Am I the only one p---ed about the Rozier pick still?

[alewilliam789]

We could have taken either Portis or Jerian Grant and would have had great long term prospects. Grant given us a great backup and a playmaker for the second unit. Portis would have been undoubtedly starting and manning the paint for us with Horford. It's draft picks like this that cause our bench to be anemic and us fans to wonder about where all these draft picks went. Really worried about the direction of this Celtics team right now.

[chambers]

Portis is barely playing in Chicago. Grant was one of my binkies, but I like the Rozier pick too.
Terry is turning into an excellent player and it's hard to say who the better NBA player of the 3 will be.

[LarBrd33]

I'm not mad about it.  Rozier looks good and there was widely believed to be a drop-off after pick #10.   But, I will say that prior to the 2015 draft I had created a thread here asking if anyone would hypothetically trade the potentially crappy #16 pick for a prospect gamble like Nik Stauskas.  I wasn't actually in support of doing it... was just curious from a thought experiment standpoint.   The idea was that as bad as Stauskas had been as a rookie, he still might have had more potential than the guy we would end up with at #16.  Philly ended up grabbing Stauskas for far less than a #16 pick, but for fun, I keep checking up on him in comparison with the guy we took 16th (Rozier).


2015:

Rozier:  1.8 points, 1.6 rebounds, 0.9 assists, 0.2 steals 27%/22%/80% shooting
Stauskas: 8.5 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 0.6 steals, 39%/33%/77% shooting.


2016 (so far):

Rozier: 6.5 points, 3.1 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 0.7 steals, 39%/40%/64%
Stauskas:  8.3 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.1 assists, 0.4 steals, 48%/36%/82%

Completely meaningless hypothetical, but fun to keep an eye on. 

[osterhagen]

2015:

Rozier:  1.8 points, 1.6 rebounds, 0.9 assists, 0.2 steals 27%/22%/80% shooting, 8.0 MP
Stauskas: 8.5 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 0.6 steals, 39%/33%/77% shooting, 24.8 MP


2016 (so far):

Rozier: 6.5 points, 3.1 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 0.7 steals, 39%/40%/64%, 19.2 MP
Stauskas:  8.3 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.1 assists, 0.4 steals, 48%/36%/82%, 23.9 MP

fixed

[chambers]

I'm not mad about it.  Rozier looks good and there was widely believed to be a drop-off after pick #10.   But, I will say that prior to the 2015 draft I had created a thread here asking if anyone would hypothetically trade the potentially crappy #16 pick for a prospect gamble like Nik Stauskas.  I wasn't actually in support of doing it... was just curious from a thought experiment standpoint.   The idea was that as bad as Stauskas had been as a rookie, he still might have had more potential than the guy we would end up with at #16.  Philly ended up grabbing Stauskas for far less than a #16 pick, but for fun, I keep checking up on him in comparison with the guy we took 16th (Rozier).


2015:

Rozier:  1.8 points, 1.6 rebounds, 0.9 assists, 0.2 steals 27%/22%/80% shooting
Stauskas: 8.5 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 0.6 steals, 39%/33%/77% shooting.


2016 (so far):

Rozier: 6.5 points, 3.1 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 0.7 steals, 39%/40%/64%
Stauskas:  8.3 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.1 assists, 0.4 steals, 48%/36%/82%

Completely meaningless hypothetical, but fun to keep an eye on.

Would any GM take Stauskas over Rozier in a trade now though? Absolutely no way.
Rozier's playing 5 minutes less per game and competing with a much tougher roster. He's also twice the defender. He's also been in the league one year less, which is a massive difference when you're that fresh to the league.

[GC003332]

I'm not mad about it.  Rozier looks good and there was widely believed to be a drop-off after pick #10.   But, I will say that prior to the 2015 draft I had created a thread here asking if anyone would hypothetically trade the potentially crappy #16 pick for a prospect gamble like Nik Stauskas.  I wasn't actually in support of doing it... was just curious from a thought experiment standpoint.   The idea was that as bad as Stauskas had been as a rookie, he still might have had more potential than the guy we would end up with at #16.  Philly ended up grabbing Stauskas for far less than a #16 pick, but for fun, I keep checking up on him in comparison with the guy we took 16th (Rozier).


2015:

Rozier:  1.8 points, 1.6 rebounds, 0.9 assists, 0.2 steals 27%/22%/80% shooting
Stauskas: 8.5 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.9 assists, 0.6 steals, 39%/33%/77% shooting.


2016 (so far):

Rozier: 6.5 points, 3.1 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 0.7 steals, 39%/40%/64%
Stauskas:  8.3 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.1 assists, 0.4 steals, 48%/36%/82%

Completely meaningless hypothetical, but fun to keep an eye on. 

I wonder how many minutes Stauskas would even manage to log on the Celtics this season and last in this hypothetical thought experiment.
At one point last year he was getting benched on one of the worst teams of all time.
I guess that was by design...

[GC003332]

Double Post

[LilRip]

I had no alternative Coz I wasn't invested in that draft class, but in hindsight, I would've loved to have Portis.

[PhoSita]

I'm still kinda mad the Celts made the playoffs that year and missed out on Winslow / Turner / Booker.

I liked Portis, Dekker, Anderson, and RHJ more than Rozier. So far none of them looks better than a backup.  Neither does Terry.

[Tr1boy]

Rozier is playing passively... he is looking over his back

Too careful /doesnt want to make mistakes but is not playing his game

I think at this rate the Celts could package Rozier, Zeller and a 1st (non brooklyn picks), 2nd picks for Noel

[aingeforthree]

We could have taken either Portis or Jerian Grant and would have had great long term prospects. Grant given us a great backup and a playmaker for the second unit. Portis would have been undoubtedly starting and manning the paint for us with Horford. It's draft picks like this that cause our bench to be anemic and us fans to wonder about where all these draft picks went. Really worried about the direction of this Celtics team right now.

Yes, yes you're the only one. You had more on your side when you were ticked about the Bradley pick as well. Rozier is further along than Bradley was in development, a couple years into the league.

Both are still improving their games & developing.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Rozier is playing like a sophomore. He is having good moments. His three point shoot is excellent and much needed. He shows the occasional ability to drive.

That being said, I think he lacks confidence. He is still getting the feel for the game. It's not like CBS is allowing him to make mistakes either (like Mudiay or someone).

His rebounding from the guard position has been a real asset, too.

The nasty truth is, sometimes players take a few years to get comfortable, but you have to be willing to see flashes.

But let's not confuse lacking confidence with passivity. He is a competitor. He wants to beat his man and the other team. Give him time.

[tankcity!]

Rozier is 2 years younger than Grant, shooting a better FG% and shooting 40% from three this year. I don't understand how Rozier isn't a better prospect. I mean Grant is 24 years old, sheesh.

Portis vs. Rozier is still up in the air though. I'll take Rozier personally. And I'm happy with Rozier, he can shoot.

[csfansince60s]

I'm still kinda mad the Celts made the playoffs that year and missed out on Winslow / Turner / Booker.

I liked Portis, Dekker, Anderson, and RHJ more than Rozier. So far none of them looks better than a backup.  Neither does Terry.

TP....this exactly.

A Pyrrhic victory, at best, making those playoffs.

Wyc had to to have his two measly playoff games in Boston. Wyc and CBS outvoted Danny that year.....very shortsighted.

And forget all that crap about "playoff experience" and all the other rationalizations, like"we wouldn't have had Thomas".  He could've been sat as could've Sully and Smart as they all had injuries.

If you took a poll now and asked people to choose between either having Winslow/Turner or that sweep by the Cavs, I know how I'd vote.

[tankcity!]

I'm still kinda mad the Celts made the playoffs that year and missed out on Winslow / Turner / Booker.

I liked Portis, Dekker, Anderson, and RHJ more than Rozier. So far none of them looks better than a backup.  Neither does Terry.

TP....this exactly.

A Pyrrhic victory, at best, making those playoffs.

Wyc had to to have his two measly playoff games in Boston. Wyc and CBS outvoted Danny that year.....very shortsighted.

And forget all that crap about "playoff experience" and all the other rationalizations, like"we wouldn't have had Thomas".  He could've been sat as could've Sully and Smart as they all had injuries.

If you took a poll now and asked people to choose between either having Winslow/Turner or that sweep by the Cavs, I know how I'd vote.

So they shouldn't have trade for Thomas?