CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: slightly biased bias fan on August 14, 2018, 06:29:45 PM
-
Per Bleacher Report:
I already slapped the franchise label on Jayson Tatum earlier this month, so let's start by acknowledging that the guy has immense potential. He showed it during last year's playoff run, when he led the Boston Celtics with 18.5 points per game.
But consider the obstacles ahead of Tatum this season, and you'll see why we should hold off on crowning him a megastar right away.
Kyrie Irving has never been one to take a backseat, and with him back on the floor, it'll be much harder for Tatum to build on his postseason takeover. Throw Gordon Hayward into the mix, and there will be even fewer touches for the 20-year-old wing. And that's to say nothing of Jaylen Brown, who's a superior defender at the moment and averaged 18 points per game in the playoffs on more efficient shooting than Tatum managed. He's due for an increased role as well.
Aside from the personnel issues, Tatum is also unlikely to shoot a scorching 52 percent on corner threes again. If that seems unreasonable, consider that Klay Thompson has shot better than 47 percent from the corners only once in his career. He's never matched Tatum's 52 percent.
If you believe Tatum is going to be a better shooter than Thompson, you've crossed the rubicon between optimism and pure fantasy.
Much of the caution here boils down to skepticism about small samples. Tatum's hot shooting and relatively brief playoff excellence still count in his favor, but he's only 20. It's way too early to start taking the Kobe Bryant parallels seriously, even if some of the evidence is compelling.
Tatum's going to be great. But let's not rush to anoint him as a superstar until he deserves it.
-
In a normal universe I would agree. However, when Ben Simmons is called a potential MVP candidate, then no, in this screwed up media hype machine driven universe, run by people who have no idea about basketball and just want to market potential money makers in big markets, Tatum is hyped just right.
I bet the Fultz hype will go through the roof if he manages to have a couple of decent games early on in the season where he resembles a poor man's Rozier.
-
Why are we referencing Bleacher Report of all places? Lol
Don’t get me wrong - I visit Bleacher Report frequently for news and other interesting articles. But people shouldn’t take their basketball analysis all that seriously. The vast majority of their “writers” are just fans themselves doing this for fun.
-
and we care why ?
-
I don't really see anything wrong or crazy in there and it was generally positive
-
Kinda agree with everything from that article. Tatum will be a superstar someday....just not next year.
-
In a normal universe I would agree. However, when Ben Simmons is called a potential MVP candidate, then no, in this screwed up media hype machine driven universe, run by people who have no idea about basketball and just want to market potential money makers in big markets, Tatum is hyped just right.
I bet the Fultz hype will go through the roof if he manages to have a couple of decent games early on in the season where he resembles a poor man's Rozier.
Yep. My thoughts exactly
-
Why are we referencing Bleacher Report of all places? Lol
Don’t get me wrong - I visit Bleacher Report frequently for news and other interesting articles. But people shouldn’t take their basketball analysis all that seriously. The vast majority of their “writers” are just fans themselves doing this for fun.
I never have before as I agree with you, but given it is the off-season I am trying to maintain discussions and any type of thought provoking Celtics related articles.
-
The Fultz hype should go through the roof if he starts the season playing well. I mean, he was the #1 draft pick who basically redshirted his first year.
-
Tatum was the number 3 pick.
Fultz and Ball were taken 1 and 2. Both were heavily hyped pre and post draft.
Tatum had a much better first year than either.
Was it because of a better coach?
Was it because of a better team?
Or maybe he is just the better player.
Danny made the better pick and put him in a better position to succeed.
Now he is described as overhyped?
What happens if he smokes them both this season and the next?
Oh, he will be called overrated I guess.
-
It's much more likely that Donovan Mitchell is overhyped.
-
A link to the BR article would have been nice. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2790640-nbas-most-overhyped-players-ahead-of-2018-19-season#slide0 While quoting the segment pertaining to Tatum accurately, using 100% of the content may not exactly comply with the Fair Use doctrine. But, I digress as I am wont to do on occasion.
Tatum still has a long way to go to be considered in the same breath as true great players of this generation. His defense is spotty apart from being able to take advantage of his long arms to tip passes because he doesn't move/re-position his feet well in man defense. He was routinely beaten off the dribble by the player he was guarding both during the regular season as well as the playoffs.
His rebounding and help defense (particularly from the back side) was nearly non-existent and exposed during the post season. There were multiple games, especially during the 76'rs series, where an opposing player went in for an uncontested layup or dunk after beating his man while Tatum stood by on the weak side and made no effort (and I mean zero) to make a play on the ball as if he didn't know what to do....or was afraid of contact.
My biggest complaint, however, which I voiced repeatedly in game threads throughout the year, was that Tatum continually drove to the basket and had layup attempt after layup attempt (including more than one instance in the same game) blocked from behind or the side because he was bringing the ball up from at or below his waist and did not go strong all the way to the hoop. You would think that CBS (and his assistant coaches) would have "broken" Tatum of that bad habit but no, he kept doing it over and over apparently "expecting a different result", which if I recall correctly, a certain reputed "genius" referred to as the definition of insanity.
In any case, Tatum has a nice stroke and step back jumper but a considerable way to go before becoming a complete player on both sides of the court at least IMNSHO.
-
Tatum regressing slightly doesn’t stop him from being a star
He’s the best wing prospect since Kevin Durant.
-
Is Jaylen Brown underhyped?
-
Is Jaylen Brown underhyped?
Pretty much. Yeah.
-
Is Jaylen Brown underhyped?
Pretty much. Yeah.
Yep. Nearly added 10ppg from his rookie to his sophomore year, improved dramatically as a shooter (besides a rough patch from the FT line), improved his defence, is still learning how best to use his freakish athleticism, and will still be 21 when the season begins.
JB is a monster in his own right
-
The excerpt from the article did not give me one good reason to consider him overhyped.
-
Agree that Tatum probably sees a significant minutes regression, probably down to about 24-26 down from 30, but he will have waaaay more easy looks and layups with Gordy and Kyrie out there making space.
Not a good basis to argue he is "overhyped".
-
Agree that Tatum probably sees a significant minutes regression, probably down to about 24-26 down from 30, but he will have waaaay more easy looks and layups with Gordy and Kyrie out there making space.
Not a good basis to argue he is "overhyped".
I actually expect him to play 30-34mpg.
-
Agree that Tatum probably sees a significant minutes regression, probably down to about 24-26 down from 30, but he will have waaaay more easy looks and layups with Gordy and Kyrie out there making space.
Not a good basis to argue he is "overhyped".
Why would he lose so many minutes? I think all 5 of Kyrie, Jaylen, Gordon, Jayson and Al will average around 30-32mpg.
I see Morris, Smart and Rozier going down to 25mpg each or so
-
The answer is only one: We got coach Brad Stevens. He'll take care of it. In a best way possible.
-
Tatum is "overated" cause the fans from 28 teams are jealous and Philly fans are furious.
-
Why are we referencing Bleacher Report of all places? Lol
Don’t get me wrong - I visit Bleacher Report frequently for news and other interesting articles. But people shouldn’t take their basketball analysis all that seriously. The vast majority of their “writers” are just fans themselves doing this for fun.
Concur. Wrote a cringeworthy article for them when I was a teenager.
-
I don't think the analysis is wrong. He writer makes valid points , Tatum most problably won't keep making 3s like FTs and will lose a few possesions now that Hayward is back.
I don't understand why that makes him overhyped though .... As many have said players who havent done anything remotely close to that are considered already hall famers !
-
Agree that Tatum probably sees a significant minutes regression, probably down to about 24-26 down from 30, but he will have waaaay more easy looks and layups with Gordy and Kyrie out there making space.
Not a good basis to argue he is "overhyped".
I think all the projected starters will player 28-30ish minutes. I think Kyrie had the highest playtime time around 32 mpg last year (that's off the top of my head correct me if I'm wrong) and I figure that goes down this year. Tatum should be around the same minutes, maybe not as many shot opportunities possibly.
As far as the article, the title kind of stinks but I sort of agree with his main points.
-
Is Jaylen Brown underhyped?
Pretty much. Yeah.
Yep. Nearly added 10ppg from his rookie to his sophomore year, improved dramatically as a shooter (besides a rough patch from the FT line), improved his defence, is still learning how best to use his freakish athleticism, and will still be 21 when the season begins.
JB is a monster in his own right
This is where I'm at. I agree with the conventional wisdom that Tatum will be better eventually, but Brown's numbers in the playoffs were basically identical to Tatum's with better defense and a more consistent 3 pointer and both guys were streaky all playoffs.
I'm as high on Tatum as anyone but the article is right that we'll have to be patient.
-
Tatum took 10.4 shots per game in the regular season. He upped that to 13.7 shots in the playoffs. Brown had a similar increase. Feeding these two at playoff levels means an extra 6-7 shots per game. Hayward should also need 13-14 shots, so we are looking at finding roughly 20 shots.
Kyrie might give up a couple of shots per game.
Morris, Rozier and Smart took about 30 shots per game, and those were low efficiency shots. The rest of the roster didn't take many shots, and we shouldn't expect the team to squeeze much from there.
The big question for the C's is what happens with the redistribution of these shots. Morris may barely play next year.
I really expected the C's to try to resolve the Rozier/Smart dilemma, but they didn't. Rozier finished very strongly and they just gave Smart a major contract.
I would be surprised if Stevens holds Tatum and Brown back so Rozier and Smart can hold onto their current roles. I don't see any way around Morris, Rozier and Smart giving up over half of their shots.
-
Tatum is "overated" cause the fans from 28 teams are jealous and Philly fans are furious.
this.
-
The Bleacher Report piece was predictably very
shi...crappily written, using very weak arguments, will little supported data that it seems like they don't really grasp how to use effectively anyways.
A little context:
Aside from the personnel issues, Tatum is also unlikely to shoot a scorching 52 percent on corner threes again. If that seems unreasonable, consider that Klay Thompson has shot better than 47 percent from the corners only once in his career. He's never matched Tatum's 52 percent.
If you believe Tatum is going to be a better shooter than Thompson, you've crossed the rubicon between optimism and pure fantasy.
Tatum shooting better on corner threes does not make him a better shooter than Thompson. Nobody should be arguing that. A person who is writing things for public consumption should absolutely not be arguing that. In fact, more than just Tatum shot better than Thompson on corner 3's. But you have to correct for things like attempts, games played, etc.
Darren Collison shot 48% from 3 last year. Thompson shot 44%. Was Collison 'a better shooter than Klay' last year? No. He took 4 less attempts per game for one. He would need to more than double his attempts to match Klay's number.
That is one of two reasons Tatum is 'overhyped'. If the argument is that his shooting is not sustainable, make the argument, show other rookies who suffered 2nd year regression they never recovered from. Do something, author guy. The other 'reason' is because of team personnel. Which again, Bleacher Report guy DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXPLAIN. That Bleacher Report snippet was clickbait garbage!
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
-
Tatum's only overhyped by the kinds of good loyal green glasses C's fans who think he'll be the best player in the league in 2-3 years or that he's too good to trade straight up for Anthony Davis. Full disclosure: I think the first one's not impossible but highly unlikely and am kinda sorta in the 2nd camp in spite of my brain knowing better.
Other than that he's pretty accurately hyped - incredibly talented rookie, superstar potential, high skills, size, and athleticism, showed he can thrive under playoff pressure. About as promising as any rookie's ever been that wasn't a superstar already.
It is fair to say his shooting's more likely to regress than not, but that's just because the numbers were so strong to begin with. And it's fair to say he still has flaws, and that nobody's guaranteed to become a superstar until they do it, but after the playoff run he's earned the buzz that comes with being a "name" player, just like Mitchell has and Simmons hasn't.
Oh and the article's junk, of course. But the basic argument is an interesting one - what's an accurate hype level?
-
So nowhere in the OP does it suggest that Tatum is overhyped?
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.
I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.
I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
I dont disagree that Tatum was impressive, but pointing out the true shooting and listing superstars who didnt reach that level till later is actually part of the problem. Lebron isn't in the GOAT discussion because he score a 14 a game efficiently, its because he scored 30 efficiemtly, and passes, and rebounds, and defends, ect. I get that Tatum was efficient, but he was probably a little over his head 3pnt shooting wise, he isnt a great passer or finisher. He has work to do. Again, I think odds are he ends up a star, I'd just wish we could ackwoledge its not a given.
-
Tatum is the best Celtic draft pick, since LB! Future first team all NBA, future hall of fame, how's that for overhype!!
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.
I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
Durant and James were much bigger parts of the offense though (they both had USG above 28 with over 17 and just under 19 shots - Tatum's usage was under 20 with just 10.4 shots). That is what makes it so hard to judge Tatum's rookie year from a historical standpoint given his role, usage, etc. There just aren't many players like him because so few top five picks end up going to good teams.
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.
I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
Durant and James were much bigger parts of the offense though (they both had USG above 28 with over 17 and just under 19 shots - Tatum's usage was under 20 with just 10.4 shots). That is what makes it so hard to judge Tatum's rookie year from a historical standpoint given his role, usage, etc. There just aren't many players like him because so few top five picks end up going to good teams.
This is true. Although I will note Tatum upped his usage to 23.3 in the playoffs with 57.8% TS%, 13.7 FGA. Durant didn't even make the playoffs until his third year and was abysmal, with a TS% of 49.9% on insane usage, and still only managed about the same Assist% as Tatum did last year. He rebounded the next year with 58.2TS% in the playoffs with 29% usage.
Either way you slice it, Tatum's rookie year was pretty incredible, even in a historical context. Tatum of course needs to improve his playmaking over time to be in the same league as these guys, but he certainly is not "overhyped"...
-
I didnt get to see Tatum play as much as many of you living in Missouri. I do however know a guy who was friends with him and played against him in high school. What I did see last year though, especially in the playoffs, was a superstar in the making!
Is he, was he, over hyped? I dont know but what I do know is the guy looked to me that in the playoffs he was being held back more then that he was holding anyone else back. Sure with Kyrie and Hayward coming back Tatum may get fewer shots but the ones he does get will be easier which if anything should add to his shooting percentages, not take away. Also, he will have lesser pressure to develop in ways he wants/needs to.
I dont see a player who is over hyped. I see a player who is dying to lead, take over games and show the rest of the NBA what he can really do. If people are talking about him a bit too much it's not because he doesnt deserve it. Rather he probably deserves them to be talked about more..
Do I think he has top potential? You better believe it and I wouldnt be at all surprised to see him leading the league in scoring soon. Kyrie may walk and by the time he does we may not mind so much.
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.
I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
I dont disagree that Tatum was impressive, but pointing out the true shooting and listing superstars who didnt reach that level till later is actually part of the problem. Lebron isn't in the GOAT discussion because he score a 14 a game efficiently, its because he scored 30 efficiemtly, and passes, and rebounds, and defends, ect. I get that Tatum was efficient, but he was probably a little over his head 3pnt shooting wise, he isnt a great passer or finisher. He has work to do. Again, I think odds are he ends up a star, I'd just wish we could ackwoledge its not a given.
You would think people be more excited over the Celtics young players.
-
Maybe his angle should be a fantasy basketball thing as Tatum won't put up big #'s with Hayward and Irving back.
Regardless I think he was truly going for clicks.
-
tatum is most definitely "over hyped". doesn't mean he doesn't live up to the hype.
-
The funny thing with ainge is that there is a possibility williams starts destroying baskets with his dunks and blocks everyone.. and the overvalued Tatum and undervalued brown find more space with Irving and Hayward around... it will be a funny year
-
I think part of what's feeding the hype is the "cat that are the canary" factor. At least from the Celtics fans' perspective. Not only did Ainge draft a kid with so many skills, intelligence and a winning pedigree years ahead of what could reasonably been expected, but he fleeced two of the franchise's historical rivals in the process of traditional down to get him.
Plus, he seems like the kind of kid who will be undaunted by the hype and continue to grow his game by hard work (not to mention filling out physically).
It might be hype, but it's good hype.
-
I feel like the article is trying to say that stats-wise people are expecting too much from Tatum. He will likely improve as a player this season, but with Hayward and Kyrie back there isn't much room for an increase in counting stats like PPG etc. this year for Tatum.
-
Fosberg tweeted:
Chris Forsberg: Jayson Tatum on article that dubbed him one of NBA’s most overhyped: “I saw it. But, good or bad, articles really don’t faze me. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. My job is to play basketball; their job is to write articles. I’ll stick to my job.”
I continue to be amazed at just how polished this kid is.
-
Do I think Tatum is overhyped? Yes. But I dont want people to confuse that with him being bad. Its just that a lot of people, fans, news guys in Boston have him penciled in as a sure fire Top 10 player, and even a future Top 5 MVP level guy. And to me simply to expect that to be where he ends up is crazy. He might get there, but he needs a lot of improvement like all young players. So I guess my point is Boston does tend to overhyped guys whether it be Celtics players, Red Sox propects, ect.
You can't "pencil" him in, but the reality is Tatum's rookie performance was simply astonishing. To have a TS% of 58.6 as a rookie SF is unheard of. Durant didn't break that barrier until his 3rd season, when he hit 60% which is basically considered top 10 player level. LeBron didn't until his 6th season. Then to go on to perform as essentially the 1st option on an ECF team is simply insane.
I don't "overhype" him, but the reason all these educated observers are so angry at Danny is because they know how good Tatum is RIGHT NOW and how good he could be going forward. And they realize how good Brown has become and it means there's an open window in Boston for a very long time..
Durant and James were much bigger parts of the offense though (they both had USG above 28 with over 17 and just under 19 shots - Tatum's usage was under 20 with just 10.4 shots). That is what makes it so hard to judge Tatum's rookie year from a historical standpoint given his role, usage, etc. There just aren't many players like him because so few top five picks end up going to good teams.
This is true. Although I will note Tatum upped his usage to 23.3 in the playoffs with 57.8% TS%, 13.7 FGA. Durant didn't even make the playoffs until his third year and was abysmal, with a TS% of 49.9% on insane usage, and still only managed about the same Assist% as Tatum did last year. He rebounded the next year with 58.2TS% in the playoffs with 29% usage.
Either way you slice it, Tatum's rookie year was pretty incredible, even in a historical context. Tatum of course needs to improve his playmaking over time to be in the same league as these guys, but he certainly is not "overhyped"...
TP.
Also - Tatum slumped a little midyear - possibly due to a hand injury, possibly due to being a 20-year old who’d just become a father(!) I can’t say how high his ceiling is, but year 1 was awfully good. I actually think part of what was so promising about it was his ability to change his game as the team’s needs changed. He showed an excellent understanding of situations and rose to the occasion many times when we neede big shots.
-
it's one thing when a fan base is building the hype(which Celtics fans are easily guilty of) but when his(tatum) peers and former players are the ones doing the hyping...
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
Some Cavs pom-pom PR. Not much else.
From the end of the piece: Greg Swartz covers the Cleveland Cavaliers and NBA for Bleacher Report.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.
Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.
For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.
Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.
For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.
He did, though.
But while dealing Thomas for Irving was the right move for the Celtics, it's the Cavaliers who have come away victorious one year later.
Trading Irving and getting three starters back was huge for Cleveland and has made them winners of this now-infamous deal.
Now, I'll admit he made some good points & if Kyrie walks & Sexton takes off as talent, then it certainly leaves the door open for those to argue that CLE won the deal. However, as it stands right now, its really tough to say with a straight face that CLE has won the deal.
It took CLE realizing that acquiring IT4 was a horrible idea & pivoting to subsequently trade to put them in a better situation going forward.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.
Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.
For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.
He did, though.
But while dealing Thomas for Irving was the right move for the Celtics, it's the Cavaliers who have come away victorious one year later.
Trading Irving and getting three starters back was huge for Cleveland and has made them winners of this now-infamous deal.
Now, I'll admit he made some good points & if Kyrie walks & Sexton takes off as talent, then it certainly leaves the door open for those to argue that CLE won the deal. However, as it stands right now, its really tough to say with a straight face that CLE has won the deal.
It took CLE realizing that acquiring IT4 was a horrible idea & pivoting to subsequently trade to put them in a better situation going forward.
I guess I felt like he hedged those comments. It was sloppy writing, but I thought he hedged by saying the Cs won the trade too.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
One little caveat on the Thomas trade to the Lakers. If it wasn’t for the chance to acquire LeBron, the Lakers would have never made that deal. Magic was trying to get rid of contracts that were for more than one year and was hoping to acquire a would be free agent. I’m sure LeBron was going to LA, one way or another, but the allure of being able to possibly play with another max guy may have tipped the scales in LA’s favor over Cleveland. I guess the question then becomes, did the Thomas trade make LeBron’s decision easier because of the additional cap space that the Lakers had to play with?
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.
Was just going to post thing. In fact, I am fairly certain that the majority of celtic fans thought we lost the trade. The big topic that week was that IT was just as good, if not better than Kyrie.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
Bleacher Report is still a joke, but I actually agree with a lot of this article. It's not saying Boston didn't win; it's just saying that Cleveland won too.
Flipping Irving and 25th pick for Clarkson, Hood, Nance, Zizic, and Sexton is pretty good value. They needed to rebuild, and they actually restocked the cupboards fairly quickly. I'm not saying they are contenders, or even a playoff team, but I like a lot of those young guys and I think they have trade value around the league.
For a team who had a star that requested a trade, they were able to nab talent and then will likely be able to retain them on good deals. This rebuild won't completely take shape until next off-season, but they are making the right moves to get back into the playoffs after Lebron exited.
He did, though.
But while dealing Thomas for Irving was the right move for the Celtics, it's the Cavaliers who have come away victorious one year later.
Trading Irving and getting three starters back was huge for Cleveland and has made them winners of this now-infamous deal.
Now, I'll admit he made some good points & if Kyrie walks & Sexton takes off as talent, then it certainly leaves the door open for those to argue that CLE won the deal. However, as it stands right now, its really tough to say with a straight face that CLE has won the deal.
It took CLE realizing that acquiring IT4 was a horrible idea & pivoting to subsequently trade to put them in a better situation going forward.
I guess I felt like he hedged those comments. It was sloppy writing, but I thought he hedged by saying the Cs won the trade too.
I should also note that the subtitle on the Home page and Celtics page literally says, “Why the Cavs, not the Celtics, Won the Kyrie Trade.” Lol So I think the guy’s biased perspective is pretty clear. He paints a really rosy picture of Cleveland’s perspective with an equally pessimistic picture of Boston’s perspective.
-
Did the Kyrie trade anger LeBron causing him to ultimately decide to sign in LA? If that trade made up LeBron's mind that Cleveland management wasn't serious about winning more titles causing him to go to the Lakers, then Cleveland lost that trade big time.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
One little caveat on the Thomas trade to the Lakers. If it wasn’t for the chance to acquire LeBron, the Lakers would have never made that deal. Magic was trying to get rid of contracts that were for more than one year and was hoping to acquire a would be free agent. I’m sure LeBron was going to LA, one way or another, but the allure of being able to possibly play with another max guy may have tipped the scales in LA’s favor over Cleveland. I guess the question then becomes, did the Thomas trade make LeBron’s decision easier because of the additional cap space that the Lakers had to play with?
Didn’t we acquire IT using CLE draft pick we got for facilitating lebron,s return to CLE?
We can slso go back and revisit old trades to grade the KI IT trade
-
A 19y/o rookie leading the team in scoring to the 7th game of the ECF going toe to toe with the best player in the world in Lebron james shouldnt be "overhyped"
in his first year, Tatum realized not only does he belong in the NBA, but that he can dominate and take over a game. He already has every offensive move. One would think the more he improves and gets stronger and realizes this he will be a monster offensively.
The player whom is overhyped however is Ben simmons...whom for whatever reason has been coddled by the media all season and then faded into oblivion in the second round when he came up against the celtics.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.
Yep. This wasn't just the board not liking this trade. The media said we lost it. Some said it wasn't bad for either side.
-
For another installment of “why Bleacher Report articles should not be taken seriously,” check out this article on why it was actually Cleveland, not Boston, that won the Kyrie/IT trade: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793158-1-year-later-cavs-can-look-back-and-call-kyrie-irving-trade-a-success
This is such a poorly argued and joke of an article that I don’t even know where to start with it.
I guess it depends on your perspective. I read the article differently. When the trade was made, it was assumed that Boston won the deal hands down. However, if you break it down further after the additional trades of Thomas and Crowder, the focus of the deal needs to be expanded. They’re looking at the deal being Irving (whom they were going to lose via free agency in one year) for the Brooklyn unprotected first (Collin Sexton), Larry Nance Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, and Ante Zizic. I read the article as both teams come out of the deal as winners, but for Boston, it depends on if Kyrie stays or if Boston can win the title before bolting for free agency after next season. Although, I will admit the article did seem to go back and forth as to who got the better end of the deal.
That's not really true. There were many who thought the Celts gave up too much. At the time the extent of IT's injury was not known and the Nets pick was unprotected. There were numerous articles arguing that IT was nearly as good as Kyrie and when you throw in a pick that could end up a top three it was argued that the Cavs got the better deal. In retrospect the Celts are the winners, IT has yet to prove he can be an impact player and the Nets pick wasn't that high. At the time, however, there were definitely plenty of people that thought the Cavs won the trade.
Was just going to post thing. In fact, I am fairly certain that the majority of celtic fans thought we lost the trade. The big topic that week was that IT was just as good, if not better than Kyrie.
not according to the poll with grades posted right after the trade was announced. Most of this board thought it was a good deal for Boston.
-
I agree that he has a long way to go defensively. Offensively, though, the guy is already scary good. I say the kid is for real.
-
I agree that he has a long way to go defensively. Offensively, though, the guy is already scary good. I say the kid is for real.
His defense was very good, and much more of a positive surprise than his offense. Most rookies struggle a lot more than Tatum did.
-
The Bleacher Report piece was predictably very shi...crappily written, using very weak arguments, will little supported data that it seems like they don't really grasp how to use effectively anyways.
A little context:
Aside from the personnel issues, Tatum is also unlikely to shoot a scorching 52 percent on corner threes again. If that seems unreasonable, consider that Klay Thompson has shot better than 47 percent from the corners only once in his career. He's never matched Tatum's 52 percent.
If you believe Tatum is going to be a better shooter than Thompson, you've crossed the rubicon between optimism and pure fantasy.
Tatum shooting better on corner threes does not make him a better shooter than Thompson. Nobody should be arguing that. A person who is writing things for public consumption should absolutely not be arguing that. In fact, more than just Tatum shot better than Thompson on corner 3's. But you have to correct for things like attempts, games played, etc.
Darren Collison shot 48% from 3 last year. Thompson shot 44%. Was Collison 'a better shooter than Klay' last year? No. He took 4 less attempts per game for one. He would need to more than double his attempts to match Klay's number.
That is one of two reasons Tatum is 'overhyped'. If the argument is that his shooting is not sustainable, make the argument, show other rookies who suffered 2nd year regression they never recovered from. Do something, author guy. The other 'reason' is because of team personnel. Which again, Bleacher Report guy DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXPLAIN. That Bleacher Report snippet was clickbait garbage!
This is spot on, underrated comment.
-
Don't sweat it, you know what sits on Bleachers, and the author is one of those.
-
I agree that he has a long way to go defensively. Offensively, though, the guy is already scary good. I say the kid is for real.
His defense was very good, and much more of a positive surprise than his offense. Most rookies struggle a lot more than Tatum did.
Yes, really remarkable. He played defense like a veteran, and was effective even when he was giving up 30 pounds.
-
Aside from the personnel issues, Tatum is also unlikely to shoot a scorching 52 percent on corner threes again. If that seems unreasonable, consider that Klay Thompson has shot better than 47 percent from the corners only once in his career. He's never matched Tatum's 52 percent.
Can't tell what the reasoning is here - regression to the mean? What mean (it's only one season)? Usually players improve after their rookie seasons.
If you believe Tatum is going to be a better shooter than Thompson, you've crossed the rubicon between optimism and pure fantasy.
"Crossing the Rubicon" means there's no going back, but if there's one thing that we can take away from years of NBA commentary, it's that the experts will adapt their opinions as the facts on the ground change.
While there's no need to believe anything about Tatum's future as a shooter, he's surely got a good chance to eclipse Klay. It's not fantasy, it's not even optimism - it's solid numbers. At this stage in their careers, Tatum is better. Predictably, he'll be better over his career.
-
He's appropriately hyped.