Author Topic: If the Nets steamroll through the playoffs are we better than we thought?  (Read 3403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43394
  • Tommy Points: 3150
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.

Bingo!!!!

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.
The Sixers were healthy?  I mean they were healthier than Boston, but Embiid missed 21 games, Simmons missed 14 games, Curry missed 15 games, Harris missed 10 games, and a lot of their bench missed in the 8-20 game range.  The Sixers just have a MVP candidate and that quite simply matters.

Boston's season was a weird one, no doubt, but even in a perfect world, Boston doesn't have true top end talent, and that almost always wins the day.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8913
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.

A young team that brings in even more young guys, and a new starting C is going to need training camp and practice time to get everyone integrated and get the defense going. Instead, we had almost no training camp and a condensed schedule. Of course the team took a step back defensively (they took a few more steps back than expected, but we had 27% of minutes going to players that weren't on the team last year. That doesn't leave many lineups with all returning players.)
I'm bitter.

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.
The Sixers were healthy?  I mean they were healthier than Boston, but Embiid missed 21 games, Simmons missed 14 games, Curry missed 15 games, Harris missed 10 games, and a lot of their bench missed in the 8-20 game range.  The Sixers just have a MVP candidate and that quite simply matters.

Boston's season was a weird one, no doubt, but even in a perfect world, Boston doesn't have true top end talent, and that almost always wins the day.

Does Tatum have no chance of being an mvp candidate next year?

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.
The Sixers were healthy?  I mean they were healthier than Boston, but Embiid missed 21 games, Simmons missed 14 games, Curry missed 15 games, Harris missed 10 games, and a lot of their bench missed in the 8-20 game range.  The Sixers just have a MVP candidate and that quite simply matters.

Boston's season was a weird one, no doubt, but even in a perfect world, Boston doesn't have true top end talent, and that almost always wins the day.

Does Tatum have no chance of being an mvp candidate next year?

This is Celticsblog, Tatum sucks according to the site.

Online ozgod

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16752
  • Tommy Points: 1362
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.
The Sixers were healthy?  I mean they were healthier than Boston, but Embiid missed 21 games, Simmons missed 14 games, Curry missed 15 games, Harris missed 10 games, and a lot of their bench missed in the 8-20 game range.  The Sixers just have a MVP candidate and that quite simply matters.

Boston's season was a weird one, no doubt, but even in a perfect world, Boston doesn't have true top end talent, and that almost always wins the day.

Does Tatum have no chance of being an mvp candidate next year?

This is Celticsblog, Tatum sucks according to the site.

I think it's more fair to say that here, Tatum is only as good as his last game
Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.
The Sixers were healthy?  I mean they were healthier than Boston, but Embiid missed 21 games, Simmons missed 14 games, Curry missed 15 games, Harris missed 10 games, and a lot of their bench missed in the 8-20 game range.  The Sixers just have a MVP candidate and that quite simply matters.

Boston's season was a weird one, no doubt, but even in a perfect world, Boston doesn't have true top end talent, and that almost always wins the day.

Does Tatum have no chance of being an mvp candidate next year?

This is Celticsblog, Tatum sucks according to the site.

I think it's more fair to say that here, Tatum is only as good as his last game

The fact that people here are still being critical of his 60 point game speaks volumes. Do you realize how hard it is to get an elite scorer? Oh wait "There are far more efficient and effective scorers, on good and bad teams." according to one person. Sometimes I wonder if Celticsblog just want to go back to being a lottery team and just hope for a number one pick again. It seems to be more exciting than actually seeing a young player becoming an elite one. 

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Let's say the Nets go 10-2 the rest of the way and easily claim the title, which right now looks plausible. And let's say a lot of those victories are laughers.

Does that make our 4-1 loss with a decimated roster look much better? Does it affect our approach to this offseason?

Maybe we are very close to the other top teams. I think the Jays' solo style works better in the playoffs than in the regular season. Watching the Sixers I feel a healthy C's roster could challenge or beat theirs. Same with Milwaukee, the Jazz, and the Clippers. Suns look great, but outside of that I am not impressed by anyone except the Nets. maybe we're closer than we thought?

With that being said, if the Nets are this dominant without Harden, then what hope do we have? How do we build a roster that challenges theirs? Do we just hope the Jays and other young players improve, do we use our picks for a trade to win now, or do we wait until the Nets' stars get old? We saw with the Warriors how they fell off a cliff so quickly. Will the same happen here?

Nets just toyed with Boston. Besides, Nets are better with a big two than big three as long as Durant is one of the two.

TP great point.

They play well when Harden runs the team alone or Durant has plays with either Harden or Kyrie. Kyrie also deserves some credit for figuring out the PG/SG dynamic with Harden when it was just the 2 of them early on.

When all 3 play it's a bit awkward but it seems like Harden defers until Durant and Kyrie are be subbed out and he can have free reign with the second unit. It's similar to how Pierce used to operate and Hayward when he was healthy.

When it's just Durant and 1 of the other 2 they just try to bury you all game which is what's happening to the Bucks.

C'mon. The Nets were awesome when all 3 played together.  Against us in pre-season, early in season, and in play-offs. The fact that they continue to excel without Harden is commendable but doesn't take away from their superiority with him. 

I think our plight was made to look worse by how dominant they were against us. I thought we actually did well as a team absent 3 starters against them. The young guys really grew in confidence and ability, especially Romeo.  We would not beat them if fully healthy. Could we have stretched to 6 games?  maybe.  The Nets are just really good. I predicted at start of season (before the harden trade) that they would be a bear to deal with.  I think it predicted they would finish 1st in East. Most others on this board had them seeded 4-7 in the East.

Everyone forgets this part...we were missing 3 starters, including 2 All Star caliber players. Not sure if we would have beaten them given we didn't beat them in the regular season but we would have given them a much more contested series.

People are losing it all over the internet right now because we were the 7th seed and lost in the first round to the best team in the NBA. I am not saying there won't or shouldn't be some changes; but, if healthy, this is essentially the same team that went to game 6 of the ECF last year. Except now, we have Fournier and more experience from our young roster.

The tax is going to be killer if we keep Kemba, but there are ways to mitigate the damages. Fournier's contract is reportedly expected to come in lower than first thought and TT could be swapped out for a vet minimum center.

We had so many guys in and out of the line-up this season and then got hit with the injury bug at exactly the wrong time. I doubt a team like Denver is looking to blow it up, because they know they are without their 2nd best player. We just need to be careful of any major changes we make, because they might not be for the better.


Even when healthy, with Kemba well rested, and in the starting lineup, this Celtic team struggled against most lower-level teams. The chemistry on this team is terribly suspect.

Every color analyst, on every national broadcast in the Country said the same thing. This Celtic team has poor ball movement and depends on ISO ball too much of the time. Now this year we've added a new wrinkle...poor defense.

Changes need to be made.

Yet we were awesome last year. Somehow our chemistry sucks more now than last year despite no reported locker room issues? Isn't it more likely the team was all out of sorts this year due to Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity in a condensed season? Utah, Phoenix, and Philly were the best teams in the league this year and were also among the healthiest. I don't think that's a coincidence. I just don't know how any fan or commentator can make any conclusive statements about this team (or any team) after such a strange season.
The Sixers were healthy?  I mean they were healthier than Boston, but Embiid missed 21 games, Simmons missed 14 games, Curry missed 15 games, Harris missed 10 games, and a lot of their bench missed in the 8-20 game range.  The Sixers just have a MVP candidate and that quite simply matters.

Boston's season was a weird one, no doubt, but even in a perfect world, Boston doesn't have true top end talent, and that almost always wins the day.

Does Tatum have no chance of being an mvp candidate next year?
Next year, pretty unlikely, though MVP candidates aren't necessarily the true top tier players either.  I mean look at all of the guys that have won MVP's over the year.  Plenty aren't top 5 guys.  And pretty much every year there are multiple players finishing in the top 5 that aren't top 5 players.  I mean this year you could reasonably argue that the only player that finished in the top 10 in MVP voting that is actually a top 5 player is Giannis as Durant, James, Leonard, Harden, and Davis were not in the top 10 and are all have reasonable arguments that they are top 5 players.

And I've been super high on Tatum for years.  I do think he has the chance to be a true franchise player when he hits prime.  That is still realistically a couple of seasons away though.

A week or so ago, I posted by top 25 players in the league.  I had Tatum 15th, though I think you could fairly reasonably argue him a couple of spots in either direction.



Groups of 5, roughly in order (top 25)

Giannis
Durant
Lebron
Kawhi
Harden

Curry
Jokic
Embiid
Doncic
Davis

Lillard
Zion
Butler
George
Tatum

Booker
Paul
Gobert
Young
Irving

Mitchell
Beal
Towns
Sabonis
Morant
« Last Edit: June 15, 2021, 03:57:27 PM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip