Celtics Blog Forums

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Kane3387 on November 28, 2012, 10:35:00 PM

Title: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kane3387 on November 28, 2012, 10:35:00 PM
Besides wins and losses...

Is it simply chemistry? I mean looking at the roster and coaching they are incredibly similar; however, things just look easy for the spurs. While we look like trash.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 28, 2012, 10:39:30 PM
TIM DUCAN and SPLITTER

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

i hate small ball  .... :'( :'(
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: cman88 on November 28, 2012, 10:39:46 PM
Chemistry....right now we really only have 4-5 guys who played on last years team? the rest are all new or havent been in the system long enough....the C's havent learned to play like a team yet and guys still don't really know their roles.

once they do, this team will be just as good IMO
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: apc on November 28, 2012, 10:42:54 PM
coaching they are incredibly similar.
Not even close, Doc is not in the same league as Pop.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: AB_Celtic on November 28, 2012, 10:44:07 PM
TIM DUCAN and SPLITTER

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

i hate small ball  .... :'( :'(

Tim Duncan = KG

But yes, Splitter.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Boston Garden Leprechaun on November 28, 2012, 10:51:30 PM
TIM DUCAN and SPLITTER

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

i hate small ball  .... :'( :'(

Tim Duncan = KG

But yes, Splitter.

splitter=wilcox?

ok, ok, i kid.   ;D
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 28, 2012, 10:53:01 PM
They have pop and we have doc
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Change on November 28, 2012, 11:08:34 PM
I would say coaching. Nothing against Doc however; Greg Popovich is all time great. He is great at getting best out of personnel. Meanwhile, Doc is slow to integrate new players into his system. Jason Terry talent is being wasted. And Jeff Green regressed since his OKC days. Maybe if Doc were to take a page out of Popovich book and tries adjusted the system instead of forcing the system onto the players...we can get more out of Lee, Green, and Terry.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 28, 2012, 11:11:06 PM
Overall a comparison between the Spurs and pretty much anyone else is kind of unfair.  I like Doc, feel he is a top 5 coach, but Popovich is on a completely different level.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: indeedproceed on November 28, 2012, 11:12:43 PM
Manu Ginobli, great coaching, and continuity. Gino, Parkour, Duncan, Bonner, Blair, Splitter, Jackson, et al, they've all been doing their thing for years.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 28, 2012, 11:13:24 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 28, 2012, 11:14:31 PM
Over the course of the past five seasons the Celtics have won 11 playoff series while the Spurs have won 5.

I think Spurs fans should be asking themselves; "why can't we be more like the Celtics?"
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 28, 2012, 11:15:52 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

Beat me to it.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 28, 2012, 11:17:48 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: ManUp on November 28, 2012, 11:19:02 PM
Better players, coaching, and management on the Spurs side.

Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 28, 2012, 11:20:21 PM
Better players, coaching, and management.

I'm not sure that the players, on a whole, are better.  I'd agree with the other two points though.  That is something that the entire league has in common with the Celtics though.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 28, 2012, 11:21:11 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

These same threads have been popping up for the past few years.  I think chances are pretty good that we'll advance further than them yet again when the games start to really matter. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 28, 2012, 11:26:17 PM
These same threads have been popping up for the past few years.  I think chances are pretty good that we'll advance further than them yet again when the games start to really matter.

Perhaps we will.  I haven't given up on the season at all, by any stretch. 

Maybe chemistry is the reason for the Spurs looking better, or us biding our time until the playoffs, or our style of play being more conducive to the playoffs, or coaching, or some other reason.  Regardless, there is some reason(s) and it is reasonable to speculate what that might be.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: PhoSita on November 28, 2012, 11:27:42 PM
Coaching, roster continuity, coaching, and Tim Duncan.  And Greg Popovich.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: indeedproceed on November 28, 2012, 11:30:22 PM
Over the course of the past five seasons the Celtics have won 11 playoff series while the Spurs have won 5.

I think Spurs fans should be asking themselves; "why can't we be more like the Celtics?"

Well there is something to be said about a weaker conference, but I think as others have said, it's more about us being so inconsistent this season, while the spurs look like the spurs.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 28, 2012, 11:31:49 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 28, 2012, 11:32:28 PM
These same threads have been popping up for the past few years.  I think chances are pretty good that we'll advance further than them yet again when the games start to really matter.

Perhaps we will.  I haven't given up on the season at all, by any stretch. 

Maybe chemistry is the reason for the Spurs looking better, or us biding our time until the playoffs, or our style of play being more conducive to the playoffs, or coaching, or some other reason.  Regardless, there is some reason(s) and it is reasonable to speculate what that might be.

I don't know if I'd say "biding our time" exactly, but I think you've hit on something when you say that this a team that is "more conducive to the playoffs." 

I'm convinced that we'll find a nice rhythm and start reeling off some wins before long in the regular season, as well. 

I do admire the Spurs.  That's a good franchise, with a good coach, and a good core group of players.  Hats off to them for continuing to stay relevant long after many thought they would be on the downswing. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 28, 2012, 11:59:34 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

I disagree.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 12:10:14 AM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

I disagree.

With the first sentence or the second?  For the record, I agree with both.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 29, 2012, 12:12:53 AM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

I disagree.

With the first sentence or the second?  For the record, I agree with both.

I disagree with both.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 29, 2012, 12:23:31 AM
Tony Parker can't whoop Kris Humphries.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: blastoidesroidsnoids on November 29, 2012, 12:24:20 AM
Tony Parker can't whoop Kris Humphries.
well met!
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 29, 2012, 12:25:07 AM
Tony Parker can't whoop Kris Humphries.

Tommy point for the chuckle.  I bet he could, though.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 29, 2012, 12:28:00 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 12:31:29 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 29, 2012, 12:35:12 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 12:38:00 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Smutzy#9 on November 29, 2012, 12:42:49 AM
Same Core of 8-9 players for the past 2-3 years if not more and the best coach in the league.....
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 29, 2012, 12:44:41 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker.  I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.


The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 12:49:15 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 29, 2012, 12:59:50 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Fine.  The Spurs are currently looking better than us.  I'm more concerned about how we'll be looking in May and June than in November, though. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 01:01:24 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Fine.  The Spurs are currently looking better than us.  I'm more concerned about how we'll be looking in May and June than in November, though.

Same here.  And wondering if the Celtics roster will be the same in May as it is in November.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 29, 2012, 01:02:28 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Fine.  The Spurs are currently looking better than us.  I'm more concerned about how we'll be looking in May and June than in November, though.

Same here.  And wondering if the Celtics roster will be the same in May as it is in November.

As of right now, I still hope it is.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Edgar on November 29, 2012, 01:13:45 AM
Better players, coaching, and management on the Spurs side.
yes this too

Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 29, 2012, 01:39:47 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Edgar on November 29, 2012, 01:48:18 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.
yup

imagine if we have picked timmy d ugly memmories
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:01:35 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

So I guess according to you any rational analysis between us and the HEAT would start when their core was assembled. 

So if the question was about the HEAT, you'd respond 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 2 years (which they have and we don't).

That logic works against us, not for us.  Your logic makes the HEAT sound pretty invincible. I disagree with your HEAT praising logic.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Edgar on November 29, 2012, 02:09:55 AM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

So I guess according to you any rational analysis between us and the HEAT would start when their core was assembled. 

So if the question was about the HEAT, you'd respond 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 2 years (which they have and we don't).

That logic works against us, not for us.  Your logic makes the HEAT sound pretty invincible. I disagree with your HEAT praising logic.

it is what it is
theyre pretty invincible until proven otherwise
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kuberski1 on November 29, 2012, 02:40:56 AM
I don't think there is a large gap in talent...my hope at the beginning of the year was that we would be the Spurs of the East.

So far, no go.

Their execution on both ends of the floor is much better.  Their role players know their roles, and execute them well - not so with some of our bench guys.  And our defense is far short of where it needs to be if we want to have a shot....that's my biggest gripe, and area of concern - I think we can and will score enough points.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 29, 2012, 02:48:28 AM
These guys have proven they can play lock down D in stretches. Problem is they don't seem willing to play it for 48mins. I think our D improves alot once ab is in the starting lineup and terry is back on the bench.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: fitzhickey on November 29, 2012, 02:58:11 AM
They don't have pierce, but they have Manu. Kg and Duncan are extremely similar. Rondo and Parker both great. Jet/clee vs Stephen Jackson or kawhi, then bass vs Dejuan, 2 undersized bigs
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 29, 2012, 04:37:39 AM
6-11 Splitter and Bonner really help them.  6-7 Blair plays a lot bigger than his size too.  Diaw plays big too at times.

They shoot the three ball very well, roughly .38% as a team.  They rebound across the board and have a good rebounder in Duncan, we really do not have a good rebounder aside from Rondo.  KG was one at one time but 7 RPG from your C is mediocre to above average.  Duncan does 10 RPG still and 2.5 BPG.

Spurs also have Pop, who is an under rated coach in my opinion.   His guys always play hard and are fundamental.   He doesn't experiment but rather plays to his strengths.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Meadowlark_Scal on November 29, 2012, 06:25:56 AM
The coaching is the only constant difference....At the beginning of both, we had a great team, and they did..we had the big three....we won one ring, they won 3..or was it 4...of course you mined this post from my talk in the nj game yesterday...no big deal.....and instead of always trding rookies and not playing guys who rebound. popovich uses them and finds a way to make it work....! Anyone seen darko around...tony allen....a few others....!
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Who on November 29, 2012, 06:42:38 AM
What's the difference between us and the spurs?

Besides wins and losses...

Is it simply chemistry? I mean looking at the roster and coaching they are incredibly similar; however, things just look easy for the spurs. While we look like trash.

Avery Bradley

------------------------------------

Sorry, that needs an explanation. 

2-3 years ago, Popovich (correctly) realized that his team could no longer be a high level defensive team. Tim Duncan's defense range had dropped, he lacked high level interior defensive help for Duncan and his perimeter defense was good but unexceptional.

Popovich (rightly) saw that his team had underutilized offensive talent and that by sacrificing some of his remaining team defense ... Pop could open up the offense and turn the Spurs into a high ranking offensive team. He (correctly) saw that the boost they would get offensively from changing his system was greater than the losses defensively that came with the system change.

The situation is not the same in Boston because Boston can still be a high level defensive team. They can be that because of Kevin Garnett's excellent defensive range as a starting center + the stellar backcourt defense they get from Rondo and Bradley + well above average swing defense from Pierce, Green and Lee.

So unlike Popovich and San Antonio, Doc and Celtics still have the capacity to be a high level defensive team so Doc has kept the team (somewhat) on that track. Rightly so. Doc could, like Popovich did, open the offense up a great deal more (sacrificing some defense for more offense) which Doc could easily do to get more out of weapons like Jason Terry and Jeff Green ... but I think staying with defense-first idea is a better option.

--------------------------------------------

In other words, Popovich's Spurs are built around their beautiful cohesive offense that gives them very good consistency in the regular season.

While Doc's Celtics continue to be built around their team defense which is currently misfiring and creating a lot of inconsistency in the team.

--------------------------------------------

And when Avery Bradley comes back, I think the team will get a big boost defensively ... and their defensive consistency will improve greatly.

It will lead to much more consistency for the team and more wins.

--------------------------------------------

Bradley is an important piece to the team identity and he is currently missing.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Who on November 29, 2012, 07:06:41 AM
+1 for the Tiago Splitter comments. I think having a strong backup for Duncan who can maintain their defensive integrity is a big advantage for San Antonio's superior regular season consistency relative to Boston.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Who on November 29, 2012, 07:19:31 AM
Reasons for defensive drop-off / inconsistent play

(1) Bradley missing. An All-League caliber guard defender.

(2) Terry as the starting shooting guard where he should never be due to his limitations as a defender/rebounder. Courtney Lee needs to resume starting duties until Bradley returns.

(3) Sullinger's atrocious defense. One of the worst defensive big men in the league playing regular minutes right now. Is hurting the team in a huge way.

(4) No replacement for Stiemsma who was a good defensive presence in the second half of the regular season last year. Matters more in the regular season than playoffs due to Garnett's decreased minutes (29mpg so almost 20mpg with no shot-blocker).

(5) Terry + Barbosa in the rotation together (41 minutes a night of limited defensive play).



When Bradley returns, numbers 1+3+5 should sort themselves out.

The Stiemsma issue is personnel related and it looks like Danny Ainge will need to find a solution in the trade market or in free agency to fix this problem. The Sullinger issue is unclear. Hopefully he'll improve enough as the season goes on to make this less of an issue but that is no sure thing.

Until those defensive issues, or at least some of those issues, are tackled ... the Celtics will continue to struggle for consistent form.

This is why I think getting Bradley back will give the team such a good boost. To their perimeter defense anyway.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: jdz101 on November 29, 2012, 07:59:14 AM
Reasons for defensive drop-off / inconsistent play

(1) Bradley missing. An All-League caliber guard defender.

(2) Terry as the starting shooting guard where he should never be due to his limitations as a defender/rebounder. Courtney Lee needs to resume starting duties until Bradley returns.

(3) Sullinger's atrocious defense. One of the worst defensive big men in the league playing regular minutes right now. Is hurting the team in a huge way.

(4) No replacement for Stiemsma who was a good defensive presence in the second half of the regular season last year. Matters more in the regular season than playoffs due to Garnett's decreased minutes (29mpg so almost 20mpg with no shot-blocker).

(5) Terry + Barbosa in the rotation together (41 minutes a night of limited defensive play).



When Bradley returns, numbers 1+3+5 should sort themselves out.

The Stiemsma issue is personnel related and it looks like Danny Ainge will need to find a solution in the trade market or in free agency to fix this problem. The Sullinger issue is unclear. Hopefully he'll improve enough as the season goes on to make this less of an issue but that is no sure thing.

Until those defensive issues, or at least some of those issues, are tackled ... the Celtics will continue to struggle for consistent form.

This is why I think getting Bradley back will give the team such a good boost. To their perimeter defense anyway.

TP

You voiced exactly what I've been thinking. Terry and Barbosa just aren't meant to be playing against starters for long periods. They will be made to look good against bench guys where they can score the ball and play D against offensively limited players. Bradley will definitely help this if he is able to play 25 minutes and go full tilt defensively.

The number one priority for a backup center should be defense and rebounding. As far as scoring goes this team is more than ok.

I still think Varejao could be had for the right price, though I'm really not keen for Luke Walton to be added in there aswell. Which is what Cleveland wants. Not high on Gortat, especially if Phoenix want young bloods in return.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: slamtheking on November 29, 2012, 08:20:17 AM
I see it as a problem rooted in the coaching difference.
Pop adjusts to his player's strengths.  Doc does not.  I've always thought Doc is overrated (vastly overrated) as a coach.  I think this team is exposing that this year.  I really think a better coach (one who's better at working with the roster he has rather than force feeding his system on his players if they're ill-suited to it which seems to be the case so far) would have this team playing more cohesively at this point in the season.

I do think Avery will help quite a bit when he returns however that will not automatically give all the new faces that missing comprehension of the defense.  Avery won't make JET or Barbosa play better D.  He won't be taking minutes from Sully so that he's not required to contribute this year as a rookie.  He won't help Jeff Green 'get it' and consistently play aggressive offense and defense.  He won't help Lee, JET, PP and others find their shot on those ice-cold shooting nights (like last night).  He won't solve the rebounding problems.

On a side note, it's just amazing how far Avery has come in the estimation of posters here.  A year ago the vast majority of people were ready to ship him out for a bag of basketballs and now he's being hailed (by many) as the savior of the team's season.  quite the turnaround in appreciation.  I like the kid and think he's got a bright future if he can stay healthy but he's not the miracle worker some people are hoping for.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: pearljammer10 on November 29, 2012, 08:22:53 AM
anybody the Spurs put into that system succeeds greatly. it doesnt matter if its a rookie, a red head, an undersized forward, a knucklehead with off court issues... anyone they put in their plays well for them. Its gotta be Pops coaching calls and system that allows them to be so successful.

And they have Duncan.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Moranis on November 29, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
Better players + better coaches = better team
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 29, 2012, 09:34:20 AM
I've always kind of liked the Spurs, but now I'm going to actively root against them.  All this Spurs envy is starting to get on my nerves.

Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: CelticG1 on November 29, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: scaryjerry on November 29, 2012, 09:43:00 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: CelticG1 on November 29, 2012, 09:46:25 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.


2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

I disagree it is very boring. It also doesn't help that the biggest personality on the team is the coach

Your right KG is better than Duncan
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: scaryjerry on November 29, 2012, 09:51:13 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.


2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

I disagree it is very boring. It also doesn't help that the biggest personality on the team is the coach

Your right KG is better than Duncan



So personality means more than sound basketball, and always making the right play? Kg isn't currently or historically better than Duncan...take off the green glasses. They met a recently...Duncan 15 boards...kg 3
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Who on November 29, 2012, 09:56:00 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

I think the Spurs have played very exciting basketball over the last few years. They are one of my favourite teams to watch since opening up their offense a couple of seasons ago.

Even prior to that, I loved watching their ball movement and passing when Oberto was on the floor. I thought that was one of the best passing teams I have seen in a long time.

Prior to that, with Nesterovic and Nazr and even before that with David Robinson, I thought that boring-tag was fair enough. I enjoyed watching them but they were certainly a very methodical team and tended to grind teams down rather than play more eye-pleasing styles of basketball.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: crownsy on November 29, 2012, 09:58:03 AM
They end Defensive possesions with rebounds, rather than being slaughtered on the glass.

I can almost forgive the lack of offensive rebounding since we play a hyper defensive system. But the complete lack of toughness and heart on the defensive glass is mind blowing, and will kill us long term.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: greenhead85 on November 29, 2012, 09:59:04 AM
Player efficiency. Duncan can still be a difference maker in most games, even in playoffs. KG is not and he and Duncan are never similar - Duncan is always a leader and a go-to guy. Manu and Parker just do their jobs without fanfare and score better than PP and Rajon. Plus, all the Spurs Big Three could take on one-on-one challenges anytime.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Fafnir on November 29, 2012, 10:01:19 AM
They end Defensive possesions with rebounds, rather than being slaughtered on the glass.

I can almost forgive the lack of offensive rebounding since we play a hyper defensive system. But the complete lack of toughness and heart on the defensive glass is mind blowing, and will kill us long term.
We're actually a much better defensive rebounding team than the Spurs.

They're 23rd and we're 8th. They're not even much better on the offensive glass, we're 30th and they're 28th, though the gap is from 22.4 to 18.4 (which is bigger than the gap in our defensive rebounding numbers)
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: pearljammer10 on November 29, 2012, 10:02:15 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kane3387 on November 29, 2012, 10:09:22 AM
Better players + better coaches = better team

I don't think the players are better. That was my main reason for the post. I looked at their record and they have 13 wins already?

Duncan and KG. Take either/or. They're pretty even overall to me.
I would take Pierce over Manu.
I would take Rondo over Parker.
I would take Bass over Diaw and probably Sully over Blair.
Lee/Terry and Danny Green seem pretty even.
I do like Jackson over Green from an aggressive standpoint.
Heck I see Avery and Kawhi playing the same role and I see that as a toss up.
I guess I like Splitter more then Wilcox but then I love how Wilcox plays with Rondo, so I don't know.

As for Doc vs Pop. I think both have their strengths. Doc is a master at calling plays and in the playoffs really seems greg at motivating. The fact his players are willing to practically die for him says a lot. I'm not convinced that Pop is far superior to Doc as an overall coach.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2012, 10:12:10 AM
Well, one major thing is that the Spurs had very little turnover from last season, while the C's only have 4 guys returning from the team that finished the season so strong last year.  Continuity can make a huge difference, and it is a big reason the Spurs operate like a well oiled machine. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: crownsy on November 29, 2012, 10:16:45 AM
They end Defensive possesions with rebounds, rather than being slaughtered on the glass.

I can almost forgive the lack of offensive rebounding since we play a hyper defensive system. But the complete lack of toughness and heart on the defensive glass is mind blowing, and will kill us long term.
We're actually a much better defensive rebounding team than the Spurs.

They're 23rd and we're 8th. They're not even much better on the offensive glass, we're 30th and they're 28th, though the gap is from 22.4 to 18.4 (which is bigger than the gap in our defensive rebounding numbers)

Right, but whats our defensive rebounding offset by the amount of offensive boards we give up? We get crushed on the glass on our own end.

Edit: we're actually better than I though, we give up an average of 10.5 a game, which is better than the spurs, but still my main gripe with this team.

11 extra possessions a game on average.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kane3387 on November 29, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
Well, one major thing is that the Spurs had very little turnover from last season, while the C's only have 4 guys returning from the team that finished the season so strong last year.  Continuity can make a huge difference, and it is a big reason the Spurs operate like a well oiled machine.

This is why I still have faith. I just hate having to be patient.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 29, 2012, 10:25:34 AM
Duncan

Splitter

Coaching

Duncan

Splitter

Coaching

Coaching

X  100     :'(
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 29, 2012, 10:31:55 AM
Quote
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

No team in the NBA plays team ball as well as they do.  Their sum is henceforth, much greater than their parts.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Moranis on November 29, 2012, 10:48:42 AM
Better players + better coaches = better team

I don't think the players are better. That was my main reason for the post. I looked at their record and they have 13 wins already?

Duncan and KG. Take either/or. They're pretty even overall to me.
I would take Pierce over Manu.
I would take Rondo over Parker.
I would take Bass over Diaw and probably Sully over Blair.
Lee/Terry and Danny Green seem pretty even.
I do like Jackson over Green from an aggressive standpoint.
Heck I see Avery and Kawhi playing the same role and I see that as a toss up.
I guess I like Splitter more then Wilcox but then I love how Wilcox plays with Rondo, so I don't know.

As for Doc vs Pop. I think both have their strengths. Doc is a master at calling plays and in the playoffs really seems greg at motivating. The fact his players are willing to practically die for him says a lot. I'm not convinced that Pop is far superior to Doc as an overall coach.
You are wrong pretty much across the board on the talent.  The Spurs have a lot better players than the Celtics.  And the coaches are even less close.  Pop is an all time great, Doc is very average.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: angryguy77 on November 29, 2012, 11:03:12 AM
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 11:07:16 AM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 11:35:33 AM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 11:37:43 AM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: ManUp on November 29, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Better players + better coaches = better team

I don't think the players are better. That was my main reason for the post. I looked at their record and they have 13 wins already?

Duncan and KG. Take either/or. They're pretty even overall to me.
I would take Pierce over Manu.
I would take Rondo over Parker.
I would take Bass over Diaw and probably Sully over Blair.
Lee/Terry and Danny Green seem pretty even.
I do like Jackson over Green from an aggressive standpoint.
Heck I see Avery and Kawhi playing the same role and I see that as a toss up.
I guess I like Splitter more then Wilcox but then I love how Wilcox plays with Rondo, so I don't know.

As for Doc vs Pop. I think both have their strengths. Doc is a master at calling plays and in the playoffs really seems greg at motivating. The fact his players are willing to practically die for him says a lot. I'm not convinced that Pop is far superior to Doc as an overall coach.
You are wrong pretty much across the board on the talent.  The Spurs have a lot better players than the Celtics.  And the coaches are even less close.  Pop is an all time great, Doc is very average.

TP, agreed.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 12:22:08 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 29, 2012, 12:43:42 PM
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Although we have gone further than the Spurs have in recent years.

But yeah, I think Doc and Pop are pretty much on the same level.  They are both in the upper echelon of coaches, but not necessarily separated from the rest. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on November 29, 2012, 12:46:37 PM
TIAGO Splitter.

He sets a mean pick.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: CelticG1 on November 29, 2012, 12:52:30 PM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 01:05:32 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 29, 2012, 01:08:40 PM
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Although we have gone further than the Spurs have in recent years.

But yeah, I think Doc and Pop are pretty much on the same level.  They are both in the upper echelon of coaches, but not necessarily separated from the rest.

Pop puts his players in the best possible position to succeed. As a coach that's all you can do. I don't think doc is anywhere near pops level.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 29, 2012, 01:11:20 PM
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

So I guess according to you any rational analysis between us and the HEAT would start when their core was assembled. 

So if the question was about the HEAT, you'd respond 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 2 years (which they have and we don't).

That logic works against us, not for us.  Your logic makes the HEAT sound pretty invincible. I disagree with your HEAT praising logic.

it is what it is
theyre pretty invincible until proven otherwise

Yeah, I'm with Edgar on this one.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 01:12:13 PM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Tony Parker is similarly entertaining.  Manu is fun to watch.  The team itself also plays a faster and more offense oriented style of play.  The Spurs are 3rd in the league in scoring, the Celtics are 14th.

Not saying that the it is better.  It is just generally more fun to watch.  And no, this isn't because they are losing.

I would think most casual fans would be more interested in a team that scores more and less interested in a team that scores less.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Although we have gone further than the Spurs have in recent years.

But yeah, I think Doc and Pop are pretty much on the same level.  They are both in the upper echelon of coaches, but not necessarily separated from the rest.

Pop puts his players in the best possible position to succeed. As a coach that's all you can do. I don't think doc is anywhere near pops level.

I think Doc does this too.  But there is often a learning curve for new players.  The Spurs have very few new players this year, and the C's have a ton.  It takes a while for a coach to learn how to use players, and for the players to learn how to fit in.

On the whole, both coaches have a similar track record, when they have had similar talent levels.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 01:34:31 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 01:40:16 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

It is fine for the OP to be a little disappointed at our slow start.  Our finish in 2010 doesn't change that.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 29, 2012, 02:01:22 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 02:07:57 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 02:12:00 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:14:52 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

All I said to you is that he is talking about this year, and he was.  Cool your jets, my friend.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?  I should note that we have zero titles without home court in years that we have had this core group.  We've also lost a Game 7 on the road in 2010 and in 2012.  Our title in 2008 came with us winning almost exclusively at home.

Once again, I'd state this slump might not hurt, but it certainly doesn't help.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:16:10 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2012, 02:16:59 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Thats enough of that (both of you).  Let's keep this civil.  Consider this a general warning to everyone.  There is a lot of tension right now, but we still expect everyone to behave with respect to other posters.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 02:22:33 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

  Were they low seeded teams? If not we'd have won some series before we played them, just like we did when we lost to the Heat and the Magic. We might have done better in the West without Wade's cheap shot on Rondo in 2011.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:29:08 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kane3387 on November 29, 2012, 02:30:21 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:32:34 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

  Were they low seeded teams? If not we'd have won some series before we played them, just like we did when we lost to the Heat and the Magic. We might have done better in the West without Wade's cheap shot on Rondo in 2011.

At the very least we would've played the 2010 Lakers before the Finals.  Maybe we win, maybe we lose.  But I wouldn't say that it is impossible or delusional to think that we could've lost that series.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:34:25 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.

Potentially true.  A lot of teams in the NBA can make the "if healthy" claim though.  The Suns lost Joe Johnson one year, lost Amar'e the next, and lost Amar'e to a suspension against the Spurs after that.  Suns fans count three potentially lost titles.

Maybe we beat those teams, maybe not.  I wouldn't say arguing either way is delusional though.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 29, 2012, 02:36:15 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

I said we'd have less playoff wins. I never said we wouldn't have beaten any west teams.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kane3387 on November 29, 2012, 02:37:53 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.

Potentially true.  A lot of teams in the NBA can make the "if healthy" claim though.  The Suns lost Joe Johnson one year, lost Amar'e the next, and lost Amar'e to a suspension against the Spurs after that.  Suns fans count three potentially lost titles.

Maybe we beat those teams, maybe not.  I wouldn't say arguing either way is delusional though.

Not a lot of teams.. Only a few. Spurs, Suns, Rockets, Lakers. That's really about it. Detroit never could. Miami couldn't - I don't think. From 1998 - 2004 the east never had a chance.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:41:04 PM
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.

Potentially true.  A lot of teams in the NBA can make the "if healthy" claim though.  The Suns lost Joe Johnson one year, lost Amar'e the next, and lost Amar'e to a suspension against the Spurs after that.  Suns fans count three potentially lost titles.

Maybe we beat those teams, maybe not.  I wouldn't say arguing either way is delusional though.

Not a lot of teams.. Only a few. Spurs, Suns, Rockets, Lakers. That's really about it. Detroit never could. Miami couldn't - I don't think. From 1998 - 2004 the east never had a chance.

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty fair for that time period.

Miami did have a banged up Shaq and Wade in a Game 7 of the 2005 playoffs against the Pistons though.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 02:51:07 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

  You responded to my post to address the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the topic (while discussing the same thing I brought up with other posters) and made a comment about sarcasm being my "style" a few minutes after complaining about my sarcastic posts in another thread. You might have missed the reference but it was fairly obvious.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

  I don't really care a lot about home court in the East except possibly the ECF which we probably won't get anyways. If we can't beat crappy teams on the road then we won't win the title anyways.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 02:55:15 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

  You responded to my post to address the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the topic (while discussing the same thing I brought up with other posters) and made a comment about sarcasm being my "style" a few minutes after complaining about my sarcastic posts in another thread. You might have missed the reference but it was fairly obvious.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

  I don't really care a lot about home court in the East except possibly the ECF which we probably won't get anyways. If we can't beat crappy teams on the road then we won't win the title anyways.

Glad you were able to keep track of my posts yesterday.  Referencing Chris Paul in a reply to one of my posts about Chris Paul would've made more sense to me instead of referencing his name in response to the 2012-2013 Spurs team, which he does not play for.  I would think that would be fairly obvious.  This forum has multiple threads with multiple topics.

I'd say home court helps in every series.  You never know what might happen in terms of injuries that might level the playing field between us and the Nets and Knicks.  What if KG gets injured and has to miss a game or two?  This team should try to maximize its margin for error, not minimize it.  A lot can happen in a short playoff series.  Every little edge helps.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 29, 2012, 03:12:26 PM


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

  You responded to my post to address the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the topic (while discussing the same thing I brought up with other posters) and made a comment about sarcasm being my "style" a few minutes after complaining about my sarcastic posts in another thread. You might have missed the reference but it was fairly obvious.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

  I don't really care a lot about home court in the East except possibly the ECF which we probably won't get anyways. If we can't beat crappy teams on the road then we won't win the title anyways.

Glad you were able to keep track of my posts yesterday.  Referencing Chris Paul in a reply to one of my posts about Chris Paul would've made more sense to me instead of referencing his name in response to the 2012-2013 Spurs team, which he does not play for.  I would think that would be fairly obvious.  This forum has multiple threads with multiple topics.

  I don't know if you're being sarcastic or deliberately obtuse so I'll let this go.

I'd say home court helps in every series.  You never know what might happen in terms of injuries that might level the playing field between us and the Nets and Knicks.  What if KG gets injured and has to miss a game or two?  This team should try to maximize its margin for error, not minimize it.  A lot can happen in a short playoff series.  Every little edge helps.


  Of course home court helps in every series, and obviously the Celts should try and maximize their margin for error. I just think that if the team's a contender they should be able to beat the Knicks or the Nets in any case.
 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 03:21:03 PM

Glad you were able to keep track of my posts yesterday.  Referencing Chris Paul in a reply to one of my posts about Chris Paul would've made more sense to me instead of referencing his name in response to the 2012-2013 Spurs team, which he does not play for.  I would think that would be fairly obvious.  This forum has multiple threads with multiple topics.

  I don't know if you're being sarcastic or deliberately obtuse so I'll let this go.

I'd say home court helps in every series.  You never know what might happen in terms of injuries that might level the playing field between us and the Nets and Knicks.  What if KG gets injured and has to miss a game or two?  This team should try to maximize its margin for error, not minimize it.  A lot can happen in a short playoff series.  Every little edge helps.


  Of course home court helps in every series, and obviously the Celts should try and maximize their margin for error. I just think that if the team's a contender they should be able to beat the Knicks or the Nets in any case.

My previous post is fairly obvious from my perspective, no context clues necessary.  If you have something to address on Thread A, doing so on Thread B makes little sense.  It would be best served addressed on Thread A.  Fairly obvious that there is no CP3 relevance here at all.  This forum has multiple threads. You can PM me with any further questions, I'm sure other posters are as bored with this part of our conversation as I am.

I don't agree that a contender should be able to beat the Knicks or Nets in any case.  What if KG goes down for a short stretch like Bosh did for Miami?  We might not be able to beat the Knicks or Nets without him, but we might be able to beat the HEAT with him.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: LooseCannon on November 29, 2012, 05:13:14 PM
One difference is that the Spurs are willing to do something like this (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/11/29/spurs-will-face-heat-without-big-three-green/):

Quote
With the road miles piling up on his veteran team, the Spurs coach has dispatched four of his top five leading scorers home to San Antonio in advance of tonight’s nationally televised game against the Miami Heat.

Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green did not travel with the team after Wednesday night’s win in Orlando, instead heading back to South Texas this morning for an extra day of rest leading up to Saturday’s sure-to-be-rugged home game against Memphis.

The four were spotted on a Southwest flight making a pre-lunch escape from central Florida.

As a result, the Spurs – who were already without injured small forward Kawhi Leonard and Stephen Jackson – get set to take on the defending NBA champions using a roster of nine players.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 29, 2012, 05:20:46 PM
One difference is that the Spurs are willing to do something like this (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/11/29/spurs-will-face-heat-without-big-three-green/):

Quote
With the road miles piling up on his veteran team, the Spurs coach has dispatched four of his top five leading scorers home to San Antonio in advance of tonight’s nationally televised game against the Miami Heat.

Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green did not travel with the team after Wednesday night’s win in Orlando, instead heading back to South Texas this morning for an extra day of rest leading up to Saturday’s sure-to-be-rugged home game against Memphis.

The four were spotted on a Southwest flight making a pre-lunch escape from central Florida.

As a result, the Spurs – who were already without injured small forward Kawhi Leonard and Stephen Jackson – get set to take on the defending NBA champions using a roster of nine players.

Decisions like this are intriguing to me.  The implications can't be directly measured - so intangible.  How much does a move like this truly help the veterans stay healthy? Does it build depth amongst the younger players now thrust in a starting role? Was the Miami game chosen purposely because it is Miami (and they are assuming a loss) or because it is on the back-end of a road trip and just prior to a semi-important home game?
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on November 29, 2012, 05:24:38 PM
I was gonna post that. Decisions like this is why POP is who he is. I personally love the guy. Id trade him for doc straight up.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Finkelskyhook on November 29, 2012, 07:01:47 PM
What's the difference between us and the spurs? The coaches.  The GMs.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 29, 2012, 07:11:53 PM
Tony Parker can't whoop Kris Humphries.

With a ladder and baseball bat he could... ;D
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: D Dub on November 29, 2012, 07:14:04 PM
Pop still coaches defense
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Chris on November 29, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
So the culture that Pop promotes, allows his stars to sit against the best team in the league on national television...and they don't force their way into the lineup?  I am not sure thats a good thing.  Perhaps if Pop instilled a little more pride in his players, they would have laid down against OKC in the WCF last year.  I understand resting guys, but this is sending the wrong message IMO.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 29, 2012, 08:38:19 PM
PoP resting his players , when NON are hurt for a nationally Telvised game is insane. ......

Stern has to do something fast .or else .....all the games will be rigged by the coachs ....  ???

I mean WHAT fan wants to see on TV or in person the HEAT play the Spurs bench ???????
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: CelticG1 on November 29, 2012, 08:41:28 PM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Tony Parker is similarly entertaining.  Manu is fun to watch.  The team itself also plays a faster and more offense oriented style of play.  The Spurs are 3rd in the league in scoring, the Celtics are 14th.

Not saying that the it is better.  It is just generally more fun to watch.  And no, this isn't because they are losing.

I would think most casual fans would be more interested in a team that scores more and less interested in a team that scores less.

Im sorry but there's a reason why the Celtics bring in such high national ratings.

And comparing Rondo to Parker as far as entertainment goes.its not even close.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: scaryjerry on November 29, 2012, 10:21:10 PM
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Tony Parker is similarly entertaining.  Manu is fun to watch.  The team itself also plays a faster and more offense oriented style of play.  The Spurs are 3rd in the league in scoring, the Celtics are 14th.

Not saying that the it is better.  It is just generally more fun to watch.  And no, this isn't because they are losing.

I would think most casual fans would be more interested in a team that scores more and less interested in a team that scores less.

Im sorry but there's a reason why the Celtics bring in such high national ratings.

And comparing Rondo to Parker as far as entertainment goes.its not even close.

Celtics bring in better ratings because of the market they play in...people either love or hate Boston.....they're not better on the eye from a pure basketball standpoint period...they're actually hard to watch right now. Rondo is our only entertaining player and hes not a high flyer and barely a scorer and off the court hes as boring an intercview as bill bellichick
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celticslove on November 29, 2012, 10:24:01 PM
their coach got balls ours... well you be the judge. ;D i love how pop got to courage to really play his rookies and role players.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Fan from VT on November 29, 2012, 10:31:07 PM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Kuberski1 on November 29, 2012, 10:54:20 PM
They can give the Heat a game without 6 of their top guys.  Not sure we could give the Heat a game if THEY were without 6 of their top guys.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: esel1000 on November 29, 2012, 11:14:25 PM
They can give the Heat a game without 6 of their top guys.  Not sure we could give the Heat a game if THEY were without 6 of their top guys.

thats just depressing... and the scary part is its true...
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Mike-Dub on November 29, 2012, 11:40:51 PM
Was going to post something in more detail on this topic, but I accidentally hit the back button on my browser.

I'ts as simple as this. 

The Spurs are clicking right now because of the continuity they have. 

The Celtics are struggling right now because of all the turnover they had in the offseason.

Obviously there is a lot more to it, but simply put that's it right there.

By the way Who is spot on with all of the his points in this thread.

Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: LooseCannon on November 30, 2012, 12:30:48 AM
The Spurs are clicking right now because of the continuity they have. 

The Celtics are struggling right now because of all the turnover they had in the offseason.

I think Green, Bass, Lee, and Terry were signed to long-term deals precisely to create that sort of continuity in the declining years of Pierce and Garnett.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: AB_Celtic on November 30, 2012, 12:37:38 AM
The Spurs are clicking right now because of the continuity they have. 

The Celtics are struggling right now because of all the turnover they had in the offseason.

I think Green, Bass, Lee, and Terry were signed to long-term deals precisely to create that sort of continuity in the declining years of Pierce and Garnett.

While that might have been Ainge's original intention, I'd be very surprised if all four of them were still here at the end of January.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: LooseCannon on November 30, 2012, 01:08:02 AM
The Spurs are clicking right now because of the continuity they have. 

The Celtics are struggling right now because of all the turnover they had in the offseason.

I think Green, Bass, Lee, and Terry were signed to long-term deals precisely to create that sort of continuity in the declining years of Pierce and Garnett.

While that might have been Ainge's original intention, I'd be very surprised if all four of them were still here at the end of January.

I'd be surprised if they weren't.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.
 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Fan from VT on November 30, 2012, 10:04:12 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

We were very elite at our peak, but don't have the upper management to sustain it, basically. Thus that peak is in the past, and the spurs keep riding it.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Fafnir on November 30, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
The four titles came over Duncan's entire prime, we've only had a similar player (KG) for a much shorter period and in his decline. We've done better than the Spurs since we've acquired KG certainly.

As for the "no Green type deals", Richard Jefferson's contract is offended you forgot it. It just happened longer ago so they've had time to flip it (for another bad contract in Stephen Jackson)
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 10:11:08 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

  How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 10:15:33 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

  How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7.  We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs.  How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago.  No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 10:42:39 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

  How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7.  We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs.  How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago.  No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

  The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: scaryjerry on November 30, 2012, 10:46:11 AM
The four titles came over Duncan's entire prime, we've only had a similar player (KG) for a much shorter period and in his decline. We've done better than the Spurs since we've acquired KG certainly.

As for the "no Green type deals", Richard Jefferson's contract is offended you forgot it. It just happened longer ago so they've had time to flip it (for another bad contract in Stephen Jackson)

Eh...they're in the much much tougher conference and have had the best record in the league 2 years and made the conference finals twice and won the title the year before we got kg....we haven't really been that much better.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: scaryjerry on November 30, 2012, 10:47:21 AM
Was going to post something in more detail on this topic, but I accidentally hit the back button on my browser.

I'ts as simple as this. 

The Spurs are clicking right now because of the continuity they have. 

The Celtics are struggling right now because of all the turnover they had in the offseason.

Obviously there is a lot more to it, but simply put that's it right there.

By the way Who is spot on with all of the his points in this thread.

Yawn...the best celtics team in 20 years had more turnover then this years team and started 29-2
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 10:51:29 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

  How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7.  We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs.  How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago.  No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

  The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

The first 5 years of our core saw 1 NBA title win.  The first 5 years of their core saw 2 NBA title wins.

We've won the NBA title once in a 5 year stretch.  Their core has won the NBA title three times in an 11 year stretch.

Ignoring their work before our core formed certainly makes the comparison easier, but not more accurate.  Their organizational expertise shouldn't be penalized because their titles happened to come before our core formed.

Our last title was in 08.  Their last title was in 07.  It's not like we've beaten them every year in the playoffs since our core formed.  The two cores are independent of each other.

I fail to see why so many on this board see our 1 title with this group as one of the great dynastys in modern sports history.

I'd prefer 3 titles to 1, no matter the order or stretch of time.  If we were on the same timeline as them, or superior to them, we'd at least have 2 titles by now.  We don't.

Our core has as many titles as the 70's Bullets or the 00's Pistons.  Joe Dumars has as many titles running a team as Danny Ainge.  You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Fafnir on November 30, 2012, 10:54:36 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If you want to look at regular season success the Spurs have been superior because other than 07-08, 08-09, and 10-11 we haven't been very good regular season teams overall. Meanwhile they've mainted their excellence much more consistently.

When it comes to playoff results we've done much better.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 10:56:41 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.  I certainly don't.  I think we've converted once in five tries and wouldn't blame KG's age for that.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 11:06:44 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

  How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7.  We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs.  How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago.  No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

  The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

The first 5 years of our core saw 1 NBA title win.  The first 5 years of their core saw 2 NBA title wins.

We've won the NBA title once in a 5 year stretch.  Their core has won the NBA title three times in an 11 year stretch.

Ignoring their work before our core formed certainly makes the comparison easier, but not more accurate.  Their organizational expertise shouldn't be penalized because their titles happened to come before our core formed.

Our last title was in 08.  Their last title was in 07.  It's not like we've beaten them every year in the playoffs since our core formed.  The two cores are independent of each other.

I fail to see why so many on this board see our 1 title with this group as one of the great dynastys in modern sports history.

I'd prefer 3 titles to 1, no matter the order or stretch of time.  If we were on the same timeline as them, or superior to them, we'd at least have 2 titles by now.  We don't.

Our core has as many titles as the 70's Bullets or the 00's Pistons.  Joe Dumars has as many titles running a team as Danny Ainge.  You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

  Haha. So your response to a discussion comparing the recent playoff successes of the Celts and the Spurs is to bring up things that happened farther in the past, not during the time frame we were discussing? That dovetails wonderfully with your earlier umbrage at my bringing up past seasons when the OP was talking about this year.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 11:16:13 AM
-Better Coaching

-Strong international scouting and investment (compared to none for the C's)

-Better planning/Long term vision (investing in guys like splitter and scola even if they won't come over for 1-2 years)

-Ability to trade vets for draft picks instead of overpaying for soon to be FAs (george hill turned into kawhi leonard).

-Better Drafting (blair, leonard)

-Better scouting/signing of unproven young guys/d leaugers (green, neal)

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

  With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently,  and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

  How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7.  We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs.  How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago.  No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

  The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

The first 5 years of our core saw 1 NBA title win.  The first 5 years of their core saw 2 NBA title wins.

We've won the NBA title once in a 5 year stretch.  Their core has won the NBA title three times in an 11 year stretch.

Ignoring their work before our core formed certainly makes the comparison easier, but not more accurate.  Their organizational expertise shouldn't be penalized because their titles happened to come before our core formed.

Our last title was in 08.  Their last title was in 07.  It's not like we've beaten them every year in the playoffs since our core formed.  The two cores are independent of each other.

I fail to see why so many on this board see our 1 title with this group as one of the great dynastys in modern sports history.

I'd prefer 3 titles to 1, no matter the order or stretch of time.  If we were on the same timeline as them, or superior to them, we'd at least have 2 titles by now.  We don't.

Our core has as many titles as the 70's Bullets or the 00's Pistons.  Joe Dumars has as many titles running a team as Danny Ainge.  You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

  Haha. So your response to a discussion comparing the recent playoff successes of the Celts and the Spurs is to bring up things that happened farther in the past, not during the time frame we were discussing? That dovetails wonderfully with your earlier (fake) umbrage at my bringing up past seasons when the OP was talking about this year.

Hate to break this with you, but if we are comparing organizations, Popovich and Buford were around in 07 and Danny and Doc were around in 07, when the Spurs won the title.  2007 fits perfectly into the time frame of discussing the two organizations.

Regardless of a KG/Duncan comparison, a comparison of organizations can't ignore 2007.

The front office and coaching was the same.

The world and the Celtics organization didn't begin in 2008.

Regardless, we've only won one title with this group (in 2008).  Their title was only one year prior to that.  I wouldn't call our playoff success over theirs overwhelming.  Isn't winning the title the goal?

Ainge was hired in 2003.  Wyc bought the team in 2002.  Is it the Spurs fault that it took Ainge so long to build a contender?
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Fafnir on November 30, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: OsirusCeltics on November 30, 2012, 11:17:02 AM
TIM DUCAN and SPLITTER

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

i hate small ball  .... :'( :'(

TP
Thank you. This is the main reason!

And Doc never played Darko
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 11:19:57 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.  I certainly don't.  I think we've converted once in five tries and wouldn't blame KG's age for that.

  We could have dumped him for a young player on the level of Duncan? Maybe a KG for LeBron or Durant swap was available and Ainge passed on it?

  And while you wouldn't blame KG's age for our only wining one title, you'd certainly have to take his injuries into account, and I don't think that his health and his age are as unrelated as you do.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts.  We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003.  You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations.  Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008).  You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me.  Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 11:49:29 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts.  We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003.  You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations.  Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008).  You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me.  Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

  When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: edwardjkasche on November 30, 2012, 11:56:46 AM
There is a divisive issue at hand - regular season vs. post-season.

Pop is a better regular season coach than Doc.  It's close, as both are top-3 in the league, but Pop consistently gets more out of his players, including lesser players, than Doc does.  Just last night Pop coached a B-squad to a 5-point loss against the Heat.  Our A-squad has been blown out by the Heat, Spurs, Nets, and Pistons.

Doc spends the entire season getting all his players to buy into his team concept and their roles within it.  When he accomplishes this goal (2008, 2009, 2010, 2012), he becomes the league's best post-season coach, bar none.  When he doesn't accomplish this goal (2011), he's still a great coach, but the team doesn't stand a chance at winning the title.  Doc sacrifices the regular season to build for the post-season.

Pop does a similar thing, mostly by outright resting players here and there (like last night), but in the playoffs the Spurs are nowhere near as dangerous or disciplined as they are in the regular season, no matter how rested their stars are.

If you care about regular season records, go with Pop and the Spurs.  If the post-season and recent championship appearances are your thing, go with Doc.

The other issue is KG versus TD.  The differences between them are astronomical, yet their similarities will place each in the HOF someday.  I would love to read a book that discusses the careers of each in the same dialogue.  I believe Duncan is the slightly better all-around player, but I love the intense and tenacious KG more as a player (and a Celtic).  I'm sure I'd feel different if the Celtics had correctly won the 1997 draft rights to Timmy D.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 11:57:42 AM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts.  We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003.  You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations.  Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008).  You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me.  Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

  When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed).  You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there.  He still had decisions to make.  International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 30, 2012, 12:10:09 PM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts.  We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003.  You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations.  Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008).  You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me.  Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

  When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed).  You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there.  He still had decisions to make.  International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

I don't understand why you are beating this dead horse.  No one is going to argue that the Celtics were in the same league as the Spurs prior to 2007-2008.  I really see no need to keep making the argument.  Everyone knows that prior to 2007-2008, the Spurs were a great team with lots of success while the Celtics were lousy.

I would argue that since adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to our roster in the summer of 2007 that the Celtics have been more successful than the Spurs with one title, two Eastern conference championships, and three Eastern conference finals appearances. 

That all seems pretty clear cut.  I'm not even sure what you are really arguing anymore. 
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 12:14:50 PM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts.  We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003.  You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations.  Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008).  You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me.  Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

  When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed).  You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there.  He still had decisions to make.  International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

I don't understand why you are beating this dead horse.  No one is going to argue that the Celtics were in the same league as the Spurs prior to 2007-2008.  I really see no need to keep making the argument.  Everyone knows that prior to 2007-2008, the Spurs were a great team with lots of success while the Celtics were lousy.

I would argue that since adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to our roster in the summer of 2007 that the Celtics have been more successful than the Spurs with one title, two Eastern conference championships, and three Eastern conference finals appearances. 

That all seems pretty clear cut.  I'm not even sure what you are really arguing anymore.

I'm pointing out that comparing organizations stretches further back than 2008.  That comparing organizations should stretch to 2003, when Danny Ainge joined our front office.

Danny Ainge runs the Celtics front office, not Kevin Garnett.
Popovich and Buford run the Spurs organization, not Tim Duncan.

If you want to compare the differences between the teams in cap management, international scouting, etc..., 2003 should be your starting point.  KG doesn't make those decisions.

That all seems pretty clear cut to me.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Vermont Green on November 30, 2012, 01:04:32 PM
I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this.  He is a past finals MVP.  I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success.  He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else.  He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving.  He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 02:36:52 PM
We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time.  I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with?  If so, we should move on.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts.  We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003.  You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations.  Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008).  You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me.  Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

  When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed).  You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there.  He still had decisions to make.  International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

I don't understand why you are beating this dead horse.  No one is going to argue that the Celtics were in the same league as the Spurs prior to 2007-2008.  I really see no need to keep making the argument.  Everyone knows that prior to 2007-2008, the Spurs were a great team with lots of success while the Celtics were lousy.

I would argue that since adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to our roster in the summer of 2007 that the Celtics have been more successful than the Spurs with one title, two Eastern conference championships, and three Eastern conference finals appearances. 

That all seems pretty clear cut.  I'm not even sure what you are really arguing anymore.

I'm pointing out that comparing organizations stretches further back than 2008.  That comparing organizations should stretch to 2003, when Danny Ainge joined our front office.

Danny Ainge runs the Celtics front office, not Kevin Garnett.
Popovich and Buford run the Spurs organization, not Tim Duncan.

If you want to compare the differences between the teams in cap management, international scouting, etc..., 2003 should be your starting point.  KG doesn't make those decisions.

That all seems pretty clear cut to me.

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 02:46:13 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 03:11:43 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 03:17:36 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Celtics18 on November 30, 2012, 03:40:19 PM
I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this.  He is a past finals MVP.  I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success.  He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else.  He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving.  He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

I don't think you'll find a lot of folks taking issue with your giving Parker his share of the credit for the Spurs success.

He does consistently seem to be one of the most underrated players in this league, though.  He just quietly goes about being one of the best PGs in the game, while rarely getting the kind of publicity that guys like Paul, Williams, Rose, Westbrook, and Rondo (who is finally starting to get recognition) get.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: KCattheStripe on November 30, 2012, 03:42:25 PM
I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this.  He is a past finals MVP.  I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success.  He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else.  He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving.  He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

I said he probably couldn't take Kris Humphries in a fight.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 03:44:02 PM
I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this.  He is a past finals MVP.  I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success.  He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else.  He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving.  He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

I said he probably couldn't take Kris Humphries in a fight.

Ha!  I remember that post. Parker was indeed mentioned!

They'd probably be friends and share stories about Eva Longoria and Kim Kardashian.  Perhaps they should write a book together.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 05:18:30 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: barefacedmonk on November 30, 2012, 05:33:10 PM
Danny Green is playing better than Jeff Green.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on November 30, 2012, 05:42:30 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on November 30, 2012, 07:21:52 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on December 01, 2012, 11:05:41 AM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

Ainge's tenure as GM had its share of luck as well.  Remember his desire to acquire Allen Iverson?  All indications are that it was Philly who said no.  Imagine our team with Iverson instead of KG, or Iverson instead of Rondo, or Iverson instead of both.  Or perhaps Shawn Marion instead of KG?  Ainge has had good fortune too.

I'd prefer Buford's run and Popovich's run over Ainge's run.  Clearly you'd prefer Ainge's.  That's fine.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on December 01, 2012, 12:28:26 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on December 01, 2012, 02:04:52 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words. 

Mark Blount's extension was an overpay of about $35 million considering he is a league minimum caliber big man.  If others were offering a similar amount, the prudent move would've been to let others make that mistake.  So the Sebastian Telfair trade and the Ricky Davis trade were made because of desperation in lacking a big man?    Danny's list of mistakes to begin his tenure are longer than you care to remember.  I still fail to see how lacking a franchise center is motivation for making your team worse and its salary structure worse.

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

If your answer to lacking a franchise big man is to acquire 3 of the people who least embody what it means to be a Celtic out of desperation, I'd say that is what is silly.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on December 01, 2012, 02:56:30 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on December 01, 2012, 03:05:08 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.

Not having a franchise center doesn't mean you have to sign a horrible center to a terrible contract.  Leaving that spot open would've been wiser.  Signing Mark Blount didn't advance the goal of getting a franchise big man.  If the logic was: I don't have a franchise center so I have to give a backup center a $41 million contract, I fail to see how that advances any goals.

The Telfair trade was by no means a good trade.

You seem to forget Danny being saved from himself multiple times.  Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer?  Where would Danny be if Minnesota and Seattle both didn't happen to have Hall of Famers available in the same year?  Where would Danny be if Shawn Marion had wanted to play in Boston? Probably a TNT analyst, maybe along with Doc.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Finkelskyhook on December 01, 2012, 03:10:19 PM
Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer? Out of basketball
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on December 01, 2012, 03:39:50 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.

Not having a franchise center doesn't mean you have to sign a horrible center to a terrible contract.  Leaving that spot open would've been wiser.  Signing Mark Blount didn't advance the goal of getting a franchise big man.  If the logic was: I don't have a franchise center so I have to give a backup center a $41 million contract, I fail to see how that advances any goals.

  I'm still not clear on whether you're claiming he'd still have gone after Blount if he had Robinson on his team.

The Telfair trade was by no means a good trade.

  Sure it was.

You seem to forget Danny being saved from himself multiple times.  Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer?  Where would Danny be if Minnesota and Seattle both didn't happen to have Hall of Famers available in the same year?  Where would Danny be if Shawn Marion had wanted to play in Boston? Probably a TNT analyst, maybe along with Doc.

  You're taking whatever Iverson and Marion rumors that you heard and treating them like facts. Garnett being on the market was hardly a surprise, maybe he'd get Gasol instead of Ray and a KG/Gasol/PP/Rondo team does just as well.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on December 01, 2012, 03:46:23 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.

Not having a franchise center doesn't mean you have to sign a horrible center to a terrible contract.  Leaving that spot open would've been wiser.  Signing Mark Blount didn't advance the goal of getting a franchise big man.  If the logic was: I don't have a franchise center so I have to give a backup center a $41 million contract, I fail to see how that advances any goals.

  I'm still not clear on whether you're claiming he'd still have gone after Blount if he had Robinson on his team.

The Telfair trade was by no means a good trade.

  Sure it was.

You seem to forget Danny being saved from himself multiple times.  Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer?  Where would Danny be if Minnesota and Seattle both didn't happen to have Hall of Famers available in the same year?  Where would Danny be if Shawn Marion had wanted to play in Boston? Probably a TNT analyst, maybe along with Doc.

  You're taking whatever Iverson and Marion rumors that you heard and treating them like facts. Garnett being on the market was hardly a surprise, maybe he'd get Gasol instead of Ray and a KG/Gasol/PP/Rondo team does just as well.

I'm saying that operating knowing that you don't have Robinson is no reason to give Blount $41 million (or acquire Telfair or Davis).  That should be clear.  If Toronto had Michael Jordan, they might not have went after Landry Fields.  That doesn't make the Landry Fields contract defensible.

The Telfair trade was a bad trade.  That should also be clear.

KG wasn't coming to Boston until we acquired Ray Allen.  That is pretty well documented.  Your Gasol scenario is a work of fiction.  Minnesota also could've kept him for another year or traded him a year prior or traded him to another team.  No rule was made that ordained him for Boston in the year 2008.  What if the Bulls or Suns or another team made a better offer? The Big 3 needed a tremendous amount of fortune to come together, much of it out of Danny Ainge's control.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on December 01, 2012, 04:03:59 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.

Not having a franchise center doesn't mean you have to sign a horrible center to a terrible contract.  Leaving that spot open would've been wiser.  Signing Mark Blount didn't advance the goal of getting a franchise big man.  If the logic was: I don't have a franchise center so I have to give a backup center a $41 million contract, I fail to see how that advances any goals.

  I'm still not clear on whether you're claiming he'd still have gone after Blount if he had Robinson on his team.

The Telfair trade was by no means a good trade.

  Sure it was.

You seem to forget Danny being saved from himself multiple times.  Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer?  Where would Danny be if Minnesota and Seattle both didn't happen to have Hall of Famers available in the same year?  Where would Danny be if Shawn Marion had wanted to play in Boston? Probably a TNT analyst, maybe along with Doc.

  You're taking whatever Iverson and Marion rumors that you heard and treating them like facts. Garnett being on the market was hardly a surprise, maybe he'd get Gasol instead of Ray and a KG/Gasol/PP/Rondo team does just as well.

I'm saying that operating knowing that you don't have Robinson is no reason to acquire Blount (or Telfair or Davis).  That should be clear.

  So, while you correctly point out that the Blount deal wasn't a good one, you don't disagree with the claim

"not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had"

  that you've been arguing against for quite a while.

The Telfair trade was a bad trade.  That should also be clear.

  No, it flipped Raef for Theo, who's expiring (insured) contract was essential to our trading for KG. That should be clear.

KG wasn't coming to Boston until we acquired Ray Allen.  That is pretty well documented.  Minnesota also could've kept him for another year or traded him a year prior or traded him to another team.  No rule was made that ordained him for Boston in the year 2008.  The Big 3 needed a tremendous amount of fortune to come together.

  Danny ending up with KG and Ray was the result of our bad luck, not great fortune. Good luck would have seen us end up with Durant and still trade for KG. Everyone thought he was screwed when he lost the lottery. Nobody was claiming he was on the verge of putting together a champion. What you're claiming is that there are worst case scenarios in which the Celts would have been in trouble, and that's based on Danny standing pat if he couldn't get KG or Ray.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: celtsfan84 on December 01, 2012, 04:16:04 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.

Not having a franchise center doesn't mean you have to sign a horrible center to a terrible contract.  Leaving that spot open would've been wiser.  Signing Mark Blount didn't advance the goal of getting a franchise big man.  If the logic was: I don't have a franchise center so I have to give a backup center a $41 million contract, I fail to see how that advances any goals.

  I'm still not clear on whether you're claiming he'd still have gone after Blount if he had Robinson on his team.

The Telfair trade was by no means a good trade.

  Sure it was.

You seem to forget Danny being saved from himself multiple times.  Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer?  Where would Danny be if Minnesota and Seattle both didn't happen to have Hall of Famers available in the same year?  Where would Danny be if Shawn Marion had wanted to play in Boston? Probably a TNT analyst, maybe along with Doc.

  You're taking whatever Iverson and Marion rumors that you heard and treating them like facts. Garnett being on the market was hardly a surprise, maybe he'd get Gasol instead of Ray and a KG/Gasol/PP/Rondo team does just as well.

I'm saying that operating knowing that you don't have Robinson is no reason to acquire Blount (or Telfair or Davis).  That should be clear.

  So, while you correctly point out that the Blount deal wasn't a good one, you don't disagree with the claim

"not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had"

  that you've been arguing against for quite a while.

The Telfair trade was a bad trade.  That should also be clear.

  No, it flipped Raef for Theo, who's expiring (insured) contract was essential to our trading for KG. That should be clear.

KG wasn't coming to Boston until we acquired Ray Allen.  That is pretty well documented.  Minnesota also could've kept him for another year or traded him a year prior or traded him to another team.  No rule was made that ordained him for Boston in the year 2008.  The Big 3 needed a tremendous amount of fortune to come together.

  Danny ending up with KG and Ray was the result of our bad luck, not great fortune. Good luck would have seen us end up with Durant and still trade for KG. Everyone thought he was screwed when he lost the lottery. Nobody was claiming he was on the verge of putting together a champion. What you're claiming is that there are worst case scenarios in which the Celts would have been in trouble, and that's based on Danny standing pat if he couldn't get KG or Ray.

The Blount move was bad under any possible roster construction in any possible scenario under any possible GM with any possible roster under any possible circumstance.

There are ways to take on an additional year of $10 million worth of salary than giving away the #7 pick in the draft.  Teams are typically willing to give assets away to teams that take on additional salary, not the other way around.  That should be clear.  You really think the only way to take on an additional year of $10 million in salary was to trade the #7 pick for Sebastian Telfair?  You must not follow NBA transactions at all.

KG wasn't coming to Boston unless we acquired Ray Allen (no guarantee he was coming to play with a rookie Durant, KG had no idea how good Durant would be).  That is pretty well documented.  And once again, Minnesota also could've kept him for another year or traded him a year prior or traded him to another team.  That is far from a worse case scenario, us leaving that offseason without KG or Durant was the most likely scenario.

Anyway, I guess we'll just agree to disagree, as talking to someone who defends the merits of the Sebastian Telfair trade and thinks Popovich would be an assistant coach without having Duncan is pretty much where I punch out of the conversation.  Parting note - Danny always wanted Chris Paul. It is known. Happy holidays.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: Finkelskyhook on December 01, 2012, 04:56:01 PM
The Blount move was bad under any possible roster construction in any possible scenario under any possible GM with any possible roster under any possible circumstance.

 Why? It wasn't as if they had a small sample size....Blount got better every year he was with the C's. Transformed his body. He was being paid backup center money. Blount willed the C's into the playoffs under Obie/Carroll.

I despise Blount as much as anybody in here. But what from his career path prior to the contract told you he'd tank? Because that's the only circumstance that in retrospect, would have made signing him to the extension a bad move.

I doubt anybody saw him tanking. Blount's career trajectory, in some ways, was similar to Perk's. One signing was great. One wasn't. But to say under no circumstance was Blount's signing good...Was to say you knew something that nobody else did.
Title: Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
Post by: BballTim on December 01, 2012, 05:02:03 PM

  If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough.  Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block.  I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

  Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure.  I'll grant that.  I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along.  They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

  Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play.  Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure.  Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

  Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime.  Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)?  Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point.  Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams,  and execs by playoff success.

  Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension.  Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic.  Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

  First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs.  I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.


  I'm not sure where you're going with this. You think that not having a franchise big man factored into Danny's moves, but not the Blount signing? You're assuming that having a center like DRob wouldn't have affected how strongly Danny pursued another center?

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

  Blount was a terrible move. Davis was a reasonable risk that didn't pan out. Telfair was a good trade.

Regardless, this could go on forever.  When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better?  Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....?  Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that?  What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston?  Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.

  Ainge inherited a team that was basically Pierce and flotsam and cap problems and turned that into a title team in 5 years with his only top 10 draft picks being a 5 and a 7. That's fairly unheard of in the nba and, in terms of accomplishments, pretty much dwarfs what's happened in SA. Where would the Spurs be if they'd lost the DRob and Duncan lotteries? Nowhere. Where would Pop be if they hadn't landed TD in the lottery? Somebody's assistant coach.

Not having a franchise center doesn't mean you have to sign a horrible center to a terrible contract.  Leaving that spot open would've been wiser.  Signing Mark Blount didn't advance the goal of getting a franchise big man.  If the logic was: I don't have a franchise center so I have to give a backup center a $41 million contract, I fail to see how that advances any goals.

  I'm still not clear on whether you're claiming he'd still have gone after Blount if he had Robinson on his team.

The Telfair trade was by no means a good trade.

  Sure it was.

You seem to forget Danny being saved from himself multiple times.  Where would Danny be if Philly had accepted his Iverson trade offer?  Where would Danny be if Minnesota and Seattle both didn't happen to have Hall of Famers available in the same year?  Where would Danny be if Shawn Marion had wanted to play in Boston? Probably a TNT analyst, maybe along with Doc.

  You're taking whatever Iverson and Marion rumors that you heard and treating them like facts. Garnett being on the market was hardly a surprise, maybe he'd get Gasol instead of Ray and a KG/Gasol/PP/Rondo team does just as well.

I'm saying that operating knowing that you don't have Robinson is no reason to acquire Blount (or Telfair or Davis).  That should be clear.

  So, while you correctly point out that the Blount deal wasn't a good one, you don't disagree with the claim

"not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had"

  that you've been arguing against for quite a while.

The Telfair trade was a bad trade.  That should also be clear.

  No, it flipped Raef for Theo, who's expiring (insured) contract was essential to our trading for KG. That should be clear.

KG wasn't coming to Boston until we acquired Ray Allen.  That is pretty well documented.  Minnesota also could've kept him for another year or traded him a year prior or traded him to another team.  No rule was made that ordained him for Boston in the year 2008.  The Big 3 needed a tremendous amount of fortune to come together.

  Danny ending up with KG and Ray was the result of our bad luck, not great fortune. Good luck would have seen us end up with Durant and still trade for KG. Everyone thought he was screwed when he lost the lottery. Nobody was claiming he was on the verge of putting together a champion. What you're claiming is that there are worst case scenarios in which the Celts would have been in trouble, and that's based on Danny standing pat if he couldn't get KG or Ray.

The Blount move was bad under any possible roster construction in any possible scenario under any possible GM with any possible roster under any possible circumstance.

  Ok, so I'll take that to mean that you don't disagree with my claim, something you refuse to admit but seem unable to deny.

There are ways to take on an additional year of $10 million worth of salary than giving away the #7 pick in the draft.  Teams are typically willing to give assets away to teams that take on additional salary, not the other way around.  That should be clear.  You really think the only way to take on an additional year of $10 million in salary was to trade the #7 pick for Sebastian Telfair?  You must not follow NBA transactions at all.

  Yes, I follow nba transactions. That's why I understand that trading away Raef (3 years, $37M) for Theo (2 years, $23M) doesn't constitute taking on an additional year of a $10M contract. Your math is off by about $25M. You'd think that someone who's as critical of a trade as you are would at least have some idea about why the trade was made and what the Celts got out of it.