Author Topic: Most depressing Celtics article ever  (Read 16902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2014, 06:32:15 PM »

Offline DarkAzcura

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 644
  • Tommy Points: 100
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.

Bingo!

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2014, 06:36:32 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
Man, after a first read I would swear this article was written by someone from this board.

The article isn't depressing....It's just terrible. How does the "pop critic from Slate" who is also a  Media Studies Professor from U of Virginia get to write an ESPN article on the Boston Celtics? And which moron at ESPN said, "Yeaaah! This is the stuff we've been looking for, let's use this guy!"

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2014, 06:37:13 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.

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.
Didn't Sullinger spend most of his time last year playing out of position at center?  The team still doesn't have a competent Center... wouldn't be shocked to see Sully continue to get minutes there.   He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense.  He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.   Maybe we'll luck into a trade.  Maybe we'll land a free agent.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

Right now you got injury-prone Rondo... probably a B+ talent if he ever gets healthy.  Then the rest of the team is in the C- to C+ range.  We'd love to package 5 of those C- players for another B+ guy to pair with Rondo, but until that trade becomes available, we're going to struggle.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 06:45:31 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2014, 06:41:58 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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense.  He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

First of all Sullinger's natural position is Power Forward. He had to play center out of necessity, Sullinger IS a starter and he was just coming of a year where he was fresh from back surgery and was working through a finger injury and he was starting to expand his range. Bradley shot a volume last year, as much Klay Thompson and had decent percentages and yes can stick as a starter. The Celtics are doing a good job with Marcus Smart, starting him slow and learning behind Rondo. You're being overly harsh on this team, they have promise it's Anthony Davis level but still promising.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2014, 06:45:18 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense. He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

Great, let's extrapolate Sullinger's potential based on his second year, after back surgery, and an hand injuries that lingered throughout the season after November on a revamped roster with a rookie coach while playing out of position. Seems like the logical way to go about it.

As for Bradley, I suggest you look at his body of work since he got inserted in the starting line-up in late 2012. You're too influenced by his rookie campaign and his play coming off the bench early in his sophomore season. He's actually been very active offensively for the past 2 seasons+.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2014, 06:47:28 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.

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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense.  He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

First of all Sullinger's natural position is Power Forward. He had to play center out of necessity, Sullinger IS a starter and he was just coming of a year where he was fresh from back surgery and was working through a finger injury and he was starting to expand his range. Bradley shot a volume last year, as much Klay Thompson and had decent percentages and yes can stick as a starter. The Celtics are doing a good job with Marcus Smart, starting him slow and learning behind Rondo. You're being overly harsh on this team, they have promise it's Anthony Davis level but still promising.
I'm well aware that Sully's natural position is power forward... but since the team didn't have a competent Center last year, he spent the majority of his time playing undersized center.  As the team still doesn't have a competent Center (one of the main reasons the team stinks), he'll likely still play a lot of minutes at undersized center.  And yeah... Sully is an injury prone player too... he's also pretty overweight and unathletic.  These are all things (that and lack of talent) that will prevent him from reaching all-star level.  He might end up a poor man's Poor Millisap, though.  He has the potential to be a good starter.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2014, 06:49:34 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.

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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense. He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

Great, let's extrapolate Sullinger's potential based on his second year after back surgery and an hand injuries that lingered throughout the season after November on a revamped roster with a rookie coach while playing out of position. Seems like the logical way to go about it.

As for Bradley, I suggest you look at his body of work since he got inserted in the starting line-up in late 2012. You're too influenced by his rookie campaign and his play coming off the bench early in his sophomore season. He's actually been very active offensively for the past 2 seasons+.
Sully and Bradley both looked impressive in the preseason, but that's preseason.  We'll see how they do.  I think Sully has more potential, but neither is a franchise cornerstone.  They'll be front-and-center this year as we putter away to 26 wins, though.  On a team mostly devoid of talent, those are two of the rare Celtics that actually have a long-term future in the NBA... whether as starters or role players, but probably not stars.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2014, 06:55:28 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense. He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

Great, let's extrapolate Sullinger's potential based on his second year after back surgery and an hand injuries that lingered throughout the season after November on a revamped roster with a rookie coach while playing out of position. Seems like the logical way to go about it.

As for Bradley, I suggest you look at his body of work since he got inserted in the starting line-up in late 2012. You're too influenced by his rookie campaign and his play coming off the bench early in his sophomore season. He's actually been very active offensively for the past 2 seasons+.
Sully and Bradley both looked impressive in the preseason, but that's preseason.  We'll see how they do.  I think Sully has more potential, but neither is a franchise cornerstone.  They'll be front-and-center this year as we putter away to 26 wins, though.  On a team mostly devoid of talent, those are two of the rare Celtics that actually have a long-term future in the NBA... whether as starters or role players, but probably not stars.

As promising as it was, I haven't made mention of preseason.

I'm just questioning 2 of your observations, the way you draw your conclusions on Sully's potential as a player (using stats from a Sophomore year which clearly won't be representative of his play due to factors already mentioned) and your assertion on Avery Bradley's offensive aggressiveness (which you alluded was something recent, but it's actually more representative of most of his career, increasing with time as it has been).

That aside, everything else is your opinion which is fine.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2014, 06:59:04 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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense.  He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

First of all Sullinger's natural position is Power Forward. He had to play center out of necessity, Sullinger IS a starter and he was just coming of a year where he was fresh from back surgery and was working through a finger injury and he was starting to expand his range. Bradley shot a volume last year, as much Klay Thompson and had decent percentages and yes can stick as a starter. The Celtics are doing a good job with Marcus Smart, starting him slow and learning behind Rondo. You're being overly harsh on this team, they have promise it's Anthony Davis level but still promising.
I'm well aware that Sully's natural position is power forward... but since the team didn't have a competent Center last year, he spent the majority of his time playing undersized center.  As the team still doesn't have a competent Center (one of the main reasons the team stinks), he'll likely still play a lot of minutes at undersized center.  And yeah... Sully is an injury prone player too... he's also pretty overweight and unathletic.  These are all things (that and lack of talent) that will prevent him from reaching all-star level.  He might end up a poor man's Poor Millisap, though.  He has the potential to be a good starter.

The Celtics had made a promise to Sullinger that he will not see minutes at center this year he has plenty of talent and just because he's unathletic doesn't mean he can't be good and Sullinger's number per 36 last year was nearly similar to Millsap's

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2014, 07:06:42 PM »

Offline DarkAzcura

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 644
  • Tommy Points: 100
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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense. He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

Great, let's extrapolate Sullinger's potential based on his second year after back surgery and an hand injuries that lingered throughout the season after November on a revamped roster with a rookie coach while playing out of position. Seems like the logical way to go about it.

As for Bradley, I suggest you look at his body of work since he got inserted in the starting line-up in late 2012. You're too influenced by his rookie campaign and his play coming off the bench early in his sophomore season. He's actually been very active offensively for the past 2 seasons+.
Sully and Bradley both looked impressive in the preseason, but that's preseason.  We'll see how they do.  I think Sully has more potential, but neither is a franchise cornerstone.  They'll be front-and-center this year as we putter away to 26 wins, though.  On a team mostly devoid of talent, those are two of the rare Celtics that actually have a long-term future in the NBA... whether as starters or role players, but probably not stars.

I really don't like the way this term is used mostly. Most players aren't considered franchise cornerstones until they prove to be. I'm assuming you are saying Bradley and Sullinger have no potential to grow into "franchise cornerstones", which I completely disagree with. It's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but even if it's just pre-season, Sully's shot has shown great improvement after testing the 3 last year. It was a 8 game sample size, but he still shot them at 50% at a good volume. Obviously he won't shoot 50% in the regular season, but I'd be surprised if he was at 27%. If Sully develops a consistent 3PT game, there is no reason he can't be a "franchise cornerstone". PFs who can shoot 3s and rebound like him are awesome. Every team wants them, and every team wants them to be their starting PF. You are underrating the quality he can potentially bring to this team as he further develops, and this is coming from someone who isn't even that big of a fan of Sully in the first place.

Bradley can be a starting guard on a contender. Why not? He defends with the best of them and can hit the 3 ball consistently. Look, the league is moving away from this "big 3" movement already. Sure Lebron formed another one in Cleveland, but it's clear a lot of teams are finding success by building a team with depth and sound structure. No one had any idea that Portland, Phoenix, Toronto, Charlotte, and Washington would be anywhere close to being as good as they were last season. For Phoenix, Toronto, and Charlotte, a huge reason for the success was their system. It fit their players, and they found success. Indiana, Memphis, and San Antonio are examples of teams doing "more with less" also. Yes, I include SAS there even though they have Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. Tim Duncan isn't a superstar out there anymore. Tony Parker was average in the playoffs in their most recent playoff run. They found success in building with depth and focusing on each and every player's strength. Even excluding SAS for a second, which I'm willing to do, every one of the teams I listed above were said to be devoid of talent before they actually started winning. In general people are overly negative about losing teams, and a lot of people lack foresight, which makes sense in a way. You can't necessarily assume development. The thing is, we have already gotten a glimpse of the potential for this regular in the pre-season. It may just be pre-season, but more players are buying into the system this year, and we are far more talented than last year. We have more capable shooters and ball-handlers, which is key for a team lacking in strong options.

Maybe things will change in a couple years, but in the present, it's clear Ainge and Stevens are moving towards more of a Indiana, Memphis, SAS, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc model than the star model of OKC, LAC, Cleveland, Miami of yesterday, and even Boston of yesterday.

But like I said, most of this is opinion so if you disagree that's okay. I'm fine with it. The article was not doing this, though. They were throwing everything out there as fact, and when they actually presented objective information, for the most part, it was misguided and wrong.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #40 on: October 25, 2014, 07:44:45 PM »

Offline get_banners

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 100
Lazy journalism is what this is. Are we competing for the East? No. Are we better than last year? Absolutely, and by quite a bit. And while last year's team had a bad W-L record, we played a ton of close games, so its not like we were absolutely horrible before. We might even compete for the playoffs (I think its unlikely we make it, but I'd be shocked if we didn't make a good run for a low seed). So...yeah...this article is trash.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2014, 07:53:36 PM »

Offline DesertDweller

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 623
  • Tommy Points: 92
It was almost as depressing as reading most posters on this forum every day!!!

But I got news for all you haters, considering what this team has gone through with RR and losing KG and PP,  this team is healing itself very quickly.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2014, 07:58:05 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.

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.
Sullinger has played center, though.  He might be a good starter some day, but he's coming off a season averaging 13 points and 8 rebounds on 43% shooting.  I really don't see all-star potential. Solid role player on a good team.   Should get some stats on this bad team.

Would you describe Bradley as an aggressive offensive player up until this point in his career?  I wouldn't.  Most of his energy has been reserved for overly-aggressive defense. He averaged 13 shot attempts last year, though... starting to incorporate offense more into his game.  BUt why are we even talking about bradley... I'm not even sure that guy is a long-term starter in this league.

The article is pretty on point.  This team is pretty depressing right now.  WE're in the dumps.  Coming off a 25 win season heading for another one.  There's some hope for the future, but there's no clear path to turning this around.  Smart seems like the best bet to reach star level, but currently he's Rondo's backup.  We have picks to use over the next 3 years... maybe we'll finally luck out in the lotto at some point.  But right now, we're a very bad basketball team.

Great, let's extrapolate Sullinger's potential based on his second year after back surgery and an hand injuries that lingered throughout the season after November on a revamped roster with a rookie coach while playing out of position. Seems like the logical way to go about it.

As for Bradley, I suggest you look at his body of work since he got inserted in the starting line-up in late 2012. You're too influenced by his rookie campaign and his play coming off the bench early in his sophomore season. He's actually been very active offensively for the past 2 seasons+.
Sully and Bradley both looked impressive in the preseason, but that's preseason.  We'll see how they do.  I think Sully has more potential, but neither is a franchise cornerstone.  They'll be front-and-center this year as we putter away to 26 wins, though.  On a team mostly devoid of talent, those are two of the rare Celtics that actually have a long-term future in the NBA... whether as starters or role players, but probably not stars.

I really don't like the way this term is used mostly. Most players aren't considered franchise cornerstones until they prove to be. I'm assuming you are saying Bradley and Sullinger have no potential to grow into "franchise cornerstones", which I completely disagree with. It's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but even if it's just pre-season, Sully's shot has shown great improvement after testing the 3 last year. It was a 8 game sample size, but he still shot them at 50% at a good volume. Obviously he won't shoot 50% in the regular season, but I'd be surprised if he was at 27%. If Sully develops a consistent 3PT game, there is no reason he can't be a "franchise cornerstone". PFs who can shoot 3s and rebound like him are awesome. Every team wants them, and every team wants them to be their starting PF. You are underrating the quality he can potentially bring to this team as he further develops, and this is coming from someone who isn't even that big of a fan of Sully in the first place.

Bradley can be a starting guard on a contender. Why not? He defends with the best of them and can hit the 3 ball consistently. Look, the league is moving away from this "big 3" movement already. Sure Lebron formed another one in Cleveland, but it's clear a lot of teams are finding success by building a team with depth and sound structure. No one had any idea that Portland, Phoenix, Toronto, Charlotte, and Washington would be anywhere close to being as good as they were last season. For Phoenix, Toronto, and Charlotte, a huge reason for the success was their system. It fit their players, and they found success. Indiana, Memphis, and San Antonio are examples of teams doing "more with less" also. Yes, I include SAS there even though they have Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. Tim Duncan isn't a superstar out there anymore. Tony Parker was average in the playoffs in their most recent playoff run. They found success in building with depth and focusing on each and every player's strength. Even excluding SAS for a second, which I'm willing to do, every one of the teams I listed above were said to be devoid of talent before they actually started winning. In general people are overly negative about losing teams, and a lot of people lack foresight, which makes sense in a way. You can't necessarily assume development. The thing is, we have already gotten a glimpse of the potential for this regular in the pre-season. It may just be pre-season, but more players are buying into the system this year, and we are far more talented than last year. We have more capable shooters and ball-handlers, which is key for a team lacking in strong options.

Maybe things will change in a couple years, but in the present, it's clear Ainge and Stevens are moving towards more of a Indiana, Memphis, SAS, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc model than the star model of OKC, LAC, Cleveland, Miami of yesterday, and even Boston of yesterday.

But like I said, most of this is opinion so if you disagree that's okay. I'm fine with it. The article was not doing this, though. They were throwing everything out there as fact, and when they actually presented objective information, for the most part, it was misguided and wrong.
It's not just this article, though... it's pretty much every sports publication that is saying Boston is a bottomfeeder team this year.  Vegas agrees.   The premise of this article isn't outlandish... they are just reiterating what everyone else thinks based on what we know of the team.  It stunk last year and not much has changed.   

Of course, I hope we have some bizarre unthinkable turnaround, but this roster is still just a collection of "assets" awaiting some major 5-for-1 trade that may never come.

Sometimes I get the feeling that some fans think last year's 25 win season didn't actually happen... like they have convinced themselves the team is still relevant and a playoff threat... we just had a down year.   That's one of the main points this article brings up... a lot of denial going around... fans riding the former glory of 2008-10 are kind of ignoring that we finished in the bottom 5 last year and we haven't really upgraded anything.  Our bench might be a bit better, but a slightly improved bench isn't going to make much of an impact when the Starting 5 is still average-to-terrible.  This team is really really bad right now.  We're in the thick of it.  Maybe we can get out of it eventually, but right now... we're in it.  This is actually happening.  We have a 25-32 win team right now.

Also.. .this idea that Ainge is moving away from the star model isn't accurate.  We tanked with hopes of landing a star.  We spent most of the summer desperately offering the entire team to Minny for Kevin Love.  This is still very much a team that wants a star.  We don't have one at the moment and don't seem to have the assets to acquire one.  We have some assets heading into 2018, though.  In a few years we should be in a better position. 
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 08:06:55 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2014, 08:40:53 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
Anyone who watched preseason can see that the team has improved.

We aren't the 1972 Lakers, but we will win some games.

Re: Most depressing Celtics article ever
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2014, 08:58:46 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
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.

ESPN deriding the Celtics?  Say it ain't so (sarcasm).  I haven't watched anything on that network for 2 years, and I don't miss it at all lol ;D.  That said, even I'm not that negative, haha.  I mean, I suppose I could try, so could I write crap like this for ESPN?  Give me a call, guys (sarcasm) ;D.  I get what he's saying, though, about how Danny really hasn't done well since assembling the team in 2007, but I also don't know what else he expected with a rebuilding team.  It's going to take time, probably a long time, before we're good again, so have patience, because right now he sounds like Rick Pitino at the end lol.  The only passage I found enjoyable/humorous in the entire, "piece," was, "Vitor Faverani is enthusiastic."  Enthusiastic?  Really?  Bahahaha ;D