Author Topic: Most depressing Celtics article ever  (Read 16897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2014, 12:56:48 PM »

Offline DarkAzcura

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 644
  • Tommy Points: 100
The truth hurts. The truth hurts.

this is the easy and short answer to that article. but i'm going to elaborate on it.

Anyone not looking at this article objectively is just lying to themselves. Everything they said about Smart is true and even agree with "would have enjoyed superstar hype had he left college in 2013" as that was a weak draft if I recall.

Sullinger is a good player, if he puts up those big games consistently and becomes a 20 - 10 guy or better then obviously the article will be wrong. but I just don't see him being that because of his size and falling in love with the 3. still a good player but probably not an All-Star. Again anyone not seeing this is just lying to themselves.

Olynyk, if his offense was actually comparable to Dirk's, his defensive issues wouldn't be so glaring. he may score 20 pts. but he's probably giving up 25-30. he's not a center and defensively I'm struggling to see a position he can defend. so he either has to improve his defense dramatically or become a guy that averages 26 a game for us to invest the time in. neither of those things are happening this yr.

I think this article is being fair when it comes to this season and that's what it's about - this season.

No, it's not. The author is clearly misinformed. He said Bradley doesn't like to shoot and that Sullinger is an undersized C. If he knew anything about the Celtics, he'd know these two things are just completely false. Honestly it's just laughable. It's easy to be negative about a team that is rebuilding, but things aren't nearly as bad as that article makes things seem.

Plus, any dude that tries to hype up the Pitino era relative to this era will get a weird look from me. That's just ridiculous.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2014, 01:07:24 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Most of what's stated here isn't inaccurate, but it's heavily exaggerated and seems to be willfully disregarding any positive signs (lol assets what are those?  People think 8 or 9 firsts have value lol!), and then some of it ranges from quibbling (Marcus Smart's really good but would've been hyped more last year, Sully's good but might not be an All-Star u guys!!) to flat out wrong (Bradley is shooting-averse). 

It's not really nonsense so much as just a very clumsy attempt to make a Hot Sports Take-style attention-grabber.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2014, 02:02:07 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
Most of what's stated here isn't inaccurate, but it's heavily exaggerated and seems to be willfully disregarding any positive signs (lol assets what are those?  People think 8 or 9 firsts have value lol!), and then some of it ranges from quibbling (Marcus Smart's really good but would've been hyped more last year, Sully's good but might not be an All-Star u guys!!) to flat out wrong (Bradley is shooting-averse). 

It's not really nonsense so much as just a very clumsy attempt to make a Hot Sports Take-style attention-grabber.


Nailed it.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2014, 03:01:03 PM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
The truth hurts. The truth hurts.

this is the easy and short answer to that article. but i'm going to elaborate on it.

Anyone not looking at this article objectively is just lying to themselves. Everything they said about Smart is true and even agree with "would have enjoyed superstar hype had he left college in 2013" as that was a weak draft if I recall.

Sullinger is a good player, if he puts up those big games consistently and becomes a 20 - 10 guy or better then obviously the article will be wrong. but I just don't see him being that because of his size and falling in love with the 3. still a good player but probably not an All-Star. Again anyone not seeing this is just lying to themselves.

Olynyk, if his offense was actually comparable to Dirk's, his defensive issues wouldn't be so glaring. he may score 20 pts. but he's probably giving up 25-30. he's not a center and defensively I'm struggling to see a position he can defend. so he either has to improve his defense dramatically or become a guy that averages 26 a game for us to invest the time in. neither of those things are happening this yr.

I think this article is being fair when it comes to this season and that's what it's about - this season.

No, it's not. The author is clearly misinformed. He said Bradley doesn't like to shoot and that Sullinger is an undersized C. If he knew anything about the Celtics, he'd know these two things are just completely false. Honestly it's just laughable. It's easy to be negative about a team that is rebuilding, but things aren't nearly as bad as that article makes things seem.

Plus, any dude that tries to hype up the Pitino era relative to this era will get a weird look from me. That's just ridiculous.

umm no where in that article does the writer say Avery Bradley can't shoot. he addresses the back-court as a whole:

"The backcourt is a more exciting adventure, a talented bunch terminally burdened by asterisks. The team’s three best guards -- Rondo, Smart and defensive wiz Avery Bradley -- are the most shooting-averse trio since the Three Amigos (the actual ones). "

Avery Bradley gets lumped in with Rondo and Smart(who are not good shooters) sure, but looking at AB's offensive game objectively I don't think anyone should be calling him a shooter just yet.

And if you don't acknowledge that Sullinger is an undersized center you'll be even more shocked to understand that even for a power forward he's undersized.

But one thing I think is getting overlooked or misunderstood in this article is the fact that this article is only about this season, it doesn't say these players won't be good or get better. right now they aren't though. that's an honest evaluation imo.

I just think most C's fans that read this article chose to read these statements:

"Center Jared Sullinger has had a nice preseason, drawing particular praise for his impressive 3-point shooting, but no one aside from the most shamrock-goggled Celtics fan really believes the undersized Sullinger has the makings of a star player"

"The only sure thing is the 2014-15 Celtics are going to be a bad team, and probably a very bad team at that. Worse, they'll be a bad team without recourse to fanciful hope or the illusion of direction. They probably won't be the worst team the franchise has ever put out on the court, but in all honesty, they often feel that way, particularly to those who've grown accustomed to winning, or even just relevance. Those people include only its best player, its front office and its entire fan base. "

And ignore the truth of the article.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2014, 03:05:49 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9666
  • Tommy Points: 324
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/70954/breaking-very-bad-in-boston

This arcticle is highlighted on ESPN's NBA page. I can't believe they would publish garbage like this. I know the C's will most likely be bad this year (potentially very bad), but as a Celtics preview for the year, not one positive thing is said.

Rondo gets ripped on for his injury.
Sullinger has apparently no chance to ever be an all-star.
Smart would have been a good pick, if we'd gotten him last year..
Brandon Bass is a "high priced detritus"
Olynyks defense gets compared to the Big Dig

I don't think I've ever read an article where literally every single player gets ripped on.


Not one mention of Bradley's improved shooting. Coach Stevens isn't even mentioned. Doesn't this guy realize we are rebuilding? Ugh I'm angry. I don't know why I keep reading ESPN. I'll let you read the article for the rest if you care.

I saw this too. Ridiculously slanted, and from someone who seemingly has no sportswriting credentials whatsoever. Pop critic at Slate? Sorry, but Slate writers have never scored well with me, on any topic.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2014, 03:08:54 PM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
Most of what's stated here isn't inaccurate, but it's heavily exaggerated and seems to be willfully disregarding any positive signs (lol assets what are those?  People think 8 or 9 firsts have value lol!), and then some of it ranges from quibbling (Marcus Smart's really good but would've been hyped more last year, Sully's good but might not be an All-Star u guys!!) to flat out wrong (Bradley is shooting-averse). 

It's not really nonsense so much as just a very clumsy attempt to make a Hot Sports Take-style attention-grabber.

true but right now all those draft picks are just that - draft picks. those picks are not players that will help this team this yr., they aren't even assets yet. sure, they could be eventually but neither are helping this team as it's currently constituted.

And yes. Avery Bradley is a better shooter than when he came into the league. let's not go calling him Ray Allen though.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2014, 03:17:53 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Most of what's stated here isn't inaccurate, but it's heavily exaggerated and seems to be willfully disregarding any positive signs (lol assets what are those?  People think 8 or 9 firsts have value lol!), and then some of it ranges from quibbling (Marcus Smart's really good but would've been hyped more last year, Sully's good but might not be an All-Star u guys!!) to flat out wrong (Bradley is shooting-averse). 

It's not really nonsense so much as just a very clumsy attempt to make a Hot Sports Take-style attention-grabber.

true but right now all those draft picks are just that - draft picks. those picks are not players that will help this team this yr., they aren't even assets yet. sure, they could be eventually but neither are helping this team as it's currently constituted.

And yes. Avery Bradley is a better shooter than when he came into the league. let's not go calling him Ray Allen though.

Future picks are assets, right now, because they can be traded right now.  Doesn't mean they will be, but they're useful in the present tense too.

The Bradley thing is even worse because "shooting-averse" doesn't mean a bad shooter, it means someone who's reluctant to shoot.  Bradley is both willing to take shots and makes them at solid percentages, and even Rondo and Smart are not shrinking from shots, they just don't make them very well.  It's both a bad opinion and poorly expressed by the writer.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2014, 03:21:24 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Based off comments, defense of the article seems weak and points of it being off base valid. I won't be giving it a view. Hate "baiting" articles. Edit* Also hate "fluff" articles.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 03:28:26 PM by Csfan1984 »

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2014, 03:42:05 PM »

Offline Nerf DPOY

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2509
  • Tommy Points: 377
Based of comments defense of the article seems weak and points of it being off base valid. I won't be giving it a view. Hate "baiting" articles.

I don't know if this was meant to bait anyone, but it did read to have the tone of a little kid trying to win a debate.

This came off as pretty weak:

.....the Celtics went into the offseason with intrepidly foolish hopes born of holding a decent lottery position and the much discussed, rarely defined "assets." This is the season we'll finally win the lottery, fans told themselves, or at least land in the top three. OK, top five! Or we'll trade for Kevin Love -- how hard could it be to pry another Kevin away from the Minnesota Timberwolves? What big, sweet-shooting Caucasian wouldn't want to play under the retired numbers of Heinsohn, Havlicek, Bird?

1. It's just a cheap shot and irrelevant. And stupid.

2. Neither drafting higher than six nor entertaining the possibility of trading for Kevin Love were foolish hopes. They were definite possibilities that didn't pan out. Foolish would be a few years ago when there were serious discussions about whether or not to trade Avery Bradley for Demarcus Cousins.



Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2014, 04:05:29 PM »

Offline GranTur

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 434
  • Tommy Points: 68
  • Anti-NBA Hipster
Lol I like how he brings race into it when he pretends Celtics fans thought Kevin Love was gonna come here cause he's white.
"It's not how you play the game. It's whether you win or lose--that's my motto." -Larry Bird

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2014, 04:09:32 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
The truth hurts. The truth hurts.

this is the easy and short answer to that article. but i'm going to elaborate on it.

Anyone not looking at this article objectively is just lying to themselves. Everything they said about Smart is true and even agree with "would have enjoyed superstar hype had he left college in 2013" as that was a weak draft if I recall.

Sullinger is a good player, if he puts up those big games consistently and becomes a 20 - 10 guy or better then obviously the article will be wrong. but I just don't see him being that because of his size and falling in love with the 3. still a good player but probably not an All-Star. Again anyone not seeing this is just lying to themselves.

Olynyk, if his offense was actually comparable to Dirk's, his defensive issues wouldn't be so glaring. he may score 20 pts. but he's probably giving up 25-30. he's not a center and defensively I'm struggling to see a position he can defend. so he either has to improve his defense dramatically or become a guy that averages 26 a game for us to invest the time in. neither of those things are happening this yr.

I think this article is being fair when it comes to this season and that's what it's about - this season.

No, it's not. The author is clearly misinformed. He said Bradley doesn't like to shoot and that Sullinger is an undersized C. If he knew anything about the Celtics, he'd know these two things are just completely false. Honestly it's just laughable. It's easy to be negative about a team that is rebuilding, but things aren't nearly as bad as that article makes things seem.

Plus, any dude that tries to hype up the Pitino era relative to this era will get a weird look from me. That's just ridiculous.

umm no where in that article does the writer say Avery Bradley can't shoot. he addresses the back-court as a whole:

"The backcourt is a more exciting adventure, a talented bunch terminally burdened by asterisks. The team’s three best guards -- Rondo, Smart and defensive wiz Avery Bradley -- are the most shooting-averse trio since the Three Amigos (the actual ones). "

Avery Bradley gets lumped in with Rondo and Smart(who are not good shooters) sure, but looking at AB's offensive game objectively I don't think anyone should be calling him a shooter just yet.



Neither the original article nor the follow-up post you're misinterpreting said anything about shooting ability. The article said "shooting-averse," which the poster above you correctly took to mean "doesn't like to shoot."

I can't believe anyone who's been following the Celtics closely for the last year would use that term to describe Bradley. He had one of the highest usage rates on the team last year, and in preseason is second only to noted gunner Thornton in shots per minute.

On this board I've seen the term "chucker" used more often over the last year than I've heard people describe any reluctance on his part to shoot.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2014, 04:20:33 PM »

Offline Kuberski33

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7070
  • Tommy Points: 533
I can't argue with his analysis of the individual players.  There's nothing in there that's inaccurate, other than maybe his conclusion.  The team last season was in the majority of their games till the 4th quarter.  Hopefully the new additions + a healthy (we hope) Rondo will translate into turning a decent percentage of those Losses into Wins.

I think it's going to be a very interesting season and while I wouldn't get too down if they stink again, I really think they'll be better than most expect. I do think however that management doesn't care whether they make the playoffs or not. The foundation of the team they want to create is still being laid down.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2014, 06:10:59 PM »

Offline DarkAzcura

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 644
  • Tommy Points: 100
The truth hurts. The truth hurts.

this is the easy and short answer to that article. but i'm going to elaborate on it.

Anyone not looking at this article objectively is just lying to themselves. Everything they said about Smart is true and even agree with "would have enjoyed superstar hype had he left college in 2013" as that was a weak draft if I recall.

Sullinger is a good player, if he puts up those big games consistently and becomes a 20 - 10 guy or better then obviously the article will be wrong. but I just don't see him being that because of his size and falling in love with the 3. still a good player but probably not an All-Star. Again anyone not seeing this is just lying to themselves.

Olynyk, if his offense was actually comparable to Dirk's, his defensive issues wouldn't be so glaring. he may score 20 pts. but he's probably giving up 25-30. he's not a center and defensively I'm struggling to see a position he can defend. so he either has to improve his defense dramatically or become a guy that averages 26 a game for us to invest the time in. neither of those things are happening this yr.

I think this article is being fair when it comes to this season and that's what it's about - this season.

No, it's not. The author is clearly misinformed. He said Bradley doesn't like to shoot and that Sullinger is an undersized C. If he knew anything about the Celtics, he'd know these two things are just completely false. Honestly it's just laughable. It's easy to be negative about a team that is rebuilding, but things aren't nearly as bad as that article makes things seem.

Plus, any dude that tries to hype up the Pitino era relative to this era will get a weird look from me. That's just ridiculous.

umm no where in that article does the writer say Avery Bradley can't shoot. he addresses the back-court as a whole:

"The backcourt is a more exciting adventure, a talented bunch terminally burdened by asterisks. The team’s three best guards -- Rondo, Smart and defensive wiz Avery Bradley -- are the most shooting-averse trio since the Three Amigos (the actual ones). "

Avery Bradley gets lumped in with Rondo and Smart(who are not good shooters) sure, but looking at AB's offensive game objectively I don't think anyone should be calling him a shooter just yet.



Neither the original article nor the follow-up post you're misinterpreting said anything about shooting ability. The article said "shooting-averse," which the poster above you correctly took to mean "doesn't like to shoot."

I can't believe anyone who's been following the Celtics closely for the last year would use that term to describe Bradley. He had one of the highest usage rates on the team last year, and in preseason is second only to noted gunner Thornton in shots per minute.

On this board I've seen the term "chucker" used more often over the last year than I've heard people describe any reluctance on his part to shoot.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying that.

Anyway, now that GreenWarrior brought up shooting ability, though, I gotta say I'm not sure what it would take for him/her to believe he's a good shooter. Once a guy hits 40% from 3PT line in a season with high volume, he should automatically be regarded as a good shooter.

The truth hurts. The truth hurts.

this is the easy and short answer to that article. but i'm going to elaborate on it.

Anyone not looking at this article objectively is just lying to themselves. Everything they said about Smart is true and even agree with "would have enjoyed superstar hype had he left college in 2013" as that was a weak draft if I recall.

Sullinger is a good player, if he puts up those big games consistently and becomes a 20 - 10 guy or better then obviously the article will be wrong. but I just don't see him being that because of his size and falling in love with the 3. still a good player but probably not an All-Star. Again anyone not seeing this is just lying to themselves.

Olynyk, if his offense was actually comparable to Dirk's, his defensive issues wouldn't be so glaring. he may score 20 pts. but he's probably giving up 25-30. he's not a center and defensively I'm struggling to see a position he can defend. so he either has to improve his defense dramatically or become a guy that averages 26 a game for us to invest the time in. neither of those things are happening this yr.

I think this article is being fair when it comes to this season and that's what it's about - this season.

No, it's not. The author is clearly misinformed. He said Bradley doesn't like to shoot and that Sullinger is an undersized C. If he knew anything about the Celtics, he'd know these two things are just completely false. Honestly it's just laughable. It's easy to be negative about a team that is rebuilding, but things aren't nearly as bad as that article makes things seem.

Plus, any dude that tries to hype up the Pitino era relative to this era will get a weird look from me. That's just ridiculous.

umm no where in that article does the writer say Avery Bradley can't shoot. he addresses the back-court as a whole:

"The backcourt is a more exciting adventure, a talented bunch terminally burdened by asterisks. The team’s three best guards -- Rondo, Smart and defensive wiz Avery Bradley -- are the most shooting-averse trio since the Three Amigos (the actual ones). "

Avery Bradley gets lumped in with Rondo and Smart(who are not good shooters) sure, but looking at AB's offensive game objectively I don't think anyone should be calling him a shooter just yet.

And if you don't acknowledge that Sullinger is an undersized center you'll be even more shocked to understand that even for a power forward he's undersized.

But one thing I think is getting overlooked or misunderstood in this article is the fact that this article is only about this season, it doesn't say these players won't be good or get better. right now they aren't though. that's an honest evaluation imo.

I just think most C's fans that read this article chose to read these statements:

"Center Jared Sullinger has had a nice preseason, drawing particular praise for his impressive 3-point shooting, but no one aside from the most shamrock-goggled Celtics fan really believes the undersized Sullinger has the makings of a star player"

"The only sure thing is the 2014-15 Celtics are going to be a bad team, and probably a very bad team at that. Worse, they'll be a bad team without recourse to fanciful hope or the illusion of direction. They probably won't be the worst team the franchise has ever put out on the court, but in all honesty, they often feel that way, particularly to those who've grown accustomed to winning, or even just relevance. Those people include only its best player, its front office and its entire fan base. "

And ignore the truth of the article.

Sorry, but he said Bradley doesn't like to shoot. That's just wrong. And to your point that Bradley still has to prove he is a good shooter, I completely disagree. There are plenty of statistics that do also.

Also, I never disagreed with the point that Sully was an undersized center. He would be an undersized center if he actually played center. I was vague about what was misleading. I disagree that Sully is a center at all. The author has no idea that Sully is going to primarily play his minutes at PF this year injuries withstanding. Also, a guy who is 6'9" in shoes and 250+ is not undersized for PF. You are wrong about that.

It's clear, to me, that he probably barely watched last season. He wouldn't be saying that about Bradley, and to be honest calling Smart shooting-averse is a little silly also. Rondo is the only one who doesn't like to shoot. Bradley and Smart love to shoot. Bradley obviously more willing and probably rightfully so considering his jumpshooting percentage. He also wouldn't be calling Sullinger an undersized center because it's clear to me and everyone else paying any attention to the Celtics, that the C's and Sullinger himself want him to be a PF ideally.

There is too much incorrect information in this article for me to take it completely seriously. His article isn't validated because he is right in one or two sentences.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 06:18:10 PM by DarkAzcura »

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2014, 06:22:04 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
First... most depressing Celtics article ever probably had to do with Len Bias.

Second... What's wrong with this article?  This was a bottom 5 team last year without star talent.   We haven't made significant additions.  Smart might end up being a star-caliber player, but he currently plays the same position as our only fringe all-star.  The young guys might show improvement, but none of them (other than Smart) has star potential and even if they were to take significant leaps, it's unlikely to vault us into relevance.  We're a bad team. 

The draft picks might pan out.  Some stuff could work out.  We might be in good position to steal a good player via trade.  But right now, this team stinks.  We're probably still a bottom 5 team.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2014, 06:28:56 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
First... most depressing Celtics article ever probably had to do with Len Bias.

Second... What's wrong with this article?  This was a bottom 5 team last year without star talent.   We haven't made significant additions.  Smart might end up being a star-caliber player, but he currently plays the same position as our only fringe all-star.  The young guys might show improvement, but none of them (other than Smart) has star potential and even if they were to take significant leaps, it's unlikely to vault us into relevance.  We're a bad team. 

The draft picks might pan out.  Some stuff could work out.  We might be in good position to steal a good player via trade.  But right now, this team stinks.  We're probably still a bottom 5 team.

The fact that he mentioned Sullinger as an undersized center (he plays power forward) and Bradley as an reluctant shooter just shows poorly researched this article is. It's okay to be negative, but when your article is negative for the sake of being negative, it's just as bad as an overly optimistic one. Smart and Sullinger have All star potential by the way.