anybody else glad we have jaylen over simmons

[Vermont Green]

Simmons could end up being Michael Beasley 2.0 but so couldn't Brown.  You just never know.  I don't see anything in Simmons' attitude that worries me though.  He can do everything but has a weakness shooting right now.  I think Simmons will be very good and I would trade Brown for him right now if given the chance.

[RJ87]

People always like to knock our draft picks. Rozier last year sucked according to a lot of you.  Bradley as well.  I don't think it's setting people up for disapointment either. It's about saying what a player actually is.

Simmons and Ingram aren't all that.  They are flawed stars themselves who think they are stars before they've even earned that moniker. This was a strong draft but there was no Kevin Durant in this draft.

Brown is nice.  I'm happy with it. He fits what we needed out of this draft.

I'll take the solid player any day.  People wanted us to trade the farm for Wiggins, Parker or Embiid. I was happy with Smart for the same reasons.

It's about getting the right players.  A lot of fans do not understand this.  They don't understand how to draft.  It's a lack of whatever it is. I have that feel for certain players.  Most fans don't.  They think you just take this guy or that guy because he's supposedly good.

I feel like you're addressing my post without actually addressing me. I'm not knocking our picks, I think Jaylen is a solid prospect. Personally, I would've preferred Dunn at #3 or either we could have traded down a few spots to get Brown if he was really the guy we locked in on. And for what it's worth - I thought Bradley was good value at #19 and took no stance on Rozier one way or the other.

If you think you have the key to drafting guys, that's your prerogative. Smart was a solid pick at #6 and he brings a great attitude, but it hasn't necessarily translated on the court in a way many people around here thought it would. Many will point to his injuries, but there were a lot of questions about his inefficiency on the offensive end being a problem at this level coming into the draft. That's the risk you run drafting for fit with such high draft picks - you can get a really good, level-headed guy but his talent level may not be where you need it to be to push your franchise forward.

At the end of the day, talent is what dominates this league. The don't hand out championships for high character.

[max215]

I don't like Simmons' attitude, and I don't think quite as highly of him as others do, but this isn't even close.

[ABOS (A bit of Sanity)]

Some of you guys take online prospect ratings waaaayy to seriously. It's obvious NBA GMs don't care about those ratings either way, and several have openly said so and laugh at those draft projections. Some of this outrage towards anyone who expresses an opinion that Simmons may not be as good as another lottery pick in his draft is going to look pretty stupid in a few years. Bottom line is Simmons is no Lebron and Ingram is no Durant. These guys all have some serious flaws and limitations.

This is such a flawed post.

"Some of you guys take online prospect ratings waaaayy to seriously. It's obvious NBA GMs don't care about those ratings either way, and several have openly said so and laugh at those draft projections."

There is less then 0% merit to this in this case. In general it may be correct but in this case Simmons was the clear cut #1 prospect. Angie would have taken him 1. I'm not saying its guaranteed Simmons is going to be a star or even better then Brown. But too raise the point now (before either plays in a game) makes no sense and is only done because Brown is on the Cs. I didn't see anyone saying i hope Simmons and Ingram go 1-2 so we get the best player Brown pre draft.

[Surferdad]

In a word: No.

why not add to the conversation instead of a quip that has no reasoning, support, or insights?

Why should one do that?  "In a word:no" sums it all up nicely.  It's a polite way of answering a silly question and post.

I'm with hwangjini on this.  First of all, "No", especially by itself, is never a polite answer.  It stops the conversation without any justification.  Secondly, it is very debatable as to whether this is a silly question as you can see from 3 pages of posts so far, some of which are rather detailed. Anyone who thinks this is a silly question is free to ignore it and move on to other threads.  Finally, the whole point of a message board is to talk, not give one-word replies.

[hpantazo]

Some of you guys take online prospect ratings waaaayy to seriously. It's obvious NBA GMs don't care about those ratings either way, and several have openly said so and laugh at those draft projections. Some of this outrage towards anyone who expresses an opinion that Simmons may not be as good as another lottery pick in his draft is going to look pretty stupid in a few years. Bottom line is Simmons is no Lebron and Ingram is no Durant. These guys all have some serious flaws and limitations.

This is such a flawed post.

"Some of you guys take online prospect ratings waaaayy to seriously. It's obvious NBA GMs don't care about those ratings either way, and several have openly said so and laugh at those draft projections."

There is less then 0% merit to this in this case. In general it may be correct but in this case Simmons was the clear cut #1 prospect. Angie would have taken him 1. I'm not saying its guaranteed Simmons is going to be a star or even better then Brown. But too raise the point now (before either plays in a game) makes no sense and is only done because Brown is on the Cs. I didn't see anyone saying i hope Simmons and Ingram go 1-2 so we get the best player Brown pre draft.

This is a discussion forum. Discussing people's thoughts and opinions regarding a celtics draft pick vs another lottery pick is a valid discussion. It is far from flawed or absurd.

Again, Simmons is no Lebron, no Tim Duncan, no Anthony Davis. Ingram even less so. Ingram looks awful so far. I'm not saying Simmons sucks or that Brown will be better, just that the Simmons hype is totally overblown and the comparison to Brown is fair.

Replies of "No" or "no Simmons is better because 'experts' told us so' don't add anything to the discussion.

[Scintan]

In a word: No.

why not add to the conversation instead of a quip that has no reasoning, support, or insights?

Why should one do that?  "In a word:no" sums it all up nicely.  It's a polite way of answering a silly question and post.

I'm with hwangjini on this.  First of all, "No", especially by itself, is never a polite answer.  It stops the conversation without any justification.  Secondly, it is very debatable as to whether this is a silly question as you can see from 3 pages of posts so far, some of which are rather detailed. Anyone who thinks this is a silly question is free to ignore it and move on to other threads.  Finally, the whole point of a message board is to talk, not give one-word replies.

First, "No" is often a very polite answer, particularly in comparison to what might otherwise have been said.
Second, there is no reasonable debate as to the silliness of the question.  The question is ludicrous on its face.
Third, the point of a message board may be to talk, but it's not to make crazy comments, in the form of a faux question, that you would never have made if a player didn't happen to be on your team.  This is a thread that should never have been started, led off with a post that does nothing to promote a reasonable discussion. 

[D Dub]

In a word: No.

why not add to the conversation instead of a quip that has no reasoning, support, or insights?

Why should one do that?  "In a word:no" sums it all up nicely.  It's a polite way of answering a silly question and post.

I'm with hwangjini on this.  First of all, "No", especially by itself, is never a polite answer.  It stops the conversation without any justification.  Secondly, it is very debatable as to whether this is a silly question as you can see from 3 pages of posts so far, some of which are rather detailed. Anyone who thinks this is a silly question is free to ignore it and move on to other threads.  Finally, the whole point of a message board is to talk, not give one-word replies.

First, "No" is often a very polite answer, particularly in comparison to what might otherwise have been said.
Second, there is no reasonable debate as to the silliness of the question.  The question is ludicrous on its face.
Third, the point of a message board may be to talk, but it's not to make crazy comments, in the form of a faux question, that you would never have made if a player didn't happen to be on your team.  This is a thread that should never have been started, led off with a post that does nothing to promote a reasonable discussion.

no.

[Scintan]

In a word: No.

why not add to the conversation instead of a quip that has no reasoning, support, or insights?

Why should one do that?  "In a word:no" sums it all up nicely.  It's a polite way of answering a silly question and post.

I'm with hwangjini on this.  First of all, "No", especially by itself, is never a polite answer.  It stops the conversation without any justification.  Secondly, it is very debatable as to whether this is a silly question as you can see from 3 pages of posts so far, some of which are rather detailed. Anyone who thinks this is a silly question is free to ignore it and move on to other threads.  Finally, the whole point of a message board is to talk, not give one-word replies.

First, "No" is often a very polite answer, particularly in comparison to what might otherwise have been said.
Second, there is no reasonable debate as to the silliness of the question.  The question is ludicrous on its face.
Third, the point of a message board may be to talk, but it's not to make crazy comments, in the form of a faux question, that you would never have made if a player didn't happen to be on your team.  This is a thread that should never have been started, led off with a post that does nothing to promote a reasonable discussion.

no.

Yes 

[walker834]

People always like to knock our draft picks. Rozier last year sucked according to a lot of you.  Bradley as well.  I don't think it's setting people up for disapointment either. It's about saying what a player actually is.

Simmons and Ingram aren't all that.  They are flawed stars themselves who think they are stars before they've even earned that moniker. This was a strong draft but there was no Kevin Durant in this draft.

Brown is nice.  I'm happy with it. He fits what we needed out of this draft.

I'll take the solid player any day.  People wanted us to trade the farm for Wiggins, Parker or Embiid. I was happy with Smart for the same reasons.

It's about getting the right players.  A lot of fans do not understand this.  They don't understand how to draft.  It's a lack of whatever it is. I have that feel for certain players.  Most fans don't.  They think you just take this guy or that guy because he's supposedly good.

I feel like you're addressing my post without actually addressing me. I'm not knocking our picks, I think Jaylen is a solid prospect. Personally, I would've preferred Dunn at #3 or either we could have traded down a few spots to get Brown if he was really the guy we locked in on. And for what it's worth - I thought Bradley was good value at #19 and took no stance on Rozier one way or the other.

If you think you have the key to drafting guys, that's your prerogative. Smart was a solid pick at #6 and he brings a great attitude, but it hasn't necessarily translated on the court in a way many people around here thought it would. Many will point to his injuries, but there were a lot of questions about his inefficiency on the offensive end being a problem at this level coming into the draft. That's the risk you run drafting for fit with such high draft picks - you can get a really good, level-headed guy but his talent level may not be where you need it to be to push your franchise forward.

At the end of the day, talent is what dominates this league. The don't hand out championships for high character.

I agree it's about talent but it's as much about getting talent that can play together to maximize it.   If we are drafting a superstar it should be the right one.   If some superstars are so talented some of them never win because teams aren't able to maximize the talent around them. It's about getting the right star players too. You have to pay these guys, they have to compliment each other.   We can make trades randomly for stars around the league because this guy is talented or that guy but I really don't think that's how it works.  Red himself used to say you need talent but it's more than that.

We have a fast athletic roster and guys who can score in a variety of ways and compliment each other. I'll take a wave of talent like that over one ballhogging star.

San Antonio beat Lebron that way.  Dallas beat Miami when on paper it wasn't even close.

There's more that goes into it is all.  I remember watching Marcus in college and loved his defense.  Loved the way Brown attacks the rim.  It's not as simple as saying we just take a shooter either.  A lot of fans wanted Hield because supposedly we needed shooting. 

I think we have an attacking team that can cause teams a lot of different issues.  We also have players who can shoot.  We have players who defend.  As a whole we have talent. 

We have talented players that are interchangeable and do different things.   They also fit long term financially and are team oriented players and leaders and smart players.

I'd rather a talented team over the wrong star player.

[LarBrd33]

Philly fans, I suppose.

[ABOS (A bit of Sanity)]

Some of you guys take online prospect ratings waaaayy to seriously. It's obvious NBA GMs don't care about those ratings either way, and several have openly said so and laugh at those draft projections. Some of this outrage towards anyone who expresses an opinion that Simmons may not be as good as another lottery pick in his draft is going to look pretty stupid in a few years. Bottom line is Simmons is no Lebron and Ingram is no Durant. These guys all have some serious flaws and limitations.

This is such a flawed post.

"Some of you guys take online prospect ratings waaaayy to seriously. It's obvious NBA GMs don't care about those ratings either way, and several have openly said so and laugh at those draft projections."

There is less then 0% merit to this in this case. In general it may be correct but in this case Simmons was the clear cut #1 prospect. Angie would have taken him 1. I'm not saying its guaranteed Simmons is going to be a star or even better then Brown. But too raise the point now (before either plays in a game) makes no sense and is only done because Brown is on the Cs. I didn't see anyone saying i hope Simmons and Ingram go 1-2 so we get the best player Brown pre draft.

This is a discussion forum. Discussing people's thoughts and opinions regarding a celtics draft pick vs another lottery pick is a valid discussion. It is far from flawed or absurd.

Again, Simmons is no Lebron, no Tim Duncan, no Anthony Davis. Ingram even less so. Ingram looks awful so far. I'm not saying Simmons sucks or that Brown will be better, just that the Simmons hype is totally overblown and the comparison to Brown is fair.

Replies of "No" or "no Simmons is better because 'experts' told us so' don't add anything to the discussion.

First of all it is flawed because your point was on how talent evaluates are laughed by GM's but that has no merit in this case because there was no debate from anyone about Simmons being a better prospect then Brown.

I dont need anyone too tell me that Simmons is better. I have watched basketball before. By no means does that mean i dislike Brown. But its not close, maybe one day it will be (I certainly hope it is) but before they play a game it makes no sense.

The OP gave no reasons other then the fact he like the Work Ethic of Brown better which i think is very reasonable. But unfortunately work ethic only gets you so far and superior talent wins that battle every time.

Your right is a "This is a discussion forum. Discussing people's thoughts and opinions" but it limits intelligent conversation when if you go into with green tinted glasses on and cant be objective. I would be shocked if any other non Celtics forum in the world would be having this discussion.

[walker834]

I like Brown and how he fits us.  We have waves of talent that are going to wear other teams out. Scoring is going to come from a lot of different places.  He's also athletic and breaks teams down off the dribble.  He attacks.

Simmons is a guy who needs the ball in his hands a lot ala Rondo which is not really what we needed.  I wouldn't mind building around him but we would have had to really been sold on him.

Brown can really score in a variety of ways attacking the basket and disrupt defenses. I can envision it how it's going to be.  His shot is still coming. But that's going to be really hard for other teams to stop along with our other guys.

He's also a physical athletic defender. 

Simmons to me is not in that class of Tim Duncan or Magic where the amount of time he demands the ball right now doesn't really warrant it.  Good passer though. 

[RJ87]

People always like to knock our draft picks. Rozier last year sucked according to a lot of you.  Bradley as well.  I don't think it's setting people up for disapointment either. It's about saying what a player actually is.

Simmons and Ingram aren't all that.  They are flawed stars themselves who think they are stars before they've even earned that moniker. This was a strong draft but there was no Kevin Durant in this draft.

Brown is nice.  I'm happy with it. He fits what we needed out of this draft.

I'll take the solid player any day.  People wanted us to trade the farm for Wiggins, Parker or Embiid. I was happy with Smart for the same reasons.

It's about getting the right players.  A lot of fans do not understand this.  They don't understand how to draft.  It's a lack of whatever it is. I have that feel for certain players.  Most fans don't.  They think you just take this guy or that guy because he's supposedly good.

I feel like you're addressing my post without actually addressing me. I'm not knocking our picks, I think Jaylen is a solid prospect. Personally, I would've preferred Dunn at #3 or either we could have traded down a few spots to get Brown if he was really the guy we locked in on. And for what it's worth - I thought Bradley was good value at #19 and took no stance on Rozier one way or the other.

If you think you have the key to drafting guys, that's your prerogative. Smart was a solid pick at #6 and he brings a great attitude, but it hasn't necessarily translated on the court in a way many people around here thought it would. Many will point to his injuries, but there were a lot of questions about his inefficiency on the offensive end being a problem at this level coming into the draft. That's the risk you run drafting for fit with such high draft picks - you can get a really good, level-headed guy but his talent level may not be where you need it to be to push your franchise forward.

At the end of the day, talent is what dominates this league. The don't hand out championships for high character.

I agree it's about talent but it's as much about getting talent that can play together to maximize it.   If we are drafting a superstar it should be the right one.   If some superstars are so talented some of them never win because teams aren't able to maximize the talent around them. It's about getting the right star players too. You have to pay these guys, they have to compliment each other.   We can make trades randomly for stars around the league because this guy is talented or that guy but I really don't think that's how it works.  Red himself used to say you need talent but it's more than that.

We have a fast athletic roster and guys who can score in a variety of ways and compliment each other. I'll take a wave of talent like that over one ballhogging star.

San Antonio beat Lebron that way.  Dallas beat Miami when on paper it wasn't even close.

There's more that goes into it is all.  I remember watching Marcus in college and loved his defense.  Loved the way Brown attacks the rim.  It's not as simple as saying we just take a shooter either.  A lot of fans wanted Hield because supposedly we needed shooting. 

I think we have an attacking team that can cause teams a lot of different issues.  We also have players who can shoot.  We have players who defend.  As a whole we have talent. 

We have talented players that are interchangeable and do different things.   They also fit long term financially and are team oriented players and leaders and smart players.

I'd rather a talented team over the wrong star player.

Are you talking about the first time SA beat Lebron or the second? It's worth mentioning that first time the Cavs had no business being in the Finals, but Lebron - to some, the wrong type of star - carried them there. The second time with the Heatles, SA still had a once-in-a-generation talent in Tim Duncan, the MVP of the Finals in Kawhi Leonard, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. The Dallas team that won featured Dirk Nowitski playing at a supernova level (he shot like 46% from the 3 in those playoffs), and still in their primes Jason Terry and Tyson Chandler. Those teams benefited from great culture, coaching, and cohesiveness for sure. But they also had a high level of talent and stars to carry the load when needed.

[ABOS (A bit of Sanity)]

I think its safe to say this team is another star away from being a championship contender.  Who's skill set is the hardest to replicate? Who's more likely to be a superstar? Also regardless of what your personal feelings on Simmons or Brown is. Which player has more value in a trade? Which player is more coveted by other teams?