CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: droopdog7 on November 10, 2012, 02:10:26 PM

Title: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: droopdog7 on November 10, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
A lot of people confuse what it really means to be deep?  A deep team isn't necessarily having a lot of guys that can play in a rotation.  Having 11 or 12 rotation players in most cases just means that you don't have a lot of guys that stand out.

In reality, good depth means that my sixth guy is better than your sixth guy, my seventh guy is better than your seventh guy, etc.  Of course, this does not take into account chemistry and match ups.

Anyway, we have a lot of players that have played regular minutes.  But I am not sure we're really a deep team.  At this point, having all these players seems to have done more harm than good.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Edgar on November 10, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
At this point, having all these players seems to have done more harm than good.

Blame coaching

and I do think this team is a deep team
an somehow i disagree the best 6th man principle as depth
imho Depth is to have a player who can backup every position as good as your starter or at least better than the competition
based solely in stats and carrer the celtics have that

Its just being missused horribly
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Fan from VT on November 10, 2012, 02:36:47 PM
Yes we are deep. So is my septic tank.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: manl_lui on November 10, 2012, 02:49:07 PM
yes they are, but they are still a work in progress. Defense and communication are something they definitely need to work on
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: csfansince60s on November 10, 2012, 03:18:37 PM
At this point, having all these players seems to have done more harm than good.

Blame coaching

and I do think this team is a deep team
an somehow i disagree the best 6th man principle as depth
imho Depth is to have a player who can backup every position as good as your starter or at least better than the competition
based solely in stats and carrer the celtics have that

Its just being missused horribly

+1....Agree completely. This is a VERY deep team.

Doc just doesn't have the capability nor the mental agility to juggle and utilize all the talent that Ainge has provided him.

Just not one of Doc's strengths. To his credit, he knows his limitations which is why he tries to keep the number of players in his rotation to 8 or 9 at the most.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: LarBrd33 on November 10, 2012, 03:46:58 PM
No.  Boston fans tend to get themselves all worked up over nothing.  Terry has always been a bench player.  Lee is a bench player.  Barbosa is a bench player.   Those three are pretty much redundant.  That's not depth.

For our bigs we're weak.  KG is excellent  (though old), but beyond him we have two capable bench bigs (Sullinger and Bass) and a whole lot of trash.   

Nothing has changed since Shaq hobbled off the court.  We lack size next to KG.  Our 4th best player is lighting it up on MIami's bench right now.   But all of this was very predictable.  I had us playing .500 ball until Feb.  Give it until the trade deadline until you give up.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Who on November 10, 2012, 03:47:35 PM
I would say they have two high level backups. From there, I would say they haveFurther down the list
Overall, I would say they have one of the top 3-5 benches in the league.

Arguably the best bench in the league if they get some value out of Darko and/or Sully.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 10, 2012, 03:54:27 PM
No.  Boston fans tend to get themselves all worked up over nothing.  Terry has always been a bench player.  Lee is a bench player.  Barbosa is a bench player.   Those three are pretty much redundant.  That's not depth.

For our bigs we're weak.  KG is excellent  (though old), but beyond him we have two capable bench bigs (Sullinger and Bass) and a whole lot of trash.   

Nothing has changed since Shaq hobbled off the court.  We lack size next to KG.  Our 4th best player is lighting it up on MIami's bench right now.   But all of this was very predictable.  I had us playing .500 ball until Feb.  Give it until the trade deadline until you give up.

My biggest issues with this assessment are:

Jason Terry may have come off the bench for most of his career, but he is unquestionably a good starter level player.

Wilcox is a rotation level player.  As a matter of fact, I would put him ahead of Sully at this stage of his career. 

You forgot to mention Jeff Green.  Yes, he's playing like crap right now, but he's an NBA starter level player who comes off the bench due to our depth.

And, of course, when Bradley (another starter level player) returns, we'll be even deeper.

Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Who on November 10, 2012, 03:55:57 PM
I see two big problems with the bench right now

#1 -- Doc is giving Courtney Lee and Brandon Bass too many minutes. Bass is a weak starter and Lee only a serviceable one. Fair enough giving the high level starters like Rondo, KG and Pierce big minutes (preferably 34mpg, 30mpg, 33-34mpg respectively) but Bass and Lee shouldn't be up around 30 a night with them. Bass is a 20-24 minute a night player and Lee should be given similar court time as a starter while Bradley is injured.

Those minutes should instead be given to Jason Terry (PG/SG) and Jeff Green (SF/PF). Neither player is being given enough court time to show how much of a game-changing presence they can be as bench players. They need more playing time!

There is no point in having top notch bench players if you refuse to give them the minutes necessary to be game-changing bench players.

#2 -- The Bass + Sully combinations (or Bass/Green) have really hurt the team. Once Doc works his way away from those lineups - which will hopefully be soon - the bench will look a lot more effective.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Edgar on November 10, 2012, 03:58:33 PM
I see two big problems with the bench right now

#1 -- Doc is giving Courtney Lee and Brandon Bass too many minutes. Bass is a weak starter and Lee only a serviceable one. Fair enough giving the high level starters like Rondo, KG and Pierce big minutes (preferably 34mpg, 30mpg, 33-34mpg respectively) but Bass and Lee shouldn't be up around 30 a night with them. Bass is a 20-24 minute a night player and Lee should be given similar court time as a starter while Bradley is injured.

Those minutes should instead be given to Jason Terry (PG/SG) and Jeff Green (SF/PF). Neither player is being given enough court time to show how much of a game-changing presence they can be as bench players. They need more playing time!

#2 -- The Bass + Sully combinations (or Bass/Green) have really hurt the team. Once Doc works his way away from those lineups - which will hopefully be soon - the bench will look a lot more effective.


Agree in every single word
specially in the terry playing time
somehow force to Green to find his groove back
not that we are winning
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 10, 2012, 04:04:46 PM
I see two big problems with the bench right now

#1 -- Doc is giving Courtney Lee and Brandon Bass too many minutes. Bass is a weak starter and Lee only a serviceable one. Fair enough giving the high level starters like Rondo, KG and Pierce big minutes (preferably 34mpg, 30mpg, 33-34mpg respectively) but Bass and Lee shouldn't be up around 30 a night with them. Bass is a 20-24 minute a night player and Lee should be given similar court time as a starter while Bradley is injured.

Those minutes should instead be given to Jason Terry (PG/SG) and Jeff Green (SF/PF). Neither player is being given enough court time to show how much of a game-changing presence they can be as bench players. They need more playing time!

There is no point in having top notch bench players if you refuse to give them the minutes necessary to be game-changing bench players.

#2 -- The Bass + Sully combinations (or Bass/Green) have really hurt the team. Once Doc works his way away from those lineups - which will hopefully be soon - the bench will look a lot more effective.

Lee is getting 24.6 mpgs currently, with Terry at 25.6.  I definitely wouldn't mind upping Terry's by a couple and dropping Lee's by a couple.  But, that one is actually close to where it should be.

I completely agree on Green.  Unfortunately, most fans are probably feeling like he should have his minutes reduced right now, as opposed to raised.  He's definitely become the early scapegoat for all Celtics ills. 
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: LarBrd33 on November 10, 2012, 04:22:50 PM
No.  Boston fans tend to get themselves all worked up over nothing.  Terry has always been a bench player.  Lee is a bench player.  Barbosa is a bench player.   Those three are pretty much redundant.  That's not depth.

For our bigs we're weak.  KG is excellent  (though old), but beyond him we have two capable bench bigs (Sullinger and Bass) and a whole lot of trash.   

Nothing has changed since Shaq hobbled off the court.  We lack size next to KG.  Our 4th best player is lighting it up on MIami's bench right now.   But all of this was very predictable.  I had us playing .500 ball until Feb.  Give it until the trade deadline until you give up.

My biggest issues with this assessment are:

Jason Terry may have come off the bench for most of his career, but he is unquestionably a good starter level player.

Wilcox is a rotation level player.  As a matter of fact, I would put him ahead of Sully at this stage of his career. 

You forgot to mention Jeff Green.  Yes, he's playing like crap right now, but he's an NBA starter level player who comes off the bench due to our depth.

And, of course, when Bradley (another starter level player) returns, we'll be even deeper.
I think Terry started for some teams by default, but was a liability defensively.  Kinda like Bass is starting for us, but isn't really a starting big.   Terry is a bench guard... kind of guy you throw in there to get you some buckets.  Lee is solid defensively... which is why he gets minutes.   But really neither of those guys is a starting SG.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 10, 2012, 04:32:33 PM
No.  Boston fans tend to get themselves all worked up over nothing.  Terry has always been a bench player.  Lee is a bench player.  Barbosa is a bench player.   Those three are pretty much redundant.  That's not depth.

For our bigs we're weak.  KG is excellent  (though old), but beyond him we have two capable bench bigs (Sullinger and Bass) and a whole lot of trash.   

Nothing has changed since Shaq hobbled off the court.  We lack size next to KG.  Our 4th best player is lighting it up on MIami's bench right now.   But all of this was very predictable.  I had us playing .500 ball until Feb.  Give it until the trade deadline until you give up.

My biggest issues with this assessment are:

Jason Terry may have come off the bench for most of his career, but he is unquestionably a good starter level player.

Wilcox is a rotation level player.  As a matter of fact, I would put him ahead of Sully at this stage of his career. 

You forgot to mention Jeff Green.  Yes, he's playing like crap right now, but he's an NBA starter level player who comes off the bench due to our depth.

And, of course, when Bradley (another starter level player) returns, we'll be even deeper.
I think Terry started for some teams by default, but was a liability defensively.  Kinda like Bass is starting for us, but isn't really a starting big.   Terry is a bench guard... kind of guy you throw in there to get you some buckets.  Lee is solid defensively... which is why he gets minutes.   But really neither of those guys is a starting SG.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/terryja01.html

Have a look at the JET's career numbers.  There's no way that guy's not a starting caliber guard.  He may have been coming off the bench, but he's always gotten starter level minutes. 

His role here is best as a sixth man, like it's always been, but he needs to be playing starter minutes, like he's always done. 
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: mr. dee on November 10, 2012, 05:35:20 PM
No.  Boston fans tend to get themselves all worked up over nothing.  Terry has always been a bench player.  Lee is a bench player.  Barbosa is a bench player.   Those three are pretty much redundant.  That's not depth.

For our bigs we're weak.  KG is excellent  (though old), but beyond him we have two capable bench bigs (Sullinger and Bass) and a whole lot of trash.   

Nothing has changed since Shaq hobbled off the court.  We lack size next to KG.  Our 4th best player is lighting it up on MIami's bench right now.   But all of this was very predictable.  I had us playing .500 ball until Feb.  Give it until the trade deadline until you give up.

My biggest issues with this assessment are:

Jason Terry may have come off the bench for most of his career, but he is unquestionably a good starter level player.

Wilcox is a rotation level player.  As a matter of fact, I would put him ahead of Sully at this stage of his career. 

You forgot to mention Jeff Green.  Yes, he's playing like crap right now, but he's an NBA starter level player who comes off the bench due to our depth.

And, of course, when Bradley (another starter level player) returns, we'll be even deeper.
I think Terry started for some teams by default, but was a liability defensively.  Kinda like Bass is starting for us, but isn't really a starting big.   Terry is a bench guard... kind of guy you throw in there to get you some buckets.  Lee is solid defensively... which is why he gets minutes.   But really neither of those guys is a starting SG.
So this looks like a bench guy to you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPoAssEIjNE
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 10, 2012, 06:05:44 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Edgar on November 10, 2012, 06:10:36 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

yup

i dont get why Rivers seems to always carry a free pass
or at least the beneffit of the perennial doubt.

Its time to see he makes a LOT of mistakes that from time to time his talented teams cover partially
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 10, 2012, 06:11:33 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start. 
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: mr. dee on November 10, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
The C's play system is very complicated. It may take a while for the new players to completely memorize some plays. Once the chemistry clicks, this team will be extremely deep.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: blastoidesroidsnoids on November 10, 2012, 06:23:23 PM
I see two big problems with the bench right now

#1 -- Doc is giving Courtney Lee and Brandon Bass too many minutes. Bass is a weak starter and Lee only a serviceable one. Fair enough giving the high level starters like Rondo, KG and Pierce big minutes (preferably 34mpg, 30mpg, 33-34mpg respectively) but Bass and Lee shouldn't be up around 30 a night with them. Bass is a 20-24 minute a night player and Lee should be given similar court time as a starter while Bradley is injured.

Those minutes should instead be given to Jason Terry (PG/SG) and Jeff Green (SF/PF). Neither player is being given enough court time to show how much of a game-changing presence they can be as bench players. They need more playing time!

There is no point in having top notch bench players if you refuse to give them the minutes necessary to be game-changing bench players.

#2 -- The Bass + Sully combinations (or Bass/Green) have really hurt the team. Once Doc works his way away from those lineups - which will hopefully be soon - the bench will look a lot more effective.
TP for truth, somebody write this out by hand and mail it to Doc.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: chambers on November 10, 2012, 06:28:26 PM
I'd say we're a very deep team. But what good is depth for if all your players are mediocre?
I break down our team into two lists

I see KG, Rondo, Pierce, Terry and Green as our excellent players or with the potential to be excellent and compete with the elite players in the NBA.

I'd put Bradley and Barbosa as the next two bordering on that list has having the ability to change the game with their play from more than one dimension. (on ball defense and scoring if they're having a hot night)

We then have Lee, Bass, Wilcox and Darko-all good players but are really good at one thing. (defense, jumpshooting, protecting the rim, or running the floor).

We need to add an All Star to the first list to be a seriously deep or threatening team.
We don't want to turn into the Spurs where we just add loads of mediocre players to our aging core- it just doesn't work.
We need an All Star. Imagine if the Spurs had Josh Smith instead of Duwan Blair.. They'd be a beast and probably would've gone the finals.
Same as us in game 7 of the ECF. We did a great job getting that far, but in the end KG just didn't have any help protecting the rim and was forced to go out and try to guard Bosh shooting three pointers- the exact same thing will happen again this year. Josh Smith or Verajao to guard the rim and protect against Wade and Lebron driving inside while KG is out on the perimeter literally changes the Eastern Conference and makes us a legitimate title threat.
One All Star and we are laughing. We have the chips to get one and you can put your house on the fact that Danny will go after one, particularly if Green keeps performing below expectations and Bass regresses.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 10, 2012, 06:30:58 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

I'm clearly talking to the guys that aren't blaming him. I know there's a few guys blaming him but the large overwhelming majority isn't and wouldn't dare even consider it.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: chambers on November 10, 2012, 06:36:28 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

I'm clearly talking to the guys that aren't blaming him. I know there's a few guys blaming him but the large overwhelming majority isn't and wouldn't dare even consider it.


I think it's too early to blame Doc after 5 games.
You're calling people out for not having the balls to blame him yet you're giving him 5 games and hounding him for the 2-3 start of a team with 8 new players and 2 of it's best 3 players at 75% fitness? Pierce still can't go to the rim without getting blocked 5 times, KG is running is ass off but deep in the fourth he's got no lift left.
It takes time, just like it did last season.

I think Doc deserves a little credit.
There's always a double standard. If we win a championship, it's not because of Doc but because of the players we had. If we start the season 2 wins 3 losses it's not the players, it's Doc.

The FACT is that it's been five games and if you're whining about Rivers now be prepared to bite your tongue when his system comes good.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 10, 2012, 06:37:08 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

I'm clearly talking to the guys that aren't blaming him. I know there's a few guys blaming him but the large overwhelming majority isn't and wouldn't dare even consider it.

Maybe if we are below .500 in February, I'll dare to consider it.  2 and 3 after five games, though, yeah, I think I'll give him a pass for now. 
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 10, 2012, 06:41:42 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

I'm clearly talking to the guys that aren't blaming him. I know there's a few guys blaming him but the large overwhelming majority isn't and wouldn't dare even consider it.


I think it's too early to blame Doc after 5 games.
You're calling people out for not having the balls to blame him yet you're giving him 5 games and hounding him for the 2-3 start of a team with 8 new players and 2 of it's best 3 players at 75% fitness? Pierce still can't go to the rim without getting blocked 5 times, KG is running is ass off but deep in the fourth he's got no lift left.
It takes time, just like it did last season.

I think Doc deserves a little credit.
There's always a double standard. If we win a championship, it's not because of Doc but because of the players we had. If we start the season 2 wins 3 losses it's not the players, it's Doc.

The FACT is that it's been five games and if you're whining about Rivers now be prepared to bite your tongue when his system comes good.

Ok, i have been on the doc is overrated bandwagon for quite some time. So its not like i thought he was great and now i think he sucks all of a sudden. Lastly i will be glad to bite my tongue. You think i wanna be sitting here on these boards annoyed by my team? Id rather be talking about how the heat and lakers better watch out.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: LooseCannon on November 10, 2012, 06:47:51 PM
We need to add an All Star to the first list to be a seriously deep or threatening team.

I Just don't see how the Celtics can make a mid-season trade for an All-Star caliber player this season, so the best hope for the Celtics is that Bradley comes back healthy and shows that not only was the end of last season not a fluke but that he is actually capable of even better things to the point of being a borderline All-Star caliber player if scoring was not overrated and defense underrated.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: mustang on November 10, 2012, 06:55:27 PM
There are five unknown (to a greater or lesser degree) quantities on the roster, and if this team is going to be championship-level, they're going to have to develop.  Only Doc can develop them, and now's the time to do so, but he's retreating to his known quantities, which is not going to be enough to pass the Heat as well as whoever emerges from the West.  Who gives a rip if these guys win a playoff round?

The five players he should be focusing on figuring out the first half of the year are:

Rondo
Green
Sullinger
Milicic
Bradley (injured)

It's a real question to me whether Rondo is best served by rebuilding this offense to play faster.  If Jeff Green is ever going to be a super sixth man challenging LBJ, it'll be because Doc threw him out there, then threw him out there again to shake the rust off, the fear, the deference to the vets - whatever.  Same with Darko - I think the guy could be KG's last, best reclamation project, but Doc's consistently throwing known quantities out instead.

Everybody else is what they'll be as a player, for better or worse.  I just don't understand it - he's got the respect of the locker room.  He has job security.  This is the perfect time to try to bump up the ceiling of the squad.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: celtics2 on November 12, 2012, 11:43:41 AM
A lot of people confuse what it really means to be deep?  A deep team isn't necessarily having a lot of guys that can play in a rotation.  Having 11 or 12 rotation players in most cases just means that you don't have a lot of guys that stand out.

In reality, good depth means that my sixth guy is better than your sixth guy, my seventh guy is better than your seventh guy, etc.  Of course, this does not take into account chemistry and match ups.

Anyway, we have a lot of players that have played regular minutes.  But I am not sure we're really a deep team.  At this point, having all these players seems to have done more harm than good.

By this logic we are are not a deep team. Not even shallow. Teams about are about Management, Players, Chemistry and Coach, in that order, imo. A 6th man on our team could suck while thrive on another team. At present my score is Poor for depth. We are guilty of trying to constantly create or resurrect players that are marginal. Likely on another Team a player may succeed because the Coach knows how to use him in matchups. Some Players fit better starting rather than coming off a bench etc. Good Teams like Miami start from Management on down. The Celtics blew a chance years ago to lock Bird into Management but Bird wouldn't play their type of game so he flew. Wyc has been great the rest not so. Ainge peaked but has been tumbling since.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: ScoobyDoo on November 12, 2012, 11:54:05 AM
I think we're deep for sure but the players need time to figure each other out. I thought some of the defense looked good against Milwaukee, in spurts. It started to resemble last year's D.

I'd really like to see us utilize both Collins and Darko even for 5-8 minutes each per night. Put a little weight, muscle and size on the interior when KG is out.

Time - I think we'll be Ok.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: MBunge on November 12, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
Boston's bench play has been bad for a long time.  If it remains bad with probably the most talent since the championship year, there will be no way to deny that it's a coaching matter.

I think the main problem is that Boston has a very complicated and structured offense.  When you bring less talented or productive players off the bench and then force them to run a system that sputters and stumbles even with Rondo, KG and Pierce on the court, the result is unavoidable.

Mike
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: pearljammer10 on November 12, 2012, 01:47:06 PM
Yes without question. The rotations are killing me though especially sully and bass together.

Point is, take away our starters and a team of. Barbosa, terry, green, Wilcox, darko with Bradley as a 6th man sully 7th Collins 8th could fight for the 8th spot on the east no question.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 12, 2012, 02:03:49 PM
Yes without question. The rotations are killing me though especially sully and bass together.

Point is, take away our starters and a team of. Barbosa, terry, green, Wilcox, darko with Bradley as a 6th man sully 7th Collins 8th could fight for the 8th spot on the east no question.

That's a stretch.  They'd be a long shot to get there.  I couldn't see them beating out teams like Chicago, Milwaukee, Washington, or even Cleveland for the last playoff spot. 

I think they could get twenty-five to thirty games, though (of course, everyone would be p---ed off about that, wanting them to tank for the top pick).

Anyway, yes, I agree we have a strong bench (on paper, anyway).
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: pearljammer10 on November 12, 2012, 02:11:22 PM
Yes without question. The rotations are killing me though especially sully and bass together.

Point is, take away our starters and a team of. Barbosa, terry, green, Wilcox, darko with Bradley as a 6th man sully 7th Collins 8th could fight for the 8th spot on the east no question.

That's a stretch.  They'd be a long shot to get there.  I couldn't see them beating out teams like Chicago, Milwaukee, Washington, or even Cleveland for the last playoff spot. 

I think they could get twenty-five to thirty games, though (of course, everyone would be p---ed off about that, wanting them to tank for the top pick).

Anyway, yes, I agree we have a strong bench (on paper, anyway).

Agreed. Fighting for but certainly not a lock. We could give a roseless bulls and the bucks competition for the 8th spot. We would be near or below 500 which is the going rate for an 8th seed in the east these days.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: celtics2 on November 12, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
The C's play system is very complicated. It may take a while for the new players to completely memorize some plays. Once the chemistry clicks, this team will be extremely deep.

We'll maybe we should give IQ tests prior to employ. LOL, a complicated system. Maybe we should un-complicate things. Let em run free. Doc has 5 to dress, what would he do with 11 such as in the NFL where some spark is needed in the Cranial area.  Now there's a Science. My Mother In Law coudda Coached the Big 3 and Posey the 1st year. If Doc is drawing up these complicated plays give em each a Tom Tom. Now the Celtic Girls they got some complicated maneuvers.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Moranis on November 12, 2012, 02:22:23 PM
The Celtics are pretty deep in the 1/2/3 positions, but just aren't very good down low.  Garnett is still an above average player, but Boston has one of the worst starting PF's in basketball and has no truly talented depth on the bench at the 4 or 5.  Sullinger may become an average backup PF by the end of the year, but otherwise this team is in trouble.  It is sadly the reality of this team and why I truly believe that Boston is going to make a move at the deadline using Bradley, Sullinger, Green, and/or Bass (along with picks) to upgrade the PF or C position.  That truly is the only way Boston is going to compete for a title.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 12, 2012, 03:16:39 PM
Personally I'd like to trade a little deepness for Smith or K. Love.... ;D



Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Q_FBE on November 12, 2012, 03:34:30 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

This sounds like an age old argument of the talented players get all the credit when the team is successful and the coach gets all the blame when the team struggles (Except in the Red Sox case, everybody deservedly gets thrown under the bus and run over again and again).

Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 12, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

This sounds like an age old argument of the talented players get all the credit when the team is successful and the coach gets all the blame when the team struggles (Except in the Red Sox case, everybody deservedly gets thrown under the bus and run over again and again).

Players get most of the credit when they win not all of it. And they deserve most of it. They are the ones out there putting the ball in the basket and playing defense. When the team loses *ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COACH HAS ENOUGH TALENT TO WIN* then obviously the coach gets alot of the blame as he should.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: OmarSekou on November 12, 2012, 05:35:17 PM
This team was declared one of the deepest teams in the league before the season started. One of the best benches too. Now all of a sudden we aren't deep? When does the coach get the blame? God forbid we EVER put blame on doc rivers.

Have you been reading this blog lately?  All people are doing is blaming Doc Rivers for our poor start.

This sounds like an age old argument of the talented players get all the credit when the team is successful and the coach gets all the blame when the team struggles (Except in the Red Sox case, everybody deservedly gets thrown under the bus and run over again and again).

Players get most of the credit when they win not all of it. And they deserve most of it. They are the ones out there putting the ball in the basket and playing defense. When the team loses *ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COACH HAS ENOUGH TALENT TO WIN* then obviously the coach gets alot of the blame as he should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boston_Celtics_seasons

We've won our division every year since the Garnett trade. In my opinion we've been in title contention every year since then. I don't expect this year to be any different.

We are a deep team and we have a good coach. Because we have more pieces this year and a lot of them are new, it might take longer to figure out our identity. Talent doesn't mean much if there's no execution and no defined roles. Doc's in the process of experimenting to find out guys' roles. After that we'll need time to gel. Give it some time.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: PhoSita on November 12, 2012, 06:05:02 PM
Boston has one of the worst starting PF's in basketball

Alongside Rondo, Bradley/Lee/Terry, Pierce, and Garnett, I'll take Brandon Bass over:

- whatever trash Charlotte has starting
- Tristan Thompson
- whoever Detroit trots out next to Monroe
- any of Houston's stable of inexperienced PFs
- whoever Orlando trots out there
- Luis Scola
- J.J. Hickson
- Thomas Robinson / Jason Thompson
- Diaw / Blair / Splitter
- whoever Toronto is starting next to Bargs

That's 10 starting PFs that are, in my opinion, less desirable for our team than Brandon Bass.  Which is to say that Bass is by no means a star, but he's a great fit for our team and he's good enough to be a solid starter or an above average backup. 

He's one of the deadliest spot-up mid-range shooters in the league, and he's a vastly underrated individual defender, especially considering his size.  I think he's terrible at center, and I don't like that Doc has been playing him there for significant stretches, but when he isn't asked to do too much, I think Bass is great.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 12, 2012, 07:33:27 PM
I think we are deep in wing players but lack quality bigs in depth.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: PhoSita on November 12, 2012, 07:55:02 PM
I think we are deep in wing players but lack quality bigs in depth.

Specifically, we lack players who can give us quality minutes at the 5.  Bass, Sullinger, Wilcox, Garnett, and even Green in limited minutes -- these are all at least quality 4s.  But with the exception of Garnett (who has substantial mismatch advantages), none of them is ideal at the 5. 

The only true 5s we have on the roster are career backups with very severe deficiencies on the offensive end.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Moranis on November 12, 2012, 09:51:24 PM
Boston has one of the worst starting PF's in basketball

Alongside Rondo, Bradley/Lee/Terry, Pierce, and Garnett, I'll take Brandon Bass over:

- whatever trash Charlotte has starting
- Tristan Thompson
- whoever Detroit trots out next to Monroe
- any of Houston's stable of inexperienced PFs
- whoever Orlando trots out there
- Luis Scola
- J.J. Hickson
- Thomas Robinson / Jason Thompson
- Diaw / Blair / Splitter
- whoever Toronto is starting next to Bargs

That's 10 starting PFs that are, in my opinion, less desirable for our team than Brandon Bass.  Which is to say that Bass is by no means a star, but he's a great fit for our team and he's good enough to be a solid starter or an above average backup. 

He's one of the deadliest spot-up mid-range shooters in the league, and he's a vastly underrated individual defender, especially considering his size.  I think he's terrible at center, and I don't like that Doc has been playing him there for significant stretches, but when he isn't asked to do too much, I think Bass is great.
Bargs is the starting PF in Toronto.  I'd take Mullens (from Charlotte) over Bass.  For all Big Baby's faults he is better than Bass as well. 

I'd call Thompson, Maxiell, Scola, Diaw, and Hickson washes.

Bass is presently better than Robinson and Patterson, but that won't last much longer. 

Booker from Washington is the only starting PF that I would call clearly worse than Bass that probably won't be better than him any time soon. 

You are correct that Bass fits in better on this roster than some of those guys, but that doesn't make Bass somehow better than he is.  He is just not a good starter.  He is much better suited as a 1st or 2nd big man sub.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: cman88 on November 12, 2012, 10:49:50 PM
bass seemed to do pretty well tonight against a front-court of noah/gibson/boozer....hes one of our most consistent players last year/this year so far

and his game seems to have improved since coming to boston. Hes alot better defensively out there.



Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: PhoSita on November 12, 2012, 11:03:17 PM
For all Big Baby's faults he is better than Bass as well. 


I'll grant you some of the things you said, but I have to draw the line here.

Bass is, at least to me, clearly a better player than Glen Davis.  Glen is not nearly as efficient a scorer; his mid-range jumper can't touch Brandon's, and he certainly can't finish at the rim in traffic the way that Brandon can.  Glen has his moments, there's no doubt.  He can get hot and score 20+ points in a game -- especially if he's on a team lacking in scorers to take shots away from him.  But on a nightly basis I'll take Brandon over Glen, hands down.  Bass is also light years better as an individual and team defender. 

Glen was good at taking charges while he was here, but he never made the kind of athletic defensive plays that Bass makes nearly every game, and he didn't have the agility to switch like Brandon does.  In Glen's favor is that his bigger size and strength allow him to body up opposing centers, while Brandon really can't spend any kind of time defending 5s.

The trade that brought Bass to Boston was a slam dunk by Ainge.  Easily one of his best moves in the past 5 years.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: bfrombleacher on November 12, 2012, 11:08:56 PM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: PhoSita on November 12, 2012, 11:22:57 PM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: j804 on November 12, 2012, 11:25:02 PM
We can be if we play up to our potential, this game against the Bulls showed some of our depth
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Moranis on November 13, 2012, 08:41:28 AM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Bass is a better fit for Boston but he is not a better player. 
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: pearljammer10 on November 13, 2012, 09:48:54 AM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Bass is a better fit for Boston but he is not a better player.

Debatable. Bass is certainly a smarter player and that goes a long way in a debate such as this.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Fafnir on November 13, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Bass is a better fit for Boston but he is not a better player.

Debatable. Bass is certainly a smarter player and that goes a long way in a debate such as this.
How do you figure he's a smarter player? Bass's "basketball iq" isn't on my list of postive attributes for him.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Chris on November 13, 2012, 09:57:09 AM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Bass is a better fit for Boston but he is not a better player.

Debatable. Bass is certainly a smarter player and that goes a long way in a debate such as this.
How do you figure he's a smarter player? Bass's "basketball iq" isn't on my list of postive attributes for him.

Yeah, I agree.  Bass is definitely not what I would consider a smart player.  I think Davis' BBIQ is significantly higher...which is what allows him to close the gap a bit on the significantly more talented Bass.

And I would say the same thing about Sully.
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: 2short on November 13, 2012, 11:02:49 AM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Bass is a better fit for Boston but he is not a better player.

Debatable. Bass is certainly a smarter player and that goes a long way in a debate such as this.
How do you figure he's a smarter player? Bass's "basketball iq" isn't on my list of postive attributes for him.

Yeah, I agree.  Bass is definitely not what I would consider a smart player.  I think Davis' BBIQ is significantly higher...which is what allows him to close the gap a bit on the significantly more talented Bass.

And I would say the same thing about Sully.
while i'm not actually disagreeing with you i can only think of davis launching a three pointer and doc saying over and over a three? a three?
Title: Re: Are the Celts really a deep team?
Post by: Fafnir on November 13, 2012, 11:17:27 AM
BBD can create. Bass cannot. Bass is consistent and a team player, BBD wants to play like Kobe Bryant.

Both teams got the player they want.

Glen doesn't even create as effectively as he seems to think he does. 

Both Bass and Davis are probably ideally suited to bench roles, but if I have to start a guy like that, I'll take the guy who knows his role and stays within it over the guy who wants to take 20 shots.
Bass is a better fit for Boston but he is not a better player.

Debatable. Bass is certainly a smarter player and that goes a long way in a debate such as this.
How do you figure he's a smarter player? Bass's "basketball iq" isn't on my list of postive attributes for him.

Yeah, I agree.  Bass is definitely not what I would consider a smart player.  I think Davis' BBIQ is significantly higher...which is what allows him to close the gap a bit on the significantly more talented Bass.

And I would say the same thing about Sully.
while i'm not actually disagreeing with you i can only think of davis launching a three pointer and doc saying over and over a three? a three?
Both Bass/Davis share poor shot selection.

Davis has superior basketball IQ when it comes to seeing angles for drives/passes and defensive situations.

Bass however is a better perimeter defender on switches and is more a true PF than a PF/C like Davis. He's also a far superior jump shooter, which is massive for the C's.