CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: KGBirdBias on March 20, 2017, 09:27:13 AM
-
Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm asking for a friend. LOL
My "friend" says that the Celtics seems to beat the mediocre teams but really struggle against the better teams and when games that are big in terms of standings, situation and maintaining momentum his teams tend to come up short. The consistent inconsistency seems to be a problem.
-
We beat Cleveland and Golden State.
Next.
-
Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm asking for a friend. LOL
My "friend" says that the Celtics seems to beat the mediocre teams but really struggle against the better teams and when games that are big in terms of standings, situation and maintaining momentum his teams tend to come up short. The consistent inconsistency seems to be a problem.
The players win and lose games but in regard to the topic don't you mean can they win the games we are "supposed" to win.
-
we got a win vs GS and Cavaliers...so to answer your friend, yes
-
Yes, games you're suppose to win and win when it matters most. No one said he doesn't have good wins because he has beaten GS and Cavs but it voids those wins when you lose home games you should win and road games when you lose big leads.
The Celtics should be the #1 seed by now. The Cavs have dared us to take it and we haven't. I hope we can step up tonight but it's coming off a back to back after a tough game yesterday, so we shall see.
One thing I'm tired of seeing is us build a lead and as soon as KO and Jerebko enter the game together, the lead dwindles...watch what I tell you. I never like those two playing together...teams just have a layup and volleyball drill in the paint. I'd like to see Green more often against athletic, up and down teams.
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
-
Yes, games you're suppose to win and win when it matters most. No one said he doesn't have good wins because he has beaten GS and Cavs but it voids those wins when you lose home games you should win and road games when you lose big leads.
The Celtics should be the #1 seed by now. The Cavs have dared us to take it and we haven't. I hope we can step up tonight but it's coming off a back to back after a tough game yesterday, so we shall see.
One thing I'm tired of seeing is us build a lead and as soon as KO and Jerebko enter the game together, the lead dwindles...watch what I tell you. I never like those two playing together...teams just have a layup and volleyball drill in the paint. I'd like to see Green more often against athletic, up and down teams.
If you think that losses automatically void big wins, then I have to ask whether any team can win big games. Sure, Cleveland beat the Warriors once, but they also lost all 3 games against the Bulls and lost to the 18-30 Mavs and 18-27 Pelicans at the end of January, so their big wins don't count. And the Warriors? Sure, they beat the Cavs and Houston once, but they also lost (at full strength) by 20 to the Lakers lost to the 25-30 Nuggets by 22 points, so their big wins don't count either. Even the Spurs get their great wins against Cleveland and the Warriors nullified by losses to Orlando and the 17-30 Mavs at home. Even last year's Warriors dropped a home game to the 26-52 Timberwolves at home despite having a 12 point lead with less than a minute and a half left in the 3rd quarter.
So, sure, by the criteria of big wins being wiped out by losing games you should win, Brad has never won a big game. But neither have Pop, Kerr, and Lue. I would take a look at those criteria and figure out if every coach in the NBA is bad or if your criteria are just unreasonable, because every team loses games, including ones they should win
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
-
Hey don't get me wrong. Stevens hasn't had a superstar, has dealt with multiple trades during the year, injuries to key players, etc. So I'm not saying he's a bad coach. I just want to see us run off some wins and play with some consistency down the stretch...starting tonight. Like IT said after the Suns game...why are we experimenting with lineups and rotations at this point. Find the top eight guys and go with them.
I want to see what Stevens can do with a few stars verses always coaching guys that have to play [dang] near perfect or play above themselves to win consistently. Getting a KD, Butler or PG13 would've really helped. He's always fighting with 3 bullets and the other good teams seem to always keep 6 in the chamber.
-
Well , he does great with the lot he has been given .
Could you imagine giving CBS Townes and LeBron type players .
He has scoring midget in IT ....
Needs another tear the court up scorer ....... Butler, Fultz , Jackson
-
Hey don't get me wrong. Stevens hasn't had a superstar, has dealt with multiple trades during the year, injuries to key players, etc. So I'm not saying he's a bad coach. I just want to see us run off some wins and play with some consistency down the stretch...starting tonight. Like IT said after the Suns game...why are we experimenting with lineups and rotations at this point. Find the top eight guys and go with them.
I want to see what Stevens can do with a few stars verses always coaching guys that have to play [dang] near perfect or play above themselves to win consistently. Getting a KD, Butler or PG13 would've really helped. He's always fighting with 3 bullets and the other good teams seem to always keep 6 in the chamber.
That game we had 2 frontcourt guys injured plus had some foul trouble. IT was frustrated hence the comments.
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
Atlanta was a bad matchup for Boston last year, no doubt, and there is no shame in getting swept by Cleveland the year before, but at some point, Stevens has to start winning playoff series. He is after all 2-8 in the playoffs. If Boston, loses in the first round again this year, I think you will start to see some legitimate concerns about not just the team, but Stevens ability to win in the post season.
-
It's worth noting that he took a mid-major to the NCAA finals. Twice in consecutive years.
-
We will find out tonight if Stevens can win a big game ;)
-
In the 2011 tourney
Butler over Old dom
Butler over Pitt (1 pt thriller)
Butler over Wisconsin
Butler over Florida
Huskies over Butler for title (53-41)Kemba Walker just went postal that year.
In the 2010 tourney
Butler over UTEP
Butler over Murray State
Butler over Syracuse
Butler over K State
Duke over Butler (61-59) for title...Never heard of "Duke" I can't imagine they get good recruits down there.
If you're waiting for Stevens to win some big NBA games? You gonna have to wait for his boss to sign some big NBA players.
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
Atlanta was a bad matchup for Boston last year, no doubt, and there is no shame in getting swept by Cleveland the year before, but at some point, Stevens has to start winning playoff series. He is after all 2-8 in the playoffs. If Boston, loses in the first round again this year, I think you will start to see some legitimate concerns about not just the team, but Stevens ability to win in the post season.
Daily TP to the machine known as 'saltlover.'
Agree with Moranis regarding the importance of a first-round win. I hadn't considered Stevens a bridge coach, I think that's a reach. But despite glaring weaknesses within the roster - e.g., frontcourt - a first-round exit this year would be a considerable underachievement imo.
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
Atlanta was a bad matchup for Boston last year, no doubt, and there is no shame in getting swept by Cleveland the year before, but at some point, Stevens has to start winning playoff series. He is after all 2-8 in the playoffs. If Boston, loses in the first round again this year, I think you will start to see some legitimate concerns about not just the team, but Stevens ability to win in the post season.
Daily TP to the machine known as 'saltlover.'
Agree with Moranis regarding the importance of a first-round win. I hadn't considered Stevens a bridge coach, I think that's a reach. But despite glaring weaknesses within the roster - e.g., frontcourt - a first-round exit this year would be a considerable underachievement imo.
I like Stevens a lot, think he is an excellent coach, and don't think he is a bridge coach, but at some point he is going to have to prove it in the post-season and another 1st round loss this year would be pretty devastating from that perspective (given that Boston will almost certainly be a top 3 seed and should be clearly better than its 1st round opponent).
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
Atlanta was a bad matchup for Boston last year, no doubt, and there is no shame in getting swept by Cleveland the year before, but at some point, Stevens has to start winning playoff series. He is after all 2-8 in the playoffs. If Boston, loses in the first round again this year, I think you will start to see some legitimate concerns about not just the team, but Stevens ability to win in the post season.
Daily TP to the machine known as 'saltlover.'
Agree with Moranis regarding the importance of a first-round win. I hadn't considered Stevens a bridge coach, I think that's a reach. But despite glaring weaknesses within the roster - e.g., frontcourt - a first-round exit this year would be a considerable underachievement imo.
I like Stevens a lot, think he is an excellent coach, and don't think he is a bridge coach, but at some point he is going to have to prove it in the post-season and another 1st round loss this year would be pretty devastating from that perspective (given that Boston will almost certainly be a top 3 seed and should be clearly better than its 1st round opponent).
I think there would be legitimate questions to be asked about this team's ability to win if we were upset in the first round this season, but I would still think that even if we'd never been to the playoffs before.
The performances of the past two seasons offer zero informational value as to how this team preforms in the playoffs, other than to create easy bite-sized narratives for hot-takers to digest.
-
Beat Cleveland. Beat Golden State. Beat LA Clippers. Beat Houston Rockets...so yes, he's capable of pulling wins against big teams.
But I'm still waiting for the day to watch Brad Stevens win a playoff series in the NBA.
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
Atlanta was a bad matchup for Boston last year, no doubt, and there is no shame in getting swept by Cleveland the year before, but at some point, Stevens has to start winning playoff series. He is after all 2-8 in the playoffs. If Boston, loses in the first round again this year, I think you will start to see some legitimate concerns about not just the team, but Stevens ability to win in the post season.
Daily TP to the machine known as 'saltlover.'
Agree with Moranis regarding the importance of a first-round win. I hadn't considered Stevens a bridge coach, I think that's a reach. But despite glaring weaknesses within the roster - e.g., frontcourt - a first-round exit this year would be a considerable underachievement imo.
I like Stevens a lot, think he is an excellent coach, and don't think he is a bridge coach, but at some point he is going to have to prove it in the post-season and another 1st round loss this year would be pretty devastating from that perspective (given that Boston will almost certainly be a top 3 seed and should be clearly better than its 1st round opponent).
I think there would be legitimate questions to be asked about this team's ability to win if we were upset in the first round this season, but I would still think that even if we'd never been to the playoffs before.
The performances of the past two seasons offer zero informational value as to how this team preforms in the playoffs, other than to create easy bite-sized narratives for hot-takers to digest.
not true, if Stevens had previously advanced in the playoffs, then a first round upset can be disregarded a lot easier than it can for a coach that is 2-8. And look, Atlanta was a bad matchup but it isn't like both the Celtics and Hawks weren't 48 win teams last year. I get that Boston had some health issues and those absolutely affected that series, but at the end of the day sports are about results and the results that really matter are the playoffs. I'm not suggesting if Boston flames out in the first round, Stevens should or will be fired, but it would put an immense amount of pressure on him the following season. You don't always just want to be a bridesmaid and never a bride (and I'm talking advancing a round not winning a title here). I mean look at the pressure Doc is under in LA to advance. Look at what happened to Scott Brooks in OKC (obviously a much better team, but also better results). Look at what happened to Van Gundy in Miami. At some point, you have to start at least meeting expectations.
-
Analysis of the last two playoffs (opponents and injuries etc) shows the team doing as you would expect. The two seasons show CBS doing great things with the groups of players he has had available. Several have become better players under Stevens.
While CBS has yet to really prove himself as a playoff capable coach, there is no real evidence that he isn't capable and plenty to suggest, given a healthy team, he will do well.
-
If you're talking about tossing Stevens if they don't win a playoff series, don't you have to ask if you're going to be able to get a better coach?
Always hard to tell, but I think this team is outperforming its talent level, and much of that is due to Stevens.
-
Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm asking for a friend. LOL
My "friend" says that the Celtics seems to beat the mediocre teams but really struggle against the better teams and when games that are big in terms of standings, situation and maintaining momentum his teams tend to come up short. The consistent inconsistency seems to be a problem.
We have at least 2 more topics on this subject. Story already told.
-
Major props to Stevens and the Celtics for winning last night. THAT was a big game. Horford said it's go time now.
No rebounds, no rings (hmm I heard that somewhere)
...now about those refs last night....what a horrible crew. >:( They wanted to make sure Smart didn't kick up any dust and controlled him by all the fouls they called.
-
If you're talking about tossing Stevens if they don't win a playoff series, don't you have to ask if you're going to be able to get a better coach?
Always hard to tell, but I think this team is outperforming its talent level, and much of that is due to Stevens.
When Coach copy your plays you can coach. When Star player like IT apologize quickly when you say the wrong thing. You can Coach. When you beat GSW and Cleveland you can coach.
CBS will win multiple NBA championships- NO Doubt.
-
Isn't this really more a question about the post-season? The regular season is pretty meaningless on the whole, but the post season, when everyone tries every game, when the talent is better, etc. is where the greats make their living. Stevens has to show something this post season or he might start being known as a bridge coach i.e. a guy that can build a team, but not get that team over the hump.
Nonsense. Let's look at the Celtics roster last year. They won two key games in the playoffs vs. Atlanta (games 3 and 4). That roster had 3 players who are not currently in the NBA, due to inneffectiveness (Sullinger, Holland, and Hunter). It had two other players who will likely suffer the same fate next year (Young and Mickey). Essentially that team had 10 NBA players on it, and two of them missed almost the entire series (Bradley and Olynyk). So they were down to 8 NBA-level players (and I am calling both rookie Terry Rozier and Tyler Zeller NBA players for this exercise, which some might debate). They were going up against a team with two 2016 All-Stars and four 2015 All-Stars. The Celtics won those two games because of Stevens' adjustments in games 3 and 4. Now, when the Hawks countered the Celtics strategy in game 5, Stevens was out of NBA caliber players to make further adjustments with. But games 3 and 4 were critical playoff games, and they were won as much due to Stevens as anything.
Atlanta was a bad matchup for Boston last year, no doubt, and there is no shame in getting swept by Cleveland the year before, but at some point, Stevens has to start winning playoff series. He is after all 2-8 in the playoffs. If Boston, loses in the first round again this year, I think you will start to see some legitimate concerns about not just the team, but Stevens ability to win in the post season.
Maybe he didn't have a roster even to be in the playoffs.