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

[Big333223]

The truth is, no one knows how good Rozier will be because none of us have watched anything other than his highlights and 99% of us didn't know the name two days ago. It might be a terrible pick, but I'm not going to pretend like I know this guy's game or how it'll translate beyond what I've read and watched this morning.

[mctyson]

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.

THANK YOU!

No one is actually saying he's going to be a bad NBA player, but it's a waste of a mid first round pick to pick someone that we sort of already have in bunches.

Dekker could have filled a need ...

Danny does not draft based on need.  He drafts on his and the teams talent ratings.  They obviously didn't think Dekker would be as good of a prospect as Rozier.  That simple.

I'm fine with people arguing that better players were available.  We shall see if that is the case.  Please stop complaining about Rozier being a PG. 

[manl_lui]

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.

THANK YOU!

No one is actually saying he's going to be a bad NBA player, but it's a waste of a mid first round pick to pick someone that we sort of already have in bunches.

Dekker could have filled a need ...

Danny does not draft based on need.  He drafts on his and the teams talent ratings.  They obviously didn't think Dekker would be as good of a prospect as Rozier.  That simple.

I'm fine with people arguing that better players were available.  We shall see if that is the case.  Please stop complaining about Rozier being a PG.

I remember when there was a big debate a couple years ago on drafting based on need vs based on talent. I believe that debate came (correct me if I am wrong) the year we drafted Sully and Fab Melo. At that time, people thought he had potential to be the rim protector we are looking for, but that never panned out. So, I personally think you draft the BPA, even if he is not part of your future, he is more likely more valuable to trade than a need that is not as good

[mctyson]

From what I'm seeing now, seems Rozier was dominating workouts against high ranked prospects and that gained him a lot of ground.  He must have done that in the Celtics workout.  Maybe he was the head turning player Ainge was talking about.

Ford says he would have went 3-4 picks later so I think the media were the ones out of the loop on Rozier, and then fans.  I know I had paid attention to the draft but didn't hear him brought up and to me looks like he should've been.  It isn't the expected pick but Ainge pretty much sticks to the player he likes most.

The story is always more clear a few days after draft day, once the emotions settle...

The reporters and analysts come out and give grades but they give grades based on their mock projections.  Why don't we ever grade the reporters/analysis for their crappy mock projections?  I think it is clear now that multiple teams were high on Rozier and would have picked him in late-teens, early 20's.  And if that is indeed the case, I am glad we got him at 16.

Does that makes the Celtics selection better?  Does that get them a higher grade?  Did they "reach" because Chad Ford had him in the late 1st in his mock?  Of course not.  We will only know this if Rozier doesn't pan out or the Celtics really struggle fitting him in with the other guards.

Also - we find out that he was one of the few players the Cs worked-out twice and that he was awesome in their workouts and in workouts for other teams.  Stuff that was not reported prior to the draft...because these crappy reporters are too busy doing worthless mock drafts.

[mctyson]

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.

THANK YOU!

No one is actually saying he's going to be a bad NBA player, but it's a waste of a mid first round pick to pick someone that we sort of already have in bunches.

Dekker could have filled a need ...

Danny does not draft based on need.  He drafts on his and the teams talent ratings.  They obviously didn't think Dekker would be as good of a prospect as Rozier.  That simple.

I'm fine with people arguing that better players were available.  We shall see if that is the case.  Please stop complaining about Rozier being a PG.

I remember when there was a big debate a couple years ago on drafting based on need vs based on talent. I believe that debate came (correct me if I am wrong) the year we drafted Sully and Fab Melo. At that time, people thought he had potential to be the rim protector we are looking for, but that never panned out. So, I personally think you draft the BPA, even if he is not part of your future, he is more likely more valuable to trade than a need that is not as good

You are correct.  I was going to mention Fab Melo specifically because he is a great example of one of the few times Danny drafted based on need/fit (I think Marcus Banks might apply here too) and it was a disaster...whereas the Sullinger pick was a golden nugget (and he was the best talent available, though not a need or a "fit" at the time).

[ThePoeticWolf]

Terry Rozier is a beast.  So are our other picks.   Watch the tape. I can't understand how anyone can be upset and want Ainge fired when they haven't even done that.   I can but it's absurd.  That's why Ainge is smart because he does


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ49LB7yBuk

What's upsetting is not that they're good players, it's good players we don't need because now after this draft we have 8 guards on our team, with one rookie big, Sully, KO and Zeller as bigs.  When on the board when he drafted Rozier there were small forwards ranked higher, power forwards/centers ranked higher available at 16. 

[BlackCeltic]

Obviously Danny and CBS had players ranked differently from "analysts". We wont know the truth until these players play 5 on 5.

[Evantime34]

Terry Rozier is a beast.  So are our other picks.   Watch the tape. I can't understand how anyone can be upset and want Ainge fired when they haven't even done that.   I can but it's absurd.  That's why Ainge is smart because he does


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ49LB7yBuk

What's upsetting is not that they're good players, it's good players we don't need because now after this draft we have 8 guards on our team, with one rookie big, Sully, KO and Zeller as bigs.  When on the board when he drafted Rozier there were small forwards ranked higher, power forwards/centers ranked higher available at 16.

Not on the Celtics board.

Do we really need a lot of bigs though? If we bring back Crowder he can give us a lot of time at the 4. I think if you sign one big to add to Olynyk, Sullinger and Zeller that is enough with Crowder playing a lot of 4. I think you will see a lot of 3 guard lineups.

If the C's think that Rozier will be better than Portis longterm, regardless of position then I'm glad they selected him.

The C's can't be concerned with positions right now, we have to get together the highest quality trade pieces we can so that we can acquire a star. Taking a player that is worse now, because they fit a current positional need is extremely short sighted.

[ForexPirate]

so y'all think we should have picked up Anderson, portis or dekker at 16.  That seems to be the consensus.  You say that Rozier was a wasted pick.

But if you have crowder and Jerebko coming back - they fill the need for what Anderson, portis and dekker can do. 

Also why draft a person to fill young's position at small forward without giving him the chance to fill it himself.

In the meantime, Ainge established depth in the back court so that he can trade an entire back court to teams that don't have one - aka: Philly or Sacramento.  And get a big from them that we need.  Win - win   We can also add assets to such a trade if need be.

Its a whole lot better that trading six picks to move down in this years draft.  That would have been crazy.

We still have rights to the nets first pick for the next three years.  These are big time assets. Four first round picks in next year's draft.   

Let trader Danny do his thing now.

I like what he has done so far.  This year is another step forward.  We will over achieve again because Brad's teams are more than a sum of their parts.

We can also play small ball with mickey at center and crowder at pf.