The unspoken "real" issue with these celtics...

[cman88]

I do think most of this team's issues are mental.  Certainly lack of focus, hesitation, lack of urgency, and inability at times to go for the kill shot. 

Talent-wise, they're there.  I think the vast majority of the inability to get over the top so far has been the mentality of the players and the coaching and much less on lack of talent.

but see, thats what scares me the most. Hopefully its just the fact that historically your stars don't win until they are around 27 and mature.

[Moranis]

Boston lost series the last 2 seasons it could (maybe should) have won, however Boston also won series in each of those playoffs where the best player on the floor was on the other team and who arguably were also more talented in the top 5 or 6 players. And the Warriors also had the best player in that series.

This board has fallen hard on the false media narrative that the Celts are the deepest and most talented team in the sport.  It is nonsense and always has been.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.  Certainly the Celtics had a better overall roster than MIA in the 2023 playoffs, even with Brogdon hurt, but underperformed, and lost.  Are you asserting that MIL had a better roster in 2022, but that somehow we beat them?  Even if this is true, what does it prove about the team going into 2023-24?

I think it is a reasonable argument that the Celtics have the best roster going into this season.  It is also reasonable to argue that a couple of other teams are right there and depending on injuries other intangibles, any one of a couple of team could end up with the best roster.  But that includes the Celtics.  I am not sure what narrative you are referring to that is so false.

Milwaukee 2 years ago and Philly last year had the best player on the floor in the series (though Embiid missed a game or 2).  The Sixers had Harden, Maxey, and Harris in the 2, 3, 4 spots, all arguably better than the players in those spots for Boston. So the Celtics beat a more talented team at the top before losing to Miami.  Milwaukee, without Middleton, was much closer talent wise, but it isn't like Jrue, Lopez, Portis, etc. we're bad players.  And while I thought Boston would beat Golden State, the Warriors had the best player and arguably more talent at the top as well.

Yes Boston should have beaten Miami talent wise, but you could argue they shouldn't have beaten Philly talent wise so it evens out some.  And if Tatum doesn't get hurt in game 7, who knows how that turns out. 

I just don't buy the nonsensical argument that Boston is this uber talented team that is just better than everyone else and then chokes.  It just isn't true.

[Moranis]

Boston lost series the last 2 seasons it could (maybe should) have won, however Boston also won series in each of those playoffs where the best player on the floor was on the other team and who arguably were also more talented in the top 5 or 6 players. And the Warriors also had the best player in that series.

This board has fallen hard on the false media narrative that the Celts are the deepest and most talented team in the sport.  It is nonsense and always has been.

The Celtics have been to the conference title 5 times since drafting Jaylen Brown. We've beaten Giannis twice. We've beaten Embiid three times. It is reasonable to start questioning why they keep getting to the goal line but can't punch it in.

without a top 5 player and just 1 top 20 player, that is pretty good.  Actually that is overachieving.  Significantly overachieving. 

[Vermont Green]

Boston lost series the last 2 seasons it could (maybe should) have won, however Boston also won series in each of those playoffs where the best player on the floor was on the other team and who arguably were also more talented in the top 5 or 6 players. And the Warriors also had the best player in that series.

This board has fallen hard on the false media narrative that the Celts are the deepest and most talented team in the sport.  It is nonsense and always has been.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.  Certainly the Celtics had a better overall roster than MIA in the 2023 playoffs, even with Brogdon hurt, but underperformed, and lost.  Are you asserting that MIL had a better roster in 2022, but that somehow we beat them?  Even if this is true, what does it prove about the team going into 2023-24?

I think it is a reasonable argument that the Celtics have the best roster going into this season.  It is also reasonable to argue that a couple of other teams are right there and depending on injuries other intangibles, any one of a couple of team could end up with the best roster.  But that includes the Celtics.  I am not sure what narrative you are referring to that is so false.

Milwaukee 2 years ago and Philly last year had the best player on the floor in the series (though Embiid missed a game or 2).  The Sixers had Harden, Maxey, and Harris in the 2, 3, 4 spots, all arguably better than the players in those spots for Boston. So the Celtics beat a more talented team at the top before losing to Miami.  Milwaukee, without Middleton, was much closer talent wise, but it isn't like Jrue, Lopez, Portis, etc. we're bad players.  And while I thought Boston would beat Golden State, the Warriors had the best player and arguably more talent at the top as well.

Yes Boston should have beaten Miami talent wise, but you could argue they shouldn't have beaten Philly talent wise so it evens out some.  And if Tatum doesn't get hurt in game 7, who knows how that turns out. 

I just don't buy the nonsensical argument that Boston is this uber talented team that is just better than everyone else and then chokes.  It just isn't true.

I am still not sure what you are disagreeing with.  So you are saying that last season, a PHI team with Embiid, Harden, and Maxey, plus pretty much nothing else, was "more talented" (at least on paper) than Tatum, Brown, Smart plus really good depth (White, Brogdon, Horford, Williams).  When Embiid and Harden both played at their best, they were a better team, but the problem was that they didn't play at their best much if any.  And PHI drops off big-time after their top 3.

Going into this season, the top teams are likely:

Jokic
Murray
Porter?

Durant
Booker
Beal

Giannis
Holiday
Middleton

Embiid
Harden(?)
Maxey

Tatum
Brown
Porzingis

I think the Celtics top 3 are right there with any of them.  Any of these could emerge as the best.  And after the top 3, I would argue that White, Horford, Williams, Brogdon are definitely the best top 7.

So the last two playoffs, the Celtics have lost to GSW, a team whose talent and experience was too much for the Celtics, and MIA, a team they clearly should have played better against.  Last regular season, the Celtics ended up losing home court due to losing regular season games they should have won.  The team was inconsistent, the team did appear to go soft at times.

I am still not exactly sure what narrative you are disagreeing with.  I am not sure anyone is saying the Celtics' roster is way better than any other roster.  Vegas has them as a favorite to win the title, about the same as DEN.  I think in the end, PHX and PHI are not going to be better, they will have drama and fit issues, and I don't think MIL is going to be better than BOS.  DEN is the reigning champ so for now, I give them a slight edge, mostly due to Jokic, but the Celtics may well have the better overall roster.  If the Celtics flit away regular season games and/or lose in the playoffs to a lesser team again, they will be fairly criticized for underachieving.

Is that the narrative you disagree with?

[Moranis]

Yes, the narrative I disagree with is the one that says Boston is the most talented and deepest team in the sport.  I think that is nonsense and no where near accurate and hasn't been since that started a season or two ago.  I believe there are at least 6 teams with more talent than Boston. Boston may very well again beat some of them in the playoffs, but that is more about Boston over achieving than anything else.

Boston has over achieved for years and it is that over achieving that has created this doom and gloom approach to the blog.  The only other team I can think of that won at around the level of Boston over multiple seasons with no top 5 player and only 1 top 20 player are the early 2000's Pistons.  Boston has over achieved for years.  Tatum is getting close to the top 5 level where you'd expect this level of success and Brown is close enough to top 20 that they are only right now looking like what historical champions look like (especially with Zinger as a 3rd option). 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Yes, the narrative I disagree with is the one that says Boston is the most talented and deepest team in the sport.  I think that is nonsense and no where near accurate and hasn't been since that started a season or two ago.  I believe there are at least 6 teams with more talent than Boston. Boston may very well again beat some of them in the playoffs, but that is more about Boston over achieving than anything else.

Boston has over achieved for years and it is that over achieving that has created this doom and gloom approach to the blog.  The only other team I can think of that won at around the level of Boston over multiple seasons with no top 5 player and only 1 top 20 player are the early 2000's Pistons.  Boston has over achieved for years.  Tatum is getting close to the top 5 level where you'd expect this level of success and Brown is close enough to top 20 that they are only right now looking like what historical champions look like (especially with Zinger as a 3rd option).

This may be a case of the chicken or the egg. If the Celtics had beaten the Warriors, Tatum would have been anointed as a top 5 player and Brown a sure-fire top 20 guy. But they lost, so now they aren't?

The jockeying for the best players in the NBA is so fluid. It's not static like you suggest here. It's heavily narrative-based.

They were ascending and had the opportunity to seize that narrative, that position in the NBA. But they failed. That doesn't mean the talent isn't there. It means the actual result isn't. If that happens long enough, it proves the talent was never there, but we aren't at that point yet.

[gouki88]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

[Moranis]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

these guys were also all MVP's before winning the title.  They are just a different tier of talent, which comes back to the point I've been arguing in this thread i.e. Boston's talent has been significantly overrated nationally and on this board.

[lbgreen33]

Boston lost series the last 2 seasons it could (maybe should) have won, however Boston also won series in each of those playoffs where the best player on the floor was on the other team and who arguably were also more talented in the top 5 or 6 players. And the Warriors also had the best player in that series.

This board has fallen hard on the false media narrative that the Celts are the deepest and most talented team in the sport.  It is nonsense and always has been.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.  Certainly the Celtics had a better overall roster than MIA in the 2023 playoffs, even with Brogdon hurt, but underperformed, and lost.  Are you asserting that MIL had a better roster in 2022, but that somehow we beat them?  Even if this is true, what does it prove about the team going into 2023-24?

I think it is a reasonable argument that the Celtics have the best roster going into this season.  It is also reasonable to argue that a couple of other teams are right there and depending on injuries other intangibles, any one of a couple of team could end up with the best roster.  But that includes the Celtics.  I am not sure what narrative you are referring to that is so false.

Milwaukee 2 years ago and Philly last year had the best player on the floor in the series (though Embiid missed a game or 2).  The Sixers had Harden, Maxey, and Harris in the 2, 3, 4 spots, all arguably better than the players in those spots for Boston. So the Celtics beat a more talented team at the top before losing to Miami.  Milwaukee, without Middleton, was much closer talent wise, but it isn't like Jrue, Lopez, Portis, etc. we're bad players.  And while I thought Boston would beat Golden State, the Warriors had the best player and arguably more talent at the top as well.

Yes Boston should have beaten Miami talent wise, but you could argue they shouldn't have beaten Philly talent wise so it evens out some.  And if Tatum doesn't get hurt in game 7, who knows how that turns out. 

I just don't buy the nonsensical argument that Boston is this uber talented team that is just better than everyone else and then chokes.  It just isn't true.

I am with Moranis on this one! I Actually laugh out load when I hear the criticism about this team. Things like why can't they just punch it across the goal line! Just shows most people don't understand how hard it is to Win a Title.
Sorry folks, You are wrong about the Celtics, They were very good, but Not good enough. Will KP push them over the top? I don't know, but of course I hope so.
Perfect Example; How many Rings did  Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen Win together?
ONE people!!! an obviously better team than ours last year and they only won ONE title together.
Why aren't you questioning them?? They should have won 3 titles, they only won 1 because it is HARD!!!!!
Okay, I am done with my rant

[gouki88]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

these guys were also all MVP's before winning the title.  They are just a different tier of talent, which comes back to the point I've been arguing in this thread i.e. Boston's talent has been significantly overrated nationally and on this board.

I would argue that a top-4 MVP candidate is pretty close to MVP level, especially given he is 3+ years younger than all those above him.

[Moranis]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

these guys were also all MVP's before winning the title.  They are just a different tier of talent, which comes back to the point I've been arguing in this thread i.e. Boston's talent has been significantly overrated nationally and on this board.

I would argue that a top-4 MVP candidate is pretty close to MVP level, especially given he is 3+ years younger than all those above him.

Giannis won his 2 MVP's when he was 24 and 25 though.  Jokic was 25 and 26.  Lebron, Jordan, and Giannis were all 24 when they won their first MVP.  Jokic was 25.

Those guys are just a different class of player than Tatum is. 

[gouki88]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

these guys were also all MVP's before winning the title.  They are just a different tier of talent, which comes back to the point I've been arguing in this thread i.e. Boston's talent has been significantly overrated nationally and on this board.

I would argue that a top-4 MVP candidate is pretty close to MVP level, especially given he is 3+ years younger than all those above him.

Giannis won his 2 MVP's when he was 24 and 25 though.  Jokic was 25 and 26.  Lebron, Jordan, and Giannis were all 24 when they won their first MVP.  Jokic was 25.

Those guys are just a different class of player than Tatum is.

We'll see, but you seem insistent that Tatum is done improving.

I just think this is yet another instance of your continued underrating of Celtic talent, no matter who the player actually is.

As I've said before, Kobe is my continued comparison for Tatum. His first MVP was in his late 20s, and was able to be the best player on 2 title teams.

[SparzWizard]

It's all mental man. Coupled that with just poor coaching. That Hawks series had no business going 6 games. 5? I can understand but 6? My goodness. Murray was out with a suspension and they couldn't cap that at home.

That 76ers series also had no business going 7 games. Game 1 when Embiid was out? I saw an L coming for Boston and I can't believe I was right-- they played down to their competition. That ridiculous dish to Harden for the game-winning 3 in Game 4? Just undisciplined ball. C's could've easily been up 3-1 in that series. Game 5 the C's get blown out at home, where they've played miserable all playoffs long. They almost dropped Game 6 until Tatum decided to show up in the 4th quarter.

Don't even wanna get started with the Miami series. 

[Moranis]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

these guys were also all MVP's before winning the title.  They are just a different tier of talent, which comes back to the point I've been arguing in this thread i.e. Boston's talent has been significantly overrated nationally and on this board.

I would argue that a top-4 MVP candidate is pretty close to MVP level, especially given he is 3+ years younger than all those above him.

Giannis won his 2 MVP's when he was 24 and 25 though.  Jokic was 25 and 26.  Lebron, Jordan, and Giannis were all 24 when they won their first MVP.  Jokic was 25.

Those guys are just a different class of player than Tatum is.

We'll see, but you seem insistent that Tatum is done improving.

I just think this is yet another instance of your continued underrating of Celtic talent, no matter who the player actually is.

As I've said before, Kobe is my continued comparison for Tatum. His first MVP was in his late 20s, and was able to be the best player on 2 title teams.

I think Tatum can be the best player on a title team.  I've said that for years, but Tatum isn't an all time great either.

[gouki88]

Our young stars have had quite a lot of success for players their age. Players their age very rarely lead teams to titles. Giannis was 27, Jokic was 28, LeBron was 28, Jordan was 28.

Duncan did so when he was young, but his brain was uniquely mature & he was paired with the Admiral. Kobe won young, but he had Shaq. As did Wade.

I think it takes time.

these guys were also all MVP's before winning the title.  They are just a different tier of talent, which comes back to the point I've been arguing in this thread i.e. Boston's talent has been significantly overrated nationally and on this board.

I would argue that a top-4 MVP candidate is pretty close to MVP level, especially given he is 3+ years younger than all those above him.

Giannis won his 2 MVP's when he was 24 and 25 though.  Jokic was 25 and 26.  Lebron, Jordan, and Giannis were all 24 when they won their first MVP.  Jokic was 25.

Those guys are just a different class of player than Tatum is.

We'll see, but you seem insistent that Tatum is done improving.

I just think this is yet another instance of your continued underrating of Celtic talent, no matter who the player actually is.

As I've said before, Kobe is my continued comparison for Tatum. His first MVP was in his late 20s, and was able to be the best player on 2 title teams.

I think Tatum can be the best player on a title team.  I've said that for years, but Tatum isn't an all time great either.

How? How is a a 25 year-old who has been on 3 consecutive All-NBA teams and 4 consecutive All-Star teams, whilst leading his team to very deep playoff runs annually, with improvements coming every year, and had no injuries not on the path to being an all-time great?