The game tonight proves how flawed this roster is

[Donoghus]

Last night's 82 points from our bench happened in a double OT game and coach Stevens decision to sit or rest 4 out of 5 of our starters.

I do not see this scenario happening on a frequent basis.

That's not the point. The point is that it is absurd that you can bench 4 of your 5 starters and not get a massive drop-off in performance. That probably means said starters are not exactly world beaters.

Pretty much the gist of what I was getting at.

[BballTim]

Last night's 82 points from our bench happened in a double OT game and coach Stevens decision to sit or rest 4 out of 5 of our starters.

I do not see this scenario happening on a frequent basis.

That's not the point. The point is that it is absurd that you can bench 4 of your 5 starters and not get a massive drop-off in performance. That probably means said starters are not exactly world beaters.

  Watch enough games and you'll see a decent amount of that. We certainly saw it happen on occasion during the KG era.

[BballTim]

What is more troublesome to me is how Rondo's stock is dropping...

Just on Sunday Rondo led the team to victory over a top eastern conference contender with a triple double

I am now reminded why i rarely post here. Rondo's stock is fine.

What?? Have you watched any other games? Did you see the box score tonight? Worst I believe I have ever seen from Rondo.

Maybe if you followed more closely here, you'd be better informed. Are you looking at assists? I saw 18 ast and 7 TOs the other night on box score. And the team isn't winning.. I trust Green (can't believe I said that), Sully, and Bradley more right now.

  One thing that should be clear to people, if you follow more closely here you're much more likely to be misinformed than informed.

[wdleehi]

I think the first move is another shake up of the lineup.


Smart is among the top 5 players on this team, probably top two once he learns the NBA.  Start him now.  Find out if he and Rondo can co-exist as a good NBA backcourt.  Bring Bradley off the bench as that change of pace defender. 


Then yes, be open to the trade market but still no reason to rush to a trade.

[Celtics18]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

Even though, the Spurs lost, it was a great performance by their second unit.  I always felt that game was a big factor in giving San Antonio a spark to get past the Thunder in that series. 

[kozlodoev]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

[Rondo9]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

So one game where the bench played to historic levels and now the starters really, really suck? Never mind the fact that it was the starters (and some of the bench.) led the team to victory on Sunday.

[Celtics18]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

Game four.

The Spurs were down 27 midway through the third.  They cut it to 12 with about three minutes left without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, or Leonard on the floor.

Their big four never re-entered the game, watching and cheering for their bench mates much the way the Celtics starters were doing last night.   

[Donoghus]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

So one game where the bench played to historic levels and now the starters really, really suck? Never mind the fact that it was the starters (and some of the bench.) led the team to victory on Sunday.

It's not that the starters suck, its that there isn't much of a discernible talent difference between the starting unit & the bench.  That's not really a good thing to have.   To me, it illustrates a team filled with average to slightly above average talent. 

Last night was obviously an aberration with the 82 points but there is that underlying notion to me that this team doesn't have a high ceiling as currently constituted.

[wiley]

I love how LarBrd33 wants to make all of these trades to upgrade the roster, but when asked specifics the best trade he makes is for an injured guy who is worse than what the Celtics already have. Every team in the league would like to take two role players and turn them into one superstar player and that he's lamenting that Danny can't magically make this happen shows how little he knows about the sport.

Basically, everything the OP says is wrong because the game didn't demonstrate how flawed the roster is. Many OTHER games this year have demonstrated how flawed the roster is, but not last night's game. What last night's game showed is that this team is deep and has guys who can contribute at the 8th, 10th and 12th spots on the roster. When Danny finally has the opportunity to pull the trigger on that One Big Trade / Get Lottery Luck that everyone is waiting on, he has many assets to appeal to other teams without sacrificing much of the depth of the current squad. No, these guys aren't world beaters but they're young, relatively cheap and they can perform when called upon to do so. When the squad does get that stud at whatever position, the Celtics will already have quite a few complimentary pieces to put around that player.

Now maybe instead of going for the home run, Danny decides to package some of these players + draft choices to make incremental gains. He also has that option. But until the NBA nears the trade deadline, he can't make that happen. This time of year the trade market is pretty dry. Either way, what it shows is that the Celtics have options to improve their roster via incremental trades, making a blockbuster deal or sitting tight and seeing how those draft picks wind up. Very few teams have all 3 of these improvement routes open to them.

In short, last night's game showed that at least we have parts who can play. Even better for trade proposals, we have younger parts that can play.

A+ post.  And I would add that we didn't need and weren't looking for proof.  At least I wasn't.

[Rondo9]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

So one game where the bench played to historic levels and now the starters really, really suck? Never mind the fact that it was the starters (and some of the bench.) led the team to victory on Sunday.

It's not that the starters suck, its that there isn't much of a discernible talent difference between the starting unit & the bench.  That's not really a good thing to have.   To me, it illustrates a team filled with average to slightly above average talent. 

Last night was obviously an aberration with the 82 points but there is that underlying notion to me that this team doesn't have a high ceiling as currently constituted.

The bench went crazy for the first time this year. I think the starters are very good since they always build big leads (only for the bench to squander it.) which was a common cricticism this year and now the bench does crazy good and now all of sudden the talent between the starters and the bench is not that big?

[Donoghus]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

So one game where the bench played to historic levels and now the starters really, really suck? Never mind the fact that it was the starters (and some of the bench.) led the team to victory on Sunday.

It's not that the starters suck, its that there isn't much of a discernible talent difference between the starting unit & the bench.  That's not really a good thing to have.   To me, it illustrates a team filled with average to slightly above average talent. 

Last night was obviously an aberration with the 82 points but there is that underlying notion to me that this team doesn't have a high ceiling as currently constituted.

The bench went crazy for the first time this year. I think the starters are very good since they always build big leads (only for the bench to squander it.) which was a common cricticism this year and now the bench does crazy good and now all of sudden the talent between the starters and the bench is not that big?

What do you honestly think is this current roster's ceiling? Late lottery?  1st round playoff exit?  Farther?

[PickNRoll]

I think the first move is another shake up of the lineup.


Smart is among the top 5 players on this team, probably top two once he learns the NBA.  Start him now.  Find out if he and Rondo can co-exist as a good NBA backcourt.  Bring Bradley off the bench as that change of pace defender. 


Then yes, be open to the trade market but still no reason to rush to a trade.

That's the worst shooting backcourt in the nba.  That scares me.

[Rondo9]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

So one game where the bench played to historic levels and now the starters really, really suck? Never mind the fact that it was the starters (and some of the bench.) led the team to victory on Sunday.

It's not that the starters suck, its that there isn't much of a discernible talent difference between the starting unit & the bench.  That's not really a good thing to have.   To me, it illustrates a team filled with average to slightly above average talent. 

Last night was obviously an aberration with the 82 points but there is that underlying notion to me that this team doesn't have a high ceiling as currently constituted.

The bench went crazy for the first time this year. I think the starters are very good since they always build big leads (only for the bench to squander it.) which was a common cricticism this year and now the bench does crazy good and now all of sudden the talent between the starters and the bench is not that big?

What do you honestly think is this current roster's ceiling? Late lottery?  1st round playoff exit?  Farther?

As it currently stands they'll most likely fall short of the playoffs.

[Donoghus]

I remember a playoff game last year where the Spurs were taking an absolute bludgeoning at the hands of the Thunder in the second half; Pop pulled Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, and Leonard, while the likes of Aaron Baynes, Jeff Ayres, Patty Mills, and Marco Belinelli led the Spurs on a furious come back just to fall short in the end.

It's hard to tell whether you mean G3 or G4 from the series. The Spurs were down in both by ~20 pts. In G3, their "comeback" never had them into single digits (they lost by 12 or something). In G4, they were down 20 with 3 minutes to go and lost by 9 after OKC's reserves gave some of the lead up. Neither game was close to being an upset.

In both cases, though, there were just 2 players off the bench that played 20+ minutes (and in both games, one of them was Diaw).  What I want to point out here is that while the bench can and should give you boost in spurts, no team worth their salt will rely on 4 (four) backups for the better part of a one quarter and two overtimes. If you need to do this, you certainly need better starters, because yours really, really suck.

So one game where the bench played to historic levels and now the starters really, really suck? Never mind the fact that it was the starters (and some of the bench.) led the team to victory on Sunday.

It's not that the starters suck, its that there isn't much of a discernible talent difference between the starting unit & the bench.  That's not really a good thing to have.   To me, it illustrates a team filled with average to slightly above average talent. 

Last night was obviously an aberration with the 82 points but there is that underlying notion to me that this team doesn't have a high ceiling as currently constituted.

The bench went crazy for the first time this year. I think the starters are very good since they always build big leads (only for the bench to squander it.) which was a common cricticism this year and now the bench does crazy good and now all of sudden the talent between the starters and the bench is not that big?

What do you honestly think is this current roster's ceiling? Late lottery?  1st round playoff exit?  Farther?

As it currently stands they'll most likely fall short of the playoffs.

And what do you think the reason for that is?