Author Topic: Is the Celtics regular season little more than an extended exhibition season?  (Read 1146 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Irish Stew

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • Tommy Points: 56
With such incredibly poor team defense primarily due to, in my opinion, a lack of above the rim defense-first Bigs, this season is little more than a tryout to sort out who the keepers are and also to showcase veteran players who can be moved for other assets. A result like the Toronto game may be typical where we shoot over 50% and still lose. We will probably be able to cleanup many of the turnovers but the next team may have their best Four and Fives and we won't be able to kill them on the boards. You can't play good perimeter defense when you have no interior defense. The question is what course do we take? Do we just absorb loss after loss in order to find a young center near the top of the draft or are we more proactive and use a number of our accumulated assets to acquire that player? Do we take a risk on questionable guys like Hibbert, Sanders, or McGee? Ideas please, but no trades where we dump guys we don't want for the other team's best player. Look at your proposal from the other team's point of view first.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I love Sanders, but Milwaukee seems to be all in on him (or, at least, they're playing him as much as they were before he went off the rails last season), so that seems to be a non-starter. I don't like this team if we don't have a big who can keep up with the tempo we'll likely have to employ to keep games close, so that would seem to sub Hibbert out too. JaVale is, well, JaVale, but he probably fits the best on paper, even if he has the lowest BBIQ out of the lot.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 53441
  • Tommy Points: 2578
I love Sanders, but Milwaukee seems to be all in on him (or, at least, they're playing him as much as they were before he went off the rails last season), so that seems to be a non-starter. I don't like this team if we don't have a big who can keep up with the tempo we'll likely have to employ to keep games close, so that would seem to sub Hibbert out too. JaVale is, well, JaVale, but he probably fits the best on paper, even if he has the lowest BBIQ out of the lot.
Why does this have to be a running team?

Say Hibbert joined the team. He does his best work in the halfcourt. Sullinger does his best work in the halfcourt. Rondo has played that type of basketball most of his career and been very successful. Jeff Green can play halfcourt basketball.

Why would this Celtics team need to be a running team?

I think very little has been decided based on the guys who are currently here about how Boston should play going forward. They have the foundation to change / adjust to most styles of play. Very little should be off the table right now.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Because I've spent countless years having Tommy tell me that the Celtics need to get out and run. Ergo, they must be a running team.


Obvs.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Because I've spent countless years having Tommy tell me that the Celtics need to get out and run. Ergo, they must be a running team.


Obvs.

  He has to be right, he says it pretty much every time the offense struggles.