You guys do realize the players we drafted are good right?

[greece66]

His first step is really fast, if he improves his 3p% (which is already decent) he could be really good.

And we do not have a player with a similar set of skills (ball handling, speed, penetration) so the 'he's redundant' argument is IMO way off the mark.

[kozlodoev]

His first step is really fast, if he improves his 3p% (which is already decent) he could be really good.

And we do not have a player with a similar set of skills (ball handling, speed, penetration) so the 'he's redundant' argument is IMO way off the mark.

Also, finishes with each hand around the basket, can get off of both feet. He could end up being Marcus Smart redux, or Isiah Thomas with more defense and size. Too early to say.

I'm more intrigued by Mickey and his 3+ blocks per game right now...

[ThaPreacher]

Yeah, I buy that Rozier will be an NBA rotation player, and for #16, that's not that bad.  Hunter and Mickey have a decent shot of sticking around, too.  So, yeah, on talent alone Rozier wasn't a bad pick.

However, with Smart, Bradley, and Thomas already on the roster, a 6'2" shooting guard doesn't make a lot of sense, even if he has NBA talent.  There were better options on the board.  I would have preferred any of the guys taken in the top-24 over Rozier, due to fit and size alone.

Perhaps Rozier is the replacement for both Bradley and Smart.  Wouldn't be surprised to see something happening in larger trade packages.

[elcotte]

He is better at penetrating than Smart and Avery.  http://www.nbadraft.net/2015-nba-draft-combine-athleticism-test-analysis

So he has a great wingspan and standing reach for a guy his size. Check out the URL above. He also has a great shuttle time. The "reactionary" shuttle was introduced in 10' to help determine a players agility in regards to creating space and penetrating. A red flag is if the players test is just ok or bad and they have bad ball handling skills because the test does not include you dribbling the ball.

Alright then.

So assuming we don't trade someone, who gets his minutes cut so Rozier can play?

Is this roster set in stone?

[PhoSita]

His first step is really fast, if he improves his 3p% (which is already decent) he could be really good.

And we do not have a player with a similar set of skills (ball handling, speed, penetration) so the 'he's redundant' argument is IMO way off the mark.

It's less a "he's redundant" thing than "we just spent our highest first round pick on a guy who projects as our 4th or 5th guard."

Even if I accept that Rozier was the best player available, to really justify picking him there I think you would have to believe he was a clear cut above the other names in play -- Portis, Dekker, RHJ, Grant, Anderson.  I'm on record as being very skeptical of that. 

I think Danny felt like the middle of this draft was pretty weak, and he went with the one kind of player he knows he can scout.  So Rozier will probably be a decent NBA player. 

But will it be with the Celtics? 

And does adding another "asset" really make a difference when we already have a mountain of them and nobody seems to be interested in what we're selling? 

How do you even develop this new "asset" when he's probably going to spend all of his time in the D-League even though he's already 21 years old?

[Evantime34]

Initially I was unhappy because we didn't trade up. Then I was unhappy because they picked a player at a position that wasn't a need.

All along I have been trumpeting drafting the BPA, with the highest upside. Yet when the C's actually made the pick I was disappointed. Looking back on it now, and reading the quotes from the team it seems like they believed Rozier to be the BPA with a huge upside, which I can't be mad at.

RJ Hunter was a great pick, a great shooter, coming to a team starved for shooting. I probably would have been fine with the draft had they picked him at 16 and Rozier at 28.

Mickey was an absolute steal at 33. He is by far the best athlete of any of our bigs. When he is developed, he could provide weak side rim protection, a great pick and roll finisher and 3 point shooting.

It was a good draft, just not as good a draft as I was hoping for.

[kozlodoev]

Even if I accept that Rozier was the best player available, to really justify picking him there I think you would have to believe he was a clear cut above the other names in play -- Portis, Dekker, RHJ, Grant, Anderson.  I'm on record as being very skeptical of that.

Portis didn't exactly help himself at the combine, though. His vertical is worse than Sullinger's despite an extra inch in height, and three extra inches in standing reach.

[Kuberski33]

I'm more intrigued by Mickey and his 3+ blocks per game right now...

Makes 2 of us.  I want to see this guy.

[SHAQATTACK]

Good for a tank job......actually perfect .

Now dump all the bench trash ......let these mighty picks lead the Celtics back into a top five draft........for about four years straight .

[Yoki_IsTheName]

The problem is that I don't see either of them unseating smart Bradley or isiah thomas.  So we just expended two first rounders on role players/backups.

We picked at 16. Since when is the 16 pick suppose to be a starter?

That's not the point. We coukd have had players who can fill a need, starter or off the bench with #16 but we picked adude who plays a position we are already having a logjam. What makes it worse it we picked a dude at #16 who's really similar to the dude we picked last year at #6.

So far, it looks like it's a waste of a pick.

Not really. Smart can't penetrate or finish at the rim. Terry is much closer to IT then Smart or Bradley. Big difference in skills there.

Okay, so does this mean Smart gets traded or relegated to the bench? That would be a waste of a #6 pick would it nor? If Rozier is better than Smart in that regard, then he's the odd man out of tha log jam now, right?

I'm just asking...

[PhoSita]

Even if I accept that Rozier was the best player available, to really justify picking him there I think you would have to believe he was a clear cut above the other names in play -- Portis, Dekker, RHJ, Grant, Anderson.  I'm on record as being very skeptical of that.

Portis didn't exactly help himself at the combine, though. His vertical is worse than Sullinger's despite an extra inch in height, and three extra inches in standing reach.

I think I would've preferred Dekker, RHJ, or Anderson at the spot.  People are really divided on Portis.  Maybe he's a steal, maybe he's a 3rd string energy guy.

What this team needs is size, athleticism, and shooting ability on the wing.  The three guys I mentioned might not be better than Rozier, but they'd have a shot at making it into the rotation because they offer at least a couple of things the team needs. 

[sofutomygaha]

Initially I was unhappy because we didn't trade up. Then I was unhappy because they picked a player at a position that wasn't a need.

All along I have been trumpeting drafting the BPA, with the highest upside. Yet when the C's actually made the pick I was disappointed. Looking back on it now, and reading the quotes from the team it seems like they believed Rozier to be the BPA with a huge upside, which I can't be mad at.

RJ Hunter was a great pick, a great shooter, coming to a team starved for shooting. I probably would have been fine with the draft had they picked him at 16 and Rozier at 28.

Mickey was an absolute steal at 33. He is by far the best athlete of any of our bigs. When he is developed, he could provide weak side rim protection, a great pick and roll finisher and 3 point shooting.

It was a good draft, just not as good a draft as I was hoping for.

I feel exactly the same. You've summarized it perfectly.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I'm more intrigued by Mickey and his 3+ blocks per game right now...

Makes 2 of us.  I want to see this guy.

Add me here.

He's the only pick for last night that I'm very excited and positive about.

[dreamgreen]

They were all good in college that's why they were drafted. Nobody has any idea if they will be any good in the pros the draft is a crap shoot no doubt. Of course we all hope they are great players. For me personally I'm not a fan of undersized players which seems like we draft all the time.

Also in a league that is becoming more 3 point shooting adding a guard that shot 30% of college 3 doesn't get me excited but does make me want smh.

Hopefully he proves some of us wrong, right now I'm thinking of boycotting the summer games I'm so angry but hopefully that will fade.

[mef730]

Had you told me before the draft that we were going to pick Hunter and Rozier in the first round, I would have thought that it would have been Hunter at 16. He looks great. I know nothing about Rozier. On the surface, I'm disappointed that we drafted another undersized point guard who can't shoot. Digging down, though, I would be the first to admit that I had spent almost no time looking at Rozier before the draft and will work under then not-so-dubious assumption that Ainge knows more than I do about the draft.

BTW, fun with headlines: Adjacent titles on the "Latest Forum Topics" to the right->

"Rozier is the steal of the draft" and right under that...

"Rozier was the worst pick in round 1 other than Nance, Jr."

Let's face it: A few of us are going to look really smart or really dump a couple of years from now.

Mike