is AB the long term answer at the sg spot?

[nickagneta]

I would like to see him and Rondo play one complete healthy year together as starters playing big minutes together before making that call. I think he could be a long term player for the team, but whether that is as the starting SG or the defensive specialist off the bench, still needs to be seen.

[slamtheking]

no.  not longterm or short term.

he's a guard off the bench to be used to pressure a tired starter or a bench guard.  That's where he'd be very effective

[bucknersrevenge]

No.

IMO, Bradley is a specialist at this point. He's a guy you have on your bench that you use in very specific situations. His only NBA level skill is defending. Production wise he brings almost nothing to the floor in terms of points, rebounds, and assists. Players as one-dimensional as he is usually aren't NBA starters.

You may like Avery Bradley more, but fact a guy like Courtney Lee is better. He's more consistent, more well round, with a better BBIQ, and size for the position. Courtney Lee could very well be Bradley's best case scenario. I think Bradley is a better offensive player than he's shown, but his lack of confidence is something that will hold him back.

I think Bradley right now has more value as a trade chip to us then he will as a player.

Agree with this. I think AB could be a great combo off the bench and energy guy. But I'd like to see Lee or even Brooks(if he can learn that he's not Kobe, and then play some defense) take that starting job away from him. If they can't, I think both of them have to be moved...maybe all 3.

[mgent]

I've never seen Bradley as a SG.  All along I've felt like his ceiling on this team is Rondo's backup, which is unfortunate because I think he could be a decent player.

The main thing he brings to the game is pressure defense.  That's really the only reason he started getting minutes.  He has to be fullcourt pressing the opposing PG on every possesion in order to be a positive on the team.

Still, I understand what Doc did by trying to make him an actual "player" first before he could even start thinking about a position.

[KGs Knee]

definitely not.  Long-term he's a backup point guard or a role playing "PG by Default" type who only focuses on defense. 

I honestly think in 5 years, you have a better chance of seeing Bradley as the starting PG on the Celtics than the starting SG on the Celtics.  More likely he's not even on the team at that point.

He is absolutely not a point guard.  He can't even dribble the ball adequately!  He is way past the age that he can become a point guard.

When I saw that he wasn't playing point guard at Texas at all even though his combo guard billing made it seem like a possibility, something I thought his obscenely high ranking would at least afford him the chance, I thought it was because of deference to an upperclassman or Rick Barnes being Rick Barnes.  Little did I know that the notion of Bradley being a point guard was ridiculous.

He really didn't even play point guard last season after Rondo went down.  He was mainly the player who brought the ball up but as far as running a team, playing pick and roll, distributing touches, getting teammates into sets and all that, that fell mostly to Pierce, Terry and Garnett.  I just don't understand why someone has to be designated a point guard.  It devalues the skill of position.

I think LarBrd's point was that Bradley has more long-term viability as a starting PG, in exactly thee role you mention in your last paragraph.  Essentially, he'd be the defacto PG, but really, the majority of ball-handling duties would fall to either the SG or SF, who would hopefully be more capable.

Bradley would be a near perfect PG for an offense that runs through a player like LeBron, Durant, Melo, Harden, etc..  He's a hound-dog on defense, and has shown that he can hit the corner three.

[RJ87]

No.

I like Avery. I really do, but we need a consistent scorer at the 2, IMO. I think Avery will be a great change of pace sixth man on a contending team. Hopefully,  that will team will be the Celtics in a few years.

[droopdog7]

definitely not.  Long-term he's a backup point guard or a role playing "PG by Default" type who only focuses on defense. 

I honestly think in 5 years, you have a better chance of seeing Bradley as the starting PG on the Celtics than the starting SG on the Celtics.  More likely he's not even on the team at that point.

He is absolutely not a point guard.  He can't even dribble the ball adequately!  He is way past the age that he can become a point guard.

When I saw that he wasn't playing point guard at Texas at all even though his combo guard billing made it seem like a possibility, something I thought his obscenely high ranking would at least afford him the chance, I thought it was because of deference to an upperclassman or Rick Barnes being Rick Barnes.  Little did I know that the notion of Bradley being a point guard was ridiculous.

He really didn't even play point guard last season after Rondo went down.  He was mainly the player who brought the ball up but as far as running a team, playing pick and roll, distributing touches, getting teammates into sets and all that, that fell mostly to Pierce, Terry and Garnett.  I just don't understand why someone has to be designated a point guard.  It devalues the skill of position.

I agree that AB isn't a PG.  But his problem is that he isn't really a very good shooting guard either.  In fact, it's simple.  Offensively, he is best as a SG.  Defensively he is best as a PG.  AB would work well next to a big PG who could switch with him on defense.  But there aren't very many of those.

[LarBrd33]

definitely not.  Long-term he's a backup point guard or a role playing "PG by Default" type who only focuses on defense. 

I honestly think in 5 years, you have a better chance of seeing Bradley as the starting PG on the Celtics than the starting SG on the Celtics.  More likely he's not even on the team at that point.

He is absolutely not a point guard.  He can't even dribble the ball adequately!  He is way past the age that he can become a point guard.

When I saw that he wasn't playing point guard at Texas at all even though his combo guard billing made it seem like a possibility, something I thought his obscenely high ranking would at least afford him the chance, I thought it was because of deference to an upperclassman or Rick Barnes being Rick Barnes.  Little did I know that the notion of Bradley being a point guard was ridiculous.

He really didn't even play point guard last season after Rondo went down.  He was mainly the player who brought the ball up but as far as running a team, playing pick and roll, distributing touches, getting teammates into sets and all that, that fell mostly to Pierce, Terry and Garnett.  I just don't understand why someone has to be designated a point guard.  It devalues the skill of position.

I think LarBrd's point was that Bradley has more long-term viability as a starting PG, in exactly thee role you mention in your last paragraph.  Essentially, he'd be the defacto PG, but really, the majority of ball-handling duties would fall to either the SG or SF, who would hopefully be more capable.

Bradley would be a near perfect PG for an offense that runs through a player like LeBron, Durant, Melo, Harden, etc..  He's a hound-dog on defense, and has shown that he can hit the corner three.

This is exactly my point.  When people hear me say "Bradley could be point guard by default", they immediately picture Rajon Rondo's skillset and point out Bradley's flaws.  That's off-base.  The majority of champions have a "point guard by default"... some role-player who often isn't even a point guard.  Ron Harper is an example.  Derrick Fisher is another example.  Nobody would dare call Mario Chalmers an elite playmaker. 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter as long as you have a dominant big or dominant scorer.  The ball will flow through those guys.  Kinda like in 2008 when our point guard was mainly a defensive role player who didn't control the ball.  So I reiterate my statement... You have a better chance of seeing Bradley as our "starting PG by default" in 5 years than our "starting SG".  More likely he's a long-term backup or on another team by then.

[Tr1boy]

So is he going to be the temp starting sg this year?

Or not automatically and lee/brooks have a chance to start?

It will be interesting to see what kind of lineup will be out there with doc gone. Im really curious actually

[JSD]

I think he's a keeper for $3-4 million per and is a perfect combo off the bench or a contender. I do not see him as our starting 2 of the future.

[Celtics18]

I still think he can start at the two alongside Rondo.  During their short stint together in 2012, they actually complemented each other well not just offensively, but also defensively.  Bradley can pressure the primary ballhandling guard and Rondo can play off the ball.  My opinion is that too much is made of the size issue.  I don't remember seeing them get burned badly by big two guards. 

On paper, sure, they are undersized, but they still strike me as potentially one of the best defensive guard combinations in the league. 

[wdleehi]

With Rondo?  No.




Rondo does get the best out of him offensively. 




But defensively, neither of them are going to last long if they have to spend most their time defending larger SGs. 




He's best role for the Celtics would be off the bench or traded to a team with a large PG that can allow him start at SG, but defend the PG. 





It really is to bad because I like him next to Rondo offensively.

[D.o.s.]

I think he'd do wonderfully in a Triangle-type system if he could keep shooting the ball well from the three.

Too bad no current coach really uses the Triangle.

[LilRip]

AB, like others have said, is a specialist and he has unique quirks about his game. He has the talent and work ethic to carve his way nicely into a rotation. Whether that's off-the-bench as a disruptor or as a starter, it will depend on the personnel. But simply put, he's a role player and you add role players to a system, not the other way around (which would be building your system around role players).

FWIW, i think AB would flourish more with a ball-dominant, playmaking wing (like Harden) rather than a ball-dominant, playmaking PG (like Rondo).

[Tr1boy]

Anybody think if the clippers backcourt gets the injury bug or if something else happens,  doc will try to req for bradley??

If the clippers offered us reggie bullock(6'7 sg/sf, that can play some decent defense and can really shoot the three) + filler for bradley, would you do the trade?