I think the Celtics are better than last year's Hawks team

[slamtheking]

EDIT: nevermind.

very optimistic and I would love nothing better than for the team to exceed your expectations but I just don't see how it's based on anything more than blind faith more than anything approaching a realistic review of the team in comparison to the other teams in the conference (never mind the league in general).

I think the issue is how you are evaluating the team. I think triboy is overly optimistic even if I agree with the general viewpoint, but I kinda scratch my head when more pessimistic posters make paper comparisons between rosters and act like there aren't a ton of questions about those teams. You ask for him to give a realistic viewpoint of the roster, and I don't see how he isn't doing that? Fact of the matter is the Celtics went out there, played their butts off, and went 24-12 which is close to half the season with the current roster. Their overall 40 win record is not what this team is, and using that as a frame of argument is a little disingenuous and ignores the circumstances this team played through throughout the season.

Anyway, a 24-12 record is a 55 win pace. Now if you are asking me if I think they can win 55 games over 82, I'd say hell no. But at the same time for the Celtics to fall out of the playoffs, you have to ask how will that happen? Well they have to drop from a 55 win pace to a mid 30 wins pace. Now forget about Miami, the Bucks, or whoever was in front of us or behind us. The question you should be asking is..is it reasonable for a team that was on a 55 win pace to drop back to the mid 30s with the same roster coming back but a year older with more experience? I think ignoring this factor and calling someone a homer or saying someone is not giving a realistic view of the roster is the person actually not looking at the roster realistically. It's completely unreasonable to expect this team to drop in 20 wins in terms of pace. It's more reasonable to expect then to fall to a mid 40s win pace, which isn't fighting for the playoffs. In the East, mid 40s is pretty much in automatic bid.

I'm not calling him a homer or any other name.  just stating it's an overly optimistic appraisal of this team.

you agree that a 55-win pace is unrealistic or at least unlikely.  That's what I'm saying.

I'm also taking into consideration what's going on with the rest of the team in the conference.  how can you not?  While we did upgrade in overall talent, it was 2 more PFs which was not a position we really needed to solidify. 

The other teams that made the playoffs in slots 1-6 are still good teams if not a little better.  Miami really got better.  Indy does get a couple of good players for this year but lost their starting frontcourt.  The rest of the teams in the conference got better or at least didn't slide backward. 

I'm not saying they'll drop to around 35 wins.  I think getting 40 again this year will be an achievement based on the rest of the conference.  I'd love to be completely off on this.

Fair enough, but I disagree that the teams in front of the Cs (the 6) stayed the same or improved.

Chicago > lost Thibs. They are 100% a defensive minded team that added a coach who is primarily a fast pace offensive coach. This could blow up in their face pretty badly, but I give them the benefit of the doubt because of their overall talent.

Bucks > They could be good, but they fell apart after trading Knight because he was their only shooter. They were one of the best defensive teams in the league last year, but their biggest addition was a defensively averse big man who can't shoot and struggles to perform in the post without 3PT shooters around him. Hey it could work out somehow, but I think Monroe is a terrible fit for them.

Heat > Wade already misses 20-30 games a year it seems now, and he's only getting older. They have good talent on paper, but I couldn't shake the feeling that they were like the 12-13 Celtics. Older players who struggled to play 100% day in, day out because they feel the regular season isn't important. Unfortunately they don't have the overall talent to simply slide through the regular season without trying. Heat fans continually hated the way they played last year because they lacked passion and fire. It was an issue just like it was an issue for Rondo and this team for years.

Toronto > Lost their best big man defender, and they already struggle enough defensively. Amir was one of their big impact players by +/- so I have no idea what will happen.

Washington > Wiz fans were already hating on Nene and how much he was aging last year. They have Wall/Beal, but Pierce was huge for them in terms of leadership and played a large role in keeping Wall's head in the game I heard from their fans. Let's see how they do with an aging frontcourt and without Pierce's leadership.

I admit all of these teams can perform similarly, but it's not as much a shoe in as a lot think. That's all I'm saying.

all fair points. 

I think where we're differing is:
- the accounting of injuries.  My expectations are basically set on each team having reasonable health for its players (other than the obvious cases of a player returning from being out from injury last year). 
- the expectation of trades/free agency to negatively impact other franchises and not the C's.  Sure, Milwaukee's an example of a team not performing as well after a trade but they had this summer and camp to work the kinks out as well as getting Monroe and having Parker return.  to me, that's a net plus for them. 
-In Chicago, sure losing Thibs will impact the defense but they still have Rose, Butler, Gasol, Noah, etc... all better players than we have.  The plus side to losing Thibs is that their top players won't be run into the ground during the season.
- Washington will miss PP but Wall and Beal are another year ahead in experience.  They still have Gortat.  Porter seems like he may be getting it together somewhat.  Nene's still a decent big regardless of his age.  This is not a weak team.
-->thing is, I don't think Chicago and Washington degraded to the point where we're now better than they are and I actually think Milwaukee will be better than last year -- certainly better than how they finished.

Again, the season has to play out and I'd love nothing better than to be totally off about how the team will fair this year.  At a bare minimum, I think this team will be in almost every game and hustle in every one of them.  they'll be a joy to watch from that perspective. 

[Tr1boy]

EDIT: nevermind.

very optimistic and I would love nothing better than for the team to exceed your expectations but I just don't see how it's based on anything more than blind faith more than anything approaching a realistic review of the team in comparison to the other teams in the conference (never mind the league in general).

I think the issue is how you are evaluating the team. You shouldn't be comparing the rosters throughout the East and coming to a conclusion that way, imo. You need to look at their actual performances. For example, Miami has all the talent in the world, but they could just as easily fall apart and not have the drive to win. They were barely skirting .500 with Wade and Bosh healthy earlier in the season. Why are we so confident they will actually perform honestly? Chicago lost the best defensive mind in the game, and they are by far a defensive team first. Will they recover from this? The Bucks added a big man who can't shoot to a team that is already void of 3PT shooting. Their offense might be even worse than last year, and they fell apart after trading Knight anyway. I don't see any reason in being so confidence that they will simply be ahead of the Celtics just because they were last season. The questions go on and on for almost any team. Through all the question marks about the Celtics talent, they went out there, didn't make excuses, and blew through teams over the last ~40 games. I got respect for a team that didn't fall apart in the face of adversity like the Heat, Bucks, Indiana, etc did throughout the season.

I think triboy is overly optimistic even if I agree with the general viewpoint, but I kinda scratch my head when more pessimistic posters make paper comparisons between rosters and act like there aren't a ton of questions about those teams. You ask for him to give a realistic viewpoint of the roster, and I don't see how he isn't doing that? Fact of the matter is the Celtics went out there, played their butts off, and went 24-12 which is close to half the season with the current roster. Their overall 40 win record is not what this team is, and using that as a frame of argument is a little disingenuous and ignores the circumstances this team played through throughout the season.

Anyway, a 24-12 record is a 55 win pace. Now if you are asking me if I think they can win 55 games over 82, I'd say hell no. But at the same time for the Celtics to fall out of the playoffs, you have to ask how will that happen? Well they have to drop from a 55 win pace to a mid 30 wins pace. Now forget about Miami, the Bucks, or whoever was in front of us or behind us. The question you should be asking is..is it reasonable for a team that was on a 55 win pace to drop back to the mid 30s with the same roster coming back but a year older with more experience? I think ignoring this factor and calling someone a homer or saying someone is not giving a realistic view of the roster is the person actually not looking at the roster realistically. It's completely unreasonable to expect this team to drop in 20 wins in terms of pace. It may happen because of unforeseen injuries or trades, but to expect it is just not reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect them to fall to a mid 40s win pace considering their point differential over the ~40 games, which isn't fighting for the playoffs. In the East, mid 40s is pretty much an automatic bid regardless of the viewpoint of other teams' rosters and their potential performance.

Some pts are dead on as to how I feel about all of this.  Too pessimistic about the Celts and optimistic about other teams baffle me. Especially since the other teams have not made themsleves any much better in the off season.

Miami COULD be good. But is anyone willing to bet Bosh and Wade wont miss at least 25 games this season?? Winslow is just a rookie and will have his growing pains.  Deng another injured guy.

- pacers get Ellis and so what??  Dallas was indifferent to keep him  or let him go. Huge question mark surrounding George and ability to play at the same high level again

- bulls have to star new again with a diff coach. Rose is injured again

- Celts formed a strong bond last season(system is down pact), added a few real decent vets. We got IT for the whole season. Why be pessimistic while upsizing the rest ?   

And yes we should win min  50.  Good chance at 55

[MJohnnyboy]

EDIT: nevermind.

very optimistic and I would love nothing better than for the team to exceed your expectations but I just don't see how it's based on anything more than blind faith more than anything approaching a realistic review of the team in comparison to the other teams in the conference (never mind the league in general).

I think the issue is how you are evaluating the team. You shouldn't be comparing the rosters throughout the East and coming to a conclusion that way, imo. You need to look at their actual performances. For example, Miami has all the talent in the world, but they could just as easily fall apart and not have the drive to win. They were barely skirting .500 with Wade and Bosh healthy earlier in the season. Why are we so confident they will actually perform honestly? Chicago lost the best defensive mind in the game, and they are by far a defensive team first. Will they recover from this? The Bucks added a big man who can't shoot to a team that is already void of 3PT shooting. Their offense might be even worse than last year, and they fell apart after trading Knight anyway. I don't see any reason in being so confidence that they will simply be ahead of the Celtics just because they were last season. The questions go on and on for almost any team. Through all the question marks about the Celtics talent, they went out there, didn't make excuses, and blew through teams over the last ~40 games. I got respect for a team that didn't fall apart in the face of adversity like the Heat, Bucks, Indiana, etc did throughout the season.

I think triboy is overly optimistic even if I agree with the general viewpoint, but I kinda scratch my head when more pessimistic posters make paper comparisons between rosters and act like there aren't a ton of questions about those teams. You ask for him to give a realistic viewpoint of the roster, and I don't see how he isn't doing that? Fact of the matter is the Celtics went out there, played their butts off, and went 24-12 which is close to half the season with the current roster. Their overall 40 win record is not what this team is, and using that as a frame of argument is a little disingenuous and ignores the circumstances this team played through throughout the season.

Anyway, a 24-12 record is a 55 win pace. Now if you are asking me if I think they can win 55 games over 82, I'd say hell no. But at the same time for the Celtics to fall out of the playoffs, you have to ask how will that happen? Well they have to drop from a 55 win pace to a mid 30 wins pace. Now forget about Miami, the Bucks, or whoever was in front of us or behind us. The question you should be asking is..is it reasonable for a team that was on a 55 win pace to drop back to the mid 30s with the same roster coming back but a year older with more experience? I think ignoring this factor and calling someone a homer or saying someone is not giving a realistic view of the roster is the person actually not looking at the roster realistically. It's completely unreasonable to expect this team to drop in 20 wins in terms of pace. It may happen because of unforeseen injuries or trades, but to expect it is just not reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect them to fall to a mid 40s win pace considering their point differential over the ~40 games, which isn't fighting for the playoffs. In the East, mid 40s is pretty much an automatic bid regardless of the viewpoint of other teams' rosters and their potential performance.

Some pts are dead on as to how I feel about all of this.  Too pessimistic about the Celts and optimistic about other teams baffle me. Especially since the other teams have not made themsleves any much better in the off season.

Miami COULD be good. But is anyone willing to bet Bosh and Wade wont miss at least 25 games this season?? Winslow is just a rookie and will have his growing pains.  Deng another injured guy.

- pacers get Ellis and so what??  Dallas was indifferent to keep him  or let him go. Huge question mark surrounding George and ability to play at the same high level again

- bulls have to star new again with a diff coach. Rose is injured again

- Celts formed a strong bond last season(system is down pact), added a few real decent vets. We got IT for the whole season. Why be pessimistic while upsizing the rest ?   

And yes we should win min  50.  Good chance at 55

I don't think it's pessimism as much as it is trying to temper our expectations. I definitely want the Celtics to win 50 games, hell I want the Celtics to win banner 18, but I don't see it happening. Mainly because the east is better on paper than it was last season and one can definitely argue the Celtics run at the end of last season was aided by an easy schedule post all-star break and the Celtics competitors all crumbling by the seasons end. I like the way this team is constructed but its not a contender nor is it a pseudo-contender. All of your concerns with other teams you can bring the same to the Celtics. Smart can hurt his ankle again and limit his effectiveness. Sully could have yet another season decimated by injuries. Avery Bradley up until last season went out for an extended period. David Lee and Amir Johnson could be labeled as injury-risks. Point is, every team has those concerns. Every team. Someone brought this up earlier. If Lebron gets hurt, the east is up for grabs.

As for the other teams you mention, for the last time, Chris Bosh is NOT injury-prone. Last season was the only time Bosh was out for an extended period of time in his career, and even then, it wasn't for an injury. It was for blood clots in his lungs. That's not something caused from a basketball court. Winslow may be a rookie but a.They are not counting on him to be crucial and b.Danny tried to trade a good chunk of our picks to get him specifically. I find that odd that you praise our rookies and yet get on Winslows case for growing pains.

I'm also skeptical of the Pacers but Monta Ellis gives the Pacers that pure scorer that Paul George has never played with and should thrive playing next to George Hill. As for George, broken legs don't harm your career. Achilles and knee injuries can, but not compound leg fractures. George should be just fine.

The Bulls may have a new coach but atleast there's no turmoil between him and management unlike Thibs, which can really hurt a team. And even if Rose is out, he'll still be back by the start of the season and they still have quite a few quality pieces around him. Butler, Gasol, Noah, Mirotic.

I'm hoping the Celtics can capitalize on last years run, but the reason why I'm not thinking so big is because the roster on paper is deep with rotation players but has no elite players, as opposed to others teams in the east who I think do. I'm not saying that to get down on the Celtics. I actually love the route they are taking and they are definitely going in the right direction, but I just don't expect so much so soon.

[Tr1boy]

EDIT: nevermind.

very optimistic and I would love nothing better than for the team to exceed your expectations but I just don't see how it's based on anything more than blind faith more than anything approaching a realistic review of the team in comparison to the other teams in the conference (never mind the league in general).

I think the issue is how you are evaluating the team. You shouldn't be comparing the rosters throughout the East and coming to a conclusion that way, imo. You need to look at their actual performances. For example, Miami has all the talent in the world, but they could just as easily fall apart and not have the drive to win. They were barely skirting .500 with Wade and Bosh healthy earlier in the season. Why are we so confident they will actually perform honestly? Chicago lost the best defensive mind in the game, and they are by far a defensive team first. Will they recover from this? The Bucks added a big man who can't shoot to a team that is already void of 3PT shooting. Their offense might be even worse than last year, and they fell apart after trading Knight anyway. I don't see any reason in being so confidence that they will simply be ahead of the Celtics just because they were last season. The questions go on and on for almost any team. Through all the question marks about the Celtics talent, they went out there, didn't make excuses, and blew through teams over the last ~40 games. I got respect for a team that didn't fall apart in the face of adversity like the Heat, Bucks, Indiana, etc did throughout the season.

I think triboy is overly optimistic even if I agree with the general viewpoint, but I kinda scratch my head when more pessimistic posters make paper comparisons between rosters and act like there aren't a ton of questions about those teams. You ask for him to give a realistic viewpoint of the roster, and I don't see how he isn't doing that? Fact of the matter is the Celtics went out there, played their butts off, and went 24-12 which is close to half the season with the current roster. Their overall 40 win record is not what this team is, and using that as a frame of argument is a little disingenuous and ignores the circumstances this team played through throughout the season.

Anyway, a 24-12 record is a 55 win pace. Now if you are asking me if I think they can win 55 games over 82, I'd say hell no. But at the same time for the Celtics to fall out of the playoffs, you have to ask how will that happen? Well they have to drop from a 55 win pace to a mid 30 wins pace. Now forget about Miami, the Bucks, or whoever was in front of us or behind us. The question you should be asking is..is it reasonable for a team that was on a 55 win pace to drop back to the mid 30s with the same roster coming back but a year older with more experience? I think ignoring this factor and calling someone a homer or saying someone is not giving a realistic view of the roster is the person actually not looking at the roster realistically. It's completely unreasonable to expect this team to drop in 20 wins in terms of pace. It may happen because of unforeseen injuries or trades, but to expect it is just not reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect them to fall to a mid 40s win pace considering their point differential over the ~40 games, which isn't fighting for the playoffs. In the East, mid 40s is pretty much an automatic bid regardless of the viewpoint of other teams' rosters and their potential performance.

Some pts are dead on as to how I feel about all of this.  Too pessimistic about the Celts and optimistic about other teams baffle me. Especially since the other teams have not made themsleves any much better in the off season.

Miami COULD be good. But is anyone willing to bet Bosh and Wade wont miss at least 25 games this season?? Winslow is just a rookie and will have his growing pains.  Deng another injured guy.

- pacers get Ellis and so what??  Dallas was indifferent to keep him  or let him go. Huge question mark surrounding George and ability to play at the same high level again

- bulls have to star new again with a diff coach. Rose is injured again

- Celts formed a strong bond last season(system is down pact), added a few real decent vets. We got IT for the whole season. Why be pessimistic while upsizing the rest ?   

And yes we should win min  50.  Good chance at 55

I don't think it's pessimism as much as it is trying to temper our expectations. I definitely want the Celtics to win 50 games, hell I want the Celtics to win banner 18, but I don't see it happening. Mainly because the east is better on paper than it was last season and one can definitely argue the Celtics run at the end of last season was aided by an easy schedule post all-star break and the Celtics competitors all crumbling by the seasons end. I like the way this team is constructed but its not a contender nor is it a pseudo-contender. All of your concerns with other teams you can bring the same to the Celtics. Smart can hurt his ankle again and limit his effectiveness. Sully could have yet another season decimated by injuries. Avery Bradley up until last season went out for an extended period. David Lee and Amir Johnson could be labeled as injury-risks. Point is, every team has those concerns. Every team. Someone brought this up earlier. If Lebron gets hurt, the east is up for grabs.

As for the other teams you mention, for the last time, Chris Bosh is NOT injury-prone. Last season was the only time Bosh was out for an extended period of time in his career, and even then, it wasn't for an injury. It was for blood clots in his lungs. That's not something caused from a basketball court. Winslow may be a rookie but a.They are not counting on him to be crucial and b.Danny tried to trade a good chunk of our picks to get him specifically. I find that odd that you praise our rookies and yet get on Winslows case for growing pains.

I'm also skeptical of the Pacers but Monta Ellis gives the Pacers that pure scorer that Paul George has never played with and should thrive playing next to George Hill. As for George, broken legs don't harm your career. Achilles and knee injuries can, but not compound leg fractures. George should be just fine.

The Bulls may have a new coach but atleast there's no turmoil between him and management unlike Thibs, which can really hurt a team. And even if Rose is out, he'll still be back by the start of the season and they still have quite a few quality pieces around him. Butler, Gasol, Noah, Mirotic.

I'm hoping the Celtics can capitalize on last years run, but the reason why I'm not thinking so big is because the roster on paper is deep with rotation players but has no elite players, as opposed to others teams in the east who I think do. I'm not saying that to get down on the Celtics. I actually love the route they are taking and they are definitely going in the right direction, but I just don't expect so much so soon.

I can't wait for the team to turn you into a believer

There are just too many good things going on for this squad . age, depth, team defense, spacing etc. especially the x factor is CBS. Took Butler who had no chance in hell x10 to make the finals twice in the ncaa

[Tr1boy]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/nba-boston-celtics-preview-carmelo/

[MJohnnyboy]

EDIT: nevermind.

very optimistic and I would love nothing better than for the team to exceed your expectations but I just don't see how it's based on anything more than blind faith more than anything approaching a realistic review of the team in comparison to the other teams in the conference (never mind the league in general).

I think the issue is how you are evaluating the team. You shouldn't be comparing the rosters throughout the East and coming to a conclusion that way, imo. You need to look at their actual performances. For example, Miami has all the talent in the world, but they could just as easily fall apart and not have the drive to win. They were barely skirting .500 with Wade and Bosh healthy earlier in the season. Why are we so confident they will actually perform honestly? Chicago lost the best defensive mind in the game, and they are by far a defensive team first. Will they recover from this? The Bucks added a big man who can't shoot to a team that is already void of 3PT shooting. Their offense might be even worse than last year, and they fell apart after trading Knight anyway. I don't see any reason in being so confidence that they will simply be ahead of the Celtics just because they were last season. The questions go on and on for almost any team. Through all the question marks about the Celtics talent, they went out there, didn't make excuses, and blew through teams over the last ~40 games. I got respect for a team that didn't fall apart in the face of adversity like the Heat, Bucks, Indiana, etc did throughout the season.

I think triboy is overly optimistic even if I agree with the general viewpoint, but I kinda scratch my head when more pessimistic posters make paper comparisons between rosters and act like there aren't a ton of questions about those teams. You ask for him to give a realistic viewpoint of the roster, and I don't see how he isn't doing that? Fact of the matter is the Celtics went out there, played their butts off, and went 24-12 which is close to half the season with the current roster. Their overall 40 win record is not what this team is, and using that as a frame of argument is a little disingenuous and ignores the circumstances this team played through throughout the season.

Anyway, a 24-12 record is a 55 win pace. Now if you are asking me if I think they can win 55 games over 82, I'd say hell no. But at the same time for the Celtics to fall out of the playoffs, you have to ask how will that happen? Well they have to drop from a 55 win pace to a mid 30 wins pace. Now forget about Miami, the Bucks, or whoever was in front of us or behind us. The question you should be asking is..is it reasonable for a team that was on a 55 win pace to drop back to the mid 30s with the same roster coming back but a year older with more experience? I think ignoring this factor and calling someone a homer or saying someone is not giving a realistic view of the roster is the person actually not looking at the roster realistically. It's completely unreasonable to expect this team to drop in 20 wins in terms of pace. It may happen because of unforeseen injuries or trades, but to expect it is just not reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect them to fall to a mid 40s win pace considering their point differential over the ~40 games, which isn't fighting for the playoffs. In the East, mid 40s is pretty much an automatic bid regardless of the viewpoint of other teams' rosters and their potential performance.

Some pts are dead on as to how I feel about all of this.  Too pessimistic about the Celts and optimistic about other teams baffle me. Especially since the other teams have not made themsleves any much better in the off season.

Miami COULD be good. But is anyone willing to bet Bosh and Wade wont miss at least 25 games this season?? Winslow is just a rookie and will have his growing pains.  Deng another injured guy.

- pacers get Ellis and so what??  Dallas was indifferent to keep him  or let him go. Huge question mark surrounding George and ability to play at the same high level again

- bulls have to star new again with a diff coach. Rose is injured again

- Celts formed a strong bond last season(system is down pact), added a few real decent vets. We got IT for the whole season. Why be pessimistic while upsizing the rest ?   

And yes we should win min  50.  Good chance at 55

I don't think it's pessimism as much as it is trying to temper our expectations. I definitely want the Celtics to win 50 games, hell I want the Celtics to win banner 18, but I don't see it happening. Mainly because the east is better on paper than it was last season and one can definitely argue the Celtics run at the end of last season was aided by an easy schedule post all-star break and the Celtics competitors all crumbling by the seasons end. I like the way this team is constructed but its not a contender nor is it a pseudo-contender. All of your concerns with other teams you can bring the same to the Celtics. Smart can hurt his ankle again and limit his effectiveness. Sully could have yet another season decimated by injuries. Avery Bradley up until last season went out for an extended period. David Lee and Amir Johnson could be labeled as injury-risks. Point is, every team has those concerns. Every team. Someone brought this up earlier. If Lebron gets hurt, the east is up for grabs.

As for the other teams you mention, for the last time, Chris Bosh is NOT injury-prone. Last season was the only time Bosh was out for an extended period of time in his career, and even then, it wasn't for an injury. It was for blood clots in his lungs. That's not something caused from a basketball court. Winslow may be a rookie but a.They are not counting on him to be crucial and b.Danny tried to trade a good chunk of our picks to get him specifically. I find that odd that you praise our rookies and yet get on Winslows case for growing pains.

I'm also skeptical of the Pacers but Monta Ellis gives the Pacers that pure scorer that Paul George has never played with and should thrive playing next to George Hill. As for George, broken legs don't harm your career. Achilles and knee injuries can, but not compound leg fractures. George should be just fine.

The Bulls may have a new coach but atleast there's no turmoil between him and management unlike Thibs, which can really hurt a team. And even if Rose is out, he'll still be back by the start of the season and they still have quite a few quality pieces around him. Butler, Gasol, Noah, Mirotic.

I'm hoping the Celtics can capitalize on last years run, but the reason why I'm not thinking so big is because the roster on paper is deep with rotation players but has no elite players, as opposed to others teams in the east who I think do. I'm not saying that to get down on the Celtics. I actually love the route they are taking and they are definitely going in the right direction, but I just don't expect so much so soon.

I can't wait for the team to turn you into a believer

There are just too many good things going on for this squad . age, depth, team defense, spacing etc. especially the x factor is CBS. Took Butler who had no chance in hell x10 to make the finals twice in the ncaa

There's nothing wrong with having an open mind my friend. I hope just as much as you do that the Celtics exceed my expectations, and if they do, I'll be rooting for them every step of the way. I guess the main difference between me and you is that I think the Celtics could be a good team but I'm not putting them on the same level as a 60-win team that went all the way to the eastern conference finals last season when this team has yet to put up anything like that over an entire season.