Is Scheierman A Wasted Pick?

[Roy H.]

it.

EDIT:  On the topic of Filipowski:  it's worth keeping in mind that our current frontcourt black hole did not exist when we were making that pick.  Yeah, he'd be nice to have NOW.  At the time we made the pick, we had KP and Horford under contract and were in the process of re-signing Kornet, Tillman (back when we thought we had fleeced the Grizzlies out of a good rotation big man) and Queta

We knew Horford was nearing retirement and needed to be replaced.  Brad also said he's known the team would be blown up since the Bragdon trade.  So, needing a big was pretty foreseeable.

not necessarily. I mean it could have been White moved with KP and a re-signed Horford still here

Horford for what, one season?  He's 39 years old.  It's pretty foreseeable that those guys would need to be replaced.

[Vermont Green]

it.

EDIT:  On the topic of Filipowski:  it's worth keeping in mind that our current frontcourt black hole did not exist when we were making that pick.  Yeah, he'd be nice to have NOW.  At the time we made the pick, we had KP and Horford under contract and were in the process of re-signing Kornet, Tillman (back when we thought we had fleeced the Grizzlies out of a good rotation big man) and Queta

We knew Horford was nearing retirement and needed to be replaced.  Brad also said he's known the team would be blown up since the Bragdon trade.  So, needing a big was pretty foreseeable.

not necessarily. I mean it could have been White moved with KP and a re-signed Horford still here

Horford for what, one season?  He's 39 years old.  It's pretty foreseeable that those guys would need to be replaced.

I think the point is at the time that Scheierman was drafted, what was the immediate need?  Plenty of people were saying that BOS needed another shooter.  A prospect big to replace Horford some time in the future was not the priority.  Now it turned out that Scheierman did not help the team.  Scheierman has not even lived up to the limited expectation of a 30th pick.  But was the philosophy of picking a player you hoped could help now the wrong philosophy?  The player you hoped was more NBA ready?

I guess you could debate whether it was smarter to try and draft the more NBA ready player or a future replacement for Horford.  Either could be a good reason to draft a player.  I thought Scheierman was an OK pick at the time, I was wrong.  I usually am regarding draft picks.  There is no way to know.  Filipowski seemed like there was some risk.  Some family issues or something.  Turns out those were nothing.  I was wrong about him too.  But I would not be concerned about using the 30th pick and expecting the player to replace Horford a year later.  Filipowski may be an upgrade over Garza but he is no Horford replacement.

[Roy H.]

it.

EDIT:  On the topic of Filipowski:  it's worth keeping in mind that our current frontcourt black hole did not exist when we were making that pick.  Yeah, he'd be nice to have NOW.  At the time we made the pick, we had KP and Horford under contract and were in the process of re-signing Kornet, Tillman (back when we thought we had fleeced the Grizzlies out of a good rotation big man) and Queta

We knew Horford was nearing retirement and needed to be replaced.  Brad also said he's known the team would be blown up since the Bragdon trade.  So, needing a big was pretty foreseeable.

not necessarily. I mean it could have been White moved with KP and a re-signed Horford still here

Horford for what, one season?  He's 39 years old.  It's pretty foreseeable that those guys would need to be replaced.

I think the point is at the time that Scheierman was drafted, what was the immediate need?  Plenty of people were saying that BOS needed another shooter.  A prospect big to replace Horford some time in the future was not the priority.  Now it turned out that Scheierman did not help the team.  Scheierman has not even lived up to the limited expectation of a 30th pick.  But was the philosophy of picking a player you hoped could help now the wrong philosophy?  The player you hoped was more NBA ready?

I guess you could debate whether it was smarter to try and draft the more NBA ready player or a future replacement for Horford.  Either could be a good reason to draft a player.  I thought Scheierman was an OK pick at the time, I was wrong.  I usually am regarding draft picks.  There is no way to know.  Filipowski seemed like there was some risk.  Some family issues or something.  Turns out those were nothing.  I was wrong about him too.  But I would not be concerned about using the 30th pick and expecting the player to replace Horford a year later.  Filipowski may be an upgrade over Garza but he is no Horford replacement.

Go back and read the draft threads.  The consensus was that we needed another big.

[Goldstar88]

He?s a healthy scratch tonight. Doesn?t seem like Baylor has improved at all from last year and he?s already 25.

[Celtics4ever]

I think the point is at the time that Scheierman was drafted, what was the immediate need?  Plenty of people were saying that BOS needed another shooter.  A prospect big to replace Horford some time in the future was not the priority.  Now it turned out that Scheierman did not help the team.  Scheierman has not even lived up to the limited expectation of a 30th pick.  But was the philosophy of picking a player you hoped could help now the wrong philosophy?  The player you hoped was more NBA ready?

I really think it can be a wrong philosophy, if you don't take into account basic athletic ability.   Guys have succeeded with all levels of athletic ability in the NBA.   I think wings and guards are generally speaking the most athletic guys.  Picking a guy who doesn't have foot speed at these positions is not good judgment.  You can't get open, you can stay in front of your man and etc., etc.

The amount of importance this franchise has given to bigs in the post Bird Era is very low and has always been disappointing.   Ainge got KG and he was the last great big we have had.    Al was a good big and more than serviceable.   Neemias shows promise.   But how many times do we have to get destroyed by other teams with size, before someone realizes it?

You need to have some rim protecting and rebounding to play any style of basketball effectively.

[keevsnick]

If I remember correctly at the time I was fine with either Scheierman or Fillipowski. I got the argument for either guy.

I'm still not that upset about Fillipowski, he's tall at 6'11 but he has only an 8'11 standing reach and a 6'11 wingspan. He's got those T-rex arms that make it difficult to be good defender at the center position. For that reason i think he probably tops out at 3rd big, offensive specialist. On the other hand that's better than Scheierman is looking.

The I think the real miss is Kalkbrenner. That guys is perfect for what the Celtics need. He's 7'1, with a 9'4 standing reach and 7'6(!) standing reach. Ideal rim protecting center size with great hands and touch around the basket. He would have been a perfect Kornet replacement.

[slightly biased bias fan]

If I remember correctly at the time I was fine with either Scheierman or Fillipowski. I got the argument for either guy.

I'm still not that upset about Fillipowski, he's tall at 6'11 but he has only an 8'11 standing reach and a 6'11 wingspan. He's got those T-rex arms that make it difficult to be good defender at the center position. For that reason i think he probably tops out at 3rd big, offensive specialist. On the other hand that's better than Scheierman is looking.

The I think the real miss is Kalkbrenner. That guys is perfect for what the Celtics need. He's 7'1, with a 9'4 standing reach and 7'6(!) standing reach. Ideal rim protecting center size with great hands and touch around the basket. He would have been a perfect Kornet replacement.

I do not think Kalkbrenner even figured into the Celtics drafting equation. He was not at any draft workouts and there was no chatter about Celtics interest in him.

It seems Mazzulla has a system where he only wants players that can shoot threes or have the potential to shoot threes. This is the issue I have with him as Celtics coach. Mazzulla has no flexibility in his philosophy and that restricts who the Celtics can bring in.

Obviously the Celtics have Queta, but given the Celtics got him for nothing, before Mazzulla was in charge and Queta was the fourth string centre behind Porzingis, Horford & Kornet, he is the rare exception to the rule.

[Silas]

If I remember correctly at the time I was fine with either Scheierman or Fillipowski. I got the argument for either guy.

I'm still not that upset about Fillipowski, he's tall at 6'11 but he has only an 8'11 standing reach and a 6'11 wingspan. He's got those T-rex arms that make it difficult to be good defender at the center position. For that reason i think he probably tops out at 3rd big, offensive specialist. On the other hand that's better than Scheierman is looking.

The I think the real miss is Kalkbrenner. That guys is perfect for what the Celtics need. He's 7'1, with a 9'4 standing reach and 7'6(!) standing reach. Ideal rim protecting center size with great hands and touch around the basket. He would have been a perfect Kornet replacement.

I do not think Kalkbrenner even figured into the Celtics drafting equation. He was not at any draft workouts and there was no chatter about Celtics interest in him.

It seems Mazzulla has a system where he only wants players that can shoot threes or have the potential to shoot threes. This is the issue I have with him as Celtics coach. Mazzulla has no flexibility in his philosophy and that restricts who the Celtics can bring in.

Obviously the Celtics have Queta, but given the Celtics got him for nothing, before Mazzulla was in charge and Queta was the fourth string centre behind Porzingis, Horford & Kornet, he is the rare exception to the rule.

FWIW, Joe became the coach in Sept '22 and the Celtics signed Queta to a two-way contract in Sept. '23.

[slightly biased bias fan]

If I remember correctly at the time I was fine with either Scheierman or Fillipowski. I got the argument for either guy.

I'm still not that upset about Fillipowski, he's tall at 6'11 but he has only an 8'11 standing reach and a 6'11 wingspan. He's got those T-rex arms that make it difficult to be good defender at the center position. For that reason i think he probably tops out at 3rd big, offensive specialist. On the other hand that's better than Scheierman is looking.

The I think the real miss is Kalkbrenner. That guys is perfect for what the Celtics need. He's 7'1, with a 9'4 standing reach and 7'6(!) standing reach. Ideal rim protecting center size with great hands and touch around the basket. He would have been a perfect Kornet replacement.

I do not think Kalkbrenner even figured into the Celtics drafting equation. He was not at any draft workouts and there was no chatter about Celtics interest in him.

It seems Mazzulla has a system where he only wants players that can shoot threes or have the potential to shoot threes. This is the issue I have with him as Celtics coach. Mazzulla has no flexibility in his philosophy and that restricts who the Celtics can bring in.

Obviously the Celtics have Queta, but given the Celtics got him for nothing, before Mazzulla was in charge and Queta was the fourth string centre behind Porzingis, Horford & Kornet, he is the rare exception to the rule.

FWIW, Joe became the coach in Sept '22 and the Celtics signed Queta to a two-way contract in Sept. '23.

Yes, you are correct, but Mazzulla was only the interim head coach at that time.

Udoka was technically still the head coach.

[slightly biased bias fan]

Sorry, duplicate post.

[Silas]

If I remember correctly at the time I was fine with either Scheierman or Fillipowski. I got the argument for either guy.

I'm still not that upset about Fillipowski, he's tall at 6'11 but he has only an 8'11 standing reach and a 6'11 wingspan. He's got those T-rex arms that make it difficult to be good defender at the center position. For that reason i think he probably tops out at 3rd big, offensive specialist. On the other hand that's better than Scheierman is looking.

The I think the real miss is Kalkbrenner. That guys is perfect for what the Celtics need. He's 7'1, with a 9'4 standing reach and 7'6(!) standing reach. Ideal rim protecting center size with great hands and touch around the basket. He would have been a perfect Kornet replacement.

I do not think Kalkbrenner even figured into the Celtics drafting equation. He was not at any draft workouts and there was no chatter about Celtics interest in him.

It seems Mazzulla has a system where he only wants players that can shoot threes or have the potential to shoot threes. This is the issue I have with him as Celtics coach. Mazzulla has no flexibility in his philosophy and that restricts who the Celtics can bring in.

Obviously the Celtics have Queta, but given the Celtics got him for nothing, before Mazzulla was in charge and Queta was the fourth string centre behind Porzingis, Horford & Kornet, he is the rare exception to the rule.

FWIW, Joe became the coach in Sept '22 and the Celtics signed Queta to a two-way contract in Sept. '23.

Yes, you are correct, but Mazzulla was only the interim head coach at that time.

Udoka was technically still the head coach.

Actually Joe was officially named head coach Feb. '23 several months before Queta signed his contract in Sept.

[No Nickname]

If I remember correctly at the time I was fine with either Scheierman or Fillipowski. I got the argument for either guy.

I'm still not that upset about Fillipowski, he's tall at 6'11 but he has only an 8'11 standing reach and a 6'11 wingspan. He's got those T-rex arms that make it difficult to be good defender at the center position. For that reason i think he probably tops out at 3rd big, offensive specialist. On the other hand that's better than Scheierman is looking.

The I think the real miss is Kalkbrenner. That guys is perfect for what the Celtics need. He's 7'1, with a 9'4 standing reach and 7'6(!) standing reach. Ideal rim protecting center size with great hands and touch around the basket. He would have been a perfect Kornet replacement.

Yup, I have been saying that since we traded down and missed out on Kalkbrenner.

I would have been happy with either him or the Frenchman from Stanford who (doesn't) play for the Kings.

The Frenchman can shoot threes, has more offensive finesse, but isn't as strong as Kalkbrenner. 

Kalkbrenner is like Plumlee.  A steady big who can protect the rim, get boards, and clean up with some offensive boards.