How far will a completely healthy Celtic team go in this whacky season?

[gouki88]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

Exactly.  Plain truth.

I'd also argue that a lot of the 'suck' of much of the rest of the team was due very much to the absolutely beyond suck play of the primary ball handler  - who not only constantly killed the offense with his horrid play but also preceded to kill the defense again and again with one horrible decision after another - whether it was being too slow & lazy to get up the court to covering the wrong man and even on more than one occasion deliberately waiving off better defenders so he could 'take' Giannis.   This is not exaggeration - go back and watch that horror show.

Hayward had played fantastic ball for the last couple of months of the season and through he first round of those playoffs ... and then barely touched the ball in that MIL series as KI simply would not pass him the ball.   The touch / ball possession metrics in that series were very stark and telling.  Kyrie went from being his normal modest ball-possession type of PG to an absolute John-Wall-esque ball-hog.

By far, the absolute worst playoff performance I've ever seen from a 'star' and the closest I have ever seen to what looked like someone deliberately trying to throw an NBA series.

Yeah, attempting to try and share the blame (or rather, avoid ever complimenting a Celtics player) is pretty incorrect in my opinion.

[Moranis]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome. 

[Somebody]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome.

No metric says it all, but using game score as a rough gauge of value for all-in-one metrics is as putrid as it comes in the approach of using one composite box metric to guesstimate how well a player played in some playoff games. Game score, PER, EWA or any John Hollinger statistic massively overrates shot chuckers with its grade school formula and weightings, so a guy like Irving who chucked and missed a ton of shots will naturally still have a high game score.

Irving only outperformed Jaylen in BPM (one of the better non PIPM/RPM box stats out there especially when it doesn't use +/- data like those two) in game 1 and proceeded to completely crap the bed for an All-NBA player: he was either a huge negative or hovered around 0 for the remaining 4 games. Jaylen certainly didn't peak like Irving did in game 1, but he was more consistent and had lower lows. This isn't to say that Jaylen is a better player than Irving, but it's true that he stepped up when Irving shrunk and threw in the towel.

[OnPoint]

if the celtics don’t win the title, i will argue the season was illegitimate, if they do win the title, the season was legitimate.

[hpantazo]

if the celtics don’t win the title, i will argue the season was illegitimate, if they do win the title, the season was legitimate.

If anyone other than the Lakers wins the title, I will argue it was legitimate. If the Lakers win it, I will demand that it was illegitimate 

[PhoSita]

Guys why are we still engaging with Moranis.  Let him have his take and move on.  You are not going to change his mind. 

I mean it's not unreasonable to feel that the Bucks were and are better -- they were and are. 

Kyrie threw the series, sure.  But that Celts team was not going to beat the Bucks team anyway.  Kyrie was the main part of the rot but he wasn't the only thing rotten about last year's team.


Anyway, people are allowed to be contrarian, it doesn't mean you have to tilt at the windmills they throw up for you.

[SparzWizard]

Guys why are we still engaging with Moranis.  Let him have his take and move on.  You are not going to change his mind. 

I mean it's not unreasonable to feel that the Bucks were and are better -- they were and are. 

Kyrie threw the series, sure.  But that Celts team was not going to beat the Bucks team anyway.  Kyrie was the main part of the rot but he wasn't the only thing rotten about last year's team.


Anyway, people are allowed to be contrarian, it doesn't mean you have to tilt at the windmills they throw up for you.

I think the Celtics blowing out the Bucks in Milwaukee in Game 1 had a lot of people putting on those green-tinted glasses sipping the kool-aid. The series was pretty much over after losing Game 3 at Boston. You can't lose home-court advantage to them like that. Irving was a focal problem to the team, Rozier was also a problem, injuries were a problem, Morris was a problem...glad all that is behind us.

[BitterJim]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome.

2 years? Try 56 days

That's how long it was between the Kyrie Trade and Hayward breaking his ankle. Do you think Ainge should have made a bunch of moves in that time (good luck with that, August/September/October trades are rare)? Or should Ainge have ignored the reality of Hayward's injury and gone all in anyway?

Yes, it sucks that we missed out on the Nets pick because of the Kyrie trade, but if the Hayward injury never happened we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[celticsclay]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome.

Lol this is such nonsense, we were openly discussing whether he was throwing the series DURING the series....

[celticsclay]

Guys why are we still engaging with Moranis.  Let him have his take and move on.  You are not going to change his mind. 

I mean it's not unreasonable to feel that the Bucks were and are better -- they were and are. 

Kyrie threw the series, sure.  But that Celts team was not going to beat the Bucks team anyway.  Kyrie was the main part of the rot but he wasn't the only thing rotten about last year's team.


Anyway, people are allowed to be contrarian, it doesn't mean you have to tilt at the windmills they throw up for you.

For the most part I engage with him a lot less than I used to, I make an exception like I did in this thread when he blatantly lies about the board and what the Celtics fans were saying. I always hope if someone makes something up like he did about how we didn't call out Irving's awful play during the series the whole board corrects him. No reason to just make stuff up about the collective posters here.

[PhoSita]

Guys why are we still engaging with Moranis.  Let him have his take and move on.  You are not going to change his mind. 

I mean it's not unreasonable to feel that the Bucks were and are better -- they were and are. 

Kyrie threw the series, sure.  But that Celts team was not going to beat the Bucks team anyway.  Kyrie was the main part of the rot but he wasn't the only thing rotten about last year's team.


Anyway, people are allowed to be contrarian, it doesn't mean you have to tilt at the windmills they throw up for you.

For the most part I engage with him a lot less than I used to, I make an exception like I did in this thread when he blatantly lies about the board and what the Celtics fans were saying. I always hope if someone makes something up like he did about how we didn't call out Irving's awful play during the series the whole board corrects him. No reason to just make stuff up about the collective posters here.

I feel you. But it's kinda like when LarBrd was still around here. There's only so much correcting you can do before you start to wonder if the reaction you're giving is the point of the original statement, you know?  At some point the best way to discourage what you feel are disingenuous or inaccurate characterizations is to not credit them with a serious response.

[Moranis]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome.

Lol this is such nonsense, we were openly discussing whether he was throwing the series DURING the series....

Ah yes, that is why the vast majority of this blog wanted to re-sign him and bring him back.  Because this blog loves quitters. 

The tenor and the nature of the posts absolutely changed when Irving left for Brooklyn.  They went from criticism of his poor play (which was deserved, he played poorly), to anger disgust, and a fairly common position that Irving quit as a way to get out.  That was the point I was making.  I mean seriously why would anyone want to re-sign Irving if they thought he threw a series?  That just doesn't make sense. 

[gouki88]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome.

Lol this is such nonsense, we were openly discussing whether he was throwing the series DURING the series....

Ah yes, that is why the vast majority of this blog wanted to re-sign him and bring him back.  Because this blog loves quitters. 

The tenor and the nature of the posts absolutely changed when Irving left for Brooklyn.  They went from criticism of his poor play (which was deserved, he played poorly), to anger disgust, and a fairly common position that Irving quit as a way to get out.  That was the point I was making.  I mean seriously why would anyone want to re-sign Irving if they thought he threw a series?  That just doesn't make sense.

Man, what?? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. Even by your contrarian standards that’s a hilariously wrong take. Thinking Kyrie quit on the team and not wanting to lose an All-Star talent for literally nothing are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. There were many who simply wanted to resign him to trade him.

And no, the tone didn’t change at all, you’ve invented that 

[Moranis]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

You can't just disregard a game though.  And the reality is Brown's numbers were down pretty much across the board from the regular season on a per minute basis.  His totals were up because he played a lot more minutes.  He was more aggressive and got to the line a lot (though less than Irving) and made them at a clip well above his average, which certainly bolstered his TS%.  He played solid defense as well.  He had a very bad game (game 5), a poor game (game 2), and three good games (1, 3, and 4).  Brown wasn't terrible in that series, but he wasn't excellent either.

And you certainly run into issues when you start talking about totals, I mean we'd all agree the guy that averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.4 apg, 4.4 rpg, and 1.4 spg had a bad series.  And while no metric says it all, bball-ref's game score had Irving as better than Brown in that series 11.6 to 11.0 (Morris led the way followed by Horford).  Game Score has issues (as all metrics do), but it generally is a pretty good gauge of value provided to a game or series.  BTW, Irving was putrid in that in games 2 and 5 (0.2 and 0.9), but was pretty solid in games 1, 3, and 4 (21.5, 19.7, 15.6).  Brown was a lot more consistent, but had no where near the top level games. 

And the narrative of that series on this board changed a lot when Irving went to Brooklyn.  Irving was certainly criticized for his poor play, but it went to extreme levels when he left the team.  The nature and tone of the critiques changed considerably.  I get it, it is much easier to blame the guy that left then come to the realization that Boston just wasn't good enough.  And that is the truth.  Milwaukee was just flat out a better team than Boston was last year.  And by all appearances they are this year as well. 

At the end of the day top end talent, especially when surrounded by quality depth, will almost always win the day over more balanced but less talented teams.  Irving was not, never has been, and never will be a franchise altering talent.  A lot of the board spent his two years arguing that he was, but he quite simply was not.  Irving was a very good player, but he wasn't an elite player and when it comes down to it, Boston has that exact same issue with the current team.  Sure it is more cohesive and the guys seem to enjoy playing with each other more, but at the end of the day, this team lacks the top end talent needed to really compete for a title this year.  It also isn't the most well constructed team.  I mean you have 2 starters playing out of position in Brown and Tatum, only has 2 "bigs" that should even sniff a playoff rotation (Kanter, Theis), and has a lot of inexperienced youth that is forced to play because the depth of the team is poor.  Ainge crafted this team like he knew it wasn't ready to compete, because he knew it wasn't ready to compete. 

This year Boston will not beat Milwaukee, if they even make it there.  The playoff match-ups are going to be huge this year because Boston could easily lose in the 1st round if it gets the wrong match-up.  It could also easily make the ECF where if it makes it that far, it will with no doubt in mind lose to Milwaukee.  Boston will go as far as Tatum can take the team.  He has immense potential and can be one of those franchise altering talents that you need to really compete season after season.  Tatum isn't there yet, so Boston isn't there yet.  In a season or two though, look out, because Tatum is special.  If Boston can find the right mix of players to surround him with (Brown is a good start), then Boston should be able to really compete for titles for a decade. 

And for me that is what I was most troubled with with the Irving ordeal.  Ainge wasted assets on Irving and then didn't go all in around him.  If Ainge wasn't going to go all in around Irving he never should have acquired him to begin with.  And even after acquiring him and not going all in when it was apparent there were problems on the team, Ainge didn't make a single move to try and do something.  He just sat back, twiddled his thumbs, and wasted two years.  I mean seriously, can you imagine if SGA (or Bridges or Porter) was on the team with Tatum and Brown.  That would be awesome.

Lol this is such nonsense, we were openly discussing whether he was throwing the series DURING the series....

Ah yes, that is why the vast majority of this blog wanted to re-sign him and bring him back.  Because this blog loves quitters. 

The tenor and the nature of the posts absolutely changed when Irving left for Brooklyn.  They went from criticism of his poor play (which was deserved, he played poorly), to anger disgust, and a fairly common position that Irving quit as a way to get out.  That was the point I was making.  I mean seriously why would anyone want to re-sign Irving if they thought he threw a series?  That just doesn't make sense.

Man, what?? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. Even by your contrarian standards that’s a hilariously wrong take. Thinking Kyrie quit on the team and not wanting to lose an All-Star talent for literally nothing are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. There were many who simply wanted to resign him to trade him.

And no, the tone didn’t change at all, you’ve invented that

except the game threads don't show Irving quit.  1 or 2 thought so, not the majority of the board.  In fact, Stevens was the most heavily criticized person in the vast majority of the game threads.  Rozier was probably 2nd.  Refs probably 3rd followed by Irving with Tatum and Hayward very close behind. Even by the end of game 5 the tone still hadn't reached the levels they are now.  In fact, the criticism of Stevens, Tatum, and Hayward has basically completely disappeared (and no one talks about Rozier).  Stevens was completely out coached that entire series and Tatum was the worst regular player on the team (followed closely by Hayward).  It all makes fine sense i.e. why criticize the guys you have when you have easy scape goats that aren't on the team anymore.  It was just easier to blame Irving for the series and the teams struggles than the coach and the two guys that are still here. 

And don't get me wrong, Irving wasn't a great fit on the team and was a terrible leader.  There is a reason I was advocating pretty heavily for Boston to trade him at the deadline his last year here (to much criticism on this board).  Of course he was those things for the entirety of the two years he was here.  He also is not, never has been, and never will be a franchise player.  He is a good but not elite player and has been for years.  He was the best player and "leader" and the team failed so he should take blame, but this idea that a large percentage of this board thought he quit in the series and was glad he was gone, just wasn't borne out until after he left.