Romeo Langford - Pick #14

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
14,467
We might need to rename one of these guys Jrobert Williams to make point #2 work ;)
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
3,100
Cultural hub of the universe
  • the best athlete on the Cs without a J starting his first name;
His athleticism seems to me more of the smooth and fluid type than explosive. Nesmith appears faster and more explosive to me, but in a far less controlled way than Langford. Walker is obviously faster, but so much smaller that he struggles at the rim.

If Langford is that far up the athletic ladder for the C's then that points for a serious upgrade need on that front for the offseason.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,826
The corollary to your question is whether RL will stay healthy enough to realize his potential.

I mean RL is already:
  • the best on-ball defender the Cs have;
  • the best athlete on the Cs without a J starting his first name;
  • Other than Kemba and the Js, the best finisher on the Cs (yes, I think he's a better finisher than MS and NG); and
  • Other than maybe Tremont, who may not be on the Cs next year, the only non-starter on the Cs that can really run a PnR.
And as noted earlier in this thread, one of the Cs coaches thinks he's already a way better shooter than people think.

A fully developed and healthy Romeo is kind of exactly what the Cs need off the bench. Let's hope he gets there.
You think Romeo is a better athlete than TL?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
His athleticism seems to me more of the smooth and fluid type than explosive. Nesmith appears faster and more explosive to me, but in a far less controlled way than Langford. Walker is obviously faster, but so much smaller that he struggles at the rim.

If Langford is that far up the athletic ladder for the C's then that points for a serious upgrade need on that front for the offseason.
AN may be able to jump higher (not sure if that is true) but as you point out, Romeo is way more fluid. I think he's a lot quicker and it looks like he can hit another gear that helps him get by defenders or chase down blocks.

But more to the point, do the Cs really need more athletes? I mean they two top-tier athletes in JB and TL. RL and JT may not be "drop your jaw" athletes but they are certainly in the top tier. AN is a very good athlete. Maybe they could use a really athletic 1 but I have the sense that DA/ Brad think that if they have athletic, switchy wings, they can get away with smaller guards who can handle and shoot.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
3,100
Cultural hub of the universe
AN may be able to jump higher (not sure if that is true) but as you point out, Romeo is way more fluid. I think he's a lot quicker and it looks like he can hit another gear that helps him get by defenders or chase down blocks.

But more to the point, do the Cs really need more athletes? I mean they two top-tier athletes in JB and TL. RL and JT may not be "drop your jaw" athletes but they are certainly in the top tier. AN is a very good athlete. Maybe they could use a really athletic 1 but I have the sense that DA/ Brad think that if they have athletic, switchy wings, they can get away with smaller guards who can handle and shoot.
I'd say the athleticism at the 4/5 (given how often JLord is hurt) and the 1 would be upgrade targets for the offseason. I'd agree that we're pretty well stocked on the wings.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,911
around the way
They seem to see Romeo as a guy who's going to get combo guard minutes and guard opposing ballhandlers. And that should play to his strengths offensively. He's much more intuitive than Nesmith or young Brown. He looks good in space. Not sure if they stumbled upon that model or it was their plan all along, but I look forward to watching him develop next year.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
14,467
They seem to see Romeo as a guy who's going to get combo guard minutes and guard opposing ballhandlers. And that should play to his strengths offensively. He's much more intuitive than Nesmith or young Brown. He looks good in space. Not sure if they stumbled upon that model or it was their plan all along, but I look forward to watching him develop next year.
He really needs to get through the playoffs healthy so he can finally have a full offseason to work on his shot with Hanlan or whoever he uses as a trainer.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,434
Kiev, Ukraine
They seem to see Romeo as a guy who's going to get combo guard minutes and guard opposing ballhandlers. And that should play to his strengths offensively. He's much more intuitive than Nesmith or young Brown. He looks good in space. Not sure if they stumbled upon that model or it was their plan all along, but I look forward to watching him develop next year.
Yeah, his real future on this team is if he can become the "bring the ball up the court and maybe run initial PnR" ball-handler.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
25,283
Saskatoon Canada
But more to the point, do the Cs really need more athletes? I mean they two top-tier athletes in JB and TL. RL and JT may not be "drop your jaw" athletes but they are certainly in the top tier. AN is a very good athlete. Maybe they could use a really athletic 1 but I have the sense that DA/ Brad think that if they have athletic, switchy wings, they can get away with smaller guards who can handle and shoot.
Money
pitching
athletes
cocaine
Aircraft carriers
Blow

I'll take "what are things you can't have too much" of Aaron.

Also I am not sure how you watch this years Cs night after night seem to be playing against teams loaded with longer more athletic guys and think , off all teams, this team does not need athletes. I have said this before, and I will set off binky alarms again, but Nesmith and Romeo seem athletic only compared to Grant, Semi, Pritchard, Teague, TT. They are not top tier athletes they are just not below average. Neither is a skywalker, which is huge part of today's game, since after you are chased off the line you attack the rim. I watch Romeo and think (insert CEBL guy) dunks that, when he evades with finesse shot.

How big is your top tier? What % of the league is top tier? So We have Westbrook, Gianis, Lebron, that is a pretty long list before the Name Romeo Langford appears.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,826
Money
pitching
athletes
cocaine
Aircraft carriers
Blow

I'll take "what are things you can't have too much" of Aaron.

Also I am not sure how you watch this years Cs night after night seem to be playing against teams loaded with longer more athletic guys and think , off all teams, this team does not need athletes. I have said this before, and I will set off binky alarms again, but Nesmith and Romeo seem athletic only compared to Grant, Semi, Pritchard, Teague, TT. They are not top tier athletes they are just not below average. Neither is a skywalker, which is huge part of today's game, since after you are chased off the line you attack the rim. I watch Romeo and think (insert CEBL guy) dunks that, when he evades with finesse shot.

How big is your top tier? What % of the league is top tier? So We have Westbrook, Gianis, Lebron, that is a pretty long list before the Name Romeo Langford appears.
While we disagree about Romeo's length and athleticism (I think he's at least NBA average athletically, and he's long.), he's definitely not a sky walker and he's a guy who would actually benefit from being able to jump high. He's also not explosive. His game seems like it would rely heavily on explosion and jumping. I'm not sure Nesmith needs to be a sky walker or explosive though.

Semi Ojeleye can jump out of the building but jumping isn't part of his game so it's kinda useless. With RL, it would be incredibly useful and the fact he's not a great jumper and lacks explosion is a huge checkmark against him.

And yeah, the C's definitely need length and athleticism, regardless of what people think of Nesmith and RL. Partly because RL and TL are huge injury risks and probably 2 of our top 4 athletes on the team, and partly because RL has sucked to date.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
How big is your top tier? What % of the league is top tier? So We have Westbrook, Gianis, Lebron, that is a pretty long list before the Name Romeo Langford appears.
I think there are a fair number of professional athletes who think you can have too much blow, and frankly, previous iterations of teams like ORL might think at some point you need people who can play basketball rather than just jump out the building.

I'm not going to say that i really have "tiers" of NBA athletes but let's just take Nesmith. It appears that you think Nesmith is a below-average athlete for the NBA. I watch him - and I think Scal and Gorman agree with me - and see at least an average NBA athlete and without quantifying it, I'd guess he's above-average. I mean for every guy who can jump out of the building like TL, there are several guys who get by on strength or technique or skill - Kemba, Pritchard, Semi, etc.

I mean look at PHI. In terms of sheer athleticism, isn't Simmons the only player who gets minutes that is clearly more athletic than Nesmith? Maybe Thybulle is (haven't watched him enough); Embiid is a beast but not really the kind of athletic you are talking about; Harris isn't really that athletic from what I see; and I'm sure people think Maxey is really athletic but he's a few inches shorter than Nesmith.

Your mileage may vary on all of this but I still think Romeo is pretty gifted from an athleticism point of view.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,826
I think there are a fair number of professional athletes who think you can have too much blow, and frankly, previous iterations of teams like ORL might think at some point you need people who can play basketball rather than just jump out the building.

I'm not going to say that i really have "tiers" of NBA athletes but let's just take Nesmith. It appears that you think Nesmith is a below-average athlete for the NBA. I watch him - and I think Scal and Gorman agree with me - and see at least an average NBA athlete and without quantifying it, I'd guess he's above-average. I mean for every guy who can jump out of the building like TL, there are several guys who get by on strength or technique or skill - Kemba, Pritchard, Semi, etc.

I mean look at PHI. In terms of sheer athleticism, isn't Simmons the only player who gets minutes that is clearly more athletic than Nesmith? Maybe Thybulle is (haven't watched him enough); Embiid is a beast but not really the kind of athletic you are talking about; Harris isn't really that athletic from what I see; and I'm sure people think Maxey is really athletic but he's a few inches shorter than Nesmith.

Your mileage may vary on all of this but I still think Romeo is pretty gifted from an athleticism point of view.

People also have different definitions of athleticism. NBA athletes are often judged by how fast they run and how high they jump. Strength, lateral mobility, coordination, balance and all that stuff matters too.

While I think Romeo may be an above average athlete (again he's at least average), he may be lacking athleticism in the areas he actually needs it. So in a way, that would make him a below average athlete. Then again, I'm making judgements that his style of play won't evolve.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
25,283
Saskatoon Canada
Agis you used top tier. And I specifically said Nesmith was not below average. he is a much better athlete, from what we have seen, than Romeo. The part of what you say that I most disagree with is that the Celtics don't need more athleticism. We see from Nesmth the odd block, o board, etc he gets just from being an athlete that wins the odd physical battle.

Sorry man, but Romeo in not an athlete prospect like Siakam, for example was. He is a player. Or at least a potential player that can be skilled, and strong, good size for his skills. He is a good athlete and I called him average, which is as high as I can go. If it helps yur optimism to consider him a great athlete , then fine, but compared to other guys in the league he hasn't shown it. Maybe he has been hurt so much he isn't in shape. Is he the equivalent of a sore armed guy throwing 90, but when healthy hits 97? I don't know. But right now he has topped out at 90 and you are calling him a fireballer or a hard thrower.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,826
Agis you used top tier. And I specifically said Nesmith was not below average. he is a much better athlete, from what we have seen, than Romeo. The part of what you say that I most disagree with is that the Celtics don't need more athleticism. We see from Nesmth the odd block, o board, etc he gets just from being an athlete that wins the odd physical battle.

Sorry man, but Romeo in not an athlete prospect like Siakam, for example was. He is a player. Or at least a potential player that can be skilled, and strong, good size for his skills. He is a good athlete and I called him average, which is as high as I can go. If it helps yur optimism to consider him a great athlete , then fine, but compared to other guys in the league he hasn't shown it. Maybe he has been hurt so much he isn't in shape. Is he the equivalent of a sore armed guy throwing 90, but when healthy hits 97? I don't know. But right now he has topped out at 90 and you are calling him a fireballer or a hard thrower.
When he's healthy, his FB hits 97 but he has no control, no command, no movement, no secondary pitches and can't find the plate.

A lot of it is the bolded part. At this point in time, he has very little skill. Can he add a secondary pitch or two? Can he gain some command over his pitches? Can something be done to add a little movement?

Personally, I think the C's get very little to no value out of Langford and his 2nd contract is with another team.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,927
While we disagree about Romeo's length and athleticism (I think he's at least NBA average athletically, and he's long.), he's definitely not a sky walker and he's a guy who would actually benefit from being able to jump high. He's also not explosive. His game seems like it would rely heavily on explosion and jumping. I'm not sure Nesmith needs to be a sky walker or explosive though.

Semi Ojeleye can jump out of the building but jumping isn't part of his game so it's kinda useless. With RL, it would be incredibly useful and the fact he's not a great jumper and lacks explosion is a huge checkmark against him.

And yeah, the C's definitely need length and athleticism, regardless of what people think of Nesmith and RL. Partly because RL and TL are huge injury risks and probably 2 of our top 4 athletes on the team, and partly because RL has sucked to date.
Some good points here. There is “athletic” and then there is “how does the player utilize his athleticism.” Brent Barry and Pat Connaughton are two of the most athletic players to ever play in the NBA from standing and vertical jumping aspect......but they were guards whose game wasn’t built around their physical gifts. While Langford may not jump off the chart from his Combine numbers his length and timing allows him to play much bigger than he is in both finishing offensively and protecting the rim on defense.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,826
Some good points here. There is “athletic” and then there is “how does the player utilize his athleticism.” Brent Barry and Pat Connaughton are two of the most athletic players to ever play in the NBA from standing and vertical jumping aspect......but they were guards whose game wasn’t built around their physical gifts. While Langford may not jump off the chart from his Combine numbers his length and timing allows him to play much bigger than he is in both finishing offensively and protecting the rim on defense.
When it comes to players who get the most out of their athleticism, Paul Pierce comes to mind. He played to his strengths. TL too.

Gerald Green and Semi are guys that immediately come to mind where their athletic ability and their style of play/skill set didn't sync very well. There was a lot of wasted athletic ability.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
3,100
Cultural hub of the universe
When he's healthy, his FB hits 97 but he has no control, no command, no movement, no secondary pitches and can't find the plate.

A lot of it is the bolded part. At this point in time, he has very little skill. Can he add a secondary pitch or two? Can he gain some command over his pitches? Can something be done to add a little movement?

Personally, I think the C's get very little to no value out of Langford and his 2nd contract is with another team.
When I've seen him in situations where he's healthy and getting regular extended minutes (which admittedly hasn't been that much), he absolutely looked like a guy with skills. Ball handling, finishing touch at the rim, passing are all NBA skills he currently possesses, he just hasn't gotten the reps necessary to get them to game speed. The jump shot hasn't yet shown much. I think he has the potential to be a good player as soon as next year, given health and solid off season.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
25,283
Saskatoon Canada
Well the finishing, at this point is like Gammo's "touches 97" on a guy throwing 89-90. I am am not being dismissive to suggest it is fitness, since kid has been hurt, covid restrictions, etc. He could really have used G-league games this year.
To use my baseball analogy I hope he is Roger Clemens, and when finally healthy was a star.
Fitness is underrated at the pro level, everyone assume pro are in shape, but there are levels, at the NBA level it takes years to get there. Jordan found out even he couldn't get there in 6 months.
 
Last edited:

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,933
I actually agree that he's been really bad in the Brad Stevens Memorial Young Wing Potted Plant role. He's not a good shooter, and he often gets lost in no man's land when he drives closeouts.

But on the few occasions when he's been given the ball to create (against the Bulls and Knicks), he looks surprisingly competent/comfortable for a young wing, especially in PnR. If he can somehow get un-snakebitten and get a real summer in, I think there's something there.

The bigger question with Romeo imo is not "will he become a decent offensive player?", but rather "will he do it on this contract for the Celtics?"
I admit I have missed some of the games Romeo has apparently been flashing competent offense. 99% of what I have seen is a combination of apathy and ineptitude, but I am glad to hear the games I've missed he has looked better.

How big can the gap be between scouting and 650 minutes of production? Even accounting for the incorrect role, spotty playing time, etc.... at some point what you've done on the court has to count to at least SOME degree. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/langfro01.html

Probably best to take his year 1 and 2 together as his "rookie year".

Any recent good comps for 50 games, 653 minutes, 5.2 PER, 35% FG%, 22% 3 PT%, 43% TS%, 6 Reb%, 5 Ast%, WS/48 0.016, Ortg 95, etc. becoming good offensive players? Not saying there aren't, just asking. I'd be happy to hear some.
 
Last edited:

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
15,095
Somewhere
Some good points here. There is “athletic” and then there is “how does the player utilize his athleticism.” Brent Barry and Pat Connaughton are two of the most athletic players to ever play in the NBA from standing and vertical jumping aspect......but they were guards whose game wasn’t built around their physical gifts.
Small quibble, but Barry was a very different player with the Clippers than he was with the Sonics and Spurs.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
Agis you used top tier. And I specifically said Nesmith was not below average. he is a much better athlete, from what we have seen, than Romeo. The part of what you say that I most disagree with is that the Celtics don't need more athleticism. We see from Nesmth the odd block, o board, etc he gets just from being an athlete that wins the odd physical battle.

Sorry man, but Romeo in not an athlete prospect like Siakam, for example was. He is a player. Or at least a potential player that can be skilled, and strong, good size for his skills. He is a good athlete and I called him average, which is as high as I can go. If it helps yur optimism to consider him a great athlete , then fine, but compared to other guys in the league he hasn't shown it. Maybe he has been hurt so much he isn't in shape. Is he the equivalent of a sore armed guy throwing 90, but when healthy hits 97? I don't know. But right now he has topped out at 90 and you are calling him a fireballer or a hard thrower.
Probably should have used "next tier" instead of "top tier" to distinguish betwen RL vs JB / TL, so sorry about that. And I misunderstood what you said about AN so txs for clarifying.

But I absolutely think RL is a better "athlete" than AN even though AN may jump higher, YMMV.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
14,467
To me they're similar, Tatum obviously much longer, maybe not quite as quick laterally. Based purely on in game observation.
Yes, I agree. Similar athleticism to Tatum, but not even comparable shots. Not a minor difference in today's NBA. Tatum without a shot is not special.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
25,283
Saskatoon Canada
Yes, I agree. Similar athleticism to Tatum, but not even comparable shots. Not a minor difference in today's NBA. Tatum without a shot is not special.
Tatum is much stronger , explosive getting to the rim. Brown used to struggle at the rim, and his brerak away hops made us think he should dunk on people but he has done much better, getting to the edge of the board for layups. JB's speed and first step are nuts though. Sadly in this day and age he runs three step to three point line and stops. His speed really plays on d where he gets to shooters in transition really well.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,315
Imaginationland
Tatum is 4-5 inches taller than Langford. If one wanted to argue that they have similar athleticism, it's really not a point in Langford's favor considering he's significantly smaller than Tatum. Tatum's athleticism is fairly unremarkable in today's NBA anyway - his shooting ability (both the high release and accuracy) means defenders need to get right in his face to contest his shot, make his drive that much harder to defend.

I'm not particularly optimistic Romeo will ever be good enough offensively to make full use of his defensive potential, at least not based on what he's shown so far. Looking average 2-3 times a year when the games don't matter won't cut it.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,927
Tatum is 4-5 inches taller than Langford. If one wanted to argue that they have similar athleticism, it's really not a point in Langford's favor considering he's significantly smaller than Tatum.
Langford is two inches shorter than Tatum but has a half-inch longer wingspan. One thing I really like about Romeo is how he uses his timing to maximize his length and athleticism in challenging and blocking shots.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,315
Imaginationland
I assume the two inch difference is from their combine measurements, but:

-It's been more than rumored that Tatum has grown. I don't know about the 6'10 height that Stevens mentioned, but he's definitely looks taller than when he was a rookie (maybe it's just the muscle).
-At the start of the 2019 season teams were required to report accurate height measurements without shoes (measured by a team doctor). Tatum stayed at 6'8 while Romeo was just 6'4.
-Looking at the two on the court, Tatum certainly looks more than two inches taller. Tatum was measured at 6'8, Jaylen at 6'6, Romeo at 6'4. Those sounds right.

Langford definitely has more length considering his height, it's been his one real positive since coming to the NBA (the ability to challenge shots without leaving his feet against smaller players, and bother larger ones with just his hands up). I just don't see it being as much of an asset on offense, not without other skills that have yet to show up.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
32,390
Melrose, MA
I admit I have missed some of the games Romeo has apparently been flashing competent offense. 99% of what I have seen is a combination of apathy and ineptitude, but I am glad to hear the games I've missed he has looked better.
On the one hand, it is an objective fact that Langford's offensive production has been terrible during his time with the Celtics. But calling him apathetic is your own subjective value judgment based on very limited information.
How big can the gap be between scouting and 650 minutes of production? Even accounting for the incorrect role, spotty playing time, etc.... at some point what you've done on the court has to count to at least SOME degree. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/langfro01.html

Probably best to take his year 1 and 2 together as his "rookie year".

Any recent good comps for 50 games, 653 minutes, 5.2 PER, 35% FG%, 22% 3 PT%, 43% TS%, 6 Reb%, 5 Ast%, WS/48 0.016, Ortg 95, etc. becoming good offensive players? Not saying there aren't, just asking. I'd be happy to hear some.
Terry Rozier. Only 311 minutes, but he was older, not dealing with injuries, and he produced a 5.0 PER, 22% 3 PT%, 33% TS%, Ortg 81, on higher usage. Brandon Ingram was younger but a much better prospect who got to play (2279 minutes) as a rookie, and he managed all of an 8.5 PER and a negative WS/48. There's Avery Bradley who was pretty unequivocally terrible, albeit in fewer minutes.

Langford is headed towards (hopefully) his first healthy and normal offseason as a pro. I think it will be a lot more fair to judge him harshly when he returns from that than it is now. The first offseason after getting into the league is a key time for any NBA rookie, especially one on the younger side who has a lot of areas where he needs to improve.

If he comes back more or less the same, it will be a cause for concern.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,248
Santa Monica
Langford is two inches shorter than Tatum but has a half-inch longer wingspan. One thing I really like about Romeo is how he uses his timing to maximize his length and athleticism in challenging and blocking shots.
I wish the NBA would add a players' wingspan & standing reach in addition to their height. It would add a little more context.

Will the NBA officially measure the players every preseason (w/out shoes)?
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
864
Yes, I agree. Similar athleticism to Tatum, but not even comparable shots.
No one was trying to compare their shots, just find comps for Romeo’s general level of athleticism.

Tatum is much stronger , explosive getting to the rim.
Tatum has also spent four healthy years working in a professional strength training program.

Tatum is 4-5 inches taller than Langford. If one wanted to argue that they have similar athleticism, it's really not a point in Langford's favor considering he's significantly smaller than Tatum.
I‘m not claiming it to be a point in Langford’s favor; rather, I would say that the comp establishes that he has sufficient athleticism to succeed in the NBA if he improves his skill level. His athleticism, or lack thereof, is not going to be the determining factor in whether he becomes a productive NBA player.
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,887
Langford needs to find a way to translate the dominant performance he put on as a lead guard utilizing the pick and roll in college.

If you go and watch all his shots from this season thru the NBA stats shot chart page, you'll see a guard who can get to the rim off catch and shoots and competently handle the pick and roll who also looks overwhelmed by the speed and size of NBA players. You'll also see a hell of a lot of balls rimming out, but what effect that's had on his shooting percentage, I can't say.

It's a game of adjustments. He hasn't quite gotten the opportunity yet to make those adjustments. He has the length, strength, and athleticism to finish against NBA athletes. I do not see him struggling horribly. The question now is if he can translate his skills from college to the NBA given his exceptionally long layoff time at a crucial point of development. Since he's still young, I'd bet on yes. I'm really interested to see how he plays, and how much he plays, in the playoffs.

As for the comparisons to Brown... Brown has never had trouble finishing around the basket in this league. He's shot 50% or better on 2's every year. I remember it being the single most encouraging thing about his rookie year.

Romeo so far has yet to find success. What of that is small sample size and layoff and adjustments, and what of it is a horrid performance from which we should extrapolate, seems to be a question of perspective at this point. His statistics are just l shadows on the cave wall

I'd like to see him succeed, and think he has the pedigree, the support, and will be given the opportunity to do so. Wouldn't be surprised to see him averaging over ten points a game by his fourth year, chipping in 3 or 4 assists, and rounding out his 3 pointer to respectable percentages.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,933
Langford is headed towards (hopefully) his first healthy and normal offseason as a pro. I think it will be a lot more fair to judge him harshly when he returns from that than it is now. The first offseason after getting into the league is a key time for any NBA rookie, especially one on the younger side who has a lot of areas where he needs to improve.
Agree there for sure. The biggest reason for hope is that this offseason is a lot closer to the offseason between year 1 and 2 for most players.

Summer league and his "2nd" season are going to be critical to see significant growth.

My general stance is that:

1. He has been really awful on offense
2. Being really awful has SOME weight toward a player's projection, even in a pretty small 650 minute sample. If he wasn't horrible in that same 650 minutes we would be happy about that, right?

It does make sense to me to say it's such a small sample with so many unique mitigating factors that his range of outcomes is still wide and overlaps with a good player.

Unfortunately, if I had to predict a midpoint 50th percentile career projection on draft day versus now, I would probably have it lower now than then. Doesn't mean I think he is definitely a bust yet.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,911
around the way
I admit I have missed some of the games Romeo has apparently been flashing competent offense. 99% of what I have seen is a combination of apathy and ineptitude, but I am glad to hear the games I've missed he has looked better.

How big can the gap be between scouting and 650 minutes of production? Even accounting for the incorrect role, spotty playing time, etc.... at some point what you've done on the court has to count to at least SOME degree. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/langfro01.html

Probably best to take his year 1 and 2 together as his "rookie year".

Any recent good comps for 50 games, 653 minutes, 5.2 PER, 35% FG%, 22% 3 PT%, 43% TS%, 6 Reb%, 5 Ast%, WS/48 0.016, Ortg 95, etc. becoming good offensive players? Not saying there aren't, just asking. I'd be happy to hear some.
You really should have watched those games.

No we don't have a lot of comps for guys who came into the league with a wrist injury, needed a second surgery on it, and also played half of his 2 year career during a global pandemic, catching the disease.

Probably some baseball cases from guys with a 1917 rookie year are comparable.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,016
Langford needs to find a way to translate the dominant performance he put on as a lead guard utilizing the pick and roll in college.
Well one way to do that would be to go to a team where he could, umm, you know - run the PnR. Which is something he isn't given a chance to do with this iteration of the Cs since they are trying to win games.

I think, however, given a full offseason of training and a training camp, the Cs are going to ask RL to do more next year, particularly with the second unit.
No we don't have a lot of comps for guys who came into the league with a wrist injury, needed a second surgery on it, and also played half of his 2 year career during a global pandemic, catching the disease.
Not that this changes your point, but first injury was to his right thumb; the second surgery was to his wrist.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,911
around the way
Well one way to do that would be to go to a team where he could, umm, you know - run the PnR. Which is something he isn't given a chance to do with this iteration of the Cs since they are trying to win games.

I think, however, given a full offseason of training and a training camp, the Cs are going to ask RL to do more next year, particularly with the second unit.

Not that this changes your point, but first injury was to his right thumb; the second surgery was to his wrist.
Thanks. That's bad.

Like some other here, I had kind of forgotten about him and that knowledge disappeared.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
32,390
Melrose, MA
Summer league and his "2nd" season are going to be critical to see significant growth.
I think he'll dominate summer league but I don't think it will mean anything.
2. Being really awful has SOME weight toward a player's projection, even in a pretty small 650 minute sample. If he wasn't horrible in that same 650 minutes we would be happy about that, right?
I don't think it does, beyond elimiating the scenarios where he steps in immediately and is playable. Those obviously didn't happen and aren't going to.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,911
around the way
I think he'll dominate summer league but I don't think it will mean anything.
I don't think it does, beyond elimiating the scenarios where he steps in immediately and is playable. Those obviously didn't happen and aren't going to.
Yeah some guys come in and play ok right away and never improve. There's some value of course to being a useful bench piece from jump, but not much value over the guy's career or even first contract if he's a JAG. I'll take a guy with useful starter or above-average rotation potential over that guy any day, at least until we're legit knocking on championship's door.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
10,933
I think he'll dominate summer league but I don't think it will mean anything.
I don't think it does, beyond elimiating the scenarios where he steps in immediately and is playable. Those obviously didn't happen and aren't going to.

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.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,753
Rozier and AB were similarly terrible at the beginning of their career in Boston. TR became a decent offensive player in year three, Bradley in year two. Both were better scorers in the G league, which probably isn’t much of an indicator. Celtics management has the experience with TR and AB, and seem to be ok with Romeo being on a similar development tract.

By the way his teammates react when he makes a play, surprised and loudly encouraging when he manages to get a bucket or make a play, it looks like his play in practice isn’t translating to games often.

Hopefully he can stay healthy in this playoff series, playing solid defense and driving to the rim, to jump start his crucial third season in the league.