CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: CelticConcourse on January 24, 2013, 11:02:38 PM

Title: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 24, 2013, 11:02:38 PM
I think we all know we have the talent to win, whether it's against the OKC Thunder or the Knicks at MSG. We're disgusted at how we seem to give away games to Detroit et al. However, another side argues, if we get to the playoffs, which we certainly will, we can simply turn it up and win all we want. We have the ability, but we ain't got no consistency.

Reminds me of a certain Jeff Green I know.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: The Rondo Show on January 24, 2013, 11:04:00 PM
Nothing about this season has showed me we can turn it on at will like we have in years' past. Sometimes we come out more motivated, but that's about the best we get
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 24, 2013, 11:08:56 PM
Nothing about this season has showed me we can turn it on at will like we have in years' past. Sometimes we come out more motivated, but that's about the best we get

Also, Rondo seems to be able to turn it up whenever he wants.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: Q_FBE on January 24, 2013, 11:42:44 PM
I don't think we have the talent to be consistent. Take that for what it is worth.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 24, 2013, 11:44:21 PM
I don't think we have the talent to be consistent. Take that for what it is worth.

But we do have the talent to beat elite teams, should we choose?
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: crimson_stallion on January 25, 2013, 12:14:39 AM
I don't think we have the talent to be consistent. Take that for what it is worth.

But we do have the talent to beat elite teams, should we choose?

We do, just not the motivation apparently!

If 2/3 of our team plays well we can probably heat anybody.  Rarely happens tho!
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: PhoSita on January 25, 2013, 03:11:39 AM
Even when our team plays up to their potential I'm not sure they really have enough.

The fact is that we're getting as much as we can reasonably hope to get out of Pierce, Rondo, and KG.  Those are our three best players; we're only going as far as they can take us.

As for the supporting cast, the only players who you can really hope to improve are Lee and Bass.  Neither is old enough to be on the decline and both are performing below their career norms.  Green is producing the same as he always has, and Terry is pretty clearly cooked.  Bradley and Sullinger are giving us all they can this season, though they both obviously have significant upside and may be more than just role players in the future.

Overall, this team is not going to get any better anytime soon without some changes.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: BballTim on January 25, 2013, 06:30:11 AM
Even when our team plays up to their potential I'm not sure they really have enough.

The fact is that we're getting as much as we can reasonably hope to get out of Pierce, Rondo, and KG.  Those are our three best players; we're only going as far as they can take us.

As for the supporting cast, the only players who you can really hope to improve are Lee and Bass.  Neither is old enough to be on the decline and both are performing below their career norms.  Green is producing the same as he always has, and Terry is pretty clearly cooked.  Bradley and Sullinger are giving us all they can this season, though they both obviously have significant upside and may be more than just role players in the future.

Overall, this team is not going to get any better anytime soon without some changes.

  I don't see why you can't expect improvement from Bradley (still working out the kinks after half a season off) or Sully (who *is* improving).
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: CelticsFan9 on January 25, 2013, 06:35:50 AM
In 2010 and last year, I had this feeling deep down that despite our record, our guys could still "flip the switch."

This year, I don't have that feeling.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: OmarSekou on January 25, 2013, 08:00:38 AM
I don't think talent is an issue as far as having a strong regular season record. It comes down to effort and execution. Our main strengths are experience, skill, and (potentially) depth. Our main weaknesses are the lack of an inside presence and the athleticism/stamina of our main unit.

It's difficult to control consistently hitting jumpers. It's much easier to control pressuring the ball, increasing the tempo (not necessarily the pace) and running plays correctly. We aren't doing either.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 25, 2013, 08:15:21 AM
In 2010 and last year, I had this feeling deep down that despite our record, our guys could still "flip the switch."

This year, I don't have that feeling.

Right on the money. The flip the switch feeling is completely gone. But the team still has the flip the switch mentality, but then when they go to flip it, the lights are out.

Rondo can still flip the switch but when he no longer has the rest of the team to back him up theres a problem there.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: PhoSita on January 25, 2013, 09:11:52 AM
Even when our team plays up to their potential I'm not sure they really have enough.

The fact is that we're getting as much as we can reasonably hope to get out of Pierce, Rondo, and KG.  Those are our three best players; we're only going as far as they can take us.

As for the supporting cast, the only players who you can really hope to improve are Lee and Bass.  Neither is old enough to be on the decline and both are performing below their career norms.  Green is producing the same as he always has, and Terry is pretty clearly cooked.  Bradley and Sullinger are giving us all they can this season, though they both obviously have significant upside and may be more than just role players in the future.

Overall, this team is not going to get any better anytime soon without some changes.

  I don't see why you can't expect improvement from Bradley (still working out the kinks after half a season off) or Sully (who *is* improving).

I expect them to improve in the future. This season I don't expect them to give us too much more than they are now.

In any case, we aren't going to make a run to 50 wins because of Bradley and Sullinger.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: wdleehi on January 25, 2013, 09:15:11 AM
Even when this team is on, it has flaws that make it unlikely to win a 7 game series with the elite teams (and to be honest, their is only one elite team in the East, Miami.  Maybe Chicago if Rose comes back and plays at a high level)


There is still a big man hole next to and behind KG.  There is plenty of talent at PF, but there needs to be one starting player 6'10 or higher.


Outside shooting is inconsistent.




I think their might be enough offensive weapons if Rondo, KG, Pierce and Terry are playing up to their ability as long as the defense is excellent. 
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: Moranis on January 25, 2013, 09:37:35 AM
C's don't have the talent required to win a title.  Not even close.  Pierce and Garnett are clearly at the end of their careers.  Rondo is maddeningly inconsistent and not enough of an offensive presence to be this teams best player.  Bradley and Sullinger are a long way from consistent elite level play (if they ever get there) and the rest of the team is a bunch of role players.  Just not good enough.  Sure a game here or there, Pierce and Garnett can muster the energy and consistency of their youth, but not night in and night out, which means this team is done as a realistic contender without major changes.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: clover on January 25, 2013, 10:11:16 AM
C's don't have the talent required to win a title.  Not even close.  Pierce and Garnett are clearly at the end of their careers.  Rondo is maddeningly inconsistent and not enough of an offensive presence to be this teams best player.  Bradley and Sullinger are a long way from consistent elite level play (if they ever get there) and the rest of the team is a bunch of role players.  Just not good enough.  Sure a game here or there, Pierce and Garnett can muster the energy and consistency of their youth, but not night in and night out, which means this team is done as a realistic contender without major changes.

Thank you.  The bitter brace of truth is refreshing.
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: BballTim on January 25, 2013, 10:38:55 AM
C's don't have the talent required to win a title.  Not even close.  Pierce and Garnett are clearly at the end of their careers.  Rondo is maddeningly inconsistent and not enough of an offensive presence to be this teams best player.  Bradley and Sullinger are a long way from consistent elite level play (if they ever get there) and the rest of the team is a bunch of role players.  Just not good enough.  Sure a game here or there, Pierce and Garnett can muster the energy and consistency of their youth, but not night in and night out, which means this team is done as a realistic contender without major changes.

  Haven't you been making similar comments since 2009 or so?
Title: Re: Talent vs. Consistency
Post by: MBunge on January 25, 2013, 10:45:52 AM
The team may not have the talent to win it all, but they've got more talent than 20-22.  It just needs to be used properly, which means smarter line ups and better offensive schemes.

The two things that stood out last night were Boston being completely flummoxed by the Knicks' zone.  That's been happening for years and speaks to how rigid and structured the Celtic offense is.  Zone almost entirely neutralizes Doc's screen-n-spacing concept and since Boston deliberately avoids attacking the offensive glass, the zone's biggest weakness, whenever the team encounters zone it's like they've never played against it before.

The other thing is that Jeff Green got virtually no offensive touches in the second half.  I went back to look and he had three shots in the 3rd quarter (2 three-pointers and a 19 foot jumper) and no shot attempts in the 4th.  And don't say that was some lack of aggression on Green's part.  The game had slowed to a crawl and the team was running plays that were designed to get other people shots.

Mike