Well, at one point we had a stretch where we went 10-1 without KG in 2009. Sometimes teams can pull together when one of their stars is down. That doesn't mean the team is better without that player.
I've liked how the Celts have looked, too. However, the record alone isn't conclusive, and the agent is right: wait until the playoffs before making any long-term decisions.
And boom, Roy again delivers the sanity.
We lost in 7 games against the Magic, in the 2nd round, and they went to the finals.
We also lost Powe in the first round.
We were also relying on Scalabrine who returned during the playoffs after suffering some concussions, and if reports are to be believed, was playing with the symptoms still.
We were playing without a back-up SF, Tony was hurt and Doc didn't trust him, none of our rookies were prepared to at least give us a few minutes, and we only had Scal.
Pierce was out of gas, Rondo got hurt if I'm not mistaken during the playoffs.
The point is, a lot more happened to us that year other than losing Garnett, and yet, we performed at a high level when it counted, we just fell short in a series that I still think we should've won.
That said, no way in hell we were better without KG and agree with the premise, but just like back then, it would be a mistake to underestimate this team just because a star player goes down. So while 10-1 wasn't representative of us playing better, it did show us how this team could still be dangerous come playoff time, and the same applies to us right now.