CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: ItStaysYang on May 13, 2013, 09:03:29 PM
-
Your opinion on him was pretty staunch before he started playing better.
As the leading Celtic scorer in the playoffs (20.3), do you think any differently of him now? Namely - do you relent some of your views from before?
If yes or no, why? Just curious
-
Calling out posters is against site rules. Calling out the head mod....well, enjoy your vacation. LOL.
-
Calling out posters is against site rules. Calling out the head mod....well, enjoy your vacation. LOL.
I dont think he called out Roy, just needs to be introduced to the PM feature of Celticsblog.
-
Haha. I'm not sure these threads are allowed, but I'm happy to share.
I was really impressed with Green in the latter half of the season. He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
Over the last 20 games or so, though, Green was excellent. As a starter, he averaged 20 ppg, 52% FG%, and 52% 3PT%. Plus, he showed more aggression, and his defense was very good. It's hard not to tip your cap to those numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that that level of efficiency is sustainable for Green, and I still don't see him having the superstar potential that others due. I do think, though, that he out-performed his contract over the last quarter of the season, and I'm hoping that he can keep it up.
-
Haha. I'm not sure these threads are allowed, but I'm happy to share.
I was really impressed with Green in the latter half of the season. He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
Over the last 20 games or so, though, Green was excellent. As a starter, he averaged 20 ppg, 52% FG%, and 52% 3PT%. Plus, he showed more aggression, and his defense was very good. It's hard not to tip your cap to those numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that that level of efficiency is sustainable for Green, and I still don't see him having the superstar potential that others due. I do think, though, that he out-performed his contract over the last quarter of the season, and I'm hoping that he can keep it up.
"...and that is why I was robbed in last year's CelticsBlog draft."
-
No I wasn't trying to be argumentative or disrespectful - just want some public discussion, because of the long discussion we had in several prior threads.
Haha. I'm not sure these threads are allowed, but I'm happy to share.
I was really impressed with Green in the latter half of the season. He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
Over the last 20 games or so, though, Green was excellent. As a starter, he averaged 20 ppg, 52% FG%, and 52% 3PT%. Plus, he showed more aggression, and his defense was very good. It's hard not to tip your cap to those numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that that level of efficiency is sustainable for Green, and I still don't see him having the superstar potential that others due. I do think, though, that he out-performed his contract over the last quarter of the season, and I'm hoping that he can keep it up.
Wasn't sure if your views from before would persist, but that was sensibly put. I don't particularly think he's going to be a superstar either. Excited to see how he plays next season though, now that he's more confident and because Rondo will be back
-
He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
But don't the reports that surfaced later in the season, about his doctor saying that he wouldn't be at full strength until 18 months post-surgery, probably have you grading his early season struggles differently?
Side note: I recall saying that I would take Steph Curry over Rondo earlier in the year and was ridiculed by a couple of nameless posters about that. I would love to make a similar post and hear their thoughts now.
-
I have the same opinion as Roy, but I still say, because of Green's nature, he could easily go back to being the jeff Green of the first half of this season or the last year or so of his time in OKC, that being a very up and down inconsistent player.
I say trade him and his long term money and get back something valuable to build with that brings more than just scoring. This team needs interior defense, rebounding and a future post presence much more than they need anything Green brings to the table.
-
He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
But don't the reports that surfaced later in the season, about his doctor saying that he wouldn't be at full strength until 18 months post-surgery, probably have you grading his early season struggles differently?
Side note: I recall saying that I would take Steph Curry over Rondo earlier in the year and was ridiculed by a couple of nameless posters about that. I would love to make a similar post and hear their thoughts now.
I still think Rondo is better ;D
-
He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
But don't the reports that surfaced later in the season, about his doctor saying that he wouldn't be at full strength until 18 months post-surgery, probably have you grading his early season struggles differently?
Not particularly. I doubt Green's heart issues had anything to do with his passivity, since this is a trait he's showed for most of his career. Green wasn't playing worse than he traditionally has. Rather, he was playing at the exact same level he has.
In the last third of the season or so, Green seriously stepped up his game. He gets credit for that, but it doesn't mean that everything that came before that was the result of an injury.
-
I have the same opinion as Roy, but I still say, because of Green's nature, he could easily go back to being the jeff Green of the first half of this season or the last year or so of his time in OKC, that being a very up and down inconsistent player.
I say trade him and his long term money and get back something valuable to build with that brings more than just scoring. This team needs interior defense, rebounding and a future post presence much more than they need anything Green brings to the table.
If you look at Green's contract, his last year is a player's option for 9.2 million.
If next season, we decide to rebuild with Jeff Green a main cog of the offense (along with Rondo), there could be a major chance Jeff and his agent declines that option and tests FA.
Once the rebuild happens, we may not be a good team, record wise, but there's a decent chance Jeff Green will still get his numbers and be productive statistically.
So in essence, Jeff Green may only have 2 more seasons with the Celtics, including next. After these 2 seasons, Green will be 29 y/o and depending on his play, he may just so incline test FA and see if he can sign a much larger long term contract.
-
I have the same opinion as Roy, but I still say, because of Green's nature, he could easily go back to being the jeff Green of the first half of this season or the last year or so of his time in OKC, that being a very up and down inconsistent player.
I say trade him and his long term money and get back something valuable to build with that brings more than just scoring. This team needs interior defense, rebounding and a future post presence much more than they need anything Green brings to the table.
I agree 100%. I think Green is the type of player you want to acquire after you have the #1 and #2 pieces for a championship contender.
He might be just good enough to keep you from ever getting those guys if you don't already have them, however.
-
I have the same opinion as Roy, but I still say, because of Green's nature, he could easily go back to being the jeff Green of the first half of this season or the last year or so of his time in OKC, that being a very up and down inconsistent player.
I say trade him and his long term money and get back something valuable to build with that brings more than just scoring. This team needs interior defense, rebounding and a future post presence much more than they need anything Green brings to the table.
If you look at Green's contract, his last year is a player's option for 9.2 million.
If next season, we decide to rebuild with Jeff Green a main cog of the offense (along with Rondo), there could be a major chance Jeff and his agent declines that option and tests FA.
Once the rebuild happens, we may not be a good team, record wise, but there's a decent chance Jeff Green will still get his numbers and be productive statistically.
So in essence, Jeff Green may only have 2 more seasons with the Celtics, including next. After these 2 seasons, Green will be 29 y/o and depending on his play, he may just so incline test FA and see if he can sign a much larger long term contract.
So?
The C's have him under control for 2 more years and can always match via bird rights offers he gets. Given the limits of extensions in the new CBA there really isn't a reason to offer him an extension.
If he plays at such a high level to earn a new contract then such an extension will be below his asking price probably. He'd be opting out either way to sign a new deal even if he was staying with the C's.
-
I think the Jeff Green that we saw in the 2nd half would be the Jeff Green we will see from here on out. He'll have less touches with Rondo coming back, but I think he'll right there averaging 15-17 points a game, shooting fairly efficiently. All I know is, that overpaid contract argument with him before, you can't use that now.
PS.
Not that I'm encouraging calling out posters but I think this thread should be for vinnie, no? ;D
He's the biggest Green detractor on the site.
-
Green needs the ball in his hand attacking the retreating defense. I'm curious to see how that works with Rondo.
-
Green needs the ball in his hand attacking the retreating defense. I'm curious to see how that works with Rondo.
Eh, he's dangerous in transition but to both sides with some suspect decision making. I don't see how having a PG will cut down his transition chances all that much.
I think Pierce is the greatest impediment to him, same natural position and they both like many of the same areas of the floor.
Still it remains to be seen if he's a difference maker or a numbers hanger. Given how anemic our offense is/was, I'm skeptical he was the former. But all you can do is give him the minutes and the role, we've already given him the money.
-
I have the same opinion as Roy, but I still say, because of Green's nature, he could easily go back to being the jeff Green of the first half of this season or the last year or so of his time in OKC, that being a very up and down inconsistent player.
I say trade him and his long term money and get back something valuable to build with that brings more than just scoring. This team needs interior defense, rebounding and a future post presence much more than they need anything Green brings to the table.
Who is this mystery player that we should or could get?
And is Green going to be able to net us him?
How many gyys in the league do what you want period? 3 maybe?
-
It looked like we could have used 2 Jeff Greens to help playoff scoring.
-
It looked like we could have used 2 Jeff Greens to help playoff scoring.
Are you referring to Pierce and JG? Just kidding ;D
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
-
Green's attitude reminds me of Duncan. Anyone else feel that way?
-
Green's attitude reminds me of Duncan. Anyone else feel that way?
gerald wallace, rashad lewis, shawn marion type
-
Green's attitude reminds me of Duncan. Anyone else feel that way?
Tim Duncan? Not remotely ... Tim is highly confident of himself, has some humility, a sense of humor, is relaxed on the court, a team-first guy ... I wouldn't give any of those attributes to Jeff. He's more of an Antione Walker, Gerald Wallace type, (though I think he's improving in most of those areas since being in Boston).
-
Nothing about Green reminds me of Duncan. Duncan is a warrior who has put teams on his back and won championships. Green reminds me more of Alex English/Dell Curry types. He scores his points but just seams to go with the flow.
-
I'd be thrilled with Green's potential if last year was his first or second season. After all these years, I see him as a pretty good scorer, and really that's about it. I expect him to give a team about 17 points, decent defense, and nothing else. He's ok. I don't see him as a difference maker.
-
Haha. I'm not sure these threads are allowed, but I'm happy to share.
I was really impressed with Green in the latter half of the season. He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
Over the last 20 games or so, though, Green was excellent. As a starter, he averaged 20 ppg, 52% FG%, and 52% 3PT%. Plus, he showed more aggression, and his defense was very good. It's hard not to tip your cap to those numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that that level of efficiency is sustainable for Green, and I still don't see him having the superstar potential that others due. I do think, though, that he out-performed his contract over the last quarter of the season, and I'm hoping that he can keep it up.
2012–13 Oklahoma City
Games 78
MPG 25.1
FG% .457
FT% .611
REB: 6.0
AST: 1.4
STL: .6
BLK: 1.1
PTS: 4.2
And OKC's end of the deal is living up to(and exceeding) the contract. ;D
-
Green's attitude reminds me of Duncan. Anyone else feel that way?
Tim Duncan? Not remotely ... Tim is highly confident of himself, has some humility, a sense of humor, is relaxed on the court, a team-first guy ... I wouldn't give any of those attributes to Jeff.
Nah, not Tim Duncan... Josephine Duncan! ;)
Jeff seems like a confident, team-first guy... and we all know he's relaxed (too relaxed?) on the court. Maybe not so much with the sense of humor.
I also noticed that Tim likes to wait a few seconds on the post before making a move. Jeff seems to do the same thing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCniusIVtMw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5717fB_csMQ
If it weren't for the jerseys and skin color, I might've thought they were the same person!
:P
-
Haha. I'm not sure these threads are allowed, but I'm happy to share.
I was really impressed with Green in the latter half of the season. He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
Over the last 20 games or so, though, Green was excellent. As a starter, he averaged 20 ppg, 52% FG%, and 52% 3PT%. Plus, he showed more aggression, and his defense was very good. It's hard not to tip your cap to those numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that that level of efficiency is sustainable for Green, and I still don't see him having the superstar potential that others due. I do think, though, that he out-performed his contract over the last quarter of the season, and I'm hoping that he can keep it up.
2012–13 Oklahoma City
Games 78
MPG 25.1
FG% .457
FT% .611
REB: 6.0
AST: 1.4
STL: .6
BLK: 1.1
PTS: 4.2
And OKC's end of the deal is living up to(and exceeding) the contract. ;D
?
Is it not possible to discuss Green without Perk?
Because, if you'd like to rehash that particular thread for the ten thousandth time, I still wouldn't have made the Perk trade *during the season*. Danny threw away a shot at a title, for a guy who really didn't contribute much in 2011 or 2012. Instead of exploring a trade in the off-season, and perhaps landing a guy like David West, we instead wasted two seasons of KG and Pierce. That trade blew up our chemistry, and blew a gaping hole in our team at center. That's a void Danny still hasn't filled.
So, in terms of Green's play, I think he played very well during the latter part of this season, and I'm hopeful for him going forward. Don't confuse that with thinking that Danny's fool-hardy deal to move a starting center with trade value for a backup small forward in the middle of a season where we had legitimate championship hopes was a good trade. It wasn't, regardless of which player has more current value.
-
So, in terms of Green's play, I think he played very well during the latter part of this season, and I'm hopeful for him going forward.
I'm hopeful for him going guard.
BAHAHAHA ;D ;D ;D
everybody: ::)
-
agree wif Roy. much as I'm happy to have Green on this team........ I would have rather had that shot at the championship holding on to Perk.
I disagree with DA, when your that close to a possible banner, you leave the team alone and play ball.
-
Haha. I'm not sure these threads are allowed, but I'm happy to share.
I was really impressed with Green in the latter half of the season. He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
Over the last 20 games or so, though, Green was excellent. As a starter, he averaged 20 ppg, 52% FG%, and 52% 3PT%. Plus, he showed more aggression, and his defense was very good. It's hard not to tip your cap to those numbers.
Now, I'm not sure that that level of efficiency is sustainable for Green, and I still don't see him having the superstar potential that others due. I do think, though, that he out-performed his contract over the last quarter of the season, and I'm hoping that he can keep it up.
2012–13 Oklahoma City
Games 78
MPG 25.1
FG% .457
FT% .611
REB: 6.0
AST: 1.4
STL: .6
BLK: 1.1
PTS: 4.2
And OKC's end of the deal is living up to(and exceeding) the contract. ;D
?
Is it not possible to discuss Green without Perk?
Because, if you'd like to rehash that particular thread for the ten thousandth time, I still wouldn't have made the Perk trade *during the season*. Danny threw away a shot at a title, for a guy who really didn't contribute much in 2011 or 2012. Instead of exploring a trade in the off-season, and perhaps landing a guy like David West, we instead wasted two seasons of KG and Pierce. That trade blew up our chemistry, and blew a gaping hole in our team at center. That's a void Danny still hasn't filled.
So, in terms of Green's play, I think he played very well during the latter part of this season, and I'm hopeful for him going forward. Don't confuse that with thinking that Danny's fool-hardy deal to move a starting center with trade value for a backup small forward in the middle of a season where we had legitimate championship hopes was a good trade. It wasn't, regardless of which player has more current value.
Can we end this ridiculous myth that we would've had a better shot at the title without the trade? Perk was injured and Green produced more than Perk would've anyway. No Rondo, No Shaq and No JO was was the reason we lost. Not because of Perk who is a great 20 min a game role player and great teammate but nothing more. By the way the back up to old Paul Pierce would've been Sasha Pavlovic. That was the guy that would've had to cover Lebron, if Paul Pierce needs to conserve himself for offense.
-
Can we end this ridiculous myth that we would've had a better shot at the title without the trade? Perk was injured and Green produced more than Perk would've anyway. No Rondo, No Shaq and No JO was was the reason we lost. Not because of Perk who is a great 20 min a game role player and great teammate but nothing more. By the way the back up to old Paul Pierce would've been Sasha Pavlovic. That was the guy that would've had to cover Lebron, if Paul Pierce needs to conserve himself for offense.
Hey, is this an attack on Sasha? Hm? >:(
-
Green's attitude reminds me of Duncan. Anyone else feel that way?
Tim Duncan? Not remotely ... Tim is highly confident of himself, has some humility, a sense of humor, is relaxed on the court, a team-first guy ... I wouldn't give any of those attributes to Jeff. He's more of an Antione Walker, Gerald Wallace type, (though I think he's improving in most of those areas since being in Boston).
Seriously? Antoine Walker?
Of all the possible comparisons, you are comparing Green's attitude to Walkers?
As someone who watched Green a lot from his Hoya days 'till now, I could not possibly disagree more vehemently with that.
I'm not going to compare Green with Duncan. But he is nothing like Antoine.
-
Timmy is a legend. His team is in contention for the NBA title yet again. Green is not even close. To me Green is like a younger Rashard Lewis but not as athletic. He's certainly a good player to have but he's not a championship block. He's a complementary player.
The Celtics lack that MJ/Kobe/Lebron level talent to bring them a title. And unfortunately they are not bad enough to draft that guy unless they get insanely lucky in the draft and say get a John Stockton level guy at #16.
-
Timmy is a legend. His team is in contention for the NBA title yet again. Green is not even close. To me Green is like a younger Rashard Lewis but not as athletic. He's certainly a good player to have but he's not a championship block. He's a complementary player.
The Celtics lack that MJ/Kobe/Lebron level talent to bring them a title. And unfortunately they are not bad enough to draft that guy unless they get insanely lucky in the draft and say get a John Stockton level guy at #16.
everyone agree with me
jeff green is gerald wallace shawn marion antawn jamison rashad lewis type
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
5 rebounds in 43 MPG isn't good for a 3 either.
A roughly 7.5 RR in the playoffs and 8.3 during the regular season. That's a below average mark for a SF.
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
5 rebounds in 43 MPG isn't good for a 3 either.
A roughly 7.5 RR in the playoffs and 8.3 during the regular season. That's a below average mark for a SF.
No it's not that good, but Carmelo averaged right around the same and so did Pierce. Not saying it's that good, said it's not terrible.
Just wondering where you came up with 7.5 and 8.3?
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
5 rebounds in 43 MPG isn't good for a 3 either.
A roughly 7.5 RR in the playoffs and 8.3 during the regular season. That's a below average mark for a SF.
No it's not that good, but Carmelo averaged right around the same and so did Pierce. Not saying it's that good, said it's not terrible.
Just wondering where you came up with 7.5 and 8.3?
Rebound rates from basketball-reference
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
5 rebounds in 43 MPG isn't good for a 3 either.
A roughly 7.5 RR in the playoffs and 8.3 during the regular season. That's a below average mark for a SF.
No it's not that good, but Carmelo averaged right around the same and so did Pierce. Not saying it's that good, said it's not terrible.
Just wondering where you came up with 7.5 and 8.3?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/reboundRate/page/2/seasontype/3
I see Carmelo with 9.9 here.
The playoffs are a small sample, of course, but when the people just ahead of you on the list are JR Smith, Andre Miller, Mike Conley, MAtt Bonner etc. you are not exactly in elite company as far as rebounders.
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
5 rebounds in 43 MPG isn't good for a 3 either.
A roughly 7.5 RR in the playoffs and 8.3 during the regular season. That's a below average mark for a SF.
No it's not that good, but Carmelo averaged right around the same and so did Pierce. Not saying it's that good, said it's not terrible.
Just wondering where you came up with 7.5 and 8.3?
Those are Green's total rebounding percentage, meaning the percentage of all available boards he grabbed while he was on the floor. Here are the statistics for the Celtics this season:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2013.html
Scroll down to "advanced". You'll see that Green ranked 13th on the Celtics in total rebounding percentage. Most of the guys ahead of him were big men and part-time players. However, you'll see that Pierce was at 11.2%, and even Rondo trumped Green at 8.8%.
In the playoffs, Pierce's rebounding percentage dipped substantially, but he was still ahead of Green.
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
-
Green had an impressive second half of the season, but the play-offs reminded me of why I am unable to completely buy in. He is way too passive and one dimensional. He's a player who doesn't do much outside of scoring and his scoring isn't very consistent. He disappeared for quarters at a time in the Knicks series and did the same all season.
Green has to work on being a presence on the floor through multiple facets of the game, especially rebounding. He also has to do a better job of scoring without the ball in the half-court(he needs more cutting, not just corner threes and Isos). Green is just a few improvements away from being a very nice player and potential building block.
IMO, Green at best can be the 3rd best player on a championship team but he's not there yet.
I think I have to disagree about Green being one dimensional. He had over 5 rebounds a game in playoffs, which isn't terrible for a 3. He ran the floor well and scored without the ball. And I also was impressed by his defense.
I don't know that he'll be a star but he can very certainly be a second or at least third best player on a championship team, in my opinion.
5 rebounds in 43 MPG isn't good for a 3 either.
A roughly 7.5 RR in the playoffs and 8.3 during the regular season. That's a below average mark for a SF.
No it's not that good, but Carmelo averaged right around the same and so did Pierce. Not saying it's that good, said it's not terrible.
Just wondering where you came up with 7.5 and 8.3?
Those are Green's total rebounding percentage, meaning the percentage of all available boards he grabbed while he was on the floor. Here are the statistics for the Celtics this season:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2013.html
Scroll down to "advanced". You'll see that Green ranked 13th on the Celtics in total rebounding percentage. Most of the guys ahead of him were big men and part-time players. However, you'll see that Pierce was at 11.2%, and even Rondo trumped Green at 8.8%.
In the playoffs, Pierce's rebounding percentage dipped substantially, but he was still ahead of Green.
Okay. Thanks. I stand corrected.
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
I think he can (as in he has the physical tools to make him a good rebounder), he just doesn't want to.
-
I honestly still believe it was a good trade. Perk was injured and not the same Perk and I don't believe he ever regained his form that season or even to this day. Ainge saw this coming. His replacements didn't and haven't panned out since but I would argue that neiher has Perk.
They had a chance to get something for him before they lost him to free agency. Now OKC is stuck with his contract. Ainge envisioned this and was able to get Jeff Green. A healthy Jeff Green could have made a huge difference last year when we were forced to play Pavolic and others big minutes and in crucial situations.
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
I think he can (as in he has the physical tools to make him a good rebounder), he just doesn't want to.
By that logic every NBA player who isn't a good shooter doesn't want to be a good shooter, they all have the physical tools.
Rebounding is a skill, Jeff Green isn't good at it. I hope he improves at it, but want/heart/etc isn't the only thing to it.
-
He was extremely inconsistent early, going months without stringing together three good (or bad) games in a row.
But don't the reports that surfaced later in the season, about his doctor saying that he wouldn't be at full strength until 18 months post-surgery, probably have you grading his early season struggles differently?
Not particularly. I doubt Green's heart issues had anything to do with his passivity, since this is a trait he's showed for most of his career. Green wasn't playing worse than he traditionally has. Rather, he was playing at the exact same level he has.
In the last third of the season or so, Green seriously stepped up his game. He gets credit for that, but it doesn't mean that everything that came before that was the result of an injury.
Not a result of an injury, no, be a result of a shift in mentality.
Let's not forget that from day 1 he started his NBA career in the shadow of Durant. He later started sharing that spotlight with westbrook, and Harden. He has never been asked to be "the guy" for a team, carry the scoring, be aggressive.
Also, he almost died. Facing a near death experience can really alter someone's out look on life. I think what we're finally seeing with him is not an outlier, but a coming out. We're seeing what happens when a man is faced with his own mortality and must decide how he's going to make every moment count; because he realizes more than ever, that those moments could be limited.
-
I think Roy was spot on about Green. I don't like him as a guy that we can win with. I value consistency more than anything, and that just isn't him.
-
I think Roy was spot on about Green. I don't like him as a guy that we can win with. I value consistency more than anything, and that just isn't him.
Funny, most people are saying that Green is and has always been consistent, just consistently unimpressive.
This season, the one after his heart condition problem, may be the only real evidence of his inconsistent play. But it seemed that Green has solved that inconsistency, the playoff games are good proof.
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
I think he can (as in he has the physical tools to make him a good rebounder), he just doesn't want to.
Why wouldn't he want to? :\
-
I think Roy was spot on about Green. I don't like him as a guy that we can win with. I value consistency more than anything, and that just isn't him.
Funny, most people are saying that Green is and has always been consistent, just consistently unimpressive.
This season, the one after his heart condition problem, may be the only real evidence of his inconsistent play. But it seemed that Green has solved that inconsistency, the playoff games are good proof.
I don't see it that way. I think people are saying that Green consistently puts up the same per minute stats on a yearly basis. But within those years, because of his passive play, he disappears for quarters and even games at a time and then shows up like a star at others. He is consistently inconsistent but in doing so he puts up consistent per minute numbers.
-
I think Roy was spot on about Green. I don't like him as a guy that we can win with. I value consistency more than anything, and that just isn't him.
Funny, most people are saying that Green is and has always been consistent, just consistently unimpressive.
This season, the one after his heart condition problem, may be the only real evidence of his inconsistent play. But it seemed that Green has solved that inconsistency, the playoff games are good proof.
I don't see it that way. I think people are saying that Green consistently puts up the same per minute stats on a yearly basis. But within those years, because of his passive play, he disappears for quarters and even games at a time and then shows up like a star at others. He is consistently inconsistent but in doing so he puts up consistent per minute numbers.
If he averages 20.3ppg every year in the playoffs, I won't be one to complain ;D
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
I think he can (as in he has the physical tools to make him a good rebounder), he just doesn't want to.
Why wouldn't he want to? :\
He has the physical tools in theory to be a good rebounder, but rebounding is only a somewhat related to physical - a lot of it is mental.
Look at guys like Sully and Zach Randolf - both exceptional rebounders and yet both are undersized at their position and lack athleticism.
Green has the length, athleticism for it but he probably doesn't have the 'nose for the ball'. Things like understanding where the ball will come off depending on when where it's shot from, boxing out principles, etc.
-
As for Jeff Green, where's this talk of inconsistency coming from?
You can argue that he plays good in some quarters and bad in others, but most players do. Pierce is the same - he'll score 15 in a quarter and then score 5 the rest of the game.
The important thing is that from gamee to game he's pretty consistent. In the playoffs Jeff Scored 18+ points in almost every single game - I think he only had one game where his scoring numbers were down. He was by far our most consistent scorer in the series AND our most efficient.
If Green took more shots and was more forceful (the way Pierce can be at times) his efficiency would drop, but he'd probably be averaging 25PPG +
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
I think he can (as in he has the physical tools to make him a good rebounder), he just doesn't want to.
Why wouldn't he want to? :\
He has the physical tools in theory to be a good rebounder, but rebounding is only a somewhat related to physical - a lot of it is mental.
Look at guys like Sully and Zach Randolf - both exceptional rebounders and yet both are undersized at their position and lack athleticism.
Green has the length, athleticism for it but he probably doesn't have the 'nose for the ball'. Things like understanding where the ball will come off depending on when where it's shot from, boxing out principles, etc.
Perhaps he could watch some film.
-
Paul was rebounding in place of PF for much of this season, it really inflated his totals.
I feel weird saying that, because he stepped up when the team needed him to grab those boards. Not every player can do that (Jeff Green for example certainly can't).
I think he can (as in he has the physical tools to make him a good rebounder), he just doesn't want to.
Why wouldn't he want to? :\
He has the physical tools in theory to be a good rebounder, but rebounding is only a somewhat related to physical - a lot of it is mental.
Look at guys like Sully and Zach Randolf - both exceptional rebounders and yet both are undersized at their position and lack athleticism.
Green has the length, athleticism for it but he probably doesn't have the 'nose for the ball'. Things like understanding where the ball will come off depending on when where it's shot from, boxing out principles, etc.
Perhaps he could watch some film.
Perhaps you guys should stop watching the last 26 games he played and instead watch the other 370 he played before them.
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
He had a great last 25-30 games for the C's. That doesn't mean he has completely become something he had been his entire career.
-
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.
-
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.
No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.
But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.
-
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.
No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.
But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.
Well, same goes for his tenure in Boston because he'll never play to his maximum if he's stuck behind a HOFer who plays the same position as him. Never.
-
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.
No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.
But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.
This seems pretty dubious reasoning. Here is my reasoning instead:
Assertion 1: Durant is a better SF than Green. No controversy there, I hope.
Assertion 2: Ibaka is a better (or at least more prototypical) PF than Green.
Neither precludes the fact that Green is an excellent, starting caliber SF who can swing to PF.
A more logical interpretation is that Presti wanted to pay for a backup for one of them, not a starting caliber SF coming off the bench (because he knows he has to pay for Westbrook & eventually Ibaka) - no matter how good that bench SF is.
Trading Green to a team that needed (and was willing to pay for) a starting caliber SF down the road was a better realization of Green's value than having him continue to be under-utilized in the OKC system.
-
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.
No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.
But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.
This seems pretty dubious reasoning. Here is my reasoning instead:
Assertion 1: Durant is a better SF than Green. No controversy there, I hope.
Assertion 2: Ibaka is a better (or at least more prototypical) PF than Green.
Neither precludes the fact that Green is an excellent, starting caliber SF who can swing to PF.
A more logical interpretation is that Presti wanted to pay for a backup for one of them, not a starting caliber SF coming off the bench (because he knows he has to pay for Westbrook & eventually Ibaka) - no matter how good that bench SF is.
Trading Green to a team that needed (and was willing to pay for) a starting caliber SF down the road was a better realization of Green's value than having him continue to be under-utilized in the OKC system.
That's another interpretation but it doesn't make it true. Articles were ripe during Green's contract extension negotiations of Presti wanting to keep Green and as of yet, the Thunder really didn't know what they had in Ibaka. He was still a very very raw player that wasn't good enough yet for starting minutes.
Presti wanted to keep Harden too. But once again, Harden was asking too much money. Saying Presti traded Green because he had Durant or Ibaka is like saying he traded Harden because he had Westbrook. That's patently false and only a fall back. The Thunder had Durant and Westbrook so Presti felt he could trade those guys if they didn't take reduced rates.
Presti wanted to keep both players at reduced rates. Those players wanted more than Presti was willing to give so the Thunder traded them for things the team needed. My guess is if Presti had his way he would be starting a team of Ibaka/Green/Durant/Sefalosha/Westbrook and bringing Harden off the bench. But he can't afford that team.
-
Do you guys think I am making this stuff up? Go talk to OKC fans that were saying the same about the guy for 4 years. Sam Presti kept Serge Ibaka after seeing him for 18 months rather than Jeff Green who he had seen for 3 1/2 years. Why? Consistency, aggression, rebounding and interior presence. All things Jeff lacks.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure Presti kept Ibaka because he already had a pretty good SF; it wasn't because he didn't think Green was good enough.
No. Presti was willing to keep Green but Green was expecting way more money for his extension than he was worth. Presti didn't want to/couldn't pay that for someone that didn't give him the complete package. He traded Green for rebounding and inside presence and hoped Ibaka would continue to develop. Ibaka developed leaps and bounds over the next 18 months and it paid off handsomely for OKC.
But Presti didn't trade Green specifically because he had Durant. Green just didn't give that team what it needed next to Durant for the price Presti was willing to pay.
This seems pretty dubious reasoning. Here is my reasoning instead:
Assertion 1: Durant is a better SF than Green. No controversy there, I hope.
Assertion 2: Ibaka is a better (or at least more prototypical) PF than Green.
Neither precludes the fact that Green is an excellent, starting caliber SF who can swing to PF.
A more logical interpretation is that Presti wanted to pay for a backup for one of them, not a starting caliber SF coming off the bench (because he knows he has to pay for Westbrook & eventually Ibaka) - no matter how good that bench SF is.
Trading Green to a team that needed (and was willing to pay for) a starting caliber SF down the road was a better realization of Green's value than having him continue to be under-utilized in the OKC system.
That's another interpretation but it doesn't make it true. Articles were ripe during Green's contract extension negotiations of Presti wanting to keep Green and as of yet, the Thunder really didn't know what they had in Ibaka. He was still a very very raw player that wasn't good enough yet for starting minutes.
Presti wanted to keep Harden too. But once again, Harden was asking too much money. Saying Presti traded Green because he had Durant or Ibaka is like saying he traded Harden because he had Westbrook. That's patently false and only a fall back. The Thunder had Durant and Westbrook so Presti felt he could trade those guys if they didn't take reduced rates.
Presti wanted to keep both players at reduced rates. Those players wanted more than Presti was willing to give so the Thunder traded them for things the team needed. My guess is if Presti had his way he would be starting a team of Ibaka/Green/Durant/Sefalosha/Westbrook and bringing Harden off the bench. But he can't afford that team.
Green is blatantly positionally superfluous with Durant. That is something many folks have commented on since the Sonics got both players back in 2007.
Harden and Westbrook are extremely different players who play different positions.
Green (an SF) was traded for a (defensive) C (ignoring Krstic, Nate & the pick that became Fab).
Harden (an SG) was traded for an SG (and pick).
So I don't think your comparison really holds as tightly as you'd like.
The first trade is clearly trading excess talent at one position to fill a shortcoming at another position.
The second trade is reducing cost at the same position.
Neither trade is a statement about whether the player is "worth" what they would have had to be paid if retained.
You are spot on when you point to the fact that the budget can't always contain the cost of a player, independent of his 'worth'.
I don't think we are in violent disagreement here. I just see a nuance in your choice of words.
"Willing to pay" and "able to pay" are different.