Jeff Green: The Future

[vjcsmoke]

Jeff Green is veteran rotation player who is already 27 years old.  This will be his 7th year in the league.  He's always been capable of 15-19 a night.  He's a good player.  He should be a starter.  He'll never be a star.

Reggie Lewis was 27 when he died.  I don't think many doubt he would have been a star player had he survived his heart attack.  Why the attack on Green?

Jeff has already put up 20+ ppg stretches last year at age 26.  Nobody will be the next Paul Pierce.  As nobody can be the next Larry Bird.  But Jeff Green is likely our best small forward in the forseeable future unless we luck out and land Wiggins in the draft lotto.

I thought as Celtics fans, we'd hope for the best from our players.  With PP and KG gone, and the fact that Rondo is a pass first PG, I can easily see Jeff Green as our #1 option on offense this year.  And thus it's not hard at all to imagine him putting up 20+ ppg in the upcoming season.  Who else is going to shoot it, Marshon Brooks, Bass, Courtney Lee, the rookie KO?

I think out of all those options, Jeff Green is the clear cut best choice on offense right now.  Jeff Green has had a brush with death, and is just now regaining his health.  I hope he turns into a GREAT player for us.  At the very least I think he will be good and our #1 offensive option next year in a rebuilding season.

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

Thank you for that article miss sunshine, but we're talking about basketball here not sprinting or swimming.  With basketball there is more to the game than the physical aspect, otherwise Melo would be dominating the NBA instead of shipped out with us PAYING another team to take him.

The physical part obviously athletes peak close to age 25, give or take for individuals.  But basketball players reach their optimal prime when their mental game, and their skills, also match closely to top physical condition.

For example, Michael Jordan didn't win his first NBA title until age 27.  He won his first scoring title at age 23.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

Lebron James scoring title at age 23.  First championship at age 27.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html

Just off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are some players who won championships at a younger age, but even some of the greatest did not achieve their peak until their late twenties.

And before you make a strawman argument, no I'm not saying Jeff Green is going to turn into one of the greatest players to play in the NBA.  I'm just saying it is premature to assert that he has no where to go further to improving himself as a basketball player. 

I just don't think we've seen the peak of Jeff Green's abilities yet because he has never been asked to carry a team until now.  And of course he had the setback with the medical condition that essentially cost him 2 years of development.  Which makes the 'late bloomer' theory plausible in his case.

[mmmmm]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

Oh good gawd.  That analysis is absurdly simple minded.

Yes, human males tend to reach peak muscle mass around age 26.

It's also a fact that most basketball players have careers of just a few years long before washing out or getting injured or otherwise having it all come to an end (often at the end of their rookie contract).  Put those two factors together and, sure, the 'average' NBA player (like the 'average baseball player') will 'peak' in productivity at 25-26 because they are often out of the league after that.

But that doesn't mean didly as to whether or when a more top-tier NBA player will 'peak'.

NBA basketball is also a game of skill, not just athleticism.  And skill often tends to keep improving well into a player's 30s.

It's also another fact that the NBA playoffs are dominated by players in their 30s.

Go look at the playoff rosters of all teams, pretty much every year and look at who gets the minutes.  Almost every team gives a HUGE chunk of minutes to guys over 30 and overall, a huge majority of the minutes go to players over 28.

I don't claim to know where Jeff Green's career arc will go from here.  But you aren't very convincing in your attempt to pretend that you know, with such concrete certainty:

He'll never be a star.

Opinion.   Stated as if fact.

Can you provide us with tips on who will win the SuperBowl next year as well?

[Galeto]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

Oh good gawd.  That analysis is absurdly simple minded.

Yes, human males tend to reach peak muscle mass around age 26.

It's also a fact that most basketball players have careers of just a few years long before washing out or getting injured or otherwise having it all come to an end (often at the end of their rookie contract).  Put those two factors together and, sure, the 'average' NBA player (like the 'average baseball player') will 'peak' in productivity at 25-26 because they are often out of the league after that.

But that doesn't mean didly as to whether or when a more top-tier NBA player will 'peak'.

NBA basketball is also a game of skill, not just athleticism.  And skill often tends to keep improving well into a player's 30s.

It's also another fact that the NBA playoffs are dominated by players in their 30s.

Go look at the playoff rosters of all teams, pretty much every year and look at who gets the minutes.  Almost every team gives a HUGE chunk of minutes to guys over 30 and overall, a huge majority of the minutes go to players over 28.

I don't claim to know where Jeff Green's career arc will go from here.  But you aren't very convincing in your attempt to pretend that you know, with such concrete certainty:

He'll never be a star.

Opinion.   Stated as if fact.

Can you provide us with tips on who will win the SuperBowl next year as well?

The playoffs are dominated by players over 30?  Really?  I'm not just talking veteran role players but the central, pivotal players are over 30?  Ugh, that doesn't seem very true.  If you think Green is going to be one of those players in the future, well, he doesn't stack up very well with those hall of fame types.

That opinion about Green never being a star is still just an opinion.  Since you clearly think differently, it must have come across aggressively like a stated fact, but it's just an opinion.  I'm sure if the opinion was the reverse, that Green will be a star, you would have reacted differently. 

Almost all players are who they are by Green's age.  You don't see many players become drastically better players at Green's age (and yes, I'm giving the same amount of evidence that you gave). In light of that, it's not unreasonable to doubt that Green is going to be a great player.  Even besides precedents, he has some glaring skill flaws.

[LilRip]

Almost all players are who they are by Green's age.  You don't see many players become drastically better players at Green's age (and yes, I'm giving the same amount of evidence that you gave). In light of that, it's not unreasonable to doubt that Green is going to be a great player.  Even besides precedents, he has some glaring skill flaws.

this pretty much best sums it up. The odds aren't on Green's side to develop into anything great. He's already "blossomed". At least he's shown to be a productive player and a starter, but in all likelihood, he is who he is and we can probably only expect slight, if any, improvements from Green year-on-year.

[LarBrd33]

Jeff Green is veteran rotation player who is already 27 years old.  This will be his 7th year in the league.  He's always been capable of 15-19 a night.  He's a good player.  He should be a starter.  He'll never be a star.

Reggie Lewis was 27 when he died.  I don't think many doubt he would have been a star player had he survived his heart attack.  Why the attack on Green?

Jeff has already put up 20+ ppg stretches last year at age 26.  Nobody will be the next Paul Pierce.  As nobody can be the next Larry Bird.  But Jeff Green is likely our best small forward in the forseeable future unless we luck out and land Wiggins in the draft lotto.

I thought as Celtics fans, we'd hope for the best from our players.  With PP and KG gone, and the fact that Rondo is a pass first PG, I can easily see Jeff Green as our #1 option on offense this year.  And thus it's not hard at all to imagine him putting up 20+ ppg in the upcoming season.  Who else is going to shoot it, Marshon Brooks, Bass, Courtney Lee, the rookie KO?

I think out of all those options, Jeff Green is the clear cut best choice on offense right now.  Jeff Green has had a brush with death, and is just now regaining his health.  I hope he turns into a GREAT player for us.  At the very least I think he will be good and our #1 offensive option next year in a rebuilding season.

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

Thank you for that article miss sunshine, but we're talking about basketball here not sprinting or swimming.  With basketball there is more to the game than the physical aspect, otherwise Melo would be dominating the NBA instead of shipped out with us PAYING another team to take him.

The physical part obviously athletes peak close to age 25, give or take for individuals.  But basketball players reach their optimal prime when their mental game, and their skills, also match closely to top physical condition.

For example, Michael Jordan didn't win his first NBA title until age 27.  He won his first scoring title at age 23.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

Lebron James scoring title at age 23.  First championship at age 27.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html

Just off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are some players who won championships at a younger age, but even some of the greatest did not achieve their peak until their late twenties.

And before you make a strawman argument, no I'm not saying Jeff Green is going to turn into one of the greatest players to play in the NBA.  I'm just saying it is premature to assert that he has no where to go further to improving himself as a basketball player. 

I just don't think we've seen the peak of Jeff Green's abilities yet because he has never been asked to carry a team until now.  And of course he had the setback with the medical condition that essentially cost him 2 years of development.  Which makes the 'late bloomer' theory plausible in his case.

Funny... Bron/Jordan's individual stats were arguably better before the age of 27.  Teammates and situations, baby.

We'll see what happens with Rondo at age 27 now that he's gone from having hall-of-fame teammates to mediocre youths. 

Btw, I didn't write that article... I just linked to it.  Seems to say that players are who they are at age 25.  The examples of Jordan and Bron don't hold water... those dudes were just as dominant at age 25 as they were at age 27.  Neither of those guys made a "leap".  Michael Jordan averaged 37 points at age 23.  His best individual season was at age 25 when he averaged 33 points, 8 rebounds, 8 assists, 3 steals on 54% shooting.  Pippen wasn't Pippen yet and there were still other powerhouses holding the Bulls back.

[mmmmm]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

Oh good gawd.  That analysis is absurdly simple minded.

Yes, human males tend to reach peak muscle mass around age 26.

It's also a fact that most basketball players have careers of just a few years long before washing out or getting injured or otherwise having it all come to an end (often at the end of their rookie contract).  Put those two factors together and, sure, the 'average' NBA player (like the 'average baseball player') will 'peak' in productivity at 25-26 because they are often out of the league after that.

But that doesn't mean didly as to whether or when a more top-tier NBA player will 'peak'.

NBA basketball is also a game of skill, not just athleticism.  And skill often tends to keep improving well into a player's 30s.

It's also another fact that the NBA playoffs are dominated by players in their 30s.

Go look at the playoff rosters of all teams, pretty much every year and look at who gets the minutes.  Almost every team gives a HUGE chunk of minutes to guys over 30 and overall, a huge majority of the minutes go to players over 28.

I don't claim to know where Jeff Green's career arc will go from here.  But you aren't very convincing in your attempt to pretend that you know, with such concrete certainty:

He'll never be a star.

Opinion.   Stated as if fact.

Can you provide us with tips on who will win the SuperBowl next year as well?

The playoffs are dominated by players over 30?  Really?  I'm not just talking veteran role players but the central, pivotal players are over 30?  Ugh, that doesn't seem very true.  If you think Green is going to be one of those players in the future, well, he doesn't stack up very well with those hall of fame types.

10 of the 18 players who clocked over 500 playoff minutes this year were 28 or older.

Only 5 of them were below age 26.

Some of the 'central, pivotal players over 30' in these recent playoffs included Duncan, Parker, Ray Allen, Manu, Dwyane Wade, David West, Zach Randolph, Tayshaun Prince, Boozer, Tony Allen.   All those guys played over 400 minutes. 

Others who were 28 or older include Lebron, Bosh, Marc Gasol, Carmelo Anthony, Ray Felton, Nate Robinson, Shane Battier.

That opinion about Green never being a star is still just an opinion.  Since you clearly think differently, it must have come across aggressively like a stated fact, but it's just an opinion.  I'm sure if the opinion was the reverse, that Green will be a star, you would have reacted differently. 

Almost all players are who they are by Green's age.  You don't see many players become drastically better players at Green's age (and yes, I'm giving the same amount of evidence that you gave). In light of that, it's not unreasonable to doubt that Green is going to be a great player.  Even besides precedents, he has some glaring skill flaws.

Whatever.  I have made and will make no predictions on whether Green will be a 'great player'.  I don't even think any of us could agree on what that means so it is a useless argument. 

I think its absurd how important it is to some folks to make the earliest possible 'definitive' predictions on players and teams.  Positive or negative, most are just as useless.

Relying on the 'average' career profile is a primitive to the point of useless way to try to predict the career track of an individual. 

Many 'stars' that emerge early are simply better players on crappy teams, getting high minutes and high usage.   

It's interesting how many of those don't experience playoff success until later, when they are on better teams.  Their numbers inevitably 'go down' -- but are they really lesser basketball players?

I don't know if Green will ever be 'a star', but I know that he is a very good basketball player and exceptional athlete and that his production has been inhibited by context through most of his career.  Thus it is reasonable to assume that, in a different context his production will increase.  Just how much, I am content to wait and see.

[Galeto]

That's all well and good that there are so many players 28 and older who are first-rate contributors in the playoffs.  I don't know how that's relevant to Green.  Those players were almost all playing at their current level well before turning Green's current age.  We're talking about the likelihood of Green progressing from a solid player to a great player.  Bringing in the likes of Lebron, Bosh, Carmelo, Wade, Duncan, Ginobili, Ray Allen, etc into the discussion does nothing because they were all better players than Green at a much younger age.   

The article Lar33 linked to wasn't claiming that players are through at age 26, just that most are unlikely to get better after that age.  Of course there are exceptions but it appears that you're arguing that there are effective players past the age of 28.  No one's disagreeing.  I don't think anyone is claiming that Green's going to be out of the league at age 28 or marginalized into a 9th man.  What are you even going at? 

[Galeto]

I think its absurd how important it is to some folks to make the earliest possible 'definitive' predictions on players and teams.  Positive or negative, most are just as useless.

Oh yes, I just want to be cool and get out ahead and put it on my resume.  I was here first on the Green is not going to be a star bandwagon. 

So some people think that based on Green's career to date and the career progession of thousands of other players in NBA history that it seems very unlikely that Green will take a leap into an all-star caliber player.  That's just an educated guess.  You're saying it's reasonable, considering various circumstances, that Green is capable of just such a leap.  Good for you thinking that way and not being self-important enough to deliver a "definitive" prediction.  I'm not sure why you feel the need to insult people who think otherwise. 

[BballTim]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

  People who write things like that don't understand much about basketball beyond stats. A fairly large majority of postseason success comes from teams who are led by players who are older than that. People who think that LeBron was a better player when he was younger because he put up slightly better stats don't really have a clue. Same with Jordan, same with Bird, same with Pierce, same with most stars whose careers haven't been derailed by injuries.

[fitzhickey]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

  People who write things like that don't understand much about basketball beyond stats. A fairly large majority of postseason success comes from teams who are led by players who are older than that. People who think that LeBron was a better player when he was younger because he put up slightly better stats don't really have a clue. Same with Jordan, same with Bird, same with Pierce, same with most stars whose careers haven't been derailed by injuries.

Agree with all your points, except that bird's career was certainly derailed by injury
His back went completely wack on him

[BballTim]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

  People who write things like that don't understand much about basketball beyond stats. A fairly large majority of postseason success comes from teams who are led by players who are older than that. People who think that LeBron was a better player when he was younger because he put up slightly better stats don't really have a clue. Same with Jordan, same with Bird, same with Pierce, same with most stars whose careers haven't been derailed by injuries.

Agree with all your points, except that bird's career was certainly derailed by injury
His back went completely wack on him

  True, but he was probably close to 30 when the health issues derailed him.

[bleedGREENdon]

You all are thinking too much into it. If any of you watched jeff green down the stretch last year. At times he was ungaurdable and playing good defense on the other teams best player. Pierce was terrible in the playoffs and the final stretch, we didnt have rondo, and KG could only make mid range wide open jumpers, Jeff green carried us. The guy starts his layups from the free throw line and once he goes up(from the free throw line) hes basically already at the rim with how long of a frame he has(pause). Theres a reason why KG said he could be one of the all time greats, because of this length and athleticsm. I have never seen anyone in a celtics uniform with such reach and tenacity to finish at the like Jeff was doing towards the end of last year. He was also knocking down the three ball with relatively regulararity, which if worked on it even more this offseason, will be a threat once rondo comes back, and I also cannot wait to see him AB and rondo on the fastbreak. Scary. Jeff green will easily avg 20ppg next year. Be our number one scorer and be in the running for allstar voting.

Our defense down low will suck next year and rondo will take his time coming back so the point gaurd position is going to struggle. Thats why we won't win many games, but we will see flashes of Jeff green being an allstar. And in 2014-2015 season he will be an allstar. If he already isn't one this year ( im saying this because he might not get votes cause celtics wont be a contending team this year)

[Galeto]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

  People who write things like that don't understand much about basketball beyond stats. A fairly large majority of postseason success comes from teams who are led by players who are older than that. People who think that LeBron was a better player when he was younger because he put up slightly better stats don't really have a clue. Same with Jordan, same with Bird, same with Pierce, same with most stars whose careers haven't been derailed by injuries.

Just me personally, I don't think Lebron was better back then because his stats were "slightly better."  I think he's been a great player all along who has finally been part of a championship team because he finally got better teammates around him.  The point is, Lebron might have improved but it was around the edges in terms of his improved shot selection, playing from the post, etc.  He didn't take a massive leap which is what's required for Green to become a great player. 

Jordan was also a great player who finally got better teammates around him.  Bird basically had great teammates almost from the start and Pierce had crappy teammates until Garnett and Ray arrived and Rondo developed.  I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion of Green except to point out your superior understanding of basketball.

[bucknersrevenge]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

  People who write things like that don't understand much about basketball beyond stats. A fairly large majority of postseason success comes from teams who are led by players who are older than that. People who think that LeBron was a better player when he was younger because he put up slightly better stats don't really have a clue. Same with Jordan, same with Bird, same with Pierce, same with most stars whose careers haven't been derailed by injuries.

Just me personally, I don't think Lebron was better back then because his stats were "slightly better."  I think he's been a great player all along who has finally been part of a championship team because he finally got better teammates around him.  The point is, Lebron might have improved but it was around the edges in terms of his improved shot selection, playing from the post, etc.  He didn't take a massive leap which is what's required for Green to become a great player. 

Jordan was also a great player who finally got better teammates around him.  Bird basically had great teammates almost from the start and Pierce had crappy teammates until Garnett and Ray arrived and Rondo developed.  I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion of Green except to point out your superior understanding of basketball.

Those were already stars for a team before they added the players, I agree. I like Jeff Green this next year more closely to what happened with James Harden. He was a backup that many people saw had talent. He gets traded and takes a major leap forward in most every category with more usage and minutes and being out from under the shadow of Durant and the ball-hogging Westbrook. Jeff could have a somewhat similar boost out from under the shadow of Paul and KG and with a top flight PG getting him the ball. The major reason I don't see as giant a leap in numbers as the one Harden made this year is because I see better talent around Green this year than what Harden had last year and thusly more spreading around of the wealth.

[moiso]

So typical of this blog.

TheTruthFot18 posts his thoughts noting the analogy of both Pierce and Green going through life-threatening issues and simply ponders what kind of affect that might have on Green's career going forward.

Immediately, the first two responses argue points that TheTruthFot18 did not make.

No where does the OP assert that Green will be 'a star' (nevermind the tenuous definition of what 'a star' is).

No where does the OP assert that Green will "blossom into a Durant level player".

I think there are just certain things that get argued about around here a lot and people become reflexive.

"Yet another topic about how Jeff Green is gonna be great.  Yet another person equating Jeff Green to Paul Pierce and saying he's "the future" of the Celtics.  *Eye roll*"

Can't really blame them.  The OP maybe didn't say some of that stuff explicitly, but there's a lot of stuff in the post that implied it (especially the title).

According to this article, players peak around 25-26 years old and then they go on a decline:  http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

It's why some fans think it's ridiculous that people talk about Rondo and Jeff Green as players who can blossom into super stars.  They both might already be past their prime.

  People who write things like that don't understand much about basketball beyond stats. A fairly large majority of postseason success comes from teams who are led by players who are older than that. People who think that LeBron was a better player when he was younger because he put up slightly better stats don't really have a clue. Same with Jordan, same with Bird, same with Pierce, same with most stars whose careers haven't been derailed by injuries.

Just me personally, I don't think Lebron was better back then because his stats were "slightly better."  I think he's been a great player all along who has finally been part of a championship team because he finally got better teammates around him.  The point is, Lebron might have improved but it was around the edges in terms of his improved shot selection, playing from the post, etc.  He didn't take a massive leap which is what's required for Green to become a great player. 

Jordan was also a great player who finally got better teammates around him.  Bird basically had great teammates almost from the start and Pierce had crappy teammates until Garnett and Ray arrived and Rondo developed.  I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion of Green except to point out your superior understanding of basketball.

Those were already stars for a team before they added the players, I agree. I like Jeff Green this next year more closely to what happened with James Harden. He was a backup that many people saw had talent. He gets traded and takes a major leap forward in most every category with more usage and minutes and being out from under the shadow of Durant and the ball-hogging Westbrook. Jeff could have a somewhat similar boost out from under the shadow of Paul and KG and with a top flight PG getting him the ball. The major reason I don't see as giant a leap in numbers as the one Harden made this year is because I see better talent around Green this year than what Harden had last year and thusly more spreading around of the wealth.

Harden was awesome before the trade as well as after.  His PER went from 21 and change to 23.  Not that big of an improvement.  Green, on the other hand, had a career high PER of 15 last year.