Are the Celtics capable of winning 72 or more games?

[fairweatherfan]

Are the capable of it? Yes

Will they? I highly doubt it

My thoughts as well.

yerp

One more ditto.  I think the team will keep the starters' minutes down too much to make 72 wins feasible.  I'm saying 64.

Nthing it - tons of talent, but it's a long season with a lot of variables.  Can't wait to watch it play out though.

[fan33]

Yes they can, just as 'sheed says, and so that should be the driving goal!

Voted, yes, but there are greater goals 

[Neurotic Guy]

I can see getting caught up in it if they are threatening late in the season -- but the experience '07 Patriots really makes me hope that the C's are focused on health and home court (in that order) down the stretch and that 72 is not part of the equation. 

Though I am a C's fan above all, the Patriots loss to the Giants was a stunning and lasting disappointment -- lingering much longer than typical losses.  I really hope to not be thinking about 72 come April.

[Prof. Clutch]

When you really think about it, 72 is a lot of wins.  I mean, really a lot.  For them to be capable of pulling it off It would have to be a storybook season where every possible perfect scenario plays out.  I believe that to be far far too unlikely a probability of happening and so I voted no.

I believe 72 wins to be beyond capacity of reality even this incredible 2009 celtics team.

[nickagneta]

I guess I am one of the realistic few. Sorry, but I don't see any team in this league capable of winning 72 games. This is not MJ's NBA. More than a decade later this league is much deeper in talented players who could go off and control one whole game(heck Ramon Sessions scored 44 points in one game last year) and talented elite teams that will knock each other off.

I think the overall talent level of the league has created that old axiom that on any given night, any team in this league can be beaten by any other. For that reason I see at least 5 OOOOPS games in every good teams season this year. 5 games they just had no business losing. Add to that the rigors of having to play Orlando and Cleveland 4 times each and the Lakers, Spurs, Jazz, Rockets, Hornets, Nuggets and Trailblazers twice each and I just don't see this team overcoming that.

Not only that but they have two brutal stretches of games in the schedule(red highlighted games being tough games):

Sun, Nov 29    @ Miami
Tue, Dec 1    @ Charlotte
Thu, Dec 3    @ San Antonio
Fri, Dec 4    @ Oklahoma City
Tue, Dec 8    Milwaukee
Thu, Dec 10    @ Washington
Sat, Dec 12    @ Chicago
Mon, Dec 14    @ Memphis
Fri, Dec 18    Philadelphia
Sun, Dec 20    Minnesota
Tue, Dec 22    Indiana
Fri, Dec 25    @ Orlando
Sun, Dec 27    @ LA Clippers
Mon, Dec 28    @ Golden State
Wed, Dec 30    @ Phoenix
Sat, Jan 2    Toronto
Wed, Jan 6    @ Miami
Fri, Jan 8    @ Atlanta
Sun, Jan 10    @ Toronto
Mon, Jan 11    Atlanta

20 games in 44 days. 14 road games, 6 at home. I could easily see 6-7 losses in this stretch, a stretch that over the last two years they have stumbled through.

Thu, Jan 28    @ Orlando
Fri, Jan 29    @ Atlanta
Sun, Jan 31    LA Lakers
Mon, Feb 1    @ Washington
Wed, Feb 3    Miami
Fri, Feb 5    New Jersey
Sun, Feb 7    Orlando
Wed, Feb 10    @ New Orleans
Tue, Feb 16    @ Sacramento
Thu, Feb 18    @ LA Lakers
Fri, Feb 19    @ Portland
Sun, Feb 21    @ Denver

12 games in 25 days. 7 one the road, 5 at home. 8 really tough, tough games. 4-5 losses in this stretch is also very possible.

Could they cruise through the remainder of the schedule? Sure. But they might have to go undefeated in the remainder of all there games just to have a shot at 72 wins in my estimation.

Being a homer is good but until I see LeBron, Howard and Wade all on the same team, I don't see a team capable of winning 72 games in one year anytime soon.

[xmuscularghandix]

72 wins is impossible, and i'll tell you why.

The 95-96 Chicago Bulls (72 Wins)and The 85-86 Boston Celtics (67 Wins)are the two best teams in NBA history.

The difference between these teams is that the Bulls were killing teams during the expansion season.

Toronto Raptors (21-61) beaten by the Bulls 3/4 times.
Vancouver Grizzlies (15-67) beaten twice by the Bulls.

Thats 5 EASY wins, and could have been 6. Theres the difference between 67 and 72. The league is much better as a whole right now. The worst team in the league isn't as bad as the 95 Canadien teams.

[BudweiserCeltic]

72 wins is impossible, and i'll tell you why.

The 95-96 Chicago Bulls (72 Wins)and The 85-86 Boston Celtics (67 Wins)are the two best teams in NBA history.

The difference between these teams is that the Bulls were killing teams during the expansion season.

Toronto Raptors (21-61) beaten by the Bulls 3/4 times.
Vancouver Grizzlies (15-67) beaten twice by the Bulls.

Thats 5 EASY wins, and could have been 6. Theres the difference between 67 and 72. The league is much better as a whole right now. The worst team in the league isn't as bad as the 95 Canadien teams.

And yet we were on pace to break it last year. The toughness of the league and how good our team actually are is the least of my worries when concidering this (mainly because our team is really good). It's a long season, health is the major concern AND managing those highs and lows in a timely manner. That's all it is.

You say that the 85-86 Celtics were one of the best two teams in NBA history, yet last year Cleveland won 66 games... one less than the Celtics, and last year's Cleveland team certainly weren't any type of powerhouse. They were quite a good team with a dude called LeBron... but the 86' Celtics they weren't.

[Brickowski]

As I've said before, what matters isn't 72 and it isn't 18.

It's one: in the last playoff game they play.  That's the one they need to win.

[nickagneta]

As I've said before, what matters isn't 72 and it isn't 18.

It's one: in the last playoff game they play.  That's the one they need to win.

Amen to that Brick! Amen to that!

[BudweiserCeltic]

Let me just add, remember this offseason how the richer got richer? That means that the power overall is concentrated on the few... I think there are going to be more bad teams this year than the previous year, and we have an even better team. We'll see how it goes.

[Jon]

Let me just add, remember this offseason how the richer got richer? That means that the power overall is concentrated on the few... I think there are going to be more bad teams this year than the previous year, and we have an even better team. We'll see how it goes.

I agree with this.  Furthermore, while I agree that Jordan's team had the benefit of a weak league, I also don't think they were anything close to the '86 Celtics.  I mean, come on, Luc Longley couldn't have even made the '86 Celtics' squad and he was starting on the Bulls. 

I'd even argue that this current Celtics team would take the Bulls.  Sure they won a lot of games, but against who?  They beat the Sonics, who had a nice tandem of Kemp and Payton, but I'd argue that Rasheed Wallace (who is our sixth man) is better than the third best player on the Sonics, Detlef Schrempf.  For goodness sake, Ervin Johnson was their starting center and Frank Brickowski was getting steady minutes on that squad. 

Same with the Jazz, who took them 6 games the next year.  Stockton and Malone were great, but who else was on that squad?  Hornacek would be our 7th or 8th man on this squad and Byron Russell and Greg Ostertag probably couldn't even get off the bench. 

So yes, I agree it's unlikely.  But if this team could win 66 games two years ago with less chemistry, lesser versions of Rondo and Perkins and a lesser bench; and they could win 62 games last year with no bench and no KG for the final 25 games, I see no reason why they don't have at least a shot at 72 or 73. 

I mean Rasheed makes it so that there's arguably no drop off when Perkins goes out of the game and little drop off when KG does.  How many more games would we have won two years ago if the C's could've had a rotation that had two elite bigs on the court for all 48 minutes of a game if they wanted to? 

[Celtics17]

You made some very valid points and for the most part I agree with you. The Bulls did have some very weak players on that team. They did, however, also have some of the best the league has seen as well. Obviously Jordan is the first that comes to mind. Pippen was also an outstanding player. He and Michael Cooper are the two players I can think of who could have guarded Jordan one on one.

Dennis Rodman was also on that team. It's not by chance that he has five rings either. He was the best rebounder the league has seen in a long while and a premier defensive player in his own right. Beyond those three it was pretty much a lot of role players that made up the rest of that team, but they knew their roles and excelled in them. I like your argument though and hope you are right. I do think this team has a shot at 70 wins but there are just so many things that need to fall into place that statically speaking it's unlikely. Time will tell, let the season begin.

[nickagneta]

Tonight's game is a prime example of this earlier comment I made:

I see at least 5 OOOOPS games in every good teams season this year. 5 games they just had no business losing.

I thin tonight's lackluster, no defense type game will be played out as losses about 5-6 times this year for every single one of the top 6-8 teams in the league this year. The season is too long and stretches of the schedule too demanding in a much deeper league for any team to get to the 72 wins mark.

It just isn't possible.

[Tai]

Tonight's game is a prime example of this earlier comment I made:

I see at least 5 OOOOPS games in every good teams season this year. 5 games they just had no business losing.

I thin tonight's lackluster, no defense type game will be played out as losses about 5-6 times this year for every single one of the top 6-8 teams in the league this year. The season is too long and stretches of the schedule too demanding in a much deeper league for any team to get to the 72 wins mark.

It just isn't possible.

Buddy, I agree with the premise of your argument to it's every meaning, but if you're argument's based on a preseason game where our bench played their starters in the 4th, I'll argue we have nothing to worry about.

Besides, 103 points in a game is not lack luster. The problem was the other team managed to score 5 more points. In a preseason game, I won't sleep over lazy defense.

[nickagneta]

Tonight's game is a prime example of this earlier comment I made:

I see at least 5 OOOOPS games in every good teams season this year. 5 games they just had no business losing.

I thin tonight's lackluster, no defense type game will be played out as losses about 5-6 times this year for every single one of the top 6-8 teams in the league this year. The season is too long and stretches of the schedule too demanding in a much deeper league for any team to get to the 72 wins mark.

It just isn't possible.

Buddy, I agree with the premise of your argument to it's every meaning, but if you're argument's based on a preseason game where our bench played their starters in the 4th, I'll argue we have nothing to worry about.

Besides, 103 points in a game is not lack luster. The problem was the other team managed to score 5 more points. In a preseason game, I won't sleep over lazy defense.

Well, maybe the game wasn't a prime example but the result was. The C's should not lose one game to the Knicks this season for any reason. They are just too good and the Knicks are an atrocious team.

I do think though that the team was playing very lackluster defense and that their perimeter pressure defense was awful. They played NY's style of game instead of playing their style of game for most of the night. They should never get tied for rebounds or be outrebounded by this Knicks team ever and tonight they were. Rebounding is effort and tonight they didn't have that effort.

I don't particularly care if they won or lost tonight. What's important is conditioning, building familiarity and cohesion, sorting out the rotation and evaluating the status of each player and the team as a whole thus far. I think Doc achieved all these things tonight, which is great. I just think the grade of quality ball we will be seeing in some of my OOOps games will look a lot like tonight's game, that;s why a set this game up as an example.