be sustained in longer stints and/or against starting units. Looking at PER to justify Amir being as valuable as Crowder would be that you can justify Enes Kanter being nearly as valuble as Anthony Davis......this is a stat that shows Carl Landry, David Lee, and John Henson all in the leagues Top-10 among PF's.
Yup. And Marreese Speights rates out as the greatest player ever.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
Keep in mind that PER has a long history of overvaluing backup bigs due to it being a rate stat heavy dependent upon rebounding. For a backup big to be effective in the league they typically provide energy/effort in short minutes that cannot be sustained in longer stints and/or against starting units. Looking at PER to justify Amir being as valuable as Crowder would be that you can justify Enes Kanter being nearly as valuble as Anthony Davis......this is a stat that shows Carl Landry, David Lee, and John Henson all in the leagues Top-10 among PF's.
Yes, well when you have Coty Clark leading the Celtics with a PER of 24.0 you know you have a problem. Counting stats have the benefit of free-riding on the coach's decision to actually play someone.
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
782
38
Terry Rozier is quickly earning his way into this thread. He's always had all the physical tools and now that he's getting consistent second unit minutes the game is slowing down for him and he's figuring out how to use his physical gifts to be productive.

His leap over the past month is making Evan Turner's return even more unlikely than it already was.
Honest question: why? To my (uninformed) eyes, they play different positions. Turner is 6'7" while Rozier is 6'2", although Rozier has a long wingspan and plus/plus athleticism. But I do have trouble seeing a 6'2" Rozier guarding small forwards at the 3, like Turner can.

To be clear, I'm a Rozier fan, and not necessarily on board with signing ET to a large contract extension at age 27...but am interested in why ET's production is considered so easily replaced by TR.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
Honest question: why? To my (uninformed) eyes, they play different positions. Turner is 6'7" while Rozier is 6'2", although Rozier has a long wingspan and plus/plus athleticism. But I do have trouble seeing a 6'2" Rozier guarding small forwards at the 3, like Turner can.

To be clear, I'm a Rozier fan, and not necessarily on board with signing ET to a large contract extension at age 27...but am interested in why ET's production is considered so easily replaced by TR.
Rozier's production figures to come in a different way.....a more explosive style both offensively and defensively in transition as well as in pressure/trapping schemes. I wasn't implying that Rozier would step into his exact role just as Turner wouldn't be able to step into another players exact role who has a different skillset. I trust that Brad will utilize Rozier's strengths when he's on the floor.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
31,154
57
Haiku
Rozier's production figures to come in a different way.....a more explosive style both offensively and defensively in transition as well as in pressure/trapping schemes. I wasn't implying that Rozier would step into his exact role just as Turner wouldn't be able to step into another players exact role who has a different skillset. I trust that Brad will utilize Rozier's strengths when he's on the floor.
Rozier is a ballhawk like the young Rondo -- freakish athleticism and high intensity on defense and loose balls. On offense Rozier shows some gifts with ballhandling, and keeps the dribble under control at high speed. It's not the same as playmaking, which requires the vision and passing skills that Rondo always had, Turner shows now, and Rozier may develop. Rozier looks like he'll shoot better than Rondo, which makes a yuge difference.

Stevens may have to identify some other player to initiate the offense when Thomas is off the floor. Neither Crowder and Bradley can fill that role, but lots of NBA players can, including some in this year's draft.

I'm still thinking that Turner is worth more to some other team, next year's roster will have a lot of new faces, and next year's offense will show lots of new looks for new skills. Stevens doesn't strike me as a formula coach.
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
782
38
Rozier is a ballhawk like the young Rondo -- freakish athleticism and high intensity on defense and loose balls. On offense Rozier shows some gifts with ballhandling, and keeps the dribble under control at high speed. It's not the same as playmaking, which requires the vision and passing skills that Rondo always had, Turner shows now, and Rozier may develop. Rozier looks like he'll shoot better than Rondo, which makes a yuge difference.

Stevens may have to identify some other player to initiate the offense when Thomas is off the floor. Neither Crowder and Bradley can fill that role, but lots of NBA players can, including some in this year's draft.

I'm still thinking that Turner is worth more to some other team, next year's roster will have a lot of new faces, and next year's offense will show lots of new looks for new skills. Stevens doesn't strike me as a formula coach.
Agreed on all counts. Rozier's athleticism pops, while I'm not sure that Turner can effectively maintain that sneak-into-the-paint game going into his thirties. But we will need a second ball handler (after IT) after he leaves.

Tonight should actually be a good test to see how they function without Turner. More minutes for Rozier? More Marcus at SF?
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,306
Agreed on all counts. Rozier's athleticism pops, while I'm not sure that Turner can effectively maintain that sneak-into-the-paint game going into his thirties. But we will need a second ball handler (after IT) after he leaves.

Tonight should actually be a good test to see how they function without Turner. More minutes for Rozier? More Marcus at SF?
I'll add to the chorus that says we should let Turner go, with a sentimental caveat.

Per vorped, Turner's become much more effective around the basket this season, as opposed to last. 56.5% in the paint, as opposed to 47.2% last year. That's a huge leap, and it passes the eye test: he's just looked much better driving to the basket and at picking his spots -- when to fade away, when to go for the reverse, when to pass (god forbid!). He's managing that not on athleticism or first-step, but on craftiness. He still, on occasion, dribbles a possession into the ground, but it seems to me there's a lot less of that.

But his problem isn't the paint, it's that he's a horrific 3 point shooter and middling in the mid-range. He's done a much better job of not hogging possessions, but his ineffectiveness from beyond the arc kills spacing.

But this idea that he's always been bad behind the 3 point line isn't fair, either: he's managed a season at 36% (which is what AB, our "marksman," is putting up) on two attempts a game in Philadelphia, and another at 32% split between Philly and Indiana. If he can go back to shooting like he did in that third season in Philly, it's enough that if he maintains his effectiveness around the basket he can be a good NBA player. Turner isn't dumb: he knows where the NBA is going, and that his future will in part depend on his ability to make 3 pointers at a useful rate. He'll be working on that shot tirelessly this summer. The Celtics could bet that he'll make that effort and turn into a truly reliable leader for the second unit.

But the Celtics should let someone else make that bet. As has been pointed out countless times, he's going to get paid by someone stupid and desperate this summer. If he can find a 3 point shot, that might actually end up being a worthwhile investment
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
But this idea that he's always been bad behind the 3 point line isn't fair, either: he's managed a season at 36% (which is what AB, our "marksman," is putting up) on two attempts a game in Philadelphia, and another at 32% split between Philly and Indiana. If he can go back to shooting like he did in that third season in Philly, it's enough that if he maintains his effectiveness around the basket he can be a good NBA player. Turner isn't dumb: he knows where the NBA is going, and that his future will in part depend on his ability to make 3 pointers at a useful rate. He'll be working on that shot tirelessly this summer. The Celtics could bet that he'll make that effort and turn into a truly reliable leader for the second unit.

But the Celtics should let someone else make that bet. As has been pointed out countless times, he's going to get paid by someone stupid and desperate this summer. If he can find a 3 point shot, that might actually end up being a worthwhile investment
Turner is a career 30.4% shooter beyond the arc with one aberration during his 6-year career. He's had over 350 3-pt attempts since his 3rd season, at 28.3%, while regressing from 32% to 28% to 23% this year. Which do you feel is the better future predictor?
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,306
Turner is a career 30.4% shooter beyond the arc with one aberration during his 6-year career. He's had over 350 3-pt attempts since his 3rd season, at 28.3%, while regressing from 32% to 28% to 23% this year. Which do you feel is the better future predictor?
Merely suggesting that he only has up to go from here. He's having his best season as an NBA regular without the shooting difficulties.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,248
Forgive me for resurrecting an ancient thread but I can't resist. When I started it, my whiny premise was that the Celtics had no players who were very good. Now, anticipating the start of the 2018-19 season, it can be said that the entire starting 5 is very good. That is an incredible turnaround and I can't wait for the season to begin.

Kudos, by the way, to those who suggested that Turner would best be elsewhere and that Terry Rozier had promise.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
20,947
47
Melrose, MA
Since you opted to resurrect the thread...
Marcus Smart - I haven't seen much of him but it appears that he's another guard who can't shoot. Really, what's the point? It's like having an outfielder who can't hit.
Is Marcus Smart the JBJ of basketball players?
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,131
52
Santa Monica
Forgive me for resurrecting an ancient thread but I can't resist. When I started it, my whiny premise was that the Celtics had no players who were very good. Now, anticipating the start of the 2018-19 season, it can be said that the entire starting 5 is very good. That is an incredible turnaround and I can't wait for the season to begin.

Kudos, by the way, to those who suggested that Turner would best be elsewhere and that Terry Rozier had promise.
Great job, thanks. Just read this one page and enjoyed going down memory lane.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,131
52
Santa Monica
I think he'll be fine as he has a nice stroke, soft touch and good mechanics. He reminds me a lot of Chauncey Billups when he came out of Colorado in everything he does......and it took Billups 4 years for the game to slow down enough to get his FG% out of the 30's. I'd say Rozier is the more explosive athlete and Billups the more fluid offensively but they have a lot of similarities in being scoring 1's who can also play off the ball.
HRB, good stuff here.

What are your thoughts on Terry at the moment? I'm not sure we know what Rozier's ceiling is, he has taken major leaps every year (much like Chauncey his first 4 yrs)
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
HRB, good stuff here.

What are your thoughts on Terry at the moment? I'm not sure we know what Rozier's ceiling is, he has taken major leaps every year (much like Chauncey his first 4 yrs)
Thanks but where's my Horford credit? J/k

I'll continue with my Billups comp until something changes. Terry is just 24 and still learning how to make correct shoot/pass decisions so there is plenty more growth there. In addition, the game can still slow down further for him much like it did for Chauncey as he was in his late 20's and into his early 30's. Rozier has the athleticism and explosiveness for his floor game to still grow so much more into.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
Thanks but where's my Horford credit? J/k

I'll continue with my Billups comp until something changes. Terry is just 24 and still learning how to make correct shoot/pass decisions so there is plenty more growth there. In addition, the game can still slow down further for him much like it did for Chauncey as he was in his late 20's and into his early 30's. Rozier has the athleticism and explosiveness for his floor game to still grow so much more into.
This makes a lot of sense.

I'm not sure that Terry's BBIQ will reach Chauncey's, but you're right about his decision-making still evolving as we watch. Obviously the shooting has as well.
 

Spelunker

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,656
This thread should be looping on Danny's eventual tombstone laser display.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
33,756
Marcus Smart - I haven't seen much of him but it appears that he's another guard who can't shoot. Really, what's the point? It's like having an outfielder who can't hit.
So he's JBJ?



In sum, the crowds at the Garden will start to thin out real soon, and it will be years and years before we have a contender again. If I owned the Celtics, I'd sell now.
Oof.

(Yes, it's totally unfair to quote the OP from a 4 year old thread. It's all in fun.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,131
52
Santa Monica
I think the problem is we need to get lucky in one way or another. But the fear is that if what ends up happening is what is realistically expected to happen in each scenario, then we re going to be stuck in mediocrity for a long time.

In other words, we either need for once to get lucky in the lottery and pick in the top 3 or to find a top 10 player in the mid draft, or for Brooklyn to suck so bad that they give us a top 5 pick even though they have no incentive to do so, or be able to sign a top 10 talent in free agency, or last but not least find a star player who wants out of his team and be able to trade some of our assets to that team.

Each event on its own is unlikely, out all of them, something may happen, but the chance I would say is hovering bellow 50%.
Having a ball reading some of these posts 3yrs ago. Credit to Nick for knowing what needed to happen.

And all of the bolded pretty much happened.
1. Tatum/Jaylen - top 3 picks
2. Brooklyn sucked and handed over the #1 pick
3. Philly steps in and helps us by throwing us a future high pick and Tatum, for the Nets pick.
4. Danny signed 2 top 30 talents in FA (Horford/Hayward)
5. Danny found a star player in Kyrie who forced his way out of Cleveland. Used a Nets pick and spare parts to land him.
 
Last edited: