Lowe - Drummond and Jackson available

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Im with those that think the system should be changed. The bigs are primarily shooting 3s. There is very little balance to this Offense. The team has begun to change as Crowder has started to put the ball on the floor and put pressure on teams slashing and taking one dribble attack pull ups.

I would love to see more diversification in this offense and maybe that comes with a more dynamic wing player but until then I guess we are stuck with good shooting bigs who struggle to rebound and wings that dont attack the basket consistently.

The system is winning us games but all I know is the Cavs won it with a player like Drummond and so have alot of other teams over the last 5 years.

I think that a key point in all of this is the difference between regular season basketball and playoff basketball. There are a lot of systems that can give you a win in a single game, facing a different opponent each game.

Once, however, you face the same team every game (and considering the fact that most teams in the playoffs are good defensive teams), things can get really interesting really fast. If a team relies, as Boston does, on the 3pt shot, there's a very good chance they won't be getting a lot of open looks—and converting those looks—4 out of 7 games (unless you have Steph Curry, which we don't).

Boston has shot well in many games this season, but we've all seen what happens when it hasn't shot well from 3—they struggle, and it's because they're not a dynamic offensive team. They don't have multiple players who can put the ball on the floor and create shots, and they don't have a low-post threat (outside of Smart when he's matched up with smaller guards).

[jbpats]

Here's the question. What exactly do the Pistons want for Drummond? Reports have came out saying they weren't offered nearly enough for him yet.. a coworker seems to think they would require both Brooklyn picks. I think both yay's and nay's for him will agree that there is no chance on Gods green earth we give up both for Drummond.
Do people think the Brooklyn 18 + the Memphis pick + Zeller/AB and say Rozier gets it done?

[crownontherocks]

I am okay with giving up nets 17 pick if its a 3 team deal with dummond going to the kings and boston getting cousins.

[vgulab]

If we get to keep the 17 nets pick i would do the trade. If we can use the 18 nets pick and some other assets i'm all for it, but 17 nets pick i think is more precious than Drummond

[saltlover]

Im with those that think the system should be changed. The bigs are primarily shooting 3s. There is very little balance to this Offense. The team has begun to change as Crowder has started to put the ball on the floor and put pressure on teams slashing and taking one dribble attack pull ups.

I would love to see more diversification in this offense and maybe that comes with a more dynamic wing player but until then I guess we are stuck with good shooting bigs who struggle to rebound and wings that dont attack the basket consistently.

The system is winning us games but all I know is the Cavs won it with a player like Drummond and so have alot of other teams over the last 5 years.

I think that a key point in all of this is the difference between regular season basketball and playoff basketball. There are a lot of systems that can give you a win in a single game, facing a different opponent each game.

Once, however, you face the same team every game (and considering the fact that most teams in the playoffs are good defensive teams), things can get really interesting really fast. If a team relies, as Boston does, on the 3pt shot, there's a very good chance they won't be getting a lot of open looks—and converting those looks—4 out of 7 games (unless you have Steph Curry, which we don't).

Boston has shot well in many games this season, but we've all seen what happens when it hasn't shot well from 3—they struggle, and it's because they're not a dynamic offensive team. They don't have multiple players who can put the ball on the floor and create shots, and they don't have a low-post threat (outside of Smart when he's matched up with smaller guards).

You know, the Celtics have the 7th-best 2-point FG% in the NBA.  They're really good at creating good shots all over the court.  They don't merely throw up a bunch of 3-pointers every game.  I don't know quite where this myth that the Celtics can't score when they hit 3's comes from.  They score about 36 points from deep every game.  They score 108 points a game total.  It is a larger percentage of their offense than most other teams, but it's still only about 1/3 of their offensive output on the average night.

[Kuberski33]

You can't have him on the floor in close games because he can't make FT's.  That limits what I'd be willing to give up for him.  How much is a guy who's a liability in close games really worth? 

[Mattybriand]

Underhanded free throws 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Im with those that think the system should be changed. The bigs are primarily shooting 3s. There is very little balance to this Offense. The team has begun to change as Crowder has started to put the ball on the floor and put pressure on teams slashing and taking one dribble attack pull ups.

I would love to see more diversification in this offense and maybe that comes with a more dynamic wing player but until then I guess we are stuck with good shooting bigs who struggle to rebound and wings that dont attack the basket consistently.

The system is winning us games but all I know is the Cavs won it with a player like Drummond and so have alot of other teams over the last 5 years.

I think that a key point in all of this is the difference between regular season basketball and playoff basketball. There are a lot of systems that can give you a win in a single game, facing a different opponent each game.

Once, however, you face the same team every game (and considering the fact that most teams in the playoffs are good defensive teams), things can get really interesting really fast. If a team relies, as Boston does, on the 3pt shot, there's a very good chance they won't be getting a lot of open looks—and converting those looks—4 out of 7 games (unless you have Steph Curry, which we don't).

Boston has shot well in many games this season, but we've all seen what happens when it hasn't shot well from 3—they struggle, and it's because they're not a dynamic offensive team. They don't have multiple players who can put the ball on the floor and create shots, and they don't have a low-post threat (outside of Smart when he's matched up with smaller guards).

You know, the Celtics have the 7th-best 2-point FG% in the NBA.  They're really good at creating good shots all over the court.  They don't merely throw up a bunch of 3-pointers every game.  I don't know quite where this myth that the Celtics can't score when they hit 3's comes from.  They score about 36 points from deep every game.  They score 108 points a game total.  It is a larger percentage of their offense than most other teams, but it's still only about 1/3 of their offensive output on the average night.

Good points. You're right, they're not limited to the 3-pointer. It does seem, however (and maybe I'm wrong about this), like a lot of their non-3pt offense comes from midrange shots, which isn't the best option on offense.

Maybe a better way of stating my point is this: If their outside shots (2-pointers and 3-pointers) aren't falling, they don't have many other options. IT, of course, can do a lot on offense, creating shots for himself and others, but they don't have anyone else who can be counted on to consistently create offense, either on the wing or in the low post. Smart seems to be decent (and getting better) with shot creation, and Horford can do some things in the post, but it would be great to have either a legit wing scorer or a legit low-post threat.

[Eddie20]

You can't have him on the floor in close games because he can't make FT's.  That limits what I'd be willing to give up for him.  How much is a guy who's a liability in close games really worth?

Plenty of bigs, now and in the past, have struggled at the line and have been a liability late in games. That said, the luxury is that when teams do hack him late in games we can slide Horford over to the 5 and close it out there.

Let's not forget that last year Drummond was an all-star and made the all-NBA third team. He's only 23 and is putting up similar numbers this season. Plus, I trust Stevens' ability to get the most out of Drummond and place him in a situation for him to excel both personally and as part of the team.

[max215]

The Nets Pick for Drummond is my worst nightmare. I'm not a Drummond fan.

[hpantazo]

You can't have him on the floor in close games because he can't make FT's.  That limits what I'd be willing to give up for him.  How much is a guy who's a liability in close games really worth?

With the new rule changes in effect this season that you cannot purposefully foul a player in the last few minutes of the game to force him to shoot free throws, this is not really an issue anymore.

[saltlover]

Im with those that think the system should be changed. The bigs are primarily shooting 3s. There is very little balance to this Offense. The team has begun to change as Crowder has started to put the ball on the floor and put pressure on teams slashing and taking one dribble attack pull ups.

I would love to see more diversification in this offense and maybe that comes with a more dynamic wing player but until then I guess we are stuck with good shooting bigs who struggle to rebound and wings that dont attack the basket consistently.

The system is winning us games but all I know is the Cavs won it with a player like Drummond and so have alot of other teams over the last 5 years.

I think that a key point in all of this is the difference between regular season basketball and playoff basketball. There are a lot of systems that can give you a win in a single game, facing a different opponent each game.

Once, however, you face the same team every game (and considering the fact that most teams in the playoffs are good defensive teams), things can get really interesting really fast. If a team relies, as Boston does, on the 3pt shot, there's a very good chance they won't be getting a lot of open looks—and converting those looks—4 out of 7 games (unless you have Steph Curry, which we don't).

Boston has shot well in many games this season, but we've all seen what happens when it hasn't shot well from 3—they struggle, and it's because they're not a dynamic offensive team. They don't have multiple players who can put the ball on the floor and create shots, and they don't have a low-post threat (outside of Smart when he's matched up with smaller guards).

You know, the Celtics have the 7th-best 2-point FG% in the NBA.  They're really good at creating good shots all over the court.  They don't merely throw up a bunch of 3-pointers every game.  I don't know quite where this myth that the Celtics can't score when they hit 3's comes from.  They score about 36 points from deep every game.  They score 108 points a game total.  It is a larger percentage of their offense than most other teams, but it's still only about 1/3 of their offensive output on the average night.

Good points. You're right, they're not limited to the 3-pointer. It does seem, however (and maybe I'm wrong about this), like a lot of their non-3pt offense comes from midrange shots, which isn't the best option on offense.

Maybe a better way of stating my point is this: If their outside shots (2-pointers and 3-pointers) aren't falling, they don't have many other options. IT, of course, can do a lot on offense, creating shots for himself and others, but they don't have anyone else who can be counted on to consistently create offense, either on the wing or in the low post. Smart seems to be decent (and getting better) with shot creation, and Horford can do some things in the post, but it would be great to have either a legit wing scorer or a legit low-post threat.

My lunch break is ending and I don't have time to calculate the numbers, but from a brief scan of the numbers it looks that at least about half of the Celtics two-point attempts are at the rim (which makes sense, because the Celtics score efficiently on 2-point attempts and as you correctly say, mid-range shots aren't the most efficient.)

The passing ability of virtually all of their players is underrated.  Defenses can try to turn up the screws, but for the most part the Celtics have proven they can consistently find someone for an open jumper or cutting towards the rim.  It's a well-designed offense and the players all look very comfortable in it, to the point where it at times seems like opposing defenses are just bad.

Read the game threads of our opponent's fans sometimes -- you'll regularly see compliments/incredulity at the ability to create good shots no matter who's on the floor.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

The fact that we can't close games with Drummond because of his FT shooting worries me, especially since we're going to give up some good quality players and a pick or two for him.

He does solve our rebounding issue, but what good is he if he's not there to close out games?

And having Thomas in defensively is a liability during close games and folks around here are ready to max him out. Whats the difference?

The difference? IT4's offensive output FAR outweighs his defensive liabilities. Andre Drummond's rebounding won't make up for the fact that his FT shooting is a liability AND we're going to have to give up good off the bench players and a pick in the process.

We're not giving up any assets to hide IT on defense. That's the difference.

Thomas been magical in the 4th because he has the ball most of the time. Do you really want that ball to go to Drummond instead and taking FT's because he's being hacked all the time? Because that's what's going to happen if we put a lineup that includes Drummond in the 4th, especially in close games.

I'm not sure about this. I think we're all painfully aware of how often Boston gets hurt by giving up too many offensive rebounds, so if we have a defensive rebounder who's basically a vacuum on the boards, I think that would prevent quite a few opponent points.

I understand, but we can technically address the rebounding issue without giving up a lot of assets, and bringing in a player with a huge FT liability that may end up not even playing the 4th quarters because of it.

I'm all for addressing the rebounding, I'm just not sure Andre Drummond should be the guy we should go for in addressing it. If we really have to address the rebounding issue, then why not Tyson Chandler? He probably would not cost as much too.

[max215]

You can't have him on the floor in close games because he can't make FT's.  That limits what I'd be willing to give up for him.  How much is a guy who's a liability in close games really worth?

With the new rule changes in effect this season that you cannot purposefully foul a player in the last few minutes of the game to force him to shoot free throws, this is not really an issue anymore.

You can't foul someone away from the play. If Drummond is doing so much as setting a screen then he can be hacked.

[boscel33]

I would do the 2018 Nets pick, not the 2017 though.