Are we just about guaranteed a top 10 pick?

[Birdman]

This team is going to be hard to score some points...no way they going to score 100 at anytime this season..or 90 lol

[mqtcelticsfan]

We're certainly not guaranteed a top 10 pick. It's certainly possible, and perhaps likely, but not guaranteed. We do play in a league with the Bobcats, Sixers, Raptors, Cavs, Bucks, Magic, Mavs, Kings, Suns, Jazz and Blazers. Each of these teams could be every bit as bad as the Celtics, as well as the Hawks, Wizards, Pelicans and Timberwolves.

[hwangjini_1]

I have to admit this thread is kind of blowing my mind.   They won 41 games last year (granted w/o rondo) and people are predicting 35 wins to playoff appearances?? I don't understand how losing two HOFers  who were also your two best players last year does not result in a significant amount of losses. 

I think the Celtics under-performed last season and their talent level should have resulted in more than 41 wins.

Please remember that not only did the celtics have a better record in games without rondo than games with rondo, with rondo playing their record last season was 18 wins and 20 loses.

Simply saying the team will succeed because of a full season of rondo is too simplistic.

Scoring will be a real challenge for the celtics since they don't have multiple players who can create their own shot reliably.

[LooseCannon]

This team is going to be hard to score some points...no way they going to score 100 at anytime this season..or 90 lol

Last season, the Bobcats scored 100 points in 24 games and failed to break 90 in 25 games.  For the Magic, those numbers were 27 and 28, respectively.  26 and 17 for Cleveland.

The Celtics had 32 games where they scored at least 100 points and 24 where they scored less than 90.  49 and 9 for Miami.  26 and 28 for Indiana.  58 and 4 for OKC.  20 and 30 for Chicago.

Even the worst offense in the NBA is going to score 90 points more than half the time.

[LooseCannon]

I have to admit this thread is kind of blowing my mind.   They won 41 games last year (granted w/o rondo) and people are predicting 35 wins to playoff appearances?? I don't understand how losing two HOFers  who were also your two best players last year does not result in a significant amount of losses. 

I think the Celtics under-performed last season and their talent level should have resulted in more than 41 wins.

Please remember that not only did the celtics have a better record in games without rondo than games with rondo, with rondo playing their record last season was 18 wins and 20 loses.

Simply saying the team will succeed because of a full season of rondo is too simplistic.

Scoring will be a real challenge for the celtics since they don't have multiple players who can create their own shot reliably.

I think that the Celtics underperformed during the first half of the season.  It was pretty clear that there were problems with the defense.  Bradley returning and Green/Lee/Terry/Bass figuring out their roles had a lot to do with how the team played better in the second half of the season.  Everyone mostly healthy, the second-tier veterans playing good defense from the start of the season, and a reasonable upgrade on Chris Wilcox and I think the Celtics could have been a 50-win team.

[Bozo]

I don't think Ainge is following the script that you have to have superstars to win.  If he was he would have hired a typical NBA coach that can only win if they have superstars. Hiring Stevens implies bringing in a different mindset.  Someone who knows you can win without superstars.  And maybe, a real, real coach where wins happen because of superior coaching, not superior players.  I suspect Ainge knows how hard it is to actually get your hands on superstars, and the odds are not very good.  So...think outside the box, and find a different formula.  Not sure it will work, but the direction he is taking is Different.  Get good players, and find yourself a Super Coach.  Forget tanking.   How many bad teams, never get very good regardless of how many top 5 players they get to pick. 

[TeamGreen.dm]

I don't think Ainge is following the script that you have to have superstars to win.  If he was he would have hired a typical NBA coach that can only win if they have superstars. Hiring Stevens implies bringing in a different mindset.  Someone who knows you can win without superstars.  And maybe, a real, real coach where wins happen because of superior coaching, not superior players.  I suspect Ainge knows how hard it is to actually get your hands on superstars, and the odds are not very good.  So...think outside the box, and find a different formula.  Not sure it will work, but the direction he is taking is Different.  Get good players, and find yourself a Super Coach.  Forget tanking.   How many bad teams, never get very good regardless of how many top 5 players they get to pick. 

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then? He's young yes, but i think he was hired due to his Analytic style of play (Spoelstra). He'll maximize talent and not with sub par players who haven't reached potential but with a lineup that on paper may not look like a cohesive match but he will use it against its opponents. The Heat play small, Bosh, Wade and Bron are extremely similar in their offensive games. I think Stevens will do something very similar, not by playing small but with his own twist on it.

*there were points in Summer League where we ran 3 seven footers in a lineup, could very well be a sign of his game plans.

[danglertx]

I think our summer league lineups started getting affected by Smith's injury and Johnson-Odom leaving for Vegas.  Also, the overall horribleness of most of our roster didn't help things either.

[Yogi]

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then?

Lebron James

[TeamGreen.dm]

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then?

Lebron James

Haha true. I just meant a young unproven coach being able to coach big superstars. I think Stevens could duplicate ES success with superstars as well.

[syfy9]

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then?

Lebron James

What about 2006?

[Yogi]

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then?

Lebron James

What about 2006?

I'm sure he was a fine assistant/director of scouting to Head Coaches Van Gundy and Riley.

[Celtics4ever]

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then?

LeBron James and Pat Riley.  Spoelstras is a puppet.  Riley is the puppeteer.  Why else doyou think he hired a video guy?

[TeamGreen.dm]

Can you explain Eric Spoelstras success then?

LeBron James and Pat Riley.  Spoelstras is a puppet.  Riley is the puppeteer.  Why else doyou think he hired a video guy?

I think its because of his nerdy knowledge of the game. From what i understand it was Spoelstras game plan to not use the traditional big man, he thought you could win in this league running athletic slashers. Bosh, Wade and LeBron are pretty similar when it comes to their offensive attack. Spoelstra rarely runs a PG late in games. Riley put the team together but i'm pretty sure it was with Spoelstras new look team in mind.

[Bozo]

Regardless of his game plan, I do not see it as very remarkable for a team with LaBron, Wade, Bosh and Ray to win a Championship.

For Butler to go to the NCAA championships two years in a row, prior to Stevens, Vegas would have set the odds at something like 100,000 to one.  Speculating.  Stevens is Remarkable, and I am sure Ainge studied his team coaching.  Ainge swings for the home run, and that is what he did with Stevens.  Ainge is going after 18. Starting now.