The biggest problem for the current Celtics team is lack of an elite playmaker

[td450]

A pass-first PG isn’t necessarily the answer. The team just needs better passers. Rob Williams is a really good passer at the center position, for instance. Smart is a great passer and usually plays SG. Hayward was a great passer as a forward, and that’s one reason the team struggled this year.

A lot of this will be solved as Tatum and Brown age and gradually improve in their passing. Otherwise, the team just needs to fill the roster with good passers who know how to play in a team concept.

Totally agree on the general observation. Passing can come from any position. Smart, however, is not a great passer. When he controls his impulse to shoot too much, he's a plus passer. He dribbles to much and he's not accurate enough to be great.

The C's run their offense through Tatum, with Walker then Smart filling in most of the balance. Neither Tatum or Walker is a non passer, but for a team trying to compete for a title, they are not nearly good enough.

[CFAN38]

I'm not sure its a lack of Elite play making or just play making in general.

Kemba was at his best as the primary hub of the offense while leading his Hornet teams. He doesn't seem to function well as a 2nd/3rd option. Its not that his skill set necessarily prevents him from playing off ball but more then I don't think he is comfortable and able to get into a rhythm without control of the ball.

After Kemba I see the Cs roster as having a few secondary play-makers in Tatum, Smart, Prichard and to a much lesser extend Brown and R Williams. 

[Roy H.]

I wonder what Danny was offering when Halliburton was starting to fall?  I like to think that he offered 14 + 26 + 30 for #12, but Sactown turned us down.

(I still love Nesmith though).

[td450]

I wonder what Danny was offering when Halliburton was starting to fall?  I like to think that he offered 14 + 26 + 30 for #12, but Sactown turned us down.

(I still love Nesmith though).

That's when you need to be willing to give up something that matters. Langford, or even Smart would have been worth it.

[PhoSita]

Since the Celtics have been as far or further then alot of those players with Kemba, what does it say about this theory?


I think the Celtics need better role players at shooting and passing.   It is team passing not the high assist pg.

Inasmuch as the Celtics are built in a similar fashion to the Clippers, I do think there is a common thread there with a lack of a guy who can be the primary ballhandler and run the offense.

But to your point, the Clippers have Rondo, which is not enough. I don't think it's enough to have a point guard who is a very good passer but who is not that much of a threat to score.  You need that floor general to at least be on the level of Chris Paul or Jason Kidd circa 2011, i.e. able to pick his spots and punish mismatches when the moment calls for it.


I don't think that it's absolutely necessary to have a great passer at the point of attack to win it all, but I think it unlocks a lot of things for your offense.  Makes things easier.

The problem for the Celtics is that they have neither the great passer at the point of attack nor a balance of solid passing throughout the rest of the rotation.  I think if you lack that elite lead playmaker you need to at least have a smattering of above average passing / ball handling at other spots on the floor.  Similar to what the Celts had when Horford was still on the roster.

[Moranis]

Since the Celtics have been as far or further then alot of those players with Kemba, what does it say about this theory?


I think the Celtics need better role players at shooting and passing.   It is team passing not the high assist pg.

Inasmuch as the Celtics are built in a similar fashion to the Clippers, I do think there is a common thread there with a lack of a guy who can be the primary ballhandler and run the offense.

But to your point, the Clippers have Rondo, which is not enough. I don't think it's enough to have a point guard who is a very good passer but who is not that much of a threat to score.  You need that floor general to at least be on the level of Chris Paul or Jason Kidd circa 2011, i.e. able to pick his spots and punish mismatches when the moment calls for it.


I don't think that it's absolutely necessary to have a great passer at the point of attack to win it all, but I think it unlocks a lot of things for your offense.  Makes things easier.

The problem for the Celtics is that they have neither the great passer at the point of attack nor a balance of solid passing throughout the rest of the rotation.  I think if you lack that elite lead playmaker you need to at least have a smattering of above average passing / ball handling at other spots on the floor.  Similar to what the Celts had when Horford was still on the roster.

Leonard and George are both over 5 apg and Rondo is nearly at 6 apg since he got there.  All with AST% in the 20's or more along with guys like Jackson that are just under that or lesser players like Ferrell above it as well.  20 is a pretty solid AST%.  The Clippers have a bunch of guys in that range.  No mega passer in the 30's or 40's, but lots of quality passing depth.  Way more passing depth than most of the other good teams in the league.  And some of those other good teams don't have a mega passer either like Milwaukee or their mega passer isn't a guard (Jokic, Lebron, etc.). 

I just don't think there is much to a team needing great passing to win, you just need great players.  I mean look at the Kobe Lakers.  No elite passers on either the Shaq teams or the Pau teams.  Didn't have any trouble winning titles.  Spurs, Parker was solid, Manu was ok, but a bunch of poor passers, yet there they were winning 5 titles (4 with that group).  Great passing and ball movement can make up for some talent deficiencies, but at the end of the day, talent wins titles and Boston just doesn't have enough talent. 

[Vermont Green]

There are plenty of areas where the Celtics could improve but if I had to pick one, I would say a play-making big is the greatest need.

As to play-making specific to PG, I don't think we are that bad off.  San Antonio was a top team for years with Tony Parker.  The 80s Celtics had Dennis Johnson.  And GSW have succeeded with very much a shoot first PG, perhaps the most shoot first PG in the history of the game.

Sure, having some one like Chris Paul can work fine also but I don't see that the traditional pick and role, high assist PG is necessarily the only way and probably not even the best way these days.

[Celtics4ever]

I think a playmaker at any position would help us.   I mean look at the impact Rob's passing has on us at times.   It does not always have to be a guard.   A point forward might help as well.   Brown can play SG and Tatum can play PF.   But a PG would be ideal, just someone to create easy shots for others.

Pritchard definitely is not that guy as he is more of a shooter with some skill in this area.

I just don't think there is much to a team needing great passing to win, you just need great players.  I mean look at the Kobe Lakers. 

Can't argue with that but they had two of the top players at their position in the Kobe and Shaq Era.  Shaq too was a under rated passer.  Some of the Laker years is averaged over 3 APG getting as high as 3.8 APG one year.

[Celtics2021]

I wonder what Danny was offering when Halliburton was starting to fall?  I like to think that he offered 14 + 26 + 30 for #12, but Sactown turned us down.

(I still love Nesmith though).

That's when you need to be willing to give up something that matters. Langford, or even Smart would have been worth it.

It can be really hard to make draft night trades in the lottery sometimes.  Teams get locked into a guy, and trading down a few spots might cost them the player they want.  The 2019 draft with multiple lottery trades was the exception, not the rule.

For the record, Halliburton was absolutely my draft binkie.  I'm a big Romeo fan, but I'd have traded him in a heartbeat for Haliburton, along with all our firsts.  But It wouldn't surprise me at all if that offer wouldn't get it done.

[PhoSita]

 Great passing and ball movement can make up for some talent deficiencies, but at the end of the day, talent wins titles and Boston just doesn't have enough talent.

This refrain has gotten old and now is just moldering in the grave.

It's not adding anything to say "The Celtics aren't that talented that's why they're not winning a title!"

How should they maximize the talent level they actually have?

I think you would agree that the fit and skillset of the pieces you put around your most talented players makes a difference in whether a team plays up to its potential / hits its ceiling or underperforms, right?

Maybe it doesn't make a real difference to your experience as a fan if the Celts are a .500-ish 1st round exit team or a 50-55 win second tier contender type team, but I think that would make a big difference for most people.


Not every discussion about this team is about whether they're going to win a title.  I mean right now the Celts are in the midst of a 1st round series sweep.  "This team doesn't have enough talent to win a title" is sort of missing the point as to what the issues for the roster are right now.


If you're suggesting that "Nothing matters about this roster until they find a way to add another / more talented star player," then it's not really very useful input, in my opinion.  What are you really driving at?  The Celtics should trade Tatum? Jaylen?  Should all discussion of the team be centered around how they might try to acquire Luka Doncic a half-decade from now?

I want to believe that you're not just trying to derail every discussion by bringing up this argument about how they're "just not talented enough."  What discussion are you trying to have by saying that?

[Moranis]

 Great passing and ball movement can make up for some talent deficiencies, but at the end of the day, talent wins titles and Boston just doesn't have enough talent.

This refrain has gotten old and now is just moldering in the grave.

It's not adding anything to say "The Celtics aren't that talented that's why they're not winning a title!"

How should they maximize the talent level they actually have?

I think you would agree that the fit and skillset of the pieces you put around your most talented players makes a difference in whether a team plays up to its potential / hits its ceiling or underperforms, right?

Maybe it doesn't make a real difference to your experience as a fan if the Celts are a .500-ish 1st round exit team or a 50-55 win second tier contender type team, but I think that would make a big difference for most people.


Not every discussion about this team is about whether they're going to win a title.  I mean right now the Celts are in the midst of a 1st round series sweep.  "This team doesn't have enough talent to win a title" is sort of missing the point as to what the issues for the roster are right now.


If you're suggesting that "Nothing matters about this roster until they find a way to add another / more talented star player," then it's not really very useful input, in my opinion.  What are you really driving at?  The Celtics should trade Tatum? Jaylen?  Should all discussion of the team be centered around how they might try to acquire Luka Doncic a half-decade from now?

I want to believe that you're not just trying to derail every discussion by bringing up this argument about how they're "just not talented enough."  What discussion are you trying to have by saying that?

This is a thread about the Celtics biggest problem.  The biggest problem the Celtics have is they lack true top end talent.  The best play maker on the planet isn't going to solve that problem unless said player is also one of the best players in the world like Luka, Lebron, Jokic, etc. 

I've offered plenty of trades I think would make the team better and more cohesive without entering the land of title contention (like the Walker to LAC trade I've proposed a lot).  I've also suggested trades where Boston acquires a top draft pick by taking on other teams bad contracts (like Wiggins or Westbrook).  I absolutely think Smart is going to be traded this summer.  Not sure the package, but I can't see the team keeping both Smart and Fournier and it just makes more sense to keep Fournier given he is a free agent.  I just don't think there are very many smaller trades that are worth making unless Boston is the one getting the draft pick, young player, etc.  Because at the end of the day those smaller trades don't move the needle and won't set the team up better long term. 

Some Smart trades I think are reasonable

Smart for Kuzma
Smart, Thompson, Langford, 1st for Wiggins, Minny 1st
Smart for Barton
Smart/Thompson/Nesmith/21 1st, 22 1st for Porzingis

Some Walker Trades I think are reasonable

Walker/Edwards for Zubac/Beverley/Morris
Walker to NY, Knox/Edwards to CLE, Love/Sexton to BOS

[mr. dee]

 Great passing and ball movement can make up for some talent deficiencies, but at the end of the day, talent wins titles and Boston just doesn't have enough talent.

This refrain has gotten old and now is just moldering in the grave.

It's not adding anything to say "The Celtics aren't that talented that's why they're not winning a title!"

How should they maximize the talent level they actually have?

I think you would agree that the fit and skillset of the pieces you put around your most talented players makes a difference in whether a team plays up to its potential / hits its ceiling or underperforms, right?

Maybe it doesn't make a real difference to your experience as a fan if the Celts are a .500-ish 1st round exit team or a 50-55 win second tier contender type team, but I think that would make a big difference for most people.


Not every discussion about this team is about whether they're going to win a title.  I mean right now the Celts are in the midst of a 1st round series sweep.  "This team doesn't have enough talent to win a title" is sort of missing the point as to what the issues for the roster are right now.


If you're suggesting that "Nothing matters about this roster until they find a way to add another / more talented star player," then it's not really very useful input, in my opinion.  What are you really driving at?  The Celtics should trade Tatum? Jaylen?  Should all discussion of the team be centered around how they might try to acquire Luka Doncic a half-decade from now?

I want to believe that you're not just trying to derail every discussion by bringing up this argument about how they're "just not talented enough."  What discussion are you trying to have by saying that?

This is a thread about the Celtics biggest problem.  The biggest problem the Celtics have is they lack true top end talent.  The best play maker on the planet isn't going to solve that problem unless said player is also one of the best players in the world like Luka, Lebron, Jokic, etc. 

I've offered plenty of trades I think would make the team better and more cohesive without entering the land of title contention (like the Walker to LAC trade I've proposed a lot).  I've also suggested trades where Boston acquires a top draft pick by taking on other teams bad contracts (like Wiggins or Westbrook).  I absolutely think Smart is going to be traded this summer.  Not sure the package, but I can't see the team keeping both Smart and Fournier and it just makes more sense to keep Fournier given he is a free agent.  I just don't think there are very many smaller trades that are worth making unless Boston is the one getting the draft pick, young player, etc.  Because at the end of the day those smaller trades don't move the needle and won't set the team up better long term. 

Some Smart trades I think are reasonable

Smart for Kuzma
Smart, Thompson, Langford, 1st for Wiggins, Minny 1st
Smart for Barton
Smart/Thompson/Nesmith/21 1st, 22 1st for Porzingis

Some Walker Trades I think are reasonable

Walker/Edwards for Zubac/Beverley/Morris
Walker to NY, Knox/Edwards to CLE, Love/Sexton to BOS

This is anything but reasonable, unless you bundled him with other players like KCP or THT

[gouki88]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

Was Garnett really in that group at that point? KG in 2007 was 14th in ppg, 13th in WS, 8th in PER.  Garnett was 3-4 years removed from winning MVP. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

[PhoSita]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

Was Garnett really in that group at that point? KG in 2007 was 14th in ppg, 13th in WS, 8th in PER.  Garnett was 3-4 years removed from winning MVP. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

Yet in 2007 he was tied for 9th in MVP voting.

Which is to say, again, that this qualification seems very outcome dependent. The Celts were loaded so KG was seen as a top 5 player because he was the best player / defensive leader on a top team.

[Moranis]

"There's no real way for a team in the Celtics' position to plan to acquire a guy who arguably belongs -- or could eventually belong -- in that top 5 group.

Celts did it with Kevin Garnett.

Was Garnett really in that group at that point? KG in 2007 was 14th in ppg, 13th in WS, 8th in PER.  Garnett was 3-4 years removed from winning MVP. 

KG was 3rd in MVP voting and the best defender on the planet in 08, so yes.

Yet in 2007 he was tied for 9th in MVP voting.

Which is to say, again, that this qualification seems very outcome dependent. The Celts were loaded so KG was seen as a top 5 player because he was the best player / defensive leader on a top team.

MVP voting doesn't have much to do with who are the best players in the world.  As you say it is very outcome and season dependent.  I mean we've seen that here when IT4 finished in the top 5, but he was obviously no where near a top 5 player in the world.  That said, Garnett was a top 5 guy in 2008.  Really only Duncan, James, and Bryant were clearly ahead of him on the pecking order.  He was right there with Howard, Dirk, Nash, Amare, and maybe Paul and Wade in that next group and I believe he was better than all but Howard.  So I'd have had him as the 5th best player in the world.