Ainge strips the Nets clean 7 years ago. Nets get the last laugh

[Ogaju]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

I disagree. It is a legitimate question.

[Kiorrik]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

I disagree. It is a legitimate question.

Nice. Another comment that's literally no better than "No."

Why do you think it's a legitimate question?

This "yes" vs "no" stuff has to go. Expand a bit.

Let me put it differently.

Do you really think that someone typing that much about the team, has not watched a single regular season game?

Come now.

[Mahk E Mahk]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

[Ogaju]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Enough have been said about this team throughout the season...blaming the beat down on injuries just does not cut it

[Kiorrik]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Enough have been said about this team throughout the season...blaming the beat down on injuries just does not cut it

Saying 3 of your top 5 are out, doesn't cut it?

Man. Alright. Fair enough.

[Kiorrik]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Yeah look, when someone brings 300 words of argument, and someone else responds with 6 words of rhetorical "no", on a discussion board... well, aight. Fair.

[Ogaju]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Yeah look, when someone brings 300 words of argument, and someone else responds with 6 words of rhetorical "no", on a discussion board... well, aight. Fair.

You defended this poor product all season, you know all the arguments, trying to change the narrative at the end of the season is intellectually dishonest.

[Mahk E Mahk]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Yeah look, when someone brings 300 words of argument, and someone else responds with 6 words of rhetorical "no", on a discussion board... well, aight. Fair.

so quantity over quality? ok, i’ll type more words next time.

oh, and i didn’t type anything resembling a “no”. it was a question, which encourages a response, a retort, a discussion, which is the point of a discussion board, no?

[gouki88]

We won the trade, Brooklyn won the "where do superstars want to team up" race.

[Kiorrik]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Yeah look, when someone brings 300 words of argument, and someone else responds with 6 words of rhetorical "no", on a discussion board... well, aight. Fair.

so quantity over quality? ok, i’ll type more words next time.

oh, and i didn’t type anything resembling a “no”. it was a question, which encourages a response, a retort, a discussion, which is the point of a discussion board, no?

So it wasn't rhetorical then? :]

[Mahk E Mahk]

You know, funny enough, this series actually leaves me feeling strangely encouraged.

Lets look at the games in this series

Game 1:
Boston were without Brown - Celtics lost by 11 but it was much closer then that suggests.  Boston led for most of the game and were right in it up until maybe the last 4 or 5 minutes.  This was a winnable game.

Game 2:
Boston were without Brown and also lost Tatum for half the game.  In truth though they were garbage in this game - lost by 22 points and it was well deserved.

Game 3:
Boston were without Brown and R.Williams, Kemba played terrible, and they won by 6 - largely thanks to Tatum's 50, but Smart and Tristan Thompson also stepped up in a huge way.

Game 4:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 104 points, and Boston "only" lost by 15 points.  This really should have been a 30 point blowout considering the Celtics were basically missing 3 of their top 5 players.

Game 5:
Boston were without Brown, Kemba and R.Williams, Brooklyn's big 3 combined for 83 points, and Boston "only" lost by 14 points.   Again, this probably should have been a 25+ point blowout. 

It might seem like an evaluation, but really think that if Boston had Brown, Tatum, Kemba and Williams healthy for this entire series then games 1, 3, 4 and 5 all would have been very winnable.  Even game 4, when the Nets played probably about as well they possibly could. 

I know it's unrealistic to speculate about hypothetical, but I still find that kind of encouraging that if the Celtics top 4 guys were healthy through this series, it probably could just as easily be 4-1 to Boston right now.

did you watch the regular season?

Do better.

When someone dissects a bunch of games to that extend, you can't just answer with a straw man that leaves us to guess at what you're trying to say.

C'mon guys.

respectfully disagree. first, there wasn’t much dissection of the games, just brief summaries, which led to an encouraged feeling that a healthy c’s team could have earned a 4-1 series victory.

secondly, my reply was in no way a straw man, but was a fair question, especially considering the conclusion that was drawn. as i said in other posts, the team we witnessed in this lone playoff series was exactly what we witnessed during the regular season. rhetorical or not, the question clearly implied my point in a pithy manner.

Yeah look, when someone brings 300 words of argument, and someone else responds with 6 words of rhetorical "no", on a discussion board... well, aight. Fair.

so quantity over quality? ok, i’ll type more words next time.

oh, and i didn’t type anything resembling a “no”. it was a question, which encourages a response, a retort, a discussion, which is the point of a discussion board, no?

So it wasn't rhetorical then? :]

dude, you just keep moving the goal posts.

first you accuse me of leveraging a cryptic straw man against what you described as an extensive dissection of a bunch of games (which was really just a very brief summary of five playoff games, most of which was a listing of injured players). not sure if you mistakenly chose the wrong word or if autocorrect got the better of you but it’s pretty clear that my response could in no way be construed as a straw man. not attempting to be smart ass, but legitimately giving you the benefit of the doubt.

after i respectfully disagreed, you weirdly jump to a quantity equals quality argument. just going to let this one die on its own merit.

now you’re purposefully twisting a single phrase in one of my replies to move the goalposts again? i thought you were opposed to using five words in response to a thoughtful post.

not trying to pick a fight; just unsure why you jumped in so quickly and continued to criticize a fair discourse. feel free to get the last word; i’ll drop it at this point.

[Kiorrik]

All good Mahk. I felt the same about your post. Let's chalk this up to feeling a bit down after being knocked out the playoffs. Apologies!

[Ogaju]

All good Mahk. I felt the same about your post. Let's chalk this up to feeling a bit down after being knocked out the playoffs. Apologies!

TPS to both of you for the truce...

[Mahk E Mahk]

All good Mahk. I felt the same about your post. Let's chalk this up to feeling a bit down after being knocked out the playoffs. Apologies!

my apologies, as well. here’s to a very eventful and productive offseason! :cheers:

[GreenlyGreeny]

Its gross that it turned out like this

And Nets likely will be good for the next 3 years. Too much talent to handle

Danny could have traded for Harden ... but didnt want to give up one of the Jays. Which is understandable

But right now.. the Celts look to be in that 4-5 seed range, fallen behind the top 3 in the standings

So close but always something cameup.... Lebron or Miami Heat bubble run ... Nets formation of big three

Where do the Celts go from here?

We totally screwed up not moving Jaylen for Harden. We make that move, the Nets go nowhere and our top two is as good as the Bucks and 76ers, if not much better. We make that move, maybe we’re champions in July.

All we can from here is hope the injury bug bites the Nets the next 2-3 seasons