Romeo Langford - Pick #14

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,933

Attachments

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,901
What players drafted after Romeo would people want?

I guess people could make an argument for Thybulle & Clarke

from the above article:
Those of us who were paying attention to Langford’s play in the bubble might feel that the Indiana native is at least as much of a prospect based on his excellent defense in those games, but recency bias seems to rule the day in this market.

recency bias
gets GMs fired
You can make a case for Claxton. But yeah 2019 looks brutal right now... probably because they got part of a year, then either a big break and the bubble or nothing, then this year has been a mess of no summer league, no camp, no practice... guys are drowning.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,933
You can make a case for Claxton. But yeah 2019 looks brutal right now... probably because they got part of a year, then either a big break and the bubble or nothing, then this year has been a mess of no summer league, no camp, no practice... guys are drowning.
Agreed 100% here. If there was ever a 2nd year class to give the benefit of the doubt, it's this one. Maybe we should just treat this all as one long rookie year for a variety of reasons, especially for the younger raw prospects.

And I also agree it doesn't look like Danny missed on some great talent after the 14th pick. Romeo being bad and Romeo being an entirely reasonable pick can exist at the same time.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
32,385
Melrose, MA
I think it’s much much likelier that Danny values Romeo higher than other GM’a and thus wouldn’t trade him
To the extent this is the case, it would be because Danny sees some potential here and other teams see a player they would give up no value for.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,911
around the way
To the extent this is the case, it would be because Danny sees some potential here and other teams see a player they would give up no value for.
It's still all speculation. There's no credible reporting on Romeo or Nesmith having great or little/no value.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
25,283
Saskatoon Canada
And I also agree it doesn't look like Danny missed on some great talent after the 14th pick. Romeo being bad and Romeo being an entirely reasonable pick can exist at the same time.
I mentioned being lucky enough to talk to a G-league coach, and I posted he said pretty much this. He said if you hit on both Nesmith and Romeo best case scenarios, that kind of good luck, with three stars in place, usually means a championship. He said SOP two draft picks consecutive years on same position (Romeo, Nesmith) hope is one hits. The fact they are competing for minutes with one another means one probably busts, in terms of contributing to the Cs this year.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
32,385
Melrose, MA
I think you can basically assume that any player who hasn’t shown anything in the league has little trade value.
Right. But its not crazy to think that a GM would think more highly of a young player on his team than that. If Ainmge sees Langford as a future starter, that means Langford is likely not going anywhere. Not because he's 'untouchable' but because Ainge is unlikely to be offered what he would consider fair value.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,911
around the way
Right. But its not crazy to think that a GM would think more highly of a young player on his team than that. If Ainmge sees Langford as a future starter, that means Langford is likely not going anywhere. Not because he's 'untouchable' but because Ainge is unlikely to be offered what he would consider fair value.
This.

Every team in the association has a handful of guys with guaranteed less bright futures than Romeo, including his current one. Danny has not gotten an offer whose return worth moving Romeo.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
36,264
The need to have a take is interesting. It really locks a person into an outcome rather than just accepting the future as it comes. At this point, the safest assumption about Langford is that we simply don't have enough game data to discuss what sort of player he might become. Beyond that, why are we rushing to make a call on him? Did we learn nothing from Nesmith being characterized as the next James Young (which still may prove to be true in some sense but may also be way off the mark)?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,434
Kiev, Ukraine
The need to have a take is interesting. It really locks a person into an outcome rather than just accepting the future as it comes. At this point, the safest assumption about Langford is that we simply don't have enough game data to discuss what sort of player he might become. Beyond that, why are we rushing to make a call on him? Did we learn nothing from Nesmith being characterized as the next James Young (which still may prove to be true in some sense but may also be way off the mark)?
Some people like to let the present wash over them, some people like to apply their observations to try and make predictions about the future.

I've made some dumb predictions in the past, and I enjoy learning from examining the thought processes that led me there and trying to improve them. It forces me to observe more carefully, which increases my enjoyment of the NBA, and the Celtics in particular.

Different strokes etc.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,760
I mentioned being lucky enough to talk to a G-league coach, and I posted he said pretty much this. He said if you hit on both Nesmith and Romeo best case scenarios, that kind of good luck, with three stars in place, usually means a championship. He said SOP two draft picks consecutive years on same position (Romeo, Nesmith) hope is one hits. The fact they are competing for minutes with one another means one probably busts, in terms of contributing to the Cs this year.
We’re in the age of wings, if Langford develops as a ball handler there’s plenty of room for him as a 1/2 with Nesmith as a 2/3.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,933
The need to have a take is interesting. It really locks a person into an outcome rather than just accepting the future as it comes. At this point, the safest assumption about Langford is that we simply don't have enough game data to discuss what sort of player he might become. Beyond that, why are we rushing to make a call on him? Did we learn nothing from Nesmith being characterized as the next James Young (which still may prove to be true in some sense but may also be way off the mark)?
I agree we don't have enough info to KNOW about Langford, certainly a huge range of potential outcomes.

Always good to keep that in perspective, but every data point matters too. I don't agree you just pretend its "too early" for X amount of time then suddenly you know how someone will turn out.

There is an alternate universe that Romeo is playing this level of D and also not being horrible on offense. If that was the case, that would bode much better for his future than what we have seen so far. It's OK to acknowledge that.

Having wide error bars doesn't mean we can't still evaluate what we have seen and give it SOME weight.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,753
Trading the Desmond Bane pick was a mistake. A mature 50/40/80% college wing with an NBA body would have been perfect for this rotation. Pick Isaiah Steward at 16, PP, and get your wing in Bane at 30 and the Celtics would have been a solid group of cost controlled players who can actually step in and play.

Hopefully, Fournier can make up for both 14th picks not being ready to play solid rotation minutes this season, and they can get better over the summer.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,216
Saint Paul, MN
Trading the Desmond Bane pick was a mistake. A mature 50/40/80% college wing with an NBA body would have been perfect for this rotation.
See this is why GMs can never win. You gamble a little bit on a younger guy who was a 50/50/80 shooter in college and after a half season people already wanted him to take the older lower upside guy.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,825
Trading the Desmond Bane pick was a mistake. A mature 50/40/80% college wing with an NBA body would have been perfect for this rotation. Pick Isaiah Steward at 16, PP, and get your wing in Bane at 30 and the Celtics would have been a solid group of cost controlled players who can actually step in and play.

Hopefully, Fournier can make up for both 14th picks not being ready to play solid rotation minutes this season, and they can get better over the summer.
If they kept the pick, we'd be talking about how they should have drafted Bane instead of whoever they did draft.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,825
FWIW, Aaron Nesmith has played the 27th most minutes for all NBA rookies. He was drafted 14th. So not good, but not nearly as horrible as some make it out to be. He has played more minutes than the 6th, 7th and 10th picks in the draft.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,927
I agree we don't have enough info to KNOW about Langford, certainly a huge range of potential outcomes.

Always good to keep that in perspective, but every data point matters too. I don't agree you just pretend its "too early" for X amount of time then suddenly you know how someone will turn out.

There is an alternate universe that Romeo is playing this level of D and also not being horrible on offense. If that was the case, that would bode much better for his future than what we have seen so far. It's OK to acknowledge that.

Having wide error bars doesn't mean we can't still evaluate what we have seen and give it SOME weight.
^^^This

The evaluation period begins immediately. Nobody is ever “locked into” an outcome. It is fluid as more information becomes available. Some call that “flip flopping” which I disagree with......you are evaluating based on intel which can change.

Having said that, I’m still high on Langford being a productive regular rotation guy/starter in this league from what he’s shown me. I still do not expect this out of Nesmith.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,308
Palo Alto
FWIW, Aaron Nesmith has played the 27th most minutes for all NBA rookies. He was drafted 14th. So not good, but not nearly as horrible as some make it out to be. He has played more minutes than the 6th, 7th and 10th picks in the draft.
We call this the 3.6 rontgen of rookie seasons.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
36,264
^^^This

The evaluation period begins immediately. Nobody is ever “locked into” an outcome. It is fluid as more information becomes available. Some call that “flip flopping” which I disagree with......you are evaluating based on intel which can change.

Having said that, I’m still high on Langford being a productive regular rotation guy/starter in this league from what he’s shown me. I still do not expect this out of Nesmith.
Evaluations being made on limited information are of limited value.

We are judging Langford based on 11 games this season and his short run last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics, who see him in practice, have a handle on his understanding of their sets and defensive assignments and know generally what his skill set is, have way more information. People often mistake this for "in X we trust..." but its not. Its simply an acknowledgement that the teams we follow simply have access to way more color on a particular player than we likely ever will. If you don't trust them to manage a player's development that is another discussion.

People can and will say that Romeo Langford isn't very good and they are entitled to say that he will never be very good. However they are effectively describing the size of an iceberg by what is seen poking above the surface. That is the only point.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,753
See this is why GMs can never win. You gamble a little bit on a younger guy who was a 50/50/80 shooter in college and after a half season people already wanted him to take the older lower upside guy.
Bane shot 43.3% from three in 141 college games. Nesmith shot 50% from three in 14 games his soph year, and 33% in 32 games his frosh year.

I didn’t think it was wise to pick a wing in both drafts at 14. I get the Romeo pick, where they figured he could have big long term upside, but why follow it up with another upside wing?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
I will say that we all love to play armchair GM, and a lot of the Cs future rides on one of Nesmith and/or Langford being more than rotation players. Especially if the Cs aren't willing to pay super duper luxury taxes.

RL made a 3 last night so his 3P percentage is up .333. One more and it may be passable!

Bane shot 43.3% from three in 141 college games. Nesmith shot 50% from three in 14 games his soph year, and 33% in 32 games his frosh year.

I didn’t think it was wise to pick a wing in both drafts at 14. I get the Romeo pick, where they figured he could have big long term upside, but why follow it up with another upside wing?
I think the calculus is that it's really hard to find wings in the NBA but you can really find passable players at every other position on the cheap. It's like you can't have too much pitching.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,434
Kiev, Ukraine
Evaluations being made on limited information are of limited value.

We are judging Langford based on 11 games this season and his short run last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics, who see him in practice, have a handle on his understanding of their sets and defensive assignments and know generally what his skill set is, have way more information. People often mistake this for "in X we trust..." but its not. Its simply an acknowledgement that the teams we follow simply have access to way more color on a particular player than we likely ever will. If you don't trust them to manage a player's development that is another discussion.

People can and will say that Romeo Langford isn't very good and they are entitled to say that he will never be very good. However they are effectively describing the size of an iceberg by what is seen poking above the surface. That is the only point.
Yes, agree. In general, the most sensible approach is to not watch games, and instead wait until a player's career is over. That way you can experience him through bbref box scores and advanced stats (which may have improved by that time).

If you must watch NBA basketball, it should ideally be done in a series of clips commented by a responsible professional who can provide adequate context.

Anything else risks forming opinions based on limited information that may well turn out to be incorrect as the player's career progresses. Some may wish to venture into those waters, but I'll leave observation to those paid by teams to do it.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,927
Evaluations being made on limited information are of limited value.

We are judging Langford based on 11 games this season and his short run last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics, who see him in practice, have a handle on his understanding of their sets and defensive assignments and know generally what his skill set is, have way more information. People often mistake this for "in X we trust..." but its not. Its simply an acknowledgement that the teams we follow simply have access to way more color on a particular player than we likely ever will. If you don't trust them to manage a player's development that is another discussion.

People can and will say that Romeo Langford isn't very good and they are entitled to say that he will never be very good. However they are effectively describing the size of an iceberg by what is seen poking above the surface. That is the only point.
I don’t disagree with a lot of this and as fans there isn’t really any reason to be “early” or “late” on a guy but if we are having discussions and everyone says “Well he’s young so let’s give him time” why even have a message board? There are traits and tells that some players can show you the first time you see him that typically won’t change over time.

Limited information is still information and is valuable.......Romeo’s physical profile and his ability to be competitive defensively immediately is reason to be optimistic as the other areas of his offensive game are the easiest for a player to grow. If there isn’t improvement over the next 1-2 years then my long term outlook will significantly be affected but that isn’t likely in those areas for a player with his profile.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,901
Bane shot 43.3% from three in 141 college games. Nesmith shot 50% from three in 14 games his soph year, and 33% in 32 games his frosh year.

I didn’t think it was wise to pick a wing in both drafts at 14. I get the Romeo pick, where they figured he could have big long term upside, but why follow it up with another upside wing?
Probably because we generally play 3-4 wings at a time. The Celtics (and most NBA teams) usually have 1 "big", 1 "ballhandling guard/wing/PG" a whole collection of guys between 6'4" and 6'9" who play 2-4. Once you get outside of superstars, wings have way more value to a team than any other position, because they're flexible.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,753
The “wow he really sucks” quotient when watching Romeo and Nesmith try to play at the offensive end is very high, higher than for any Celtics young player who actually turned out to be a good offensive player that I can remember.

It’s concerning and disappointing. We shouldn’t be shocked when the guy who was supposed to be the sniper in the draft actually swishes a three.

I think both can develop some day. This roster needed at least one of those picks to be ready to play.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,753
Probably because we generally play 3-4 wings at a time. The Celtics (and most NBA teams) usually have 1 "big", 1 "ballhandling guard/wing/PG" a whole collection of guys between 6'4" and 6'9" who play 2-4. Once you get outside of superstars, wings have way more value to a team than any other position, because they're flexible.
Why pick an upside wing? Why not pick a ready to contribute wing?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,901
Why pick an upside wing? Why not pick a ready to contribute wing?
Because he tried that twice, and ended up with Grant and Semi.

Edit- the point is.. you can go either way and miss. I'd rather he take swings. Sure people are always going to pick a random player who went after our pick and say "oh he should have taken that guy", but that's not really a mistake, it's just something not turning out. Like Bane... nobody wanted him to take Bane at 14, and the pick traded had nothing to do with Bane, it was going to be traded no matter what, that another team made a good pick has no relevance, we were never using the pick and everyone knew and talked about it for weeks before the draft.
 
Last edited:

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
4,724
Probably because we generally play 3-4 wings at a time. The Celtics (and most NBA teams) usually have 1 "big", 1 "ballhandling guard/wing/PG" a whole collection of guys between 6'4" and 6'9" who play 2-4. Once you get outside of superstars, wings have way more value to a team than any other position, because they're flexible.
Also because it became clear that Romeo, for all of his attributes, was not going to be a deadeye shooter from 3-point range, and there was reason to believe Nesmith might fill that role.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
4,724
The “wow he really sucks” quotient when watching Romeo and Nesmith try to play at the offensive end is very high, higher than for any Celtics young player who actually turned out to be a good offensive player that I can remember.

It’s concerning and disappointing. We shouldn’t be shocked when the guy who was supposed to be the sniper in the draft actually swishes a three.

I think both can develop some day. This roster needed at least one of those picks to be ready to play.
Nesmith still rushes things way too much, but after a dreadful start he's raised his 3-point percentage to 34.2. In his past six appearances, he's 5 for 10 from beyond the arc.

He also hustles his ass off, which is more than we can say about many of his teammates.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
50,182
Rotten Apple
What players drafted after Romeo would people want?
Not a great draft but at various times I have liked:
Chuma Okeke, Nickeil Alexander-Walker, Darius Bazley, Jordan Poole, Keldon Johnson, Kevin Porter Jr, Nicolas Claxton, Daniel Gafford, Isaiah Roby, THT and Jalen McDaniels. Can't imagine taking Waters over McDaniels right now.
Romeo was still a decent gamble all in all. Hard to ding Danny for two good trades for draft picks which seemed like they were going to be lottery only to watch them both fizzle out. Cold comfort at this point, though.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,901
Also because it became clear that Romeo, for all of his attributes, was not going to be a deadeye shooter from 3-point range, and there was reason to believe Nesmith might fill that role.
yeah Romeo and Nesmith honestly were always complimentary type players. If both worked out it would be an ideal fit... one can play lock-down D, handle the ball, get to the rim, the other is the guy you can't leave to help or the driver finds him for easy 3s. If both work out you want them as a pair behind (and at times next to) Brown and Tatum.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,308
Palo Alto
The “wow he really sucks” quotient when watching Romeo and Nesmith try to play at the offensive end is very high, higher than for any Celtics young player who actually turned out to be a good offensive player that I can remember.

It’s concerning and disappointing. We shouldn’t be shocked when the guy who was supposed to be the sniper in the draft actually swishes a three.

I think both can develop some day. This roster needed at least one of those picks to be ready to play.
Avery Bradley looked shockingly bad as a rookie.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
36,264
Yes, agree. In general, the most sensible approach is to not watch games, and instead wait until a player's career is over. That way you can experience him through bbref box scores and advanced stats (which may have improved by that time).

If you must watch NBA basketball, it should ideally be done in a series of clips commented by a responsible professional who can provide adequate context.

Anything else risks forming opinions based on limited information that may well turn out to be incorrect as the player's career progresses. Some may wish to venture into those waters, but I'll leave observation to those paid by teams to do it.
My point is absolutely not that people should wait until a player's career is over to evaluate them. Its entirely fair to evaluate players based on what they have shown to date and the criticisms of Langford are valid based on his results. But its different evaluating a regular rotation player who has had say, at least a season's worth of meaningful run to discuss. Romeo Langord has played in 44 total NBA games with an average of 12.5 MPG.

There is no debate that he isn't very valuable at present and his lack of availability has been disappointing. But beyond that, what is there to discuss? Every criticism can be met with the fact that the guy has just played over half an NBA season in two years and that he could still be something valuable. Or he could not. Beyond that, its just a take.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
Can't imagine taking Waters over McDaniels right now.
Anyone who could pick McDaniels over Waters (or two similar players) on a consistent basis should be making millions as a GM.

They were both lottery picks. One hit maybe. The other one maybe not. But at that point, everyone is just guessing.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,927
The “wow he really sucks” quotient when watching Romeo and Nesmith try to play at the offensive end is very high, higher than for any Celtics young player who actually turned out to be a good offensive player that I can remember.
Bruce Bowen and Avery Bradley come to mind for me. The lattee became a mid-teens scorer during his brief prime and the former developed into a 40% 3-pt shooter and even led the league in pct one year. The one thing they both brought to the table from Day One was on the defensive end of the floor. Romeo doesn’t have to turn into Jaylen offensively to be a real productive player in this league one day.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,927
Terry Rozier sucked too. Wasn't even that long ago. Hell, he was awful his 2nd year too.
One thing about Rozier is he always had the physical tools. Quick first step, athleticism and a high motor aside from the Kyrie year which was a cluster for everyone. You can’t teach those.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,248
Santa Monica
Yes, agree. In general, the most sensible approach is to not watch games, and instead wait until a player's career is over. That way you can experience him through bbref box scores and advanced stats (which may have improved by that time).

If you must watch NBA basketball, it should ideally be done in a series of clips commented by a responsible professional who can provide adequate context.

Anything else risks forming opinions based on limited information that may well turn out to be incorrect as the player's career progresses. Some may wish to venture into those waters, but I'll leave observation to those paid by teams to do it.
HaHa...after watching yesterday's tire fire I may subscribe to this theory of analysis
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,977
Rozier looked good in the G league. Romeo never had that chance.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,825
Rozier looked good in the G league. Romeo never had that chance.
Yeah, he did actually. He played 7 games there and didn't do that well.

10.6 points, 2.7 boards, 1.3 assists, 1.4 blocks on .431/.217/.800 shooting in 23.7 mpg.

It's only 7 games but he played.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,977
No error goes uncorrected on SOSH ! I actually looked this up before posting but my research was obviously flawed.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
Yeah, he did actually. He played 7 games there and didn't do that well.

10.6 points, 2.7 boards, 1.3 assists, 1.4 blocks on .431/.217/.800 shooting in 23.7 mpg.

It's only 7 games but he played.
My son was a big Tacko fan so I took him to the first G League game vs DE Blue Coats. Romeo really stood out that night. Even the Dinnerette, who is not a big basketball fan - asked who he was as IIRC Romeo had a least one chase-down block and another block plus took it to the basket a couple of times.

One game doesn't always mean much but my impression was that Romeo was in a different league than the rest of the G leaguers and really could have dominated if he wanted to but in the other Maine games I watched that year, he looked like he was really trying to get his teammates involved.