Poll: Hayward Memphis pick for Drummond and Rose

[Fierce1]

No other team wants to give up a first for Drummond. So the question is, if no one wants to trade anything significant for him, shouldn't that be a huge red flag? Why should we then trade not only a lottery pick, but also a great player like Hayward?

It's been all over the news.

REASON WHY no one wants to trade for Drummond is because he already DECLARED he's going to opt out and become a free-agent.

So why would Atlanta, NY, and other teams with cap space waste a 1st round pick on Drummond when they can offer Drummond a max contract or a near max contract in the summer of 2020.

Celts should trade for Drummond because Celts have ZERO chance of signing him in the summer.

It's not a red flag, it's just teams with cap space being smart.

Lol any teams that gives him a max contract are really stupid. So basically you want us to take a risk on an empty calories player that could either just opt out and leave, or demand a max contract?

I would NOT trade Hayward if Hayward is healthy.

But here's the thing, Hayward is taking cortisone shots.
You can do research about athletes using cortisone just to be able to play.
Hayward is simply damaged goods.

This is a chance for the Celts get something for Hayward while Hayward still has value.

Why is taking cortisone shots the end of a player? Are you serious?

You can google it for yourself.

There are a number of articles about the risks of cortisone injections.

Taking one shot is already a risk, but Hayward just said he needed 3 cortisone shots.

Seriously, if you don't think that's serious then you must really have very little knowledge about steroids.

[Fierce1]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

But it would've been a LOT easier to chase Kemba and The Jays around vice Kemba, The Jays AND Hayward.

I like Dre but he personally doesn't move the needle much for me.

Even IF us and LA would've regressed to the means GH would've been instrumental in that win for us.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but here's the thing, to get to the Finals and face the Lakers in the Finals, the Celts have to make it to the Finals first.

If Theis is the Center who's going to get a lot of minutes in the playoffs, it will not end well for the Celts.

Depending on their opponent, the Celts will most likely exit in the 2nd round.

You know, just a few weeks ago you could've found me posting to trade Jayson for a quality Big...Gasol, Steve Adams, etc, etc...

Now? Kanter has shown me enough. He won't stop Embiid but neither is Dre, Gasol or Steve Adams. They could slow him down but at what cost?

For Dre - an inflated salary for BOS? Same with Gasol?

I'm worried a bit less about Embiid. Emiid needs to show me he can even PLAY an entire series.

Al will be a handful too, granted - but we may not even PLAY PHI in the playoffs.

The Laker game showed me what happens when this team plays aggressively and doesn't back down.

We ALMOST beat MIL, too - IN MIL...if GH would've hit a few more baskets.

All you have to do is review the western conference finals of 2019.

Blazers outbid the Celts for the services of Kanter last season.

Kanter ended up starting for the Blazers the rest of the season.

Before the western finals started, Charles Barkley said the Blazers would beat GSW in the series.

GSW then ended up sweeping the Blazers.

Steph Curry ended up averaging a Michael Jordan like 36.5 ppg.

So why did Curry average that many points when KD was also playing?

Steve Kerr exploited Kanter's weakness on defense.

GSW picked and rolled Kanter to death!

Kanter refused to guard Steph outside the 3-point line, that's why Kanter got burned every time he was forced to switched on Steph.

[drooldaddy]

Voted yes
Gordon is no longer Gordon.
Memphis pick is a crap shoot. Who knows.
Drummond- not in love with his fit but if he doesn’t we let him walk.
Rose- I want

[gouki88]

No other team wants to give up a first for Drummond. So the question is, if no one wants to trade anything significant for him, shouldn't that be a huge red flag? Why should we then trade not only a lottery pick, but also a great player like Hayward?

It's been all over the news.

REASON WHY no one wants to trade for Drummond is because he already DECLARED he's going to opt out and become a free-agent.

So why would Atlanta, NY, and other teams with cap space waste a 1st round pick on Drummond when they can offer Drummond a max contract or a near max contract in the summer of 2020.

Celts should trade for Drummond because Celts have ZERO chance of signing him in the summer.

It's not a red flag, it's just teams with cap space being smart.

Lol any teams that gives him a max contract are really stupid. So basically you want us to take a risk on an empty calories player that could either just opt out and leave, or demand a max contract?

I would NOT trade Hayward if Hayward is healthy.

But here's the thing, Hayward is taking cortisone shots.
You can do research about athletes using cortisone just to be able to play.
Hayward is simply damaged goods.

This is a chance for the Celts get something for Hayward while Hayward still has value.

Why is taking cortisone shots the end of a player? Are you serious?

You can google it for yourself.

There are a number of articles about the risks of cortisone injections.

Taking one shot is already a risk, but Hayward just said he needed 3 cortisone shots.

Seriously, if you don't think that's serious then you must really have very little knowledge about steroids.

Rofl, yeah, I’m sure you’re totally not blowing this out of proportion so you can keep banging your exhausting “trade Hayward for a big” drum.

[Fierce1]

Voted yes
Gordon is no longer Gordon.
Memphis pick is a crap shoot. Who knows.
Drummond- not in love with his fit but if he doesn’t we let him walk.
Rose- I want

I agree.

If Hayward is healthy, there's absolutely no chance I would trade him for Drummond.

But this is a chance to trade damaged goods for a player who would make the Celts a more balanced team.

[Fierce1]

No other team wants to give up a first for Drummond. So the question is, if no one wants to trade anything significant for him, shouldn't that be a huge red flag? Why should we then trade not only a lottery pick, but also a great player like Hayward?

It's been all over the news.

REASON WHY no one wants to trade for Drummond is because he already DECLARED he's going to opt out and become a free-agent.

So why would Atlanta, NY, and other teams with cap space waste a 1st round pick on Drummond when they can offer Drummond a max contract or a near max contract in the summer of 2020.

Celts should trade for Drummond because Celts have ZERO chance of signing him in the summer.

It's not a red flag, it's just teams with cap space being smart.

Lol any teams that gives him a max contract are really stupid. So basically you want us to take a risk on an empty calories player that could either just opt out and leave, or demand a max contract?

I would NOT trade Hayward if Hayward is healthy.

But here's the thing, Hayward is taking cortisone shots.
You can do research about athletes using cortisone just to be able to play.
Hayward is simply damaged goods.

This is a chance for the Celts get something for Hayward while Hayward still has value.

Why is taking cortisone shots the end of a player? Are you serious?

You can google it for yourself.

There are a number of articles about the risks of cortisone injections.

Taking one shot is already a risk, but Hayward just said he needed 3 cortisone shots.

Seriously, if you don't think that's serious then you must really have very little knowledge about steroids.

Rofl, yeah, I’m sure you’re totally not blowing this out of proportion so you can keep banging your exhausting “trade Hayward for a big” drum.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be Hayward.

This is just one trade proposal that seems plausible.

I would be very happy if the Celts ended up with WCS or Nerlens Noel or Jakob Poeltl.
All 3 of those guys would automatically be better than Theis and Kanter.

[ozgod]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

So you don't think that the stifling defense that the Celtics played the last 40 minutes of that game had anything whatsoever to do with the Lakers shooting poorly?

BTW, that great defense was great defense on all their bigs too.

Do I think the Lakers didn't bring it? Yup. But I also think when the Lakers saw how difficult Boston's defense was going to be, that's when they decided to roll over and just get onto New York City.

I hate to say this, nick, but the Celts defense did nothing new.
It was the same defense against losses from the Wiz, Bucks, and Suns.
The only difference was the Lakers were not making their shots from the outside.

Celts were helping inside the paint, that's why the Laker bigs had a hard time scoring.
But when the Laker bigs kicked it out to open shooters, the Laker shooters simply missed a lot.

According to the team the Celtics defense did a lot of things different from their losses against the Wiz, Bucks and Suns. In the Athletic:

The Celtics understood the world would be watching their matchup with the Lakers. But before stepping onto the big stage, they prepared for it by urging each other to take better care of the little things. In what Marcus Smart described as a film session unlike any he had ever experienced with the Celtics, head coach Brad Stevens had players essentially grade every minor detail of Saturday night’s loss to the Suns.

The Celtics normally watch just select clips from recent games. This time, they watched every defensive play from the first half of the defeat. The coaching staff normally leads the instruction. This time, Stevens stopped the action regularly to give the players an opportunity to critique themselves. It might not have been the most groundbreaking coaching wrinkle ever, but Smart considered it a refreshing, collaborative way for the Celtics players to evaluate their recent slippage.

“It was really just holding ourselves accountable,” Smart said. “We looked at every possession and he would pause it and we would ask ourselves, ‘Did we do our job?’ We went through the game plan and we checked off the list if we did our job. If we didn’t, we put a mark up on the board, ‘no.’ If we did, we put a mark up on the board, ‘yes.’ So for us, it was really not so much getting on us but really allowing us to learn. And not overreacting too much (to a recent losing skid).”

.

They believe they started that process Sunday in the film room. Though teams watch film all the time during the season, players sounded more impacted by the way Stevens handled it this weekend.

“It was a great meeting,” Brad Wanamaker said. “It was great for our team.”

The film session lasted about 45 minutes, Smart said – longer than usual, but not a marathon affair. Smart believed Stevens wanted to show more recent losses than just the Suns game, but stopped himself because he knew anything longer would be counterproductive. So the Celtics saw themselves leaving shooters open. They watched themselves getting shredded by Devin Booker. And, over and over, the Boston players were reminded that they could have fixed many of their issues just by doing their routine jobs on a possession-to-possession basis. That can mean applying ball pressure. It can mean switching when they’re supposed to switch. It can mean a man on the weak side sliding over to provide the right help. The Celtics noticed all sorts of little things that made a big difference against Phoenix.

“Normally the coaches just look at (the film) and tell us their thoughts on it,” Ojeleye said. “But honestly, I liked it a lot. We were just real and just honest. And saying, like, ‘Hey, I messed up. I can do that better.’ So that was good.

“(The evaluation system) was just basically a yes or no: Did we do our jobs?’ And we had a lot of nos. We had a lot of yeses too, but just not enough plays where everybody did their job. It was just an honest look in the mirror of what we can do better, how to improve. I think we need that more. Instead of just the coaches telling us and us taking the feedback, us being honest and being like, ‘What can we do better?’ Because at this point in the year, even if you’re a rookie, you know what’s right on the court. We know what we need to do. And we know what we need to do to have a chance to win.”

https://theathletic.com/1549997/2020/01/21/big-win-over-lakers-started-long-before-tip-off-victory-began-in-the-film-room/

If you think their defensive effort and technique wasn't better against LA than it was against the earlier, sub -.500 teams, then you're not as good an analyst of the game than your previous posts would suggest, which I don't think is the case as I think you're pretty smart. IF you look at nba.com stats the Lakers average about 13.2% open (defender within 4-6 feet) 3s a game, against the Celtics it was 11.4%. Compare that to the Suns where they had 14.5% open 3s. It's a make-miss league but there was clearly more of an effort to defend the perimeter and not overhelp on the inside.

I will add that I agree that our weakest link is at the 5...I just don't think Drummond moves the needle enough for us, at his cost. I think a smaller move to shore up the bench and make us less reliant on GWill is more realistic.

[nickagneta]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

So you don't think that the stifling defense that the Celtics played the last 40 minutes of that game had anything whatsoever to do with the Lakers shooting poorly?

BTW, that great defense was great defense on all their bigs too.

Do I think the Lakers didn't bring it? Yup. But I also think when the Lakers saw how difficult Boston's defense was going to be, that's when they decided to roll over and just get onto New York City.

I hate to say this, nick, but the Celts defense did nothing new.
It was the same defense against losses from the Wiz, Bucks, and Suns.
The only difference was the Lakers were not making their shots from the outside.

Celts were helping inside the paint, that's why the Laker bigs had a hard time scoring.
But when the Laker bigs kicked it out to open shooters, the Laker shooters simply missed a lot.

And this is why I always hate myself for going against my better judgement and responding to you.

The defense and defensive intensity the Celtics brought after the first part of that 1st quarter was exceptional. To totally dismiss that simply to make a point is disingenuous.

[Fierce1]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

So you don't think that the stifling defense that the Celtics played the last 40 minutes of that game had anything whatsoever to do with the Lakers shooting poorly?

BTW, that great defense was great defense on all their bigs too.

Do I think the Lakers didn't bring it? Yup. But I also think when the Lakers saw how difficult Boston's defense was going to be, that's when they decided to roll over and just get onto New York City.

I hate to say this, nick, but the Celts defense did nothing new.
It was the same defense against losses from the Wiz, Bucks, and Suns.
The only difference was the Lakers were not making their shots from the outside.

Celts were helping inside the paint, that's why the Laker bigs had a hard time scoring.
But when the Laker bigs kicked it out to open shooters, the Laker shooters simply missed a lot.

According to the team the Celtics defense did a lot of things different from their losses against the Wiz, Bucks and Suns. In the Athletic:

The Celtics understood the world would be watching their matchup with the Lakers. But before stepping onto the big stage, they prepared for it by urging each other to take better care of the little things. In what Marcus Smart described as a film session unlike any he had ever experienced with the Celtics, head coach Brad Stevens had players essentially grade every minor detail of Saturday night’s loss to the Suns.

The Celtics normally watch just select clips from recent games. This time, they watched every defensive play from the first half of the defeat. The coaching staff normally leads the instruction. This time, Stevens stopped the action regularly to give the players an opportunity to critique themselves. It might not have been the most groundbreaking coaching wrinkle ever, but Smart considered it a refreshing, collaborative way for the Celtics players to evaluate their recent slippage.

“It was really just holding ourselves accountable,” Smart said. “We looked at every possession and he would pause it and we would ask ourselves, ‘Did we do our job?’ We went through the game plan and we checked off the list if we did our job. If we didn’t, we put a mark up on the board, ‘no.’ If we did, we put a mark up on the board, ‘yes.’ So for us, it was really not so much getting on us but really allowing us to learn. And not overreacting too much (to a recent losing skid).”

.

They believe they started that process Sunday in the film room. Though teams watch film all the time during the season, players sounded more impacted by the way Stevens handled it this weekend.

“It was a great meeting,” Brad Wanamaker said. “It was great for our team.”

The film session lasted about 45 minutes, Smart said – longer than usual, but not a marathon affair. Smart believed Stevens wanted to show more recent losses than just the Suns game, but stopped himself because he knew anything longer would be counterproductive. So the Celtics saw themselves leaving shooters open. They watched themselves getting shredded by Devin Booker. And, over and over, the Boston players were reminded that they could have fixed many of their issues just by doing their routine jobs on a possession-to-possession basis. That can mean applying ball pressure. It can mean switching when they’re supposed to switch. It can mean a man on the weak side sliding over to provide the right help. The Celtics noticed all sorts of little things that made a big difference against Phoenix.

“Normally the coaches just look at (the film) and tell us their thoughts on it,” Ojeleye said. “But honestly, I liked it a lot. We were just real and just honest. And saying, like, ‘Hey, I messed up. I can do that better.’ So that was good.

“(The evaluation system) was just basically a yes or no: Did we do our jobs?’ And we had a lot of nos. We had a lot of yeses too, but just not enough plays where everybody did their job. It was just an honest look in the mirror of what we can do better, how to improve. I think we need that more. Instead of just the coaches telling us and us taking the feedback, us being honest and being like, ‘What can we do better?’ Because at this point in the year, even if you’re a rookie, you know what’s right on the court. We know what we need to do. And we know what we need to do to have a chance to win.”

https://theathletic.com/1549997/2020/01/21/big-win-over-lakers-started-long-before-tip-off-victory-began-in-the-film-room/

If you think their defensive effort and technique wasn't better against LA than it was against the earlier, sub -.500 teams, then you're not as good an analyst of the game than your previous posts would suggest, which I don't think is the case. IF you look at nba.com stats the Lakers average about 13.2% open (defender within 4-6 feet) 3s a game, against the Celtics it was 11.4%. Compare that to the Suns where they had 14.5% open 3s. It's a make-miss league but there was clearly more of an effort to defend the perimeter and not overhelp on the inside.

I never said their defensive effort and technique wasn't better.

What I said was the Celts did nothing new.

Celts still did the same thing as previous games, only this time they did it better.

[nickagneta]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

So you don't think that the stifling defense that the Celtics played the last 40 minutes of that game had anything whatsoever to do with the Lakers shooting poorly?

BTW, that great defense was great defense on all their bigs too.

Do I think the Lakers didn't bring it? Yup. But I also think when the Lakers saw how difficult Boston's defense was going to be, that's when they decided to roll over and just get onto New York City.

I hate to say this, nick, but the Celts defense did nothing new.
It was the same defense against losses from the Wiz, Bucks, and Suns.
The only difference was the Lakers were not making their shots from the outside.

Celts were helping inside the paint, that's why the Laker bigs had a hard time scoring.
But when the Laker bigs kicked it out to open shooters, the Laker shooters simply missed a lot.

According to the team the Celtics defense did a lot of things different from their losses against the Wiz, Bucks and Suns. In the Athletic:

The Celtics understood the world would be watching their matchup with the Lakers. But before stepping onto the big stage, they prepared for it by urging each other to take better care of the little things. In what Marcus Smart described as a film session unlike any he had ever experienced with the Celtics, head coach Brad Stevens had players essentially grade every minor detail of Saturday night’s loss to the Suns.

The Celtics normally watch just select clips from recent games. This time, they watched every defensive play from the first half of the defeat. The coaching staff normally leads the instruction. This time, Stevens stopped the action regularly to give the players an opportunity to critique themselves. It might not have been the most groundbreaking coaching wrinkle ever, but Smart considered it a refreshing, collaborative way for the Celtics players to evaluate their recent slippage.

“It was really just holding ourselves accountable,” Smart said. “We looked at every possession and he would pause it and we would ask ourselves, ‘Did we do our job?’ We went through the game plan and we checked off the list if we did our job. If we didn’t, we put a mark up on the board, ‘no.’ If we did, we put a mark up on the board, ‘yes.’ So for us, it was really not so much getting on us but really allowing us to learn. And not overreacting too much (to a recent losing skid).”

.

They believe they started that process Sunday in the film room. Though teams watch film all the time during the season, players sounded more impacted by the way Stevens handled it this weekend.

“It was a great meeting,” Brad Wanamaker said. “It was great for our team.”

The film session lasted about 45 minutes, Smart said – longer than usual, but not a marathon affair. Smart believed Stevens wanted to show more recent losses than just the Suns game, but stopped himself because he knew anything longer would be counterproductive. So the Celtics saw themselves leaving shooters open. They watched themselves getting shredded by Devin Booker. And, over and over, the Boston players were reminded that they could have fixed many of their issues just by doing their routine jobs on a possession-to-possession basis. That can mean applying ball pressure. It can mean switching when they’re supposed to switch. It can mean a man on the weak side sliding over to provide the right help. The Celtics noticed all sorts of little things that made a big difference against Phoenix.

“Normally the coaches just look at (the film) and tell us their thoughts on it,” Ojeleye said. “But honestly, I liked it a lot. We were just real and just honest. And saying, like, ‘Hey, I messed up. I can do that better.’ So that was good.

“(The evaluation system) was just basically a yes or no: Did we do our jobs?’ And we had a lot of nos. We had a lot of yeses too, but just not enough plays where everybody did their job. It was just an honest look in the mirror of what we can do better, how to improve. I think we need that more. Instead of just the coaches telling us and us taking the feedback, us being honest and being like, ‘What can we do better?’ Because at this point in the year, even if you’re a rookie, you know what’s right on the court. We know what we need to do. And we know what we need to do to have a chance to win.”

https://theathletic.com/1549997/2020/01/21/big-win-over-lakers-started-long-before-tip-off-victory-began-in-the-film-room/

If you think their defensive effort and technique wasn't better against LA than it was against the earlier, sub -.500 teams, then you're not as good an analyst of the game than your previous posts would suggest, which I don't think is the case as I think you're pretty smart. IF you look at nba.com stats the Lakers average about 13.2% open (defender within 4-6 feet) 3s a game, against the Celtics it was 11.4%. Compare that to the Suns where they had 14.5% open 3s. It's a make-miss league but there was clearly more of an effort to defend the perimeter and not overhelp on the inside.

I will add that I agree that our weakest link is at the 5...I just don't think Drummond moves the needle enough for us, at his cost. I think a smaller move to shore up the bench and make us less reliant on GWill is more realistic.

Have some TPs for saving me the time to post it.

[Fierce1]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

So you don't think that the stifling defense that the Celtics played the last 40 minutes of that game had anything whatsoever to do with the Lakers shooting poorly?

BTW, that great defense was great defense on all their bigs too.

Do I think the Lakers didn't bring it? Yup. But I also think when the Lakers saw how difficult Boston's defense was going to be, that's when they decided to roll over and just get onto New York City.

I hate to say this, nick, but the Celts defense did nothing new.
It was the same defense against losses from the Wiz, Bucks, and Suns.
The only difference was the Lakers were not making their shots from the outside.

Celts were helping inside the paint, that's why the Laker bigs had a hard time scoring.
But when the Laker bigs kicked it out to open shooters, the Laker shooters simply missed a lot.

And this is why I always hate myself for going against my better judgement and responding to you.

The defense and defensive intensity the Celtics brought after the first part of that 1st quarter was exceptional. To totally dismiss that simply to make a point is disingenuous.

I never said anything about the Celtic defense being bad or mediocre.

What I said was they did nothing new, the difference is they did it better.

They were focused and their intensity was great.

In other words, same defense, just better execution against the Lakers.

[Fierce1]

Also, why are we going off topic here?

This is supposed to be about Hayward for Drummond, not Celtic defense versus the Lakers.

[ozgod]

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If Celts are so good with Hayward then why is the Celtic record just 16-10 when Hayward is playing?

1) our bench sucks and 2) Hayward can’t play all 48 minutes...

You’re really relentless, but you’re wrong to think Drummond is better than him

Agreed.

The Laker game is a PRIME example of this.....and to a lesser extent the MIL game recently.

For ME, personally - I love having 4 potent offensive weapons on the floor at all times...5 when Kanter is in the game.

We lose Hayward and we lose a very good scorer, rebounder, one of our best facilitators and floor generals.

He can also hit from deep as well.

We took it to the Lakers the other night....and they had to account for Kemba, Jaylen, Jayson AND Hayward. We stayed aggressive for FOUR quarters with these guys.

I like Dre but I'd rather roll with what we have now.

The Laker game cannot be the basis of how good the Celtics are.

Against the Celts, Lakers had a FG% of 43.8% and 3pt FG% of 26.9%.
Lakers normally shoot 48.5% from the field, #1 in the NBA.
They also shoot 35.9% from 3pt land.

The Laker game was a case of the Lakers not being their normal selves and the Celts being better than they usually are.

So you don't think that the stifling defense that the Celtics played the last 40 minutes of that game had anything whatsoever to do with the Lakers shooting poorly?

BTW, that great defense was great defense on all their bigs too.

Do I think the Lakers didn't bring it? Yup. But I also think when the Lakers saw how difficult Boston's defense was going to be, that's when they decided to roll over and just get onto New York City.

I hate to say this, nick, but the Celts defense did nothing new.
It was the same defense against losses from the Wiz, Bucks, and Suns.
The only difference was the Lakers were not making their shots from the outside.

Celts were helping inside the paint, that's why the Laker bigs had a hard time scoring.
But when the Laker bigs kicked it out to open shooters, the Laker shooters simply missed a lot.

According to the team the Celtics defense did a lot of things different from their losses against the Wiz, Bucks and Suns. In the Athletic:

The Celtics understood the world would be watching their matchup with the Lakers. But before stepping onto the big stage, they prepared for it by urging each other to take better care of the little things. In what Marcus Smart described as a film session unlike any he had ever experienced with the Celtics, head coach Brad Stevens had players essentially grade every minor detail of Saturday night’s loss to the Suns.

The Celtics normally watch just select clips from recent games. This time, they watched every defensive play from the first half of the defeat. The coaching staff normally leads the instruction. This time, Stevens stopped the action regularly to give the players an opportunity to critique themselves. It might not have been the most groundbreaking coaching wrinkle ever, but Smart considered it a refreshing, collaborative way for the Celtics players to evaluate their recent slippage.

“It was really just holding ourselves accountable,” Smart said. “We looked at every possession and he would pause it and we would ask ourselves, ‘Did we do our job?’ We went through the game plan and we checked off the list if we did our job. If we didn’t, we put a mark up on the board, ‘no.’ If we did, we put a mark up on the board, ‘yes.’ So for us, it was really not so much getting on us but really allowing us to learn. And not overreacting too much (to a recent losing skid).”

.

They believe they started that process Sunday in the film room. Though teams watch film all the time during the season, players sounded more impacted by the way Stevens handled it this weekend.

“It was a great meeting,” Brad Wanamaker said. “It was great for our team.”

The film session lasted about 45 minutes, Smart said – longer than usual, but not a marathon affair. Smart believed Stevens wanted to show more recent losses than just the Suns game, but stopped himself because he knew anything longer would be counterproductive. So the Celtics saw themselves leaving shooters open. They watched themselves getting shredded by Devin Booker. And, over and over, the Boston players were reminded that they could have fixed many of their issues just by doing their routine jobs on a possession-to-possession basis. That can mean applying ball pressure. It can mean switching when they’re supposed to switch. It can mean a man on the weak side sliding over to provide the right help. The Celtics noticed all sorts of little things that made a big difference against Phoenix.

“Normally the coaches just look at (the film) and tell us their thoughts on it,” Ojeleye said. “But honestly, I liked it a lot. We were just real and just honest. And saying, like, ‘Hey, I messed up. I can do that better.’ So that was good.

“(The evaluation system) was just basically a yes or no: Did we do our jobs?’ And we had a lot of nos. We had a lot of yeses too, but just not enough plays where everybody did their job. It was just an honest look in the mirror of what we can do better, how to improve. I think we need that more. Instead of just the coaches telling us and us taking the feedback, us being honest and being like, ‘What can we do better?’ Because at this point in the year, even if you’re a rookie, you know what’s right on the court. We know what we need to do. And we know what we need to do to have a chance to win.”

https://theathletic.com/1549997/2020/01/21/big-win-over-lakers-started-long-before-tip-off-victory-began-in-the-film-room/

If you think their defensive effort and technique wasn't better against LA than it was against the earlier, sub -.500 teams, then you're not as good an analyst of the game than your previous posts would suggest, which I don't think is the case. IF you look at nba.com stats the Lakers average about 13.2% open (defender within 4-6 feet) 3s a game, against the Celtics it was 11.4%. Compare that to the Suns where they had 14.5% open 3s. It's a make-miss league but there was clearly more of an effort to defend the perimeter and not overhelp on the inside.

I never said their defensive effort and technique wasn't better.

What I said was the Celts did nothing new.

Celts still did the same thing as previous games, only this time they did it better.

But that's the reason why they have been struggling, because they went away from the good things they were doing at the start of the season. You can see how it's less of an issue if execute better. Of course if you improve resources things should improve, but in the absence of a viable alternative to that you can also improve execution. Is that enough to get us over the playoff hump everyone is saying we will fall at? I think the jury's still out on that one. Like I said there's no KAT type player our there who will move the needle without substantially changing the makeup of our team. Drummond doesn't move the needle for me. How much has he impacted winning? He's had what, 2 winning seasons in Detroit? For $28m+? No thanks.

[gouki88]

Also, why are we going off topic here?

This is supposed to be about Hayward for Drummond, not Celtic defense versus the Lakers.

Considering you hijack every thread to talk about our nonexistent need for a “starting” big man this is hilariously rich.

[ozgod]

Also, why are we going off topic here?

This is supposed to be about Hayward for Drummond, not Celtic defense versus the Lakers.

Probably because you keep bringing up that the "once in a blue moon" Celtic defense vs the Lakers can't be used as a counter to your Drummond argument