Very likeable team

[bdm860]

Until Kelly gains a killer mentality, I won't put him as a starter on a contender team.

I'm not sure he'll ever be a starter on a contender.  Rotation guy? Sure.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but just about anyone's good enough to be a starter on a contending team - just look at past contenders.  Is Olynyk really going to be worse than Luc Longley?

I wouldn't necessarily agree than almost anyone is good enough to be a starter on a contending team.  Longley had the benefit of playing with 3 HOFers in or near their primes.  That tends to be an exception & not the norm. 

It depends who you put around KO but I think its a long shot at best.

But that's my point - put enough talent around a guy and any halfway decent player can start on a contender.  Say OKC trades for Oly to play him next to Ibaka.  As soon as they're healthy, poof - Olynyk is a starter on a contender, without needing to improve at all. 

I think my gripe is more with the phrasing of the argument than the deeper "he needs to get better" meaning, which is definitely accurate.

I can't speak for what others meant, but to me, I think you're taking the phrasing too literal.

When I think of terms like "starter" and "role player," I think of it from a league wide perspective, as opposed to a particular team.  Sure guys like Ginobili, Jason Terry, and Lamar Odom, came off the bench on championship teams, but I would still consider them "starter" quality players.  Even though guys like Mario Chalmers, Derek Fisher, or Luc Longely started on multiple championship teams, I'd probably consider them more role players than starter (of course that varies by season).

Do I think Player X would be a starter on most teams in the league?  Then he's a starter in my book.  I just try to look at it from a league wide perspective, because as to your point, anybody can be a starter when surrounded by the right players, but that won't make him a starter universally around the league.

In his prime, do I see Olynyk as being the likely starter on at least half the teams in the league?  Right now, I'm thinking no (though he could still change my mind).  You can even take it to the next level and do you think he could be a starter on most playoff teams?  Anyway, this is how I view those type of statements.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Im on board.

Unfortunately we're not very good but i like the mentality they showed against Dallas. If they keep this mindset every game, we could definitely steal some wins against good teams.

I like the mentality.

[Celtics18]

Very likeable team. If you like losing, that is -- because they're clearly not good enough to win.

You are a well-respected, smart, knowledgeable poster, but that's got to fall under the definition of "trolling."

[Celtics4ever]

I always enjoyed watching the C's good or bad.  These guys are fun because they do not give up.

[kozlodoev]

Very likeable team. If you like losing, that is -- because they're clearly not good enough to win.

You are a well-respected, smart, knowledgeable poster, but that's got to fall under the definition of "trolling."

Of course it does

I swear, in some way were Ricky Davis and Raef LaFrentz less frustrating than Bradley and Sullinger -- and I still have no idea why.

[RAcker]

Turner and Thornton are the only 2 I'm having a problem "liking" with the occassional frustration with Avery Bradley trying to do too much.

I love the way Stevens has these guys playing 48 minutes though even when they are stinking it up.

[Mr October]

Until Kelly gains a killer mentality, I won't put him as a starter on a contender team.

I'm not sure he'll ever be a starter on a contender.  Rotation guy? Sure.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but just about anyone's good enough to be a starter on a contending team - just look at past contenders.  Is Olynyk really going to be worse than Luc Longley?

I wouldn't necessarily agree than almost anyone is good enough to be a starter on a contending team.  Longley had the benefit of playing with 3 HOFers in or near their primes.  That tends to be an exception & not the norm. 

It depends who you put around KO but I think its a long shot at best.

But that's my point - put enough talent around a guy and any halfway decent player can start on a contender.  Say OKC trades for Oly to play him next to Ibaka.  As soon as they're healthy, poof - Olynyk is a starter on a contender, without needing to improve at all. 

I think my gripe is more with the phrasing of the argument than the deeper "he needs to get better" meaning, which is definitely accurate.

Meanwhile today Olynyk is not as good as Luc Longley was, or 2008 Kendrick Perkins. Those 2 were top 15-20 centers in their day. He's more like a Travis Knight level role player on the Shaq Lakers.

I think Olynyk is an 8th man on a contender at best. Someday maybe he will become a top 15-20 center or power forward and be the worst starter on a contender. But he isn't there yet.

On topic of the thread, i like the effort of this team, like last year. But i want to see more talent on the team. All the current guys have major flaws in their games.

[fairweatherfan]

I don't want to belabor the point because it's not the main topic anyway.  But when 4 different posters reply about "good enough to start on a contender" and the only thing they mostly agree on is that it shouldn't be taken to mean what it literally means, but all have somewhat different interpretations of what it does mean, it sounds like a pretty bad metric to me.  Especially when it's really just a way of saying "needs to play better basketball".

More on topic, we looked pretty loathable in the first half and awfully likeable in the 2nd.  That's better than two terrible halves, but still nothing to get too excited about.  And we all know real contenders don't get down big early, except for when they do. 

[fantankerous]

Very likeable team. If you like losing, that is -- because they're clearly not good enough to win.

You are a well-respected, smart, knowledgeable poster, but that's got to fall under the definition of "trolling."

It also falls under the definition of the "truth."

[SHAQATTACK]

I guess it's good to maintain the mental tuff ness of always giving it your best whilst searching for better talent .

No matter how much I like em


Most aren't going to help a future Celtic contender.

[j804]

I like everyone in our starting lineup.  I really like Smart as well.  Turner is interesting.  Bass/Thornton are solid.  It's just a shame that collectively they are all pretty bad-to-average.  Seriously, it's a shame.  There will come a day where something will need to be done to push this team forward.  Maybe my imagination isn't great, but I can't envision a starting lineup of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sully and Oly making the finals.  Just can't see it.  I really like all of those guys, but if we are ever going to compete we're going to need to bring in an interior defender and bring in someone who can score consistently.  That means we'll inevitably lose a couple of the guys I like or see them get reduced roles.

I also can't imagine Smart spending several years as a back-up.  He might have star potential.  Something's gonna have to change eventually.

Wow a positive post from you? Lol

[KeepRondo]

Sign Marc Gasol in the off-season, keep Marcus and Kelly as our sixth and seventh men off the bench, and, presto, serious Eastern conference contender.

Memphis is looking pretty good and Gasol is prob their best player. And Randolph is getting to the point of his career where you don't know how many more productive seasons he has. It seems like Memphis would want to build around Gasol and Conley. Are there rumors they won't spend the money?

[guava_wrench]

Until Kelly gains a killer mentality, I won't put him as a starter on a contender team.

I'm not sure he'll ever be a starter on a contender.  Rotation guy? Sure.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but just about anyone's good enough to be a starter on a contending team - just look at past contenders.  Is Olynyk really going to be worse than Luc Longley?

Depends what your team needs. If your team needs someone who can impact the lane, yes, Olynyk will be worse.

[LarBrd33]

I like everyone in our starting lineup.  I really like Smart as well.  Turner is interesting.  Bass/Thornton are solid.  It's just a shame that collectively they are all pretty bad-to-average.  Seriously, it's a shame.  There will come a day where something will need to be done to push this team forward.  Maybe my imagination isn't great, but I can't envision a starting lineup of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sully and Oly making the finals.  Just can't see it.  I really like all of those guys, but if we are ever going to compete we're going to need to bring in an interior defender and bring in someone who can score consistently.  That means we'll inevitably lose a couple of the guys I like or see them get reduced roles.

I also can't imagine Smart spending several years as a back-up.  He might have star potential.  Something's gonna have to change eventually.

Wow a positive post from you? Lol

I like a lot of the guys individually.  I just don't think it's a good team right now.  The pieces don't match.  We have redundancies and major weaknesses.  Stuff is going to need to change. 

I haven't said it for a while, but Rajon Rondo is my favorite player in the league.  I love that guy.  But loving him and appreciating how great he is at certain things doesn't prevent me from being critical about his skillset as an individual and how he fits with the rest of the talent on this team.    I really like these guys.  I'm rooting for them.  Collectively, they are pretty terrible.  This is a likeable 25 win team.

[Celtics18]

Very likeable team. If you like losing, that is -- because they're clearly not good enough to win.

You are a well-respected, smart, knowledgeable poster, but that's got to fall under the definition of "trolling."

It also falls under the definition of the "truth."

The "truth"?  For that to have any chance at being the truth, we would first need to clarify what is meant by "good enough to win."  We've already been good enough to win once, but not good enough to win twice.

We have 79 more chances to see if the team is "good enough to win."