Has the Cs championship window already closed?

[Roy Hobbs]

Every team that makes the playoffs theoretically has a shot at the championship, and the Celtics will certainly do that.

But do the Celtics have a realistic shot? I don't think so.

Which teams do you think *do* have a realistic shot?  The Lakers and the Hawks, I'm presuming.  Who else?

[More Banners]

(not using the quote button....posts getting too long)

The window is surely open, we sure could win it all, and I think on that narrow point, most of us agree.  I don't think there are many people suggesting we blow it up completely.

But winning it all is farther from a sure thing than several folks here seem to believe.  We are not dominant--we're not likely to go 4-0 on anyone in a series--so we could, theoretically, be/get better.  

We may or may not need to, and judgments of whether or not that is the case is part of the fun of following a really good team.  We could be "good enough" as is, or could try to create the best playoff rotation that we possibly can, which would realistically only involve trying to improve the bench with one or two players in a relatively minor deal.

My two cents suggests that there are certain qualities of champions, regardless of the competition, i.e. some role player always seems to emerge as a star, or some random guy makes a key play, like Jerry Sichting making that steal from Jordan in '86.  I'm not confident that we have that type of playoff depth...we have a few one-trick ponies, and Doc deciding how to match those guys up (perhaps playing the starters so much masks his inability to make adjustments?).  

So I'd like to pursue getting "that guy", the one that makes a difference in the playoffs.  'Sheed can be "that guy" for the bigs, and Quisy might be "that guy"...but certainly not backing up 3 spots.  After that, I get pretty nervous, and even healthy, minutes and foul trouble will require us to go deeper than 7 guys.

We're contenders either way, but i don't want to contend.  I want to win.  There is a difference, and I think blurring that fueled the fire in this thread.  

We look like an also-ran to me.

[Roy Hobbs]

(not using the quote button....posts getting too long)

The window is surely open, we sure could win it all, and I think on that narrow point, most of us agree.  I don't think there are many people suggesting we blow it up completely.

But winning it all is farther from a sure thing than several folks here seem to believe.  We are not dominant--we're not likely to go 4-0 on anyone in a series--so we could, theoretically, be/get better.  

We may or may not need to, and judgments of whether or not that is the case is part of the fun of following a really good team.  We could be "good enough" as is, or could try to create the best playoff rotation that we possibly can, which would realistically only involve trying to improve the bench with one or two players in a relatively minor deal.

My two cents suggests that there are certain qualities of champions, regardless of the competition, i.e. some role player always seems to emerge as a star, or some random guy makes a key play, like Jerry Sichting making that steal from Jordan in '86.  I'm not confident that we have that type of playoff depth...we have a few one-trick ponies, and Doc deciding how to match those guys up (perhaps playing the starters so much masks his inability to make adjustments?).  

So I'd like to pursue getting "that guy", the one that makes a difference in the playoffs.  'Sheed can be "that guy" for the bigs, and Quisy might be "that guy"...but certainly not backing up 3 spots.  After that, I get pretty nervous, and even healthy, minutes and foul trouble will require us to go deeper than 7 guys.

We're contenders either way, but i don't want to contend.  I want to win.  There is a difference, and I think blurring that fueled the fire in this thread.  

We look like an also-ran to me.

Do you think the 2007 team was better designed to win than the current one?  Are Posey and Brown that much closer to ideal role players than Wallace and Daniels?

[Brickowski]

Every team that makes the playoffs theoretically has a shot at the championship, and the Celtics will certainly do that.

But do the Celtics have a realistic shot? I don't think so.

Which teams do you think *do* have a realistic shot?  The Lakers and the Hawks, I'm presuming.  Who else?

Cavs

Also Phoenix or Dallas could get lucky.  San Antonio has the same problem we do: key players are too old.

[Brickowski]

Every team that makes the playoffs theoretically has a shot at the championship, and the Celtics will certainly do that.

But do the Celtics have a realistic shot? I don't think so.

Which teams do you think *do* have a realistic shot?  The Lakers and the Hawks, I'm presuming.  Who else?

Cavs

Also Phoenix, Dallas or the Nuggets could get lucky.  San Antonio has the same problem we do: key players are too old.

[GreenFaith1819]

There is no more window, unless it's got bars on it.  Unfortunately, Ainge doesn't have the cojones to blow it up now.

Brick, no offense to you, but when I saw this I laughed until tears rolled down my face. You are a consistent one.

You certainly stick to your guns.

I believe you will enjoy The Celtics Banner 18 in June this year more than anyone else.

[dlpin]

Every team that makes the playoffs theoretically has a shot at the championship, and the Celtics will certainly do that.

But do the Celtics have a realistic shot? I don't think so.

Which teams do you think *do* have a realistic shot?  The Lakers and the Hawks, I'm presuming.  Who else?

Cavs

Also Phoenix or Dallas could get lucky.  San Antonio has the same problem we do: key players are too old.

Weren't you picking the hawks to come out of the east not too long ago?

And so Dallas' 8-7 over the past 15 games while fully healthy means you think they have realistic, even if dependent on luck, shot, but we don't because we went 7-8? And how are their key players not "too old" too? Marion and Dirk are almost the same age as Pierce, Kidd is older than anyone on our team, Terry is Pierce's age and Dampier is Allen's age.

Phoenix? That team that is 6-9 over the past 15, and which has among its key players a 35 Nash and a 37 Hill?

[More Banners]

(not using the quote button....posts getting too long)

  We are not dominant--we're not likely to go 4-0 on anyone in a series--so we could, theoretically, be/get better.  

We could be "good enough" as is, or could try to create the best playoff rotation that we possibly can, which would realistically only involve trying to improve the bench with one or two players in a relatively minor deal.

I'm not confident that we have that type of playoff depth...we have a few one-trick ponies, and Doc deciding how to match those guys up (perhaps playing the starters so much masks his inability to make adjustments?).  

So I'd like to pursue getting "that guy", the one that makes a difference in the playoffs.  'Sheed can be "that guy" for the bigs, and Quisy might be "that guy"...but certainly not backing up 3 spots.  After that, I get pretty nervous, and even healthy, minutes and foul trouble will require us to go deeper than 7 guys.

We're contenders either way, but i don't want to contend.  I want to win.  There is a difference, and I think blurring that fueled the fire in this thread.  

We look like an also-ran to me.

Do you think the 2007 team was better designed to win than the current one?  Are Posey and Brown that much closer to ideal role players than Wallace and Daniels?

Wow.  That's a great question...or two questions, eh?  

I think the team is more different than it seems...I don't think we're currently anywhere near the defensive unit that we were, and the Highly Marketed 3 were much more potent offensively then, too.  The team is built around The Marketed 3, so it has to respond to changes in their game.  So we need to be better around them than we were then, since they're not as good:  Ray's defense is even worse, and we know about KG.  PP's game has always been physical, and I think he is much more prone to wearing down now, 2 years later.  We need to be deeper, just to break even.  

Rondo and Perk's development...they were pretty good then, weren't they?  I don't think their improvement since the title, though very real, makes a huge difference.

PJ vs. 'Sheed:  Advantage to 'Sheed, but the difference is made up for in the decline in KG, so it's still a wash at the big positions.  That's good.

Posey vs. Daniels:  Pose solidified the team's defensive identity in a way that Daniels simply does not.  The attitude helped them to think "dominant", too.  Posey made other guys better defensive players.  He was finals-tested and verified before he came to us, via Miami's title run, while Daniels is just a good player.  (Also, Daniels the playmaker/backup PG takes him out of the Daniels the scorer role, and I'm not sure that is to our advantage, or the best use of his talent.)  Evaluating Daniels, this year, can only earn an Incomplete so far, due to the injury.  But with Ray's defensive decline, and PP's game being so physical, the importance of the backup wing spot is more important, and we're taking a bigger gamble with a less proven player. After Daniels, there is nobody I want on the floor in the playoffs at the wing.  That's a problem.  So, in this key position, it's '07-8 in a landslide.  He was that important, and everyone knew it.

When they let him walk, they knew it would take more than one guy to fill the many roles he did.  Unfortunatly, the bench hasn't gotten longer, and some of those roles are holes.  TA and Scal don't cut it, and Daniels is "playing" PG...giving House a bigger role than he can fill.

So, the version made in 2007/8 was much, much more solid than the current one, hands down, no contest.

[BballTim]

(not using the quote button....posts getting too long)

The window is surely open, we sure could win it all, and I think on that narrow point, most of us agree.  I don't think there are many people suggesting we blow it up completely.

But winning it all is farther from a sure thing than several folks here seem to believe.  We are not dominant--we're not likely to go 4-0 on anyone in a series--so we could, theoretically, be/get better.  

We may or may not need to, and judgments of whether or not that is the case is part of the fun of following a really good team.  We could be "good enough" as is, or could try to create the best playoff rotation that we possibly can, which would realistically only involve trying to improve the bench with one or two players in a relatively minor deal.

My two cents suggests that there are certain qualities of champions, regardless of the competition, i.e. some role player always seems to emerge as a star, or some random guy makes a key play, like Jerry Sichting making that steal from Jordan in '86.  I'm not confident that we have that type of playoff depth...we have a few one-trick ponies, and Doc deciding how to match those guys up (perhaps playing the starters so much masks his inability to make adjustments?).  

So I'd like to pursue getting "that guy", the one that makes a difference in the playoffs.  'Sheed can be "that guy" for the bigs, and Quisy might be "that guy"...but certainly not backing up 3 spots.  After that, I get pretty nervous, and even healthy, minutes and foul trouble will require us to go deeper than 7 guys.

We're contenders either way, but i don't want to contend.  I want to win.  There is a difference, and I think blurring that fueled the fire in this thread.  

We look like an also-ran to me.

Do you think the 2007 team was better designed to win than the current one?  Are Posey and Brown that much closer to ideal role players than Wallace and Daniels?

  Don't forget that Brown was a late season addition and we'll still probably make one.

  Aside from the makeup of the roster you also have to consider that our top 7 (if you put Davis there) all have championship experience as well as a lot of playoff experience and a lot of experience playing together in big games.

[More Banners]

(not using the quote button....posts getting too long)

The window is surely open, we sure could win it all, and I think on that narrow point, most of us agree.  I don't think there are many people suggesting we blow it up completely.

But winning it all is farther from a sure thing than several folks here seem to believe.  We are not dominant--we're not likely to go 4-0 on anyone in a series--so we could, theoretically, be/get better.  

We may or may not need to, and judgments of whether or not that is the case is part of the fun of following a really good team.  We could be "good enough" as is, or could try to create the best playoff rotation that we possibly can, which would realistically only involve trying to improve the bench with one or two players in a relatively minor deal.

My two cents suggests that there are certain qualities of champions, regardless of the competition, i.e. some role player always seems to emerge as a star, or some random guy makes a key play, like Jerry Sichting making that steal from Jordan in '86.  I'm not confident that we have that type of playoff depth...we have a few one-trick ponies, and Doc deciding how to match those guys up (perhaps playing the starters so much masks his inability to make adjustments?).  

So I'd like to pursue getting "that guy", the one that makes a difference in the playoffs.  'Sheed can be "that guy" for the bigs, and Quisy might be "that guy"...but certainly not backing up 3 spots.  After that, I get pretty nervous, and even healthy, minutes and foul trouble will require us to go deeper than 7 guys.

We're contenders either way, but i don't want to contend.  I want to win.  There is a difference, and I think blurring that fueled the fire in this thread.  

We look like an also-ran to me.

Do you think the 2007 team was better designed to win than the current one?  Are Posey and Brown that much closer to ideal role players than Wallace and Daniels?

  Don't forget that Brown was a late season addition and we'll still probably make one.

  Aside from the makeup of the roster you also have to consider that our top 7 (if you put Davis there) all have championship experience as well as a lot of playoff experience and a lot of experience playing together in big games.

If the '08 team had the experience together, maybe their playoff record would've been better.  They won, but barely, even as strong as they were: 4-3, 4-3, 4-2, and 4-2.

There is also a down side:  that team had something to prove.  I think these guys believe their own hype.

[BballTim]

(not using the quote button....posts getting too long)

The window is surely open, we sure could win it all, and I think on that narrow point, most of us agree.  I don't think there are many people suggesting we blow it up completely.

But winning it all is farther from a sure thing than several folks here seem to believe.  We are not dominant--we're not likely to go 4-0 on anyone in a series--so we could, theoretically, be/get better.  

We may or may not need to, and judgments of whether or not that is the case is part of the fun of following a really good team.  We could be "good enough" as is, or could try to create the best playoff rotation that we possibly can, which would realistically only involve trying to improve the bench with one or two players in a relatively minor deal.

My two cents suggests that there are certain qualities of champions, regardless of the competition, i.e. some role player always seems to emerge as a star, or some random guy makes a key play, like Jerry Sichting making that steal from Jordan in '86.  I'm not confident that we have that type of playoff depth...we have a few one-trick ponies, and Doc deciding how to match those guys up (perhaps playing the starters so much masks his inability to make adjustments?).  

So I'd like to pursue getting "that guy", the one that makes a difference in the playoffs.  'Sheed can be "that guy" for the bigs, and Quisy might be "that guy"...but certainly not backing up 3 spots.  After that, I get pretty nervous, and even healthy, minutes and foul trouble will require us to go deeper than 7 guys.

We're contenders either way, but i don't want to contend.  I want to win.  There is a difference, and I think blurring that fueled the fire in this thread.  

We look like an also-ran to me.

Do you think the 2007 team was better designed to win than the current one?  Are Posey and Brown that much closer to ideal role players than Wallace and Daniels?

  Don't forget that Brown was a late season addition and we'll still probably make one.

  Aside from the makeup of the roster you also have to consider that our top 7 (if you put Davis there) all have championship experience as well as a lot of playoff experience and a lot of experience playing together in big games.

If the '08 team had the experience together, maybe their playoff record would've been better.  They won, but barely, even as strong as they were: 4-3, 4-3, 4-2, and 4-2.

There is also a down side:  that team had something to prove.  I think these guys believe their own hype.

  True. I think you might have to go back to Moses on the 76ers to find a team that was as hungry to win a title as those guys were. Maybe Hakeem's Rockets team, maybe not.

[Brickowski]

Every team that makes the playoffs theoretically has a shot at the championship, and the Celtics will certainly do that.

But do the Celtics have a realistic shot? I don't think so.

Which teams do you think *do* have a realistic shot?  The Lakers and the Hawks, I'm presuming.  Who else?

Cavs

Also Phoenix or Dallas could get lucky.  San Antonio has the same problem we do: key players are too old.

Weren't you picking the hawks to come out of the east not too long ago?

And so Dallas' 8-7 over the past 15 games while fully healthy means you think they have realistic, even if dependent on luck, shot, but we don't because we went 7-8? And how are their key players not "too old" too? Marion and Dirk are almost the same age as Pierce, Kidd is older than anyone on our team, Terry is Pierce's age and Dampier is Allen's age.

Phoenix? That team that is 6-9 over the past 15, and which has among its key players a 35 Nash and a 37 Hill?

Yes, I've picked the Hawks, but Roy Hobbes already listed them in his post.

[ManUp]

http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2010/01/celtics-lakers-struggling-with-heavyweights.html

This makes me feel a lot better. The Lakers aren't as good as last year, and I feel like we matchup well against the Cavs. I definitely think we need to improve, but I was unaware of where the other teams stood.

[Eja117]

As I'm watching I'm coming to the conclusion the window is nailed shut in a big big way, like we're trying to keep ourselves safe from nuclear fall out or something and this is why


Rondo is the new best player on the team. Certainly no worse than 2nd best. Maybe he isn't #1, but he's more special.

I don't think a team with Rondo as the best player can win a ring at this time.

It's like if you gave Steve Nash an over the hill star, a good non-all star sg, an all star sf who has peaked and a big huge cancer. Then coach that team with Doc.

That team wouldn't win a ring.

[PosImpos]

As I'm watching I'm coming to the conclusion the window is nailed shut in a big big way, like we're trying to keep ourselves safe from nuclear fall out or something and this is why


Rondo is the new best player on the team. Certainly no worse than 2nd best. Maybe he isn't #1, but he's more special.

I don't think a team with Rondo as the best player can win a ring at this time.

It's like if you gave Steve Nash an over the hill star, a good non-all star sg, an all star sf who has peaked and a big huge cancer. Then coach that team with Doc.

That team wouldn't win a ring.

Also, Rondo is very good but he's no Steve Nash.  Steve Nash can't defend like Rondo, but he's one of the greatest shooters of all time and he's a great scorer for his position.

I agree, the Celtics (at least given how they've played throughout the season) aren't a true contender at this time.