Celtics (0-1) vs Suns (1-0) Vegas SL Game 2 7/10/16

[BDeCosta26]

I don't agree that you can't learn anything from summer league.

Some guys play in summer league and it is immediately apparent they are either too old and experienced or just plain talented to get anything out of the proceedings.  See: Jimmer Fredette, whose fatal flaws won't get exposed in a Summer League environment, or Devin Booker, who is just too dang good for Summer League.


What we can say is that Jaylen Brown has a long way to go.  He's not going to tear up the league as a rookie.  He won't be a contender for ROY.  He probably won't have a particularly large role for the Celtics this year.  I'm guessing he'll be spending a fair amount of time playing for the Red Claws.  The things he can clearly do right now, namely use his physical gifts to defend one on one and force contact inside, are not going to be particularly useful to the Celtics.

Agree for the most part. I think Jimmer may have developed enough to be a back-up PG on a bad team in the mold of a poor man's Jeremy Lin, but who knows.

Disagree with the bolded, though. How often does a #3 pick spend time in the D League? Seems unprecedented. I would think you want him around the big boys as much as possible.

We need him on the active roster. We simply dont have enough wing depth to keep him off it. Marcus Smart and Jonas Jerebko are the backup SFs right now.

I don't trust Brown to do anything except defend in isolation at an NBA level.  He won't be much use on the active roster.  I expect that he, Hunter, Young, and Jerebko will all get looks at the backup 3 spot and ultimately Hunter or Young will win out, with Jerebko seeing most of his time at the 4 and 5.

Brown needs to work on his ability to create for himself and others, as well as off-ball shooting and defending in team concepts.  He can do that in the D-League.  I'm afraid if he does it in Boston, he'll end up jacking a lot of three pointers a la Smart, or embarass himself and kill his confidence trying to force contact dribbling wildly into multiple defenders and turning the ball over.

I don't think that true at all.

Brown can defend, drive, and run the break at an NBA level right now. He could certainly defend 2's, 3'a and some small ball 4's right now. That will get him on the court for CBS.

His explosive first step and ability to drive, though he's struggling to finish right now (As Rozier, with his obvious driving ability did last year), will keep him on the court. Were gonna need points when IT is off the floor. With all the defense between Smart, AB, Crowder, Rozier and Brown, JB is bound to get some awesome fast break points, and with his ability to drive as well as make the simple kick pass, I expect CBS to look towards him and Rozier as scorers on the 2nd unit. That ability to generate FT's will come in handy when IT is off the floor.

I'm really feeling confident in Rozier's ability to fill the Turner role though. SL has very little to teach us, but it does show us that Rozier is ready to step into a role on this likely 50+ win team. He and Smart could become quite a conbo on the 2nd unit if he continues to finish and shoot like this.

[tarheelsxxiii]

People need to really calm down on Brown. He is a project and honestly looks better than Bender who is another project. And you guys are bipolar.

No offense to you (seriously), but this term is being thrown around here a lot lately, always incorrectly, and ruffles my feathers a bit. Let's substitute a different word -- how about "crazy"? That's benign and insulting enough

How about we entirely avoid words that stigmatize mental illness?  There's a thought.

#politicalcorrectness #cuetheBiasResponseTeam 

EDIT: Sorry, Pho, nothing against you, but this whole concept just drives me nuts <-- oh, there I go again! Is nuts offensive, too, or has nobody found the occasion to be "offended" by that term yet?

I know you come at this sort of topic from a different angle than I do.  I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion about #PCCulture.


What I'll say is that I think you need to stop thinking in terms of that word "offended."  This isn't about policing word choice as a way to say who's "good" and who is "bad."

The reason the use of the term "bipolar" is problematic is that many people don't really understand what that word means, in large part because of how that, along with words like "manic" and even "depressed" get used in popular culture. 

That's a big deal for people who actually struggle with bipolar disorder (or whatever the proper clinical term is for it these days).  A large part of that struggle is dealing with popular misconceptions about the challenges they face.

The same can kind of be said about "crazy" and other words stigmatizing mental illness in general.  We have a problem in this country with stigmatizing mental illness and not providing support for people who deal with it.  Many people who deal with it don't get adequate treatment as a result.

Alright. 

/soapbox

We've had these discussions many times before, and I don't want to derail this thread either. But you did misunderstand me a bit.

I agree that it's probably in bad taste to use the term "bipolar" to refer to something that is wavering, dynamic, or otherwise constantly changing back and forth. I mean, I'm not going to tell people to stop using the term (you know - Mill's Harm Principle and all), but I do think better terms are out there that more accurately describe this concept that are safer.

But the term "crazy" is so far removed from any specific mental illness or diagnosis that it's crossing the line of absurdity to deem it inappropriate. How many words do we use colloquially in everyday language that refer to something different than they were originally intended for - quite a bit. By that same logic, using the term "nuts," as in "Man, you're nuts," would be inappropriate, which I just find absolutely ridiculous. We have more serious problems to deal with than semantics and people who wear their feelings on their shoulder.

Case in point - recently at some university (I can't remember which one) their "Bias Response Team," which is an absolute ridiculous idea in itself, was flagged for someone using the idiom "on the other hand," because it might be offensive to those handicapped individuals with only one hand. This is the kind of non-sense ish that this type of "semantic Nazism" leads to.

Couldn't we just say that we're flip flopping, or reference any number of politicians who have done so, to make the same point without even mentioning a mental illness?  I think that that's the much better, and easier, way to go about it, myself.  I have absolutely no idea who Mill, or what their 'harm principle', is, though.

I prefer "crazy" or "nuts" as well, simply because they're terms innocuous enough to not make most folks feel really bad. There obviously has to be a term used to describe what one perceives as "silly," so I'm okay with that -- folks don't seem to negatively identify with them as much.

That said, I strongly agree with the premise that it's better to leave terms associated with mental health out of basketball discussion. I've spent many hours with folks labeled as bipolar, for example, that tried to take their own lives. Additionally, I can readily relate to them and have found that a lot of other people can too. So probably best to steer clear of those labels for everyone's sake here.