CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: coco on April 20, 2018, 11:22:27 AM
-
Perhaps I am getting a bit ahead of myself; but things are taking shape and a 2nd round featuring Philly vs Cs is looking very likely.
So How confident are you Cs can beat Philly.
Philly have all their pieces, depth, good defense, have lots of talent in complementary players. Not to forget that they are firing at all cylinders. I think It will be hard keeping up with Philly scoring.
so my vote goes to "Not a chance"
....What say you??...
-
Kyrie or no Kyrie, this isn't the year to be scared of Philly in the playoffs. Next year they'll be a very tough out, but this is the first run for all their top guys; a vet team that plays smart will grind them down, make them execute in the half court and gum up their drive and kick game. I think there's a great chance that'll be us.
-
I'm confident. I'm still not sure they get past the heat to be honest
-
Philly has been playing very well for a while now.
-
How about we beat the Bucks first?
-
Firstly, that series is far from over. It has 7 games written all over it, and I still think it is a toss-up, though I’m less confident in Miami with Embiid back and Miami’s D being so inconsistent.
Secondly, I’m fairly confident that we handle either of those teams in the second round, as our elite defense matches up very well with both teams. The 76ers only real chance of winning is hitting a high percentage of their threes, which we are the best in the league at defending. Further, Philly’s turnover-happy style of play bodes well for our defense that excels (especially in the playoffs) with capitalizing on those mistakes.
Boston in 5 over Miami and 6 over Philly (unless we somehow suffer yet another injury).
-
I'm somewhat confident. I think our wing defenders are much better than the Heat's and guys like Bellinelli and Ilyasova shouldn't be a problem. Horford has proven that he can match-up with Embiid and who doesn't want to see Tatum and Simmons go at it?
If both Philly and the Cs get to the 2nd round, I will consider it an embarrassment for them if they don't win. They are completely healthy with a couple of meaningful late season vet minimum pick-ups and we are missing our two best players. Add Kyrie and Hayward to the Cs and take away Embiid and Simmons from Philly and see how the series goes.
-
Let's win a road game or two in MIL first.
-
This post is bad juju. We haven't even won a road game yet and Philly was a quarter away from going down 2-1 last night. Let's get through the rounds and not anger the basketball gods :)
-
This post is bad juju. We haven't even won a road game yet and Philly was a quarter away from going down 2-1 last night. Let's get through the rounds and not anger the basketball gods :)
Agreed.
Anyway, where I'm at with this Celts team is I think they have the ballsy-shotmakers and defense to be competitive against anybody outside of Golden State or Houston, but the state of the roster due to injuries is such that they could get cold and lose two or three games in a row to any opponent.
I think the odds are against the Celts making it past the second round if they get there, whoever the opponent is, but I wouldn't rule it out.
-
First, let's try to eliminate Bucks. We still have looong way to consider it done.
-
Getting Smart back would be a huge plus, but the difference here is, while the Bucks primarily only have Giannis really, the Sixers have Embiid AND Simmons (plus some saavy veterans like Reddick, Belinelli).
I'm somewhat optimistic but truthfully don't like our chances. I'd think PHI in 6.
But yeah, PHI and BOS both still have LONG ways to go in their first round series. Lets pump the brakes a bit. If the C's win tonight though, I'll be ready to talk next round a little more.
-
The way the media talks about Philly, one would think they are the defending champs. I don't buy it. I say Celtics in 5 or 6
-
Perhaps I am getting a bit ahead of myself; but things are taking shape and a 2nd round featuring Philly vs Cs is looking very likely.
So How confident are you Cs can beat Philly.
Philly have all their pieces, depth, good defense, have lots of talent in complementary players. Not to forget that they are firing at all cylinders. I think It will be hard keeping up with Philly scoring.
so my vote goes to "Not a chance"
....What say you??...
I say perhaps you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.
-
I am focused on the bucks but if The C's do beat the bucks and Philly is the opponent then I feel confident that the Bucks set the C's up better then any other team to play Philly. Middleton and Giannis will prepare them to face Embiid and Simmons. You know both players will get their so shut down the role players and do your job on the offensive side of the ball and the C's win. Plus having home court helps.
-
Let's win a road game or two in MIL first.
This
-
Without Theis and Hayward and Irving .....
it would,be a Mutha
-
This poll is way premature. We have to beat the Bucks first. Yes we're up 2-0 but it's far from a sure thing.
-
Yeah, as everyone else has already stated, this series against Milwaukee is far from over. #NotAGoodLook
-
I am not confident that the C's will beat the Bucks. Not considering the possibility that the C's will play in the 2nd round.
-
I need to see C's get out of the 1st round really .
-
Let’s change this thread to how confident we feel we can beat the bucks.
-
Let’s change this thread to how confident we feel we can beat the bucks.
#BuzzKillington
(https://i.imgur.com/XlkQhba.gif)
-
This post is bad juju. We haven't even won a road game yet and Philly was a quarter away from going down 2-1 last night. Let's get through the rounds and not anger the basketball gods :)
Agreed.
Anyway, where I'm at with this Celts team is I think they have the ballsy-shotmakers and defense to be competitive against anybody outside of Golden State or Houston, but the state of the roster due to injuries is such that they could get cold and lose two or three games in a row to any opponent.
I think the odds are against the Celts making it past the second round if they get there, whoever the opponent is, but I wouldn't rule it out.
This is where I'm at. Betting on the C's to beat Philly means betting on a team to make the conference finals without their 2 best players, which is a tough sell. I wouldn't be surprised if the Celtics beat Philly or if they lose the rest of their games to Milwaukee. Too much with this team has yet to be proven.
That said, I voted mostly confident.
-
Call me superstitious but sure wish this thread was shut down. Too soon. Bad Khama.
-
Call me superstitious but sure wish this thread was shut down. Too soon. Bad Khama.
I second this.
worst part is if this team becomes the first celtic team to lose after leading 2-0.
-
Didn't even bother voting.....waaaay too premature ???
-
Time to bring this Poll back from the dead....😬
-
Honestly, I'm feeling extremely nervous about this series, and am not as confident as I was about the Bucks series (and that was no gimme series either considering our injuries).
My heart says Celtics in 7, but my mind says Sixers in 6 :(
-
Try to keep this on the lighter side...
Just who the he&* has Philly played in the last 6 weeks (20-1)?
Since March 13th and a loss to the Pacers, Philly has beat the Cavs and the Bucks and 14 other wins against assorted tankers. They beat the dreaded Heat (4-1) and now they have a team that actually plays defense (3rd ranked in the NBA) in their own park...Boston.
Here's Philly's big chance to prove they can beat a good team, they look bigger than what is left of the Celtics' roster, but, the freak and assorted deer looked kinda big too now didn't they?
-
Honestly, I'm feeling extremely nervous about this series, and am not as confident as I was about the Bucks series (and that was no gimme series either considering our injuries).
My heart says Celtics in 7, but my mind says Sixers in 6 :(
remember you have a weak heart
-
The 6ers are a better team right now, don't see how that's arguable. If both teams continue to play as they have lately, we're going down in 5 or 6.
-
Not at all confident. They’re healthy, we’re not.
-
Not very confident, especially with Brown being questionable. But I'm fine with sitting Brown out the entire series if need be. His long term health is far more important than winning a few games. I'm not counting the C's out, but a realistic prediction is Sixers in 6.
Off topic - Ersan Ilyasova confirming what we knew about Heat fans:
Ersan Ilyasova comparing the atmosphere in Miami and the atmosphere the Sixers will face in Boston in the Conference Semifinals: "It's a way different atmosphere. When we were in Miami, it was, the gym was half-empty…. But when you go to Boston, you will feel it. Even in the regular season you know when you play that team, the arena is full and they're really committed fans."
-
The 6ers are a better team right now, don't see how that's arguable. If both teams continue to play as they have lately, we're going down in 5 or 6.
Didn't I hear, not from you, this same thing about The Bucks. Didn't they have more talent too?
-
Not at all confident. They’re healthy, we’re not.
Same with Bucks.
Celtics in 7.
-
Honestly, I'm feeling extremely nervous about this series, and am not as confident as I was about the Bucks series (and that was no gimme series either considering our injuries).
My heart says Celtics in 7, but my mind says Sixers in 6 :(
remember you have a weak heart
Lol - TP, SHAQ ;D.
-
Celtics in five!
-
They need Kyrie. Celtics don't have enough scoring.
-
Celtics in 5, it's #ringszn baby 8)
-
The 6ers are a better team right now, don't see how that's arguable. If both teams continue to play as they have lately, we're going down in 5 or 6.
Home court adv
-
Not at all confident. They’re healthy, we’re not.
Same with Bucks.
Celtics in 7.
Yup
-
Kyrie or no Kyrie, this isn't the year to be scared of Philly in the playoffs. Next year they'll be a very tough out, but this is the first run for all their top guys; a vet team that plays smart will grind them down, make them execute in the half court and gum up their drive and kick game. I think there's a great chance that'll be us.
My feelings on Philly haven't changed. Young talented teams, even ones that turn out to be great, nearly always fall flat on at least the first run or two. And it usually happens by a smarter, more disciplined team that controls the pace and makes them grind it out in a physical halfcourt game. Still think that can be us.
What has changed - if Brown's not effective or any other top guy goes out, it's gonna be really tough. But if we can get all our current guys up and running I think we probably take them down.
-
Not at all confident. They’re healthy, we’re not.
Same with Bucks.
Celtics in 7.
I hope so, but the Sixers are quite a bit better than the Bucks (who we struggled with) and now Jaylen is banged up.
-
We may get swept , but Smart will leave it all on the court too.
Remember NBa doesn't like sweeps . We might get a little back door help. ;)
-
If we had Brown at full strength, I'd feel better. But we are worse with out him on D. One less guy to throw at Simmons.
Hopefully he just needs to have a couple days rest and will be ready by Thursday. I'd be happy getting one of the two first home games with our injuries. Let Brown get healthy an see if we can make a series out of this.
-
We may get swept , but Smart will leave it all on the court too.
Remember NBA doesn't like sweeps that don't have the Celtics being on the receiving end. We might get a little back door help. ;)
Fixed it for you ;)
-
I'll wait to find out whats going on with JB if he can come back close to 100% than I feel good about it.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
-
Depends on if/when Brown comes back.
If he's back by Game2, Celtics have a legit chance of winning this series. If not, I don't like the C's chances at all.
-
We match up pretty well with them.
Al Horford guards Embiid very well. We have a bunch of options on Simmons, and a lot of long and fast wings that can track down spot up shooters. I'd be happiest with Ojeleye on Simmons, but Brown and Smart should be OK on him as well.
Historically, Saric has been our major problem because we don't have a second Al Horford and we can't have a main lineup with Baynes and Ojeleye (the offense will come to a halt) -- I don't even think Baynes can guard either of these guys.
We're going to have to throw Tatum at him and hope for the best. Ojeleye is the best bet on Simmons. Horford on Embiid, Rozier or Smart on Redick, Brown or Morris on Covington and Tatum on Saric.
I like our starting lineup to be:
Rozier
Brown (Smart)
Ojeleye
Tatum
Horford
with Morris and Smart off the bench. I don't see much playing time for Baynes this series. The Sixers are just a nightmare matchup for him.
I think game 1 is going to be a big indicator for the result of the series.
If the C's win, I think C's in 7.
If the Sixers win, I think Sixers in 6.
-
Nervous, but I've thought all along that the Cs can beat any team in the East playoffs in a 7 game series.
I like our potential to make them take shots they are uncomfortable taking, but I am less confident in our potential to get good shots every time.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
-
50 percent
-
I think the 76ers will win in 6. They're a much better defensive team than the Bucks and the C's often couldn't score against the Bucks.
Feels like a series were we get 2 wins at home when the 76ers turn it over too much and/or the C's hit their 3s. Then the rest of the games we just get grinded down and cannot answer the 76ers runs.
-
Not very confident with this current Celtic roster. Now with Brown gimpy...
-
Sixers in 6.
Teams split the first two games, Philly holds home court, Boston wins Game 5 at home, Philly closes at home in Game 6.
-
It will come down to if the C's can score. One of Embiid or Simmons will get theirs. I believe Horford will guard Simmons because as he goes so does their offense. The sixers do not have a Middleton and that is what will help the C's. I think if Horford can do a good job on Simmons and Baynes can force Embiid to take tough shots the C's win in 6 if they can score 103 a night. It will be tough and the sixers have some confidence from that easy 1st round series but you just can't count out this C's team against anyone.
-
I think the 76ers will win in 6. They're a much better defensive team than the Bucks and the C's often couldn't score against the Bucks.
Feels like a series were we get 2 wins at home when the 76ers turn it over too much and/or the C's hit their 3s. Then the rest of the games we just get grinded down and cannot answer the 76ers runs.
This is the series where Smart becomes Eddie House!
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
-
If Brown is out at all, or if he plays but is hampered by the injury, that's a big detriment to Boston—their biggest challenge has been offense, and Brown's one of their best scorers (as well as one of their best defenders).
Homecourt will be crucial, of course, but even with that advantage I think the Cs lose this series, even if Brown is 100% the entire series. They barely beat a team with a Giannis-Middleton combo, and I think the Embiid-Simmons combo is even better.
Then again, with how this Celtics team has come through so often this season despite long odds, it wouldn't surprise me if they won the series.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
The Sixer won eight more games than the bucks. They are better offensively and defensively. They have better shooters. They may not have a player as good as Giannis, but they have two that are all-nba level. They are far better coached. They dominated their first round series. Why is this even a discussion?
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Well said, TP
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Well said, TP
I don't think that Philly's top two are going to be as good as Milwaukee's were. Giannis played like a superstar and Middleton did too, regardless of how good he is over the long run.
Milwaukee got inconsistency from Bledsoe and very poor performances from everyone else. Philly has more guys that can score.
Philly surged because Simmons collapsed the defenses and Redick, Bellinelli and Ilyasova stepped up and made shots consistently. If we can defend the 3 point line and we shoot reasonably well ourselves, we have a good chance.
-
Even with Jaylen on the court, I feel they have a better team right now. Philly in six (maybe even five) would be my guess. They're playing great. They have a good coach. They're really good defensively.
Still, a lot of things can happen though, and this Celtics team has a lot of fight in them. So, if everything goes right, we might win in seven. Who knows...
-
Tonight's game will tell me a lot. If Philly wins, it will be a short series--Philly wins in 5 games.
If we win tonight, without Jaylen, I think we will win the series in 7. Because we don't win anything easily with this depleted roster. But home court advantage will be the difference.
-
The Celtics will win a game on the road this series. We just need to win one of these first two games and I like our chances!
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
The Sixer won eight more games than the bucks. They are better offensively and defensively. They have better shooters. They may not have a player as good as Giannis, but they have two that are all-nba level. They are far better coached. They dominated their first round series. Why is this even a discussion?
To be fair I think it was pretty commonly accepted that the Heat had the least talent of any team in the playoffs. I really don't have any idea how good the 76ers are at this point because they have had such a weird year. They played something like 23 out of 27 teams with losing records to close the season at a time when many of those teams had shut down even their good young players in perhaps the widest spread tanking of any season in NBA history. I believe the 76ers were actually sub .500 against teams that made the playoffs. If not, they were pretty deep into the season. So now I can't really pinpoint them. Are they a dominate great team? Or would they get streamrolled by a health celtics, the cavs and raptors? I really don't know.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Middleton played solid defense averaged 20 points, 5 rebounds, 4 assists on 46/36/88 shooting splits. What does he have to do to impress you? I think most teams would kill to have a "role player" like him. He definitely could have been an all-star this season. Those numbers were all better than what Dragic put up who made the game.
-
poorly
like our chances next year with Brown, Tatum, Hayward and Irving.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
I spit my drink out.
Look guys, we're entering absurdity here. It doesn't matter how good Middleton is. He played amazing. Superstar level. Moranis has the only point here that could be an actual point: Did the Celtics enable him to play well by playing poor defense? But I just don't buy it. I can certainly remember way more "how is he playing this good?" situations compared to "how are we leaving him wide open?" situations. Same with Giannis. For 6 games he was scoring from everywhere.
I don't know if I'm missing something here or if you guys just didn't watch the games. Giannis and Middleton played better than anything I've seen from Simmons and Embiid. If you want to go down the list of Redick vs Parker and Covington vs Thon Maker, fine, whatever. I don't care enough to argue who's better because all 4 are pretty average to me. But please do not put Middleton's series vs us into the role player bucket and please do not forget that we survived a series against 2 players who played at superstar level. That alone should tell you that we can win this series vs the Sixers.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
I always saw Redick as a spot up shooter and Middleton as a more versatile scorer. I think Redick is easier to defend. Correct me if I'm wrong I only saw The 76ers a dozen or so times this year, including the playoffs. I was less impressed with them than what I see people writing about them.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
If you think JJ Redick is better than Middleton on defense I have to question if you've ever seen either play basketball. That is totally absurd.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
I spit my drink out.
Look guys, we're entering absurdity here. It doesn't matter how good Middleton is. He played amazing. Superstar level. Moranis has the only point here that could be an actual point: Did the Celtics enable him to play well by playing poor defense? But I just don't buy it. I can certainly remember way more "how is he playing this good?" situations compared to "how are we leaving him wide open?" situations. Same with Giannis. For 6 games he was scoring from everywhere.
I don't know if I'm missing something here or if you guys just didn't watch the games. Giannis and Middleton played better than anything I've seen from Simmons and Embiid. If you want to go down the list of Redick vs Parker and Covington vs Thon Maker, fine, whatever. I don't care enough to argue who's better because all 4 are pretty average to me. But please do not put Middleton's series vs us into the role player bucket and please do not forget that we survived a series against 2 players who played at superstar level. That alone should tell you that we can win this series vs the Sixers.
Easy, Erik. Redick is actually a very good defensive player. Middleton not known to be, although better than his rep.
-
Vegas has us at +420 to win this series. Seems a little crazy they are giving us 4-1 odds
-
Vegas has us at +420 to win this series. Seems a little crazy they are giving us 4-1 odds
Of the 4 remaining teams in the East, 76ers are the favorites to win the conference. Boston at the bottom. Most experts expect Philly to crush us in 5 or 6.
-
Vegas has us at +420 to win this series. Seems a little crazy they are giving us 4-1 odds
I'll be 420 big time if we lose it will be the only way I'll get any sleep lol! ;D
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
I spit my drink out.
Look guys, we're entering absurdity here. It doesn't matter how good Middleton is. He played amazing. Superstar level. Moranis has the only point here that could be an actual point: Did the Celtics enable him to play well by playing poor defense? But I just don't buy it. I can certainly remember way more "how is he playing this good?" situations compared to "how are we leaving him wide open?" situations. Same with Giannis. For 6 games he was scoring from everywhere.
I don't know if I'm missing something here or if you guys just didn't watch the games. Giannis and Middleton played better than anything I've seen from Simmons and Embiid. If you want to go down the list of Redick vs Parker and Covington vs Thon Maker, fine, whatever. I don't care enough to argue who's better because all 4 are pretty average to me. But please do not put Middleton's series vs us into the role player bucket and please do not forget that we survived a series against 2 players who played at superstar level. That alone should tell you that we can win this series vs the Sixers.
Easy, Erik. Redick is actually a very good defensive player. Middleton not known to be, although better than his rep.
Is this really true? I feel like when he first came up he was a pretty bad defensive player (and he worked really hard on that end, like he did on his entire game), to become about average. I find it a bit hard to believe that a guy that had slow footspeed to begin with and isn't very athletic to start, is about to turn 34 is considered a very good defensive player by anyone. This take also doesn't seem to jive with what I have read on the sixers sites or even in articles like this
https://thesixersense.com/2017/08/16/philadelphia-76ers-jj-redick-defensive-flaws-covered-up/
The Ringer also seems to jive with this:
"His lack of elite size or speed makes his individual defense only passable, but he’s a capable team defender who can fulfill his role in a scheme, execute the game plan and help Brown hold his younger teammates accountable."
https://www.theringer.com/2017/7/1/16040754/2017-nba-free-agency-jj-redick-sixers-deal-8fd59fd73969
So again... I agree that this thread has gotten off the rails when people start calling him a "very good defender"
-
Vegas has us at +420 to win this series. Seems a little crazy they are giving us 4-1 odds
Of the 4 remaining teams in the East, 76ers are the favorites to win the conference. Boston at the bottom. Most experts expect Philly to crush us in 5 or 6.
Hey, LB. What brought you out of retirement?
-
Vegas has us at +420 to win this series. Seems a little crazy they are giving us 4-1 odds
Of the 4 remaining teams in the East, 76ers are the favorites to win the conference. Boston at the bottom. Most experts expect Philly to crush us in 5 or 6.
Hey, LB. What brought you out of retirement?
I did it
-
Great game 1
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems. Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.
Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks. We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton. Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.
I spit my drink out.
Look guys, we're entering absurdity here. It doesn't matter how good Middleton is. He played amazing. Superstar level. Moranis has the only point here that could be an actual point: Did the Celtics enable him to play well by playing poor defense? But I just don't buy it. I can certainly remember way more "how is he playing this good?" situations compared to "how are we leaving him wide open?" situations. Same with Giannis. For 6 games he was scoring from everywhere.
I don't know if I'm missing something here or if you guys just didn't watch the games. Giannis and Middleton played better than anything I've seen from Simmons and Embiid. If you want to go down the list of Redick vs Parker and Covington vs Thon Maker, fine, whatever. I don't care enough to argue who's better because all 4 are pretty average to me. But please do not put Middleton's series vs us into the role player bucket and please do not forget that we survived a series against 2 players who played at superstar level. That alone should tell you that we can win this series vs the Sixers.
Easy, Erik. Redick is actually a very good defensive player. Middleton not known to be, although better than his rep.
Is this really true? I feel like when he first came up he was a pretty bad defensive player (and he worked really hard on that end, like he did on his entire game), to become about average. I find it a bit hard to believe that a guy that had slow footspeed to begin with and isn't very athletic to start, is about to turn 34 is considered a very good defensive player by anyone. This take also doesn't seem to jive with what I have read on the sixers sites or even in articles like this
https://thesixersense.com/2017/08/16/philadelphia-76ers-jj-redick-defensive-flaws-covered-up/
The Ringer also seems to jive with this:
"His lack of elite size or speed makes his individual defense only passable, but he’s a capable team defender who can fulfill his role in a scheme, execute the game plan and help Brown hold his younger teammates accountable."
https://www.theringer.com/2017/7/1/16040754/2017-nba-free-agency-jj-redick-sixers-deal-8fd59fd73969
So again... I agree that this thread has gotten off the rails when people start calling him a "very good defender"
Some real good coverage of reddicka defensive issues in the ringer
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
Did you even watch the series? Middleton wasn’t getting wide open looks in the corners or layups against matador d.
He was putting in work against good defense and just hitting some incredibly difficult shots. His craftiness in the post was also tough to defend.
To try to disparage his success against our defense is pretty ridiculous.
Someone who only looks at the box scores could say that we let him score too much. I recall a lot less easy buckets for him than you must.
-
I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks. Is Embiid better than Greek F? Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option. The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.
Game 1 is important. We don't want to give away home court.
The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks. They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars. They also have a much better coach. Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.
I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).
Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid. The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.
I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).
I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.
Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7). The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt. Middleton is a role player. He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career. He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush).
The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.
I started this by saying that even though there was considerable buzz around the Sixers, I was just not seeing a team any better than the Bucks, at least how the Bucks played in the series. Hard to come back after watching the game last night (I actually listened on the radio) and say the Sixers are significantly better than the Bucks.
-
Vegas has us at +420 to win this series. Seems a little crazy they are giving us 4-1 odds
Of the 4 remaining teams in the East, 76ers are the favorites to win the conference. Boston at the bottom. Most experts expect Philly to crush us in 5 or 6.
You have to remember that Vegas odds are based on how they think people will bet or even the actual betting trends, not on who the experts think will win or who is better. I suspect that most money was going down on the Sixers based on the hype and the buzz.
We have a long way to go in this series and I expect we are going to see more from the Sixers before we are done but these odds do not reflect the actual ability of the two teams. The Sixers got overrated along the way. They are not 4x better. I forecast a tight series.
Welcome back LB. Nothing like an unexpected Cinderella playoff run to bring back some of the old instigators. Is BBallTim going to be next (to jump on the Rondo bandwagon)?
-
C’s are 9 point underdogs tomorrow on one site :P
-
Never count out the Celtics! This is one of the most resilient group of players that I have ever seen and Coach Stevens has been absolutely brilliant as well, genius level game planning and game management. One man goes down, next one steps up!
Oh and we just got Jaylen Brown back. Up 2-0 now. We have a hell of a good chance to finish off the Sixers and advance to the Conference Finals!
Honestly the Celtics look hungrier than the Sixers in this series. Watch for the pundits to be upset when their predictions get upended by our underdog C's!!
OMG Antoine Walker just said on tv that the Sixers will win in 5 after the Celtics whipped the Sixers in game 1. ****?!
-
Celtics in 5, it's #ringszn baby 8)
Ayyyy
-
Guessing the confidence meter might be a little different now
Funny how the media influences our confidence. All we heard day in and out from espn is that Simmons is magic johnson 2.0 and embiid is hakeem. Now what? We got confetti for a 76er loss lol
-
I underestimated the lack of experience on the part of Philly's top players and coach.
That was my question about them winning so many regular season games and making it this far in the first place.
Shoulda stuck with my instincts.
-
A playoff series does not start until you win on the road. The Celtics' playoff series just started.
-
A playoff series does not start until you win on the road. The Celtics' playoff series just started.
You mean, the Bucks series is not over yet? lol
After Game 2, I thought the C's would win in 7 games, now after beating the Sixers on the road, it looks like 5 games will do it. Very confident.
-
Tatum is taking it to a higher level. He is the difference in the Philly series. KUDOS!
-
I never, ever feel confident about winning a series. Even now with the consensus here being C’s in 5, I can’t help think The Sixers have the shooters to come into the garden and steal Game 5. Then it will be looking like a 7 game series again.
-
A playoff series does not start until you win on the road. The Celtics' playoff series just started.
so, the series with milwaukee ended, but never started?? ;)
anyway, i confess to a lack of faith, a shortage of belief, an absence of confidence at the start of this series. i hoped the celtics would win, but i hedged my bets so as to limit the pain in case of a loss. forgive me fellow followers of the green. :-[
sigh. i confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that i have sinned and lacked true faith. and i ask of you, my brothers and sisters and various dieties, to pray for the celtics as they go forth to stomp the snot out of the sixers.
a sweep is possible, very very possible. ;D
-
A playoff series does not start until you win on the road. The Celtics' playoff series just started.
so, the series with milwaukee ended, but never started?? ;)
anyway, i confess to a lack of faith, a shortage of belief, an absence of confidence at the start of this series. i hoped the celtics would win, but i hedged my bets so as to limit the pain in case of a loss. forgive me fellow followers of the green. :-[
sigh. i confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that i have sinned and lacked true faith. and i ask of you, my brothers and sisters and various dieties, to pray for the celtics as they go forth to stomp the snot out of the sixers.
a sweep is possible, very very possible. ;D
LOL the Bucks series never happened ;)
Man, the sky is the limit now. Please just win Game 4 and then punch the Cavs in the mouth.
-
I underestimated the lack of experience on the part of Philly's top players and coach.
That was my question about them winning so many regular season games and making it this far in the first place.
Shoulda stuck with my instincts.
The Miami series is what changed the thinking. They breezed past that veteran Miami team making us all think, "No wait, they're ready now." But maybe Miami was more dysfunctional than/not as good as we thought.