Nets (2-3) at Celtics (3-1) - Preseason Game #5 10/19/15

[trickybilly]

I still remember that sinking feeling when we took Rozier, I think I was on Portis..

At Louisville he got crushed a lot when driving the lane by the defense collapsing on him (not worrying as much about the 3) constantly. Kid is a surefire baller. Pray to Sweet Jebus that knee is alright. 

[crimson_stallion]

We have a player in Rozier. He gets where ever he wants, he shoots well, his passing is solid, if not spectacular, he defends well.

Been saying this ever since the day we drafted him - and I copped plenty of flak for it. 

"He's too small"
"He can't shoot"
"He can't dribble"
"He can't pass"

I've seen the things this kid can do - he is for real.  Three years from now, he's going to look like a man who should have been a top 5 pick.  Top 10 at the very least.

Are you thinking he's the PG of the Celtic future?

I think Rozier and Smart are the future backcourt of the Celtics - which one plays which position,
I don't know, because I honestly feel they are interchangeable.

Funnily enough, I actually see Rozier more as a SG, and Smart more as a PG.

I don't think Smart will ever threaten to lead the league in assists, but I could see him making a solid PG by averaging 5-6 assist per night and keeping the turnovers down.  I could see him being a Mo Williams / Jameer Nelson type in terms of PG skills.  I think his size will help him here - in fact I think it already does.  He already seems to do a very good job of using his physical gifts (his large frame, his strength, and his long arms) to shield the ball from his opposing defenders, and I think that is what allows him to keep turnovers down despite not having elite handles.  I think he'll only get better at that over time, and eventually I can see him being a quality PG in the NBA.  Move him to the SG spot and he loses that size advantage most nights, so I think PG might actually suit him best.   

On the other hand, Rozier's explosive speed / quickness will allow him to blow past a lot of NBA shooting guards and get to the basket at will (much like a young Monta Ellis), and his jumper is dangerous enough to keep the defense honest.  His speed might be less of an advantage against point guards, but against shooting guards he should be a real handful.  So with his shooting ability combined with his slashing ability, he might be best suited playing off the ball.

The best part of it all is that when it comes to defense, you can switch - with Smart on the opposing SG, and Rozier taking on the PG.

I could see that being a really dangerous back court - something like Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas back in the old days.

[crimson_stallion]

Smart plays best with ET in the game. It takes pressure off of him. I think turner will be the starter at SF when all is said and done.

I've thought this all along as well - at the end of the day ET our best small forward.  His level of talent and skill is so far beyond Crowder's that it's not even funny.

Crowder really only has one thing that he does better than Turner (defense) and that is purely a result of his personality (motor, toughness).  His actually level of skill/talent is really quite low. 

If Turner isn't starting for Boston when the regular season begins it will be because of rotational fit, not because of lack of talent.

Completely agree. I still think that deal given to Crowder is a bargain though. He complements that second unit perfectly: not needing the ball, slashing, broken plays, corner threes (and of course his defense).

I'm not sure I would call it a 'bargain' so much, as this suggests we got a lot more player than we paid for. 

I do feel it is a solid deal though, possibly a 'good' deal, at a stretch.  I see it about on par with the deal we got Bradley and Green on, both I which seemed about fair to me at the time.

Taking in to account the rising cap, the deal works out to be roughly equivalent to a full MLE, which I think is about right for a player of Crowder's caliber, give or take. 

I don't think Crowder is ever going to develop much beyond a fringe starter / glue guy in terms of talent/skill level.  At the same time though, I think he's going to be the type of guy who's market value is always higher than the sum of his skills/talents (think: Shane Battier, Amir Johnson, Robert Horry).  So taking all of that in to account, I think the deal will prove to be a pretty solid one.   

LBJ has a good 5-10 yrs of great/good play left in him, we need Crowder even if he's coming off the bench.

I wouldn't go so far as saying we NEED Crowder. 

There is no real shortage of "Crowder-like" guys in the league - guys who are seemingly purpose built to disrupt the opponents best offensive SF.  For example, our very own Jeff Green shut down everybody from Lebron, to Carmelo to Durant when he was here.  Crowder is far from irreplaceable. 

That said I do like him, especially in a bench role, and I would like to keep him around for a while. 

However if I had a chance to trade him for say, Josh smith, I wouldn't hesitate.  I think Smith's versatility would make him an outstanding fit on this team, and if Crowder is the guy he's replacing then you can't even complain about his shooting (since Crowder's is no better).

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Smart plays best with ET in the game. It takes pressure off of him. I think turner will be the starter at SF when all is said and done.

I've thought this all along as well - at the end of the day ET our best small forward.  His level of talent and skill is so far beyond Crowder's that it's not even funny.

Crowder really only has one thing that he does better than Turner (defense) and that is purely a result of his personality (motor, toughness).  His actually level of skill/talent is really quite low. 

If Turner isn't starting for Boston when the regular season begins it will be because of rotational fit, not because of lack of talent.

Completely agree. I still think that deal given to Crowder is a bargain though. He complements that second unit perfectly: not needing the ball, slashing, broken plays, corner threes (and of course his defense).

I'm not sure I would call it a 'bargain' so much, as this suggests we got a lot more player than we paid for. 

I do feel it is a solid deal though, possibly a 'good' deal, at a stretch.  I see it about on par with the deal we got Bradley and Green on, both I which seemed about fair to me at the time.

Taking in to account the rising cap, the deal works out to be roughly equivalent to a full MLE, which I think is about right for a player of Crowder's caliber, give or take. 

I don't think Crowder is ever going to develop much beyond a fringe starter / glue guy in terms of talent/skill level.  At the same time though, I think he's going to be the type of guy who's market value is always higher than the sum of his skills/talents (think: Shane Battier, Amir Johnson, Robert Horry).  So taking all of that in to account, I think the deal will prove to be a pretty solid one.   

LBJ has a good 5-10 yrs of great/good play left in him, we need Crowder even if he's coming off the bench.

I wouldn't go so far as saying we NEED Crowder. 

There is no real shortage of "Crowder-like" guys in the league - guys who are seemingly purpose built to disrupt the opponents best offensive SF.  For example, our very own Jeff Green shut down everybody from Lebron, to Carmelo to Durant when he was here.  Crowder is far from irreplaceable. 

That said I do like him, especially in a bench role, and I would like to keep him around for a while. 

However if I had a chance to trade him for say, Josh smith, I wouldn't hesitate.  I think Smith's versatility would make him an outstanding fit on this team, and if Crowder is the guy he's replacing then you can't even complain about his shooting (since Crowder's is no better).

Please, Josh Smith's days are about done, Jae is a good 3-4 out of what is usually prime years, I wouldn't make that trade.

I wanted to say "a crowder" (crowder-like), my bad. If it's not an upgrade then we should keep the one we already have.

[crimson_stallion]

Smart plays best with ET in the game. It takes pressure off of him. I think turner will be the starter at SF when all is said and done.

I've thought this all along as well - at the end of the day ET our best small forward.  His level of talent and skill is so far beyond Crowder's that it's not even funny.

Crowder really only has one thing that he does better than Turner (defense) and that is purely a result of his personality (motor, toughness).  His actually level of skill/talent is really quite low. 

If Turner isn't starting for Boston when the regular season begins it will be because of rotational fit, not because of lack of talent.

Completely agree. I still think that deal given to Crowder is a bargain though. He complements that second unit perfectly: not needing the ball, slashing, broken plays, corner threes (and of course his defense).

I'm not sure I would call it a 'bargain' so much, as this suggests we got a lot more player than we paid for. 

I do feel it is a solid deal though, possibly a 'good' deal, at a stretch.  I see it about on par with the deal we got Bradley and Green on, both I which seemed about fair to me at the time.

Taking in to account the rising cap, the deal works out to be roughly equivalent to a full MLE, which I think is about right for a player of Crowder's caliber, give or take. 

I don't think Crowder is ever going to develop much beyond a fringe starter / glue guy in terms of talent/skill level.  At the same time though, I think he's going to be the type of guy who's market value is always higher than the sum of his skills/talents (think: Shane Battier, Amir Johnson, Robert Horry).  So taking all of that in to account, I think the deal will prove to be a pretty solid one.   

LBJ has a good 5-10 yrs of great/good play left in him, we need Crowder even if he's coming off the bench.

I wouldn't go so far as saying we NEED Crowder. 

There is no real shortage of "Crowder-like" guys in the league - guys who are seemingly purpose built to disrupt the opponents best offensive SF.  For example, our very own Jeff Green shut down everybody from Lebron, to Carmelo to Durant when he was here.  Crowder is far from irreplaceable. 

That said I do like him, especially in a bench role, and I would like to keep him around for a while. 

However if I had a chance to trade him for say, Josh smith, I wouldn't hesitate.  I think Smith's versatility would make him an outstanding fit on this team, and if Crowder is the guy he's replacing then you can't even complain about his shooting (since Crowder's is no better).

Please, Josh Smith's days are about done, Jae is a good 3-4 out of what is usually prime years, I wouldn't make that trade.

I wanted to say "a crowder" (crowder-like), my bad. If it's not an upgrade then we should keep the one we already have.

You can't judge Josh Smith as a player based on the one-and-a-quarter seasons he spent playing in a horrible situation in Detroit. 

During his career Josh Smith is a 15/8/3/2/1 guy and a potential triple double any time he steps on the floor.  His level of skill / talent is either equal to or better than Crowder in absolutely every single possible area with the exception of maybe free throw shooting.

Did you not see how well Smith played after his trade to Houston?  He was extremely impressive in his 55 games as a Rocket, and he was absolutely huge for them in the playoffs (where he averaged 21/9/4 Per-36).

Crowder is younger than Smith, but since he has all of about zero upside that is pretty much a non-factor.

At the end of the day about the only arguments you can make in Crowder's favor is his motor, and that alone is not enough to offset Smith's far superior talent. 

I feel bad for Josh Smith in a way.  He gets a lot of unjustified hate thrown on him because he never reached the superstar expectations people put on him, but he was a borderline All-Star pretty much his entire time in Atlanta, and since the move to Houston his production has been right there again.

Seriously, take a look at the career stats for Josh Smith  career stats and compare them to Paul Milsap's stats, then try to convince me that Smith's career is done! 

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Smart plays best with ET in the game. It takes pressure off of him. I think turner will be the starter at SF when all is said and done.

I've thought this all along as well - at the end of the day ET our best small forward.  His level of talent and skill is so far beyond Crowder's that it's not even funny.

Crowder really only has one thing that he does better than Turner (defense) and that is purely a result of his personality (motor, toughness).  His actually level of skill/talent is really quite low. 

If Turner isn't starting for Boston when the regular season begins it will be because of rotational fit, not because of lack of talent.

Completely agree. I still think that deal given to Crowder is a bargain though. He complements that second unit perfectly: not needing the ball, slashing, broken plays, corner threes (and of course his defense).

I'm not sure I would call it a 'bargain' so much, as this suggests we got a lot more player than we paid for. 

I do feel it is a solid deal though, possibly a 'good' deal, at a stretch.  I see it about on par with the deal we got Bradley and Green on, both I which seemed about fair to me at the time.

Taking in to account the rising cap, the deal works out to be roughly equivalent to a full MLE, which I think is about right for a player of Crowder's caliber, give or take. 

I don't think Crowder is ever going to develop much beyond a fringe starter / glue guy in terms of talent/skill level.  At the same time though, I think he's going to be the type of guy who's market value is always higher than the sum of his skills/talents (think: Shane Battier, Amir Johnson, Robert Horry).  So taking all of that in to account, I think the deal will prove to be a pretty solid one.   

LBJ has a good 5-10 yrs of great/good play left in him, we need Crowder even if he's coming off the bench.

I wouldn't go so far as saying we NEED Crowder. 

There is no real shortage of "Crowder-like" guys in the league - guys who are seemingly purpose built to disrupt the opponents best offensive SF.  For example, our very own Jeff Green shut down everybody from Lebron, to Carmelo to Durant when he was here.  Crowder is far from irreplaceable. 

That said I do like him, especially in a bench role, and I would like to keep him around for a while. 

However if I had a chance to trade him for say, Josh smith, I wouldn't hesitate.  I think Smith's versatility would make him an outstanding fit on this team, and if Crowder is the guy he's replacing then you can't even complain about his shooting (since Crowder's is no better).

Please, Josh Smith's days are about done, Jae is a good 3-4 out of what is usually prime years, I wouldn't make that trade.

I wanted to say "a crowder" (crowder-like), my bad. If it's not an upgrade then we should keep the one we already have.

You can't judge Josh Smith as a player based on the one-and-a-quarter seasons he spent playing in a horrible situation in Detroit. 

During his career Josh Smith is a 15/8/3/2/1 guy and a potential triple double any time he steps on the floor.  His level of skill / talent is either equal to or better than Crowder in absolutely every single possible area with the exception of maybe free throw shooting.

Did you not see how well Smith played after his trade to Houston?  He was extremely impressive in his 55 games as a Rocket, and he was absolutely huge for them in the playoffs (where he averaged 21/9/4 Per-36).

Crowder is younger than Smith, but since he has all of about zero upside that is pretty much a non-factor.

At the end of the day about the only arguments you can make in Crowder's favor is his motor, and that alone is not enough to offset Smith's far superior talent. 

I feel bad for Josh Smith in a way.  He gets a lot of unjustified hate thrown on him because he never reached the superstar expectations people put on him, but he was a borderline All-Star pretty much his entire time in Atlanta, and since the move to Houston his production has been right there again.

Seriously, take a look at the career stats for Josh Smith  career stats and compare them to Paul Milsap's stats, then try to convince me that Smith's career is done!

I had to take a breath... I know about Josh Smith and I don't need you to explain anything to me, find me a time when I said he was a bad player. All I said is I wouldn't trade Jae for him. You don't know what hate is! I also know that Smith is about 30, I'm not trading Jae at 25 for him unless we had other stars on the team. It's easy for Smith to accept his role on a team stacked like Hous (now the clips), let's see how happy he would be here at this point of our rebuild. Loved the idea with Rondo (when I thought RR was going to come back beasting and b4 with RR, PP and KG), I don't like it atm.

[Celtics4ever]

Please, Josh Smith's days are about done, Jae is a good 3-4 out of what is usually prime years, I wouldn't make that trade.

I would not make the trade, but I do not think Jae will ever reach Josh's level as a player.  He does not have the physical tools and athletic ability.  Even at his most inefficient, he is a better player than Crowder.

[mef730]

You'll have to excuse me for the question, since I missed the game last night, but how did we only win by 6 against what has to be the worst bench in the league (even if we were playing many of our own second-teamers)?

Were we that bad? Are they actually better than we've been giving them credit for? Or is it just pre-season and nobody except the bubble players is taking it particularly seriously?

Mike

[SHAQATTACK]

You'll have to excuse me for the question, since I missed the game last night, but how did we only win by 6 against what has to be the worst bench in the league (even if we were playing many of our own second-teamers)?

Were we that bad? Are they actually better than we've been giving them credit for? Or is it just pre-season and nobody except the bubble players is taking it particularly seriously?

Mike

I fully understand your concern ...I was thinking the same as a casual viewer .  clearly winning was like low on CBS list of goals .  I think he was seeing more how certain guys performed with simulated NBA pressures of a regular season game. More revealing than team simulated games.

Some of all of the above you stated

 . Nets were playing with no pressure and were hitting threes pretty decent for scrubs.   Plus I don't think winning was the prime objective of CBS .  Kind of a formal practice , game in front of fans .  Letting the rookies get more playing time, helping get the guys juices flowing , after much illness though out the team .  I think trying to get James Young more comfortable was a big part of the plan.  Getting him use to game situations with players actually playing defense on him .

With Nets sitting Lopez ,  then the effort level drops on the Celtics side .......I would be less intense myself, knowing they are sand bagging their effort to win . 

[Rondo2287]

My reaction from the game last night via amicohoops.net

http://amicohoops.net/2015/10/good-and-bad-of-celtics-win-vs-nets/

[mef730]

You'll have to excuse me for the question, since I missed the game last night, but how did we only win by 6 against what has to be the worst bench in the league (even if we were playing many of our own second-teamers)?

Were we that bad? Are they actually better than we've been giving them credit for? Or is it just pre-season and nobody except the bubble players is taking it particularly seriously?

Mike

I fully understand your concern ...I was thinking the same as a casual viewer .  clearly winning was like low on CBS list of goals .  I think he was seeing more how certain guys performed with simulated NBA pressures of a regular season game. More revealing than team simulated games.

Some of all of the above you stated

 . Nets were playing with no pressure and were hitting threes pretty decent for scrubs.   Plus I don't think winning was the prime objective of CBS .  Kind of a formal practice , game in front of fans .  Letting the rookies get more playing time, helping get the guys juices flowing , after much illness though out the team .  I think trying to get James Young more comfortable was a big part of the plan.  Getting him use to game situations with players actually playing defense on him .

With Nets sitting Lopez ,  then the effort level drops on the Celtics side .......I would be less intense myself, knowing they are sand bagging their effort to win .

Thanks, good reasoning. I'm also chalking it up to "preseason."

Mike

[colincb]

We played 17 players, Nets played 9 and with 45 turnovers split 23-22, the game was a mess.

Preseason. Barely watchable.

[snively]

You'll have to excuse me for the question, since I missed the game last night, but how did we only win by 6 against what has to be the worst bench in the league (even if we were playing many of our own second-teamers)?

Were we that bad? Are they actually better than we've been giving them credit for? Or is it just pre-season and nobody except the bubble players is taking it particularly seriously?

Mike

The Nets scrubs actually play a brand of basketball more conducive to winning than their starters, at least offensively.  Spreading the floor with Harper and Daniels created a lot of room for Bogdanovic, Sloan and Boatright to operate.  Completely cleared up the spacing and fit issues that dog the Nets starters (Lopez and Young both paint players, Johnson another post-up heavy guy, Jack a weak shooter who freezes others out of the offense).

They also had a bit more quickness defensively - they could actually trap the ball handler in pick and roll.  But they did miss Lopez' shot-blocking - the Celtics bigs got whatever they wanted.

From the Celtics side of things, this game shows how the crowded, ill-fitting big rotation and the need to give them all minutes can hurt the team defensively. The Nets were small all game with shooting bigs, kind of like the C's bench last year with Olynyk and Jerebko at the 4/5.  But the Celtics for the most part stayed big and slow, with Zeller/Amir and then Olynyk/Sully off the bench.  It was a double edged sword defensively - they were too slow to defend a well-spaced opponent but their size didn't give them shot-blocking or a big rebounding advantage.  They scored plenty, but they just gave it right back on the other end.

[Celtics4ever]

  They scored plenty, but they just gave it right back on the other end.

Always been my problem with Sully, this and his lack of conditioning and discipline.