CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: Kane3387 on December 20, 2012, 10:43:47 AM
-
1.New York 19-6
2.Miami 16-6
3.Atlanta 15-8
4.Chicago 14-10
5.Milwaukee 13-11
6.Indiana 14-12
7.Brooklyn 13-12
8.Boston 13-12
9.Orlando 12-13
10.Philadelphia 12-14
The East has not shaped into the conference that a lot of people thought it would be. It is definitely the inferior conference, even with the Lakers being so poor.
I see hope for Boston.
Above is the top ten teams in the east currently. We are 8th and just two game out of 4th. The remaining 5 teams (Toronto, Washington, Charlotte, Detroit, and Cleveland) are all but done. Orlando will not last either. 9 teams competing for 8 spots and unless the injury big kills us we will be a playoff team. The only question is, what is our seed.
Injuries and their impact
Chicago, Indiana, and Philly are all suffering from injuries to arguably their best players. Philly is beginning to fade. They have lost 4 or 5 in a row. Depending on when Bynum comes back they might be the first round team no one wants to see. If Bynum doesn't come back then they will be lucky to make the post season. I believe he makes some type of return b/c too much money is on the line for this guy right now. What his impact will be I don't know, but they have the potential to be very good.
The same I can't say for Indiana and Chicago. I don't see Rose being Adrian Peterson. He is still expected to be out for a couple more months and I believe the minute the Bull's starters are playing will catch up with them. One more injury to a key player and they are in trouble. I see us catching them in the standings. Indiana I see us catch as well. Granger is still months away and outside of David West (playing great) they are very young. I believe we will catch them too. I don't see us matching up with either in the first round and both being eliminated in the first round.
Overperforming
Both Atlanta and Milwaukee are over performing. If Milwaukee could make a move for a big then they could be more legit. But when was the last time they were relevant? I see them coming down to earth. Hopefully it's shortly after an upcoming loss to Boston. I think we surpass them in the standings shortly. Atlanta is playing well too, but I don't see it lasting. Overall I think they lack the fire power to sustain this winning. I believe we surpass them as well. Assuming they stand pat I would love to play them in the first round.
New York Teams
Like Boston both teams have a ton of new faces. For NYC it's been about Melo and the three ball. They look good. But can Jason Kidd keep it up? He has been key to their greatness and is the reason I expect Amare and Melo to finally work. Amare is without a doubt the X factor. He gives them the second go to guy required to make long playoff runs. BUT if he comes back and hi and Melo can't play together then they aren't getting to ECF. Depending on threes and only having one superior talent can be great in the regular season but it won't work in the playoffs. Amare playing well would make NYC a tough out for Boston especially since they likely have HCA. Amare playing like last year makes NYC a good matchup for Boston and highly vulnerable to 2nd round upset.
Brooklyn has lost 4 in a row and 8 of its last 10. They're struggling mightily to finish games and a lot of this has to do with unfamiliarity amongst their top players. Deron looks overrated and him and Joe haven't formed the chemistry needed to advance deep in the playoffs. They have a lot of talent, but can they put it together this season in their first playoffs? Won't know until we get there but I like how we match up with them too. I think we finish ahead of them.
Miami
Beasts of the Easts. They will be there in the ECF.
Where I see the Celtics
In the end I expect us to finish third in the East. This assumes all teams are healthy. I think we battle NY in the semis. I think we defend the three well and I don't believe Amare and Carmelo play as well as they need to to win. I see AB and Rondo making life miserable for Kidd and Felton and we win in 6.
I then see us battling Miami and at that point - who knows?
Why?
The East lacks dominant teams with size. I think the Celtics will continue to be up and down but finish the last quarter of the season strong. Other then NY and Miami I believe all of the other teams will be up and down as well and bunched together. Boston play its best come playoff time and our best players have seen it all and will be prepared for anything. The rest of the team will follow their lead and we will be in Miami for game 1 of the ECF.
-
I see three serious contenders in the East. Miami, Knicks, and Celtics. I dont think any of those other teams have a chance at getting to the Finals, unless a team like Atlanta makes a trade for a superstar or Rose comes back from injury healthier than expected. Still I think the East has 3 major players and thats it.
-
I think a lot of Brooklyn's struggles are down to bad coaching.
Their offensive system is terrible. It's amazing to me that Avery Johnson can't get more out of his players with the number of weapons they have.
They need to fire Avery and replace him with a high quality coach.
-
I think a lot of Brooklyn's struggles are down to bad coaching.
Their offensive system is terrible. It's amazing to me that Avery Johnson can't get more out of his players with the number of weapons they have.
They need to fire Avery and replace him with a high quality coach.
I agree that their offensive system is a mess and that Avery is not allowing them to play to their potential. But at the same time, I think the whole Nets team is overrated. Williams was overrated since his Utah days, Iso-Joe isnt very smart, Wallace is gritty but is loosing a step, Humphries does nothing for me, and Lopez isnt a top notch center.
-
I would be worried about landing Chicago in the first round if Derrick Rose is back and is playing at even 80% of his normal level. That would be a seriously dangerous team. The Bulls are the most dangerous team in the East for Boston outside of Miami.
It looks like there is a fair shot both teams could end up at #4 and #5 or even if one struggles at #3 and #6. I would hate to play them in the first round.
I am not worried about New York, Brooklyn, Indiana or the others. Boston matches up very well with him and I fully agree that Boston should be favored against each one of them in a playoff series.
I would really like to avoid Chicago.
-
I would be worried about landing Chicago in the first round if Derrick Rose is back and is playing at even 80% of his normal level. That would be a seriously dangerous team. The Bulls are the most dangerous team in the East for Boston outside of Miami.
It looks like there is a fair shot both teams could end up at #4 and #5 or even if one struggles at #3 and #6. I would hate to play them in the first round.
I am not worried about New York, Brooklyn, Indiana or the others. Boston matches up very well with him and I fully agree that Boston should be favored against each one of them in a playoff series.
I would really like to avoid Chicago.
I'd be afraid of Chicago even without Rose. They just are so tight defensively, and their two best defenders happen to match up best with the C's two best scorers. The way Deng shuts down Pierce, it would be a really tough matchup.
-
Chicago will be tough, but without rose can the Bulls maintain their winning? Thibs is known for running players into the ground and he is doing so with his main players right now.
I believe it catches up to them.
No guarantee Rose plays. Many of his people don't want him too. They don't want him to come back too soon and they don;t want his supporting cast to look better then they are.
-
I think the 4 teams that are in the EC semifinals will be Miami, NYK, Chicago, Boston. I honestly don't think the Nets have the winning mentality for the playoffs. Atlanta is another team I am watching closely. It seems the hawks got better through subtraction with Joe Johnson being moved. But then again, they have yet to really get over the hump to become a true contender for the last few years.
I have a bad feeling that we are going to need to go through both Chicago and Miami to get to the finals. We got really lucky last year that we avoided Chicago. The bulls seem to play at a higher level against us. We match up really poorly with them. Deng always seems to have the upper hand on PP. We have trouble with the def pressure the bulls put on us.
-
Chicago will be tough, but without rose can the Bulls maintain their winning? Thibs is known for running players into the ground and he is doing so with his main players right now.
I believe it catches up to them.
No guarantee Rose plays. Many of his people don't want him too. They don't want him to come back too soon and they don;t want his supporting cast to look better then they are.
Chicago are one of the league's best defensive teams and best rebounding teams without Rose. Even with a poor offense, Chicago can continue to ride those strengths to a 45 win type season comfortably enough.
Chicago are only a little above that pace right now (14-10 W-L, 48 win pace), so yeah, I would say Chicago isn't far off where I would expect them to be and are capable of maintaining this pace.
And if Rose comes back in February/March and is able to play at a good level (not even superstar level), Chicago could go on a good run to end the season and finish with a 50-55 win type campaign.
-
Chicago will be tough, but without rose can the Bulls maintain their winning? Thibs is known for running players into the ground and he is doing so with his main players right now.
I believe it catches up to them.
No guarantee Rose plays. Many of his people don't want him too. They don't want him to come back too soon and they don;t want his supporting cast to look better then they are.
Chicago are one of the league's best defensive teams and best rebounding teams without Rose. Even with a poor offense, Chicago can continue to ride those strengths to a 45 win type season comfortably enough.
Chicago are only a little above that pace right now (14-10 W-L, 48 win pace), so yeah, I would say Chicago isn't far off where I would expect them to be and are capable of maintaining this pace.
And if Rose comes back in February/March and is able to play at a good level (not even superstar level), Chicago could go on a good run to end the season and finish with a 50-55 win type campaign.
We will see. They would be a tough first round opponent but I still expect to beat them in the first round with HCA.
Having Gibson helps for when the eventual Boozer and/or Noah 10+ game injury occurs. They could win 45-48 games. But if they do then they will win their division and be the 4 seed. Which means as a 3 seed we won't play them anyway.
-
I think a lot of Brooklyn's struggles are down to bad coaching.
Their offensive system is terrible. It's amazing to me that Avery Johnson can't get more out of his players with the number of weapons they have.
They need to fire Avery and replace him with a high quality coach.
I agree that their offensive system is a mess and that Avery is not allowing them to play to their potential. But at the same time, I think the whole Nets team is overrated. Williams was overrated since his Utah days, Iso-Joe isnt very smart, Wallace is gritty but is loosing a step, Humphries does nothing for me, and Lopez isnt a top notch center.
I think New Jersey is still one player away from being a title contender. A Varejao type player. Someone who can reinforce that interior defense and make them a strong defensive club. Too weak defensively to compete for a title as currently built.
More of a mid-level type playoff team. Above the low seeds but not good enough to compete with the big boys. They won't go far in the playoffs.
Another big addition (interior defense) could change that though. They are not there (title contention) yet but the right addition could put them into the mix quickly enough. It will be interesting to see what type of value Kris Humphries has around the league.
-
Chicago will be tough, but without rose can the Bulls maintain their winning? Thibs is known for running players into the ground and he is doing so with his main players right now.
I believe it catches up to them.
No guarantee Rose plays. Many of his people don't want him too. They don't want him to come back too soon and they don;t want his supporting cast to look better then they are.
Chicago are one of the league's best defensive teams and best rebounding teams without Rose. Even with a poor offense, Chicago can continue to ride those strengths to a 45 win type season comfortably enough.
Chicago are only a little above that pace right now (14-10 W-L, 48 win pace), so yeah, I would say Chicago isn't far off where I would expect them to be and are capable of maintaining this pace.
And if Rose comes back in February/March and is able to play at a good level (not even superstar level), Chicago could go on a good run to end the season and finish with a 50-55 win type campaign.
If this is the case then we won't see them in the first round. Likely in the second and at that point depending on how amare fits I'm not sure who I would rather play out of NY and Chicago in the semis.
-
I think a lot of Brooklyn's struggles are down to bad coaching.
Their offensive system is terrible. It's amazing to me that Avery Johnson can't get more out of his players with the number of weapons they have.
They need to fire Avery and replace him with a high quality coach.
I agree that their offensive system is a mess and that Avery is not allowing them to play to their potential. But at the same time, I think the whole Nets team is overrated. Williams was overrated since his Utah days, Iso-Joe isnt very smart, Wallace is gritty but is loosing a step, Humphries does nothing for me, and Lopez isnt a top notch center.
I think New Jersey is still one player away from being a title contender. A Varejao type player. Someone who can reinforce that interior defense and make them a strong defensive club. Too weak defensively to compete for a title as currently built.
More of a mid-level type playoff team. Above the low seeds but not good enough to compete with the big boys. They won't go far in the playoffs.
Another big addition (interior defense) could change that though. They are not there (title contention) yet but the right addition could put them into the mix quickly enough. It will be interesting to see what type of value Kris Humphries has around the league.
Yeah I can agree with that. If they can trade either humphries or Lopez to get a better defensive big man then they might have things come together a little more. Like you said Im not sure what type of value Humphries has around the league but I would try to ship him off first to put a defensive PF in that line up. Aside from Wallace, they really dont have much defensive presence in the starting 5.
-
1.New York 19-6
2.Miami 16-6
3.Atlanta 15-8
4.Chicago 14-10
5.Milwaukee 13-11
6.Indiana 14-12
7.Brooklyn 13-12
8.Boston 13-12
9.Orlando 12-13
10.Philadelphia 12-14
The East has not shaped into the conference that a lot of people thought it would be. It is definitely the inferior conference, even with the Lakers being so poor.
I see hope for Boston.
Above is the top ten teams in the east currently. We are 8th and just two game out of 4th. The remaining 5 teams (Toronto, Washington, Charlotte, Detroit, and Cleveland) are all but done. Orlando will not last either. 9 teams competing for 8 spots and unless the injury big kills us we will be a playoff team. The only question is, what is our seed.
Injuries and their impact
Chicago, Indiana, and Philly are all suffering from injuries to arguably their best players. Philly is beginning to fade. They have lost 4 or 5 in a row. Depending on when Bynum comes back they might be the first round team no one wants to see. If Bynum doesn't come back then they will be lucky to make the post season. I believe he makes some type of return b/c too much money is on the line for this guy right now. What his impact will be I don't know, but they have the potential to be very good.
The same I can't say for Indiana and Chicago. I don't see Rose being Adrian Peterson. He is still expected to be out for a couple more months and I believe the minute the Bull's starters are playing will catch up with them. One more injury to a key player and they are in trouble. I see us catching them in the standings. Indiana I see us catch as well. Granger is still months away and outside of David West (playing great) they are very young. I believe we will catch them too. I don't see us matching up with either in the first round and both being eliminated in the first round.
Overperforming
Both Atlanta and Milwaukee are over performing. If Milwaukee could make a move for a big then they could be more legit. But when was the last time they were relevant? I see them coming down to earth. Hopefully it's shortly after an upcoming loss to Boston. I think we surpass them in the standings shortly. Atlanta is playing well too, but I don't see it lasting. Overall I think they lack the fire power to sustain this winning. I believe we surpass them as well. Assuming they stand pat I would love to play them in the first round.
New York Teams
Like Boston both teams have a ton of new faces. For NYC it's been about Melo and the three ball. They look good. But can Jason Kidd keep it up? He has been key to their greatness and is the reason I expect Amare and Melo to finally work. Amare is without a doubt the X factor. He gives them the second go to guy required to make long playoff runs. BUT if he comes back and hi and Melo can't play together then they aren't getting to ECF. Depending on threes and only having one superior talent can be great in the regular season but it won't work in the playoffs. Amare playing well would make NYC a tough out for Boston especially since they likely have HCA. Amare playing like last year makes NYC a good matchup for Boston and highly vulnerable to 2nd round upset.
Brooklyn has lost 4 in a row and 8 of its last 10. They're struggling mightily to finish games and a lot of this has to do with unfamiliarity amongst their top players. Deron looks overrated and him and Joe haven't formed the chemistry needed to advance deep in the playoffs. They have a lot of talent, but can they put it together this season in their first playoffs? Won't know until we get there but I like how we match up with them too. I think we finish ahead of them.
Miami
Beasts of the Easts. They will be there in the ECF.
Where I see the Celtics
In the end I expect us to finish third in the East. This assumes all teams are healthy. I think we battle NY in the semis. I think we defend the three well and I don't believe Amare and Carmelo play as well as they need to to win. I see AB and Rondo making life miserable for Kidd and Felton and we win in 6.
I then see us battling Miami and at that point - who knows?
Why?
The East lacks dominant teams with size. I think the Celtics will continue to be up and down but finish the last quarter of the season strong. Other then NY and Miami I believe all of the other teams will be up and down as well and bunched together. Boston play its best come playoff time and our best players have seen it all and will be prepared for anything. The rest of the team will follow their lead and we will be in Miami for game 1 of the ECF.
until the C's get their act together, they're a team that'll be on the cusp of missing the playoffs. The teams you're dismissing are capable of playing .500 ball or maybe a tad better than that. enough of them could do that and put the C's in the lottery. Consider this, C's only really have 1 player out due to injury--Avery. Sure he's a terrific defender and does ok on offense but that's the guy many here are pinning their hopes on for turning the season around. pretty thin basis for optimism. C's have always had someone go down with injury each of the past 4 years. While it's not a guarantee to happen again, I find it extremely unlikely that this team will get through the season without losing a major player for a significant amount of time. if/when that happens, this struggling team will continue to struggle if not outright sink (depending on who's injured)
-
I think a lot of Brooklyn's struggles are down to bad coaching.
Their offensive system is terrible. It's amazing to me that Avery Johnson can't get more out of his players with the number of weapons they have.
They need to fire Avery and replace him with a high quality coach.
I agree that their offensive system is a mess and that Avery is not allowing them to play to their potential. But at the same time, I think the whole Nets team is overrated. Williams was overrated since his Utah days, Iso-Joe isnt very smart, Wallace is gritty but is loosing a step, Humphries does nothing for me, and Lopez isnt a top notch center.
I think New Jersey is still one player away from being a title contender. A Varejao type player. Someone who can reinforce that interior defense and make them a strong defensive club. Too weak defensively to compete for a title as currently built.
More of a mid-level type playoff team. Above the low seeds but not good enough to compete with the big boys. They won't go far in the playoffs.
Another big addition (interior defense) could change that though. They are not there (title contention) yet but the right addition could put them into the mix quickly enough. It will be interesting to see what type of value Kris Humphries has around the league.
If NJ is then Boston certainly is. NJ has more talent in its starting lineup then Boston does and enough playoff depth to be fine.
The reality is the East has always been Miami's to lose. NY is playing well and seemingly could pose a real challenge, especially if they can transition Amare in and not take a step back from the chemistry standpoint. Chicago with Rose could pose some trouble for Miami (though I still think Miami would win that series fairly easily). Outside of those three teams no one is a real contender in the East and Boston will be in the middle of the playoff pack with teams like Indiana, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and New Jersey, which should be the 8 playoff teams in the conference. Milwaukee could seemingly hang around and knock one of those teams out of the playoffs (which includes Boston), but I don't see Orlando having much staying power.
As for the premise of this thread, the East is weak, which is the only reason Boston might actually win a playoff series nonetheless even get into the playoffs.
-
Here's another optimists perspective:
One thing that is still true is that our team has one of the top four or five top 3 player combinations in the league. Granted, it's risky when two of those guys are in their mid to late 30s, but still it would be hard for anyone to make a compelling argument that if we stay healthy that Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett aren't one of the most talent top threes in the league.
Jeff Green and Jason Terry represent good talent for the fourth and fifth best players on the roster.
Avery Bradley is a wild card. If you were just looking at his career from a statistical standpoint, you would say there's no way he can be a real difference maker for a team that wants to be a contender. But, If you've seen his defensive contributions (as we all have), there's reason for hope that he can be that difference maker.
Bass, Sully, Lee, Wilcox, (even Barbosa and Collins) are all guys who have things that they can contribute.
Anyway, I like this roster and think we haven't seen close to the best basketball we'll see from them yet this season.
-
Nets backed themselves into a corner because it will be hard to make moves to get defensive bigs. Lopez and Humphries are on pretty bad contracts, not to mention Johnson. Dwill and Wallace aren't getting any younger. They gave themselves are pretty small window and too little flexibility.
-
One thing that is still true is that our team has one of the top four or five top 3 player combinations in the league. Granted, it's risky when two of those guys are in their mid to late 30s, but still it would be hard for anyone to make a compelling argument that if we stay healthy that Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett aren't one of the most talent top threes in the league.
this sounded like a fun challenge so this is what I came up with:
Miami: Bron, Wade, Bosh
NY: Carmelo, Amare, Chandler
OKC: Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka
Lakers: Kobe, Howard, Pau (or Nash)
SAS: Duncan, Manu, Parker
Clips: CP3, Griffin, Jordan (or Crawford)
Bulls: Rose, Noah, Deng
Atlanta: Smith, Horford, Teague (or Lou Williams)
Minny: Love, Rubio, Pekovic
Philly: Bynum, Holliday, Turner
Nets: DWill, JJ, Lopez (or JRich).
those are the easier ones to pick up. obviously there's plenty of room for debate where RR, PP and KG rank against those trios but based on the premise of the C's having a 'top 3' that's one of the best top 3's, I don't think that they're that much better than a lot of other teams' top 3 players. it's our depth that should be giving us the advantage over other teams and it's just not happening so far this year.
Jeff Green and Jason Terry represent good talent for the fourth and fifth best players on the roster.
sure, many of the other teams I posted have players that fit that same description
we haven't seen close to the best basketball we'll see from them yet this season.
I would hope that we haven't but I'm an optimist too
-
People write off Brooklyn a bit too quickly.
If chemistry and the role sharing can be an issue for Boston, so can be for Brooklyn. In fact, their roster is almost totally revamped. Wallace was a late addition last season, and Lopez missed nearly all of it. Johnson is this year's signing. So is Watson, Evans and Blatche off the bench.
As insignificant as they may be, even Stackhouse is a new addition, and Bogans' last season was more like Lopez's. Even the benchwarmers are new guys.
As a result, aside from Brooks and Deron, that team was built from the scratch pretty much, not to mention not every team is 08' Celtics to come and immediately dominate.
All of these points doesn't change the fact that they lack the defense needed to win a championship at this point, but if they can bring the things together, I see them more of a threat than New York.
Though, for the moment, they aren't in a very good position, as Celtics aren't.
-
Here's another optimists perspective:
One thing that is still true is that our team has one of the top four or five top 3 player combinations in the league. Granted, it's risky when two of those guys are in their mid to late 30s, but still it would be hard for anyone to make a compelling argument that if we stay healthy that Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett aren't one of the most talent top threes in the league.
teams with a top 3 (assuming health) that exceeds Boston
NY - Amare, Melo, and take your pick Felton/Chandler
CHI - Rose, Deng and take your pick Boozer/Noah
MIA - James, Bosh, Wade
OKC - Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka (or Martin)
MIN - Love, Pekovic, Rubio
LAC - Paul, Griffin, and take your pick Jordan/Crawford/Butler
LAL - Howard, Bryant, Gasol (or Nash)
MEM - Gay, Randolph, Gasol (or Conley)
SAS - Parker, Duncan, Ginobli (or Leonard)
Teams that are arguably as good
BRKLYN - Williams, Johnson, Lopez
PHIL - Holiday, Turner, Bynum
IND - Granger, West, George
ATL - Horford, Smith and take your pick Wiliams/Teague
POR - Aldridge, Batum, Lillard
GSW - Curry, Lee, Bogut
HOU - Harden, Parsons, Lin (or Asik or Patterson)
DAL - Dirk, Mayo and take your pick Kaman/Marion/Carter
-
Here's another optimists perspective:
One thing that is still true is that our team has one of the top four or five top 3 player combinations in the league. Granted, it's risky when two of those guys are in their mid to late 30s, but still it would be hard for anyone to make a compelling argument that if we stay healthy that Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett aren't one of the most talent top threes in the league.
teams with a top 3 (assuming health) that exceeds Boston
NY - Amare, Melo, and take your pick Felton/Chandler
CHI - Rose, Deng and take your pick Boozer/Noah
MIA - James, Bosh, Wade
OKC - Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka (or Martin)
MIN - Love, Pekovic, Rubio
LAC - Paul, Griffin, and take your pick Jordan/Crawford/Butler
LAL - Howard, Bryant, Gasol (or Nash)
MEM - Gay, Randolph, Gasol (or Conley)
SAS - Parker, Duncan, Ginobli (or Leonard)
Miami, OKC, LAL out of that list. Arguably Chicago.
-
Here's another optimists perspective:
One thing that is still true is that our team has one of the top four or five top 3 player combinations in the league. Granted, it's risky when two of those guys are in their mid to late 30s, but still it would be hard for anyone to make a compelling argument that if we stay healthy that Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett aren't one of the most talent top threes in the league.
Wow, I completely missed. Interesting turn.
Okay, Boston's Big Three: Rondo, Garnett and Pierce. Rondo is arguably the best PG in the league today and is most definitely a top five PG. Kevin Garnett is for my money the second best center in the league and definitely a top five center. Paul Pierce is the fourth or fifth best SF in the game. So Boston's three top players are all top players at their respective positions.
How many other teams can make a similar claim?
Atlanta = absolutely not. A pair of top ten big men in Josh Smith and Al Horford. Nobody else comes to being an above average starter.
Brooklyn = a top five PG and top five SG. A borderline top ten center in B.Lopez and Gerald Wallace who is also probably a borderline top ten SF. More of a big four than a big three. I am willing to accept them as legitimate competition to Boston but I take Boston's big three over the Nets because the foundation is more solid in terms of offense, defense and rebounding. The Nets have great individual talent but lack collective balance from their stars down to the bottom of their roster.
Charlotte = please!
Chicago = D-Rose, J.Noah and L.Deng. A top five PG. The 6th best SF in the game. A top ten center in Noah. Not as strong a core as Boston's.
Cleveland = Kyrie, Varejao and whoever. They're not in the running either.
Dallas = Only one elite talent in Dirk Nowitzki. A top two PF (K-Love). Marion is the only other above average starter on the team.
Denver = Iggy, Ty Lawson and Gallo. A top ten SF and SG and a top 15 PG. Nope.
Detroit = no chance!
Golden State = S.Curry, Bogut and D.Lee. Nope.
Indiana = More a big four with P.George, D.Granger, D.West and R.Hibbert. Not as strong a core as Boston.
LA Clippers = C.Paul and Blake Griffin are immense. They lack a third star (D.Jordan?) so I'll stick with Boston's trio over theirs.
LA Lakers = Nash, Kobe and Dwight (and Pau Gasol). They have incredible talent at the top of their roster. Dwight Howard is the best big man in the game once he gets healthy. Kobe is either the best or second best SG in the league. Nash is still a top 6/7 PG talent wise. Pau Gasol is a top three PF or C. Their stars do not complement one another well though so their collective talent is a lot less than their individual talent ... but even with that they are still one of the most imposing cores in the league.
Memphis = Gay, Z-Bo and M.Gasol. Conley as fourth wheel. Very strong group. Gasol is a borderline top five center. Z-Bo is a top five PF. Gay is a top five SF. Conley a top 15 PG. Good balance collective between offense, defense and rebounding to build the rest of their team around.
Miami = Bron, Bosh and Wade. Accepted.
Minnesota = K-Love, Rubio and ughh ... Kirilenko? Pekovic? A big four let's call it instead of a Big Three. Still, not on Boston's level.
Milwaukee = don't be ridiculous
New Orleans = nope
New York = Melo, Tyson and Amare. Nope. Amare is too big a question mark as an individual due to recent health concerns and weakened performance levels. Chemistry between their stars is also a major question mark.
Oklahoma = Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka. K-Mart II as fourth wheel. Accepted.
Orlando = no hope
Philly = A.Bynum, J.Holiday and E.Turner. Nah, they're not there (yet?). Very interesting core in terms of young talent and balance (offense, defense and rebounding + perimeter play, interior play).
Phoenix = Nope. Gortat and Dragic are their best players.
Portland = Aldridge, Lillard and Batum. Nope.
Sacramento = Tyreke and Cousins. Nope.
San Antonio = T.Parker, T.Duncan and M.Ginobili. No. They're not as strong as Boston. Parker is a 6th/7th best PG in the league. Duncan is top 7/8 center. Manu Ginobili has been marginalized this season by Popovich. San Antonio's core is a weakened bunch. Kawhi Leonard may be valuable enough now to call this a big four rather than a big three.
Toronto = nope
Utah = nope
Washington = nope
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
I disagree with you about Chicago -- Noah / Deng / Rose is probably better overall than Rondo / Pierce / Garnett at this point.
Also, I think you're underestimating Melo / Chandler as a combo. Chandler deserves some recognition at this point for his contributions to the Mavs and now the Knicks.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
I disagree with you about Chicago -- Noah / Deng / Rose is probably better overall than Rondo / Pierce / Garnett at this point.
Also, I think you're underestimating Melo / Chandler as a combo. Chandler deserves some recognition at this point for his contributions to the Mavs and now the Knicks.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think for Chicago you have ti include Boozer and make it a top 4.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
I disagree with you about Chicago -- Noah / Deng / Rose is probably better overall than Rondo / Pierce / Garnett at this point.
Also, I think you're underestimating Melo / Chandler as a combo. Chandler deserves some recognition at this point for his contributions to the Mavs and now the Knicks.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think for Chicago you have ti include Boozer and make it a top 4.
Yeah, I used to consider Chicago a Big Four and in the past would be on that highest tier with Boston and others ... but I don't know if Boozer is still good enough to be considered a core player and/or good enough to push Chicago up from that second tier into that top tier core-wise.
I thought they were there as an elite core with a Big Four when Boozer joined two and a half years ago and I gave him the benefit of the doubt the following season ... but I am not convinced that is still the case.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think the Clippers will have an elite core when/if DeAndre Jordan becomes a top 15 center, and/or, when/if Blake Griffin becomes a strong defensive player.
Until either one of those happens, I am leaving them on the second tier.
Edit: Or, of course, if they added a third star.
-
Thanks for that breakdown, Who.
That's pretty much how I have it. As well as Memphis is playing, though (and I really like their team), I have a hard time saying their top three is as talented as ours.
Pierce is still better than Gay.
I'd give a slight edge to Gasol over Garnett right now.
Rondo is better as an individual player than anyone on their team. Although, I guess maybe it's close with Z-Bo.
Slight edge: Boston.
Miami
OKC
(LA) I put them in parentheses because I'm not convinced about their top three until I see either Gasol or Nash play for an extended period of time.
Those are the only two (possibly three) teams that have a better top three.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think the Clippers will have an elite core when/if DeAndre Jordan becomes a top 15 center, and/or, when/if Blake Griffin becomes a strong defensive player.
Until either one of those happens, I am leaving them on the second tier.
Edit: Or, of course, if they added a third star.
I just don't think it's really as simple as putting teams into "tiers" based on their best 2-3 players. Yes, generally that's a good guide, but I find it hard to accept the view that the Celtics are in a better position to beat the best teams in a 7 game series than the Clippers are just because they have 3 All-Star caliber players instead of just two.
The Clippers have two stars -- Paul and Griffin -- who are at a really high level. On top of that they have a great sixth man in Crawford and a deep and productive supporting cast. They're explosive offensively and they are one of the top teams in the league in terms of defensive plays made (blocks, steals, charges taken, etc). So far this season, at least, they are clearly one of the very best 3-4 teams.
I also think you're underestimating the Spurs. Duncan has had a great season so far. Much better than any of the players on the Celtics -- even Rondo. Parker is still one of the best guards in the league, and is still capable of taking over games. He's not as old as you think. Manu has declined quite a bit, but he still makes a bigger impact on the game than the box score suggests.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think the Clippers will have an elite core when/if DeAndre Jordan becomes a top 15 center, and/or, when/if Blake Griffin becomes a strong defensive player.
Until either one of those happens, I am leaving them on the second tier.
Edit: Or, of course, if they added a third star.
I just don't think it's really as simple as putting teams into "tiers" based on their best 2-3 players. Yes, generally that's a good guide, but I find it hard to accept the view that the Celtics are in a better position to beat the best teams in a 7 game series than the Clippers are just because they have 3 All-Star caliber players instead of just two.
The Clippers have two stars -- Paul and Griffin -- who are at a really high level. On top of that they have a great sixth man in Crawford and a deep and productive supporting cast. They're explosive offensively and they are one of the top teams in the league in terms of defensive plays made (blocks, steals, charges taken, etc). So far this season, at least, they are clearly one of the very best 3-4 teams.
I also think you're underestimating the Spurs. Duncan has had a great season so far. Much better than any of the players on the Celtics -- even Rondo. Parker is still one of the best guards in the league, and is still capable of taking over games. He's not as old as you think. Manu has declined quite a bit, but he still makes a bigger impact on the game than the box score suggests.
I think you, and most fans, are underestimating our talent. It's easy to go the negative route and write this team off based on a poor start to the season, but the fact that there is still very elite talent at the top of our lineup is undeniable.
Rondo is statistically the best point guard in the league right now. If you want to make a case for Paul or the injured Derrick Rose, fine, but he's clearly top three.
Paul Pierce is still the fourth best small forward in the league. He was even before that sick game against a terrible Cleveland team. Deng? Gay? Kirilenko? Galinari? Batum? Parsons? Don't insult me.
KG: He's the hardest to rank. I don't even know whether to rank him as a center or a power forward right now. But, I do know that Celtics fans seem to rate him as our best player. And, if he's better than Rondo and Pierce, then he's still a superstar player.
I'm not trying to undermine the talent on any of those other teams, but let's be realistic here. This Celtics team has elite level talent. I can't wait until they play up to that talent level with more consistency.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
I disagree with you about Chicago -- Noah / Deng / Rose is probably better overall than Rondo / Pierce / Garnett at this point.
Also, I think you're underestimating Melo / Chandler as a combo. Chandler deserves some recognition at this point for his contributions to the Mavs and now the Knicks.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
Griffin doesn't do as much to help a team win as KG does. Labeling him a superstar does nothing to change that.
-
When you consider how good KG, Rondo and Pierce are, it makes our record that much more frustrating.
-
When you consider how good KG, Rondo and Pierce are, it makes our record that much more frustrating.
When we start to turn this around, nobody's going to care that we were 13-12 in early December.
(Well, some people will probably continue to complain no matter what happens).
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
I disagree with you about Chicago -- Noah / Deng / Rose is probably better overall than Rondo / Pierce / Garnett at this point.
Also, I think you're underestimating Melo / Chandler as a combo. Chandler deserves some recognition at this point for his contributions to the Mavs and now the Knicks.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
Griffin doesn't do as much to help a team win as KG does. Labeling him a superstar does nothing to change that.
KG is definitely a better player defensively, but I think you make this claim with a bit too much certainty.
Griffin is superior in terms of traditional stats (pts, stl, rebounds), advanced stats (PER, WS/48, ORtg, DRtg, TRB%), and in terms of team success (Clippers currently on an 11 game winning streak).
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think the Clippers will have an elite core when/if DeAndre Jordan becomes a top 15 center, and/or, when/if Blake Griffin becomes a strong defensive player.
Until either one of those happens, I am leaving them on the second tier.
Edit: Or, of course, if they added a third star.
I just don't think it's really as simple as putting teams into "tiers" based on their best 2-3 players. Yes, generally that's a good guide, but I find it hard to accept the view that the Celtics are in a better position to beat the best teams in a 7 game series than the Clippers are just because they have 3 All-Star caliber players instead of just two.
The Clippers have two stars -- Paul and Griffin -- who are at a really high level. On top of that they have a great sixth man in Crawford and a deep and productive supporting cast. They're explosive offensively and they are one of the top teams in the league in terms of defensive plays made (blocks, steals, charges taken, etc). So far this season, at least, they are clearly one of the very best 3-4 teams.
I also think you're underestimating the Spurs. Duncan has had a great season so far. Much better than any of the players on the Celtics -- even Rondo. Parker is still one of the best guards in the league, and is still capable of taking over games. He's not as old as you think. Manu has declined quite a bit, but he still makes a bigger impact on the game than the box score suggests.
I think you, and most fans, are underestimating our talent. It's easy to go the negative route and write this team off based on a poor start to the season, but the fact that there is still very elite talent at the top of our lineup is undeniable.
Rondo is statistically the best point guard in the league right now. If you want to make a case for Paul or the injured Derrick Rose, fine, but he's clearly top three.
Paul Pierce is still the fourth best small forward in the league. He was even before that sick game against a terrible Cleveland team. Deng? Gay? Kirilenko? Galinari? Batum? Parsons? Don't insult me.
KG: He's the hardest to rank. I don't even know whether to rank him as a center or a power forward right now. But, I do know that Celtics fans seem to rate him as our best player. And, if he's better than Rondo and Pierce, then he's still a superstar player.
I'm not trying to undermine the talent on any of those other teams, but let's be realistic here. This Celtics team has elite level talent. I can't wait until they play up to that talent level with more consistency.
I'm not putting down the Celtics' talent.
They have three All-Star caliber players -- the three you mentioned. They also have the talent to have a very good supporting cast. So far that hasn't translated into a high level product on the floor, however.
I think Rondo has had a great year, but I don't really agree that he's statistically the best in the league. I still think Chris Paul is having a better year statistically. Russell Westbrook has had a great year, too. But Rondo is definitely one of the very best at his position.
My point in responding to Who is just that I think he is underrating some opposing teams, and that I think it's way too simplistic to say that the Celtics' core three are better than X number of teams and therefore they should be considered more formidable than all of those other teams.
Fact is, right now the majority of teams in the league shouldn't be afraid of the Celtics. By the end of the season that will hopefully have changed, but the Celtics just haven't put together enough good basketball to lay a claim to being among the best, at all.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
I disagree with you about Chicago -- Noah / Deng / Rose is probably better overall than Rondo / Pierce / Garnett at this point.
Also, I think you're underestimating Melo / Chandler as a combo. Chandler deserves some recognition at this point for his contributions to the Mavs and now the Knicks.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
Griffin doesn't do as much to help a team win as KG does. Labeling him a superstar does nothing to change that.
KG is definitely a better player defensively, but I think you make this claim with a bit too much certainty.
Griffin is superior in terms of traditional stats (pts, stl, rebounds), advanced stats (PER, WS/48, ORtg, DRtg, TRB%), and in terms of team success (Clippers currently on an 11 game winning streak).
If you have a big game that's close that you need to win, I'll take KG over Blake any day of the week.
-
So, I would rate Miami's Big Three as the best core in the league. Probably the Thunder and Lakers in second and third place respectively and then the Celtics and Grizzlies in fourth and fifth.
A top five core sounds about right to me.
I think you're underestimating some teams because of how strong their top two is.
The Clippers have a better core than the Celtics because they have two superstars, even if their third guy isn't quite as good as any of the three core guys on the Cs. In fact, right now Paul / Griffin / Crawford is a lot better than what the Celtics have. Plus, their bench is far more productive and reliable, and they have legitimate size in the frontcourt.
I think the Clippers will have an elite core when/if DeAndre Jordan becomes a top 15 center, and/or, when/if Blake Griffin becomes a strong defensive player.
Until either one of those happens, I am leaving them on the second tier.
Edit: Or, of course, if they added a third star.
I just don't think it's really as simple as putting teams into "tiers" based on their best 2-3 players. Yes, generally that's a good guide, but I find it hard to accept the view that the Celtics are in a better position to beat the best teams in a 7 game series than the Clippers are just because they have 3 All-Star caliber players instead of just two.
The Clippers have two stars -- Paul and Griffin -- who are at a really high level. On top of that they have a great sixth man in Crawford and a deep and productive supporting cast. They're explosive offensively and they are one of the top teams in the league in terms of defensive plays made (blocks, steals, charges taken, etc). So far this season, at least, they are clearly one of the very best 3-4 teams.
I also think you're underestimating the Spurs. Duncan has had a great season so far. Much better than any of the players on the Celtics -- even Rondo. Parker is still one of the best guards in the league, and is still capable of taking over games. He's not as old as you think. Manu has declined quite a bit, but he still makes a bigger impact on the game than the box score suggests.
I think you, and most fans, are underestimating our talent. It's easy to go the negative route and write this team off based on a poor start to the season, but the fact that there is still very elite talent at the top of our lineup is undeniable.
Rondo is statistically the best point guard in the league right now. If you want to make a case for Paul or the injured Derrick Rose, fine, but he's clearly top three.
Paul Pierce is still the fourth best small forward in the league. He was even before that sick game against a terrible Cleveland team. Deng? Gay? Kirilenko? Galinari? Batum? Parsons? Don't insult me.
KG: He's the hardest to rank. I don't even know whether to rank him as a center or a power forward right now. But, I do know that Celtics fans seem to rate him as our best player. And, if he's better than Rondo and Pierce, then he's still a superstar player.
I'm not trying to undermine the talent on any of those other teams, but let's be realistic here. This Celtics team has elite level talent. I can't wait until they play up to that talent level with more consistency.
I'm not putting down the Celtics' talent.
They have three All-Star caliber players -- the three you mentioned. They also have the talent to have a very good supporting cast. So far that hasn't translated into a high level product on the floor, however.
I think Rondo has had a great year, but I don't really agree that he's statistically the best in the league. I still think Chris Paul is having a better year statistically. Russell Westbrook has had a great year, too. But Rondo is definitely one of the very best at his position.
My point in responding to Who is just that I think he is underrating some opposing teams, and that I think it's way too simplistic to say that the Celtics' core three are better than X number of teams and therefore they should be considered more formidable than all of those other teams.
Fact is, right now the majority of teams in the league shouldn't be afraid of the Celtics. By the end of the season that will hopefully have changed, but the Celtics just haven't put together enough good basketball to lay a claim to being among the best, at all.
I agree with you. My point is just that the talent is there (and you seem to agree). That's why I won't be surprised to see this team start to turn it around soon enough.
It's a long 82 game pre-season. We'll be back in the mix once the real season starts.