Some final thoughts on Celtics season 2025-26

[Vermont Green]

The facts are that this team has underachieved in the playoffs the last 2 seasons.  I believe that in both cases, BOS lost to good teams, but in both cases, BOS was in position to win, but didn't.  So understandably, out come the call to get rid of Mazzulla, Brown, and even Brad Stevens.  I get the frustration, but rash fan reactions generally don't align with smart team management.

The Coach:  Title winning coach, perennially in the top tier in COTY voting.  Overachieved on a historic level in the regular season.  Fell short in the playoffs two seasons in a row.  Truth 1 - the rest of the NBA world seems to view Mazzulla much higher than the local fans do.  There was a lot of "Mazzulla will never win a title" before he won a title, but coaches have a shelf life, Mazzulla's may be sorter than the norm.  There is also the argument that his coaching style relative to 3PA is good for the regular season and maybe not so much for the playoffs (except for the season they went in and a title was won).  There could be some truth to this point, I am not sure.

The Roster:  The roster had plenty of weaknesses that somehow were not exposed in the regular season, but sure were in the playoffs.  I am not in the "Tatum and Brown can't play together" club, they won a title.  I am also not opposed to rational, well thought out plans to rebuild this roster, that include everything.  I would trade Brown for Giannis, for example.  Unless the team goes nuclear and trades Brown and Tatum and White, the basic structure is going to remain the same.  Two super-max deals and then not enough money to do much else.  You can't even afford to pay guys like Kornet ($11M for a bench big).  Only teams with stars on rookie deals can do that.

The Executive:  Some feel that executive of the year Brad Stevens should also be on the hot seat.  Hmmm.  I think if Stevens were to become available, there would be 29 NBA teams interested and probably the top 50 NCAA programs.  It is not going to be easy to change this roster unless something big is done like trading Brown.  If BOS does pretty much anything other than signing min contracts, they end up hard capped at the 1st Apron.  You can resign your own players to larger deals, but how does that change the roster?

[Birdman]

Paying 2 players over 50 million a year and white 30, can?t get more great players to help. If Tatum & Brown could rework their contracts then maybe but today players want that bag

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

joe's stupid style allowed us to choke last year and this year.

the players won in 2024 in spite of him.

the COTY was fired the same year he won it in toronto. a title winning coach(nick nurse) was then fired after him in the same town after showing decline. Keeping joe is utter stupidity beyond belief. we can do better. way better.

gutless cowards in the front office.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

i keep seeing we have no talent LOLOLOL

we were up 3-1 and blew it

talent did not lose

STRATEGY lost like last year

if joe had bill russell, hakeem olajuwon, SHAQ, moses malone, and kareem abdul jabbar as his starting 5 he would force them to shoot 3's. he is really that dumb.

[ozgod]

i keep seeing we have no talent LOLOLOL

we were up 3-1 and blew it

talent did not lose

STRATEGY lost like last year

if joe had bill russell, hakeem olajuwon, SHAQ, moses malone, and kareem abdul jabbar as his starting 5 he would force them to shoot 3's. he is really that dumb.

Ironically the reason we were up 3-1 is because we shot 50% from 3 and they shot 25%. They use the exact same one dimensional 3 happy strategy that got us up 3-1 and ended up finishing 0-3.

That?s probably why the 3-1 was misleading. Any time we shoot over 40% from three we?re going to win because we shoot so many of them. Which I think is the point you?re trying to make, we?re a one dimensional team. When our team makes threes, we blow people away. When we don?t, we struggle. They try to use sheer volume to overcome poor accuracy. It?s not a sustainable strategy if you don?t make your shots, and with threes you?re only ever gonna make a third of them really.

Problem is the last three games. The Sixers were the one shooting close to 50% from three.

[Kernewek]

Paying 2 players over 50 million a year and white 30, can?t get more great players to help. If Tatum & Brown could rework their contracts then maybe but today players want that bag

NBA players, generally, can't rework their contracts.

[Vermont Green]

i keep seeing we have no talent LOLOLOL

we were up 3-1 and blew it

talent did not lose

STRATEGY lost like last year

if joe had bill russell, hakeem olajuwon, SHAQ, moses malone, and kareem abdul jabbar as his starting 5 he would force them to shoot 3's. he is really that dumb.

Ironically the reason we were up 3-1 is because we shot 50% from 3 and they shot 25%. They use the exact same one dimensional 3 happy strategy that got us up 3-1 and ended up finishing 0-3.

That?s probably why the 3-1 was misleading. Any time we shoot over 40% from three we?re going to win because we shoot so many of them. Which I think is the point you?re trying to make, we?re a one dimensional team. When our team makes threes, we blow people away. When we don?t, we struggle. They try to use sheer volume to overcome poor accuracy. It?s not a sustainable strategy if you don?t make your shots, and with threes you?re only ever gonna make a third of them really.

Problem is the last three games. The Sixers were the one shooting close to 50% from three.

And when we lost to MIA, MIA had several players shooting around 50% from 3 for the series, players that hardly hit 3s at all in their careers.

For the first round of the playoffs, BOS took the most 3PA (46 per game).  The second most was OKC at 39 3PA per game.  It didn't seem to hurt them to take so many 3s.  They just hit a higher percentage.  So should BOS have averaged 40 per game to be about the same as OKC? Does that change things?  How about if they took more like 35 to more in the middle of the pack?

What I see is that taking more 3PA add volatility to the result.  If a team is 30% one game, 35% the next, then 40%, it swings the whole game.  This is the expected variation for something with a success rate of 35% or so.  I don't disagree that I would like to see BOS have more nuanced schemes, schemes with more options.  But the amount of 3PA have become the scapegoat.

[Goldstar88]

i keep seeing we have no talent LOLOLOL

we were up 3-1 and blew it

talent did not lose

STRATEGY lost like last year

if joe had bill russell, hakeem olajuwon, SHAQ, moses malone, and kareem abdul jabbar as his starting 5 he would force them to shoot 3's. he is really that dumb.

Ironically the reason we were up 3-1 is because we shot 50% from 3 and they shot 25%. They use the exact same one dimensional 3 happy strategy that got us up 3-1 and ended up finishing 0-3.

That?s probably why the 3-1 was misleading. Any time we shoot over 40% from three we?re going to win because we shoot so many of them. Which I think is the point you?re trying to make, we?re a one dimensional team. When our team makes threes, we blow people away. When we don?t, we struggle. They try to use sheer volume to overcome poor accuracy. It?s not a sustainable strategy if you don?t make your shots, and with threes you?re only ever gonna make a third of them really.

Problem is the last three games. The Sixers were the one shooting close to 50% from three.

Trying to reason with people who wanted Joe fired after the Celtics won a championship with him seems like an exercise in futility.