'what we lack in talent is made up by our depth and youth'

[Celtics4ever]

The real trouble with all the trues, is that our starting five and bench won't be able to overcome a good teams.   We have depth and talent, but the NBA is a star league.   The deep team method has really never worked in the league.

[pokeKingCurtis]

True.

I was listening to the radio the other day and they made the case that it was clear on the West Coast road trip the Celts 2nd and 3rd units were exceptional. They were better than the Warriors backups. They were better than the Clippers backups.

CBS isn't afraid to pull an Avery or a Smart or a Zeller because he knows he has IT and Amir that can come right in.

Yeah.

I'm positive that this team is almost unprecedented in terms of structure.

You go in, every night, with 13 guys who are virtually interchangeable. You have 8 fresh bodies that you can mishmash.

[max215]

True.

I was listening to the radio the other day and they made the case that it was clear on the West Coast road trip the Celts 2nd and 3rd units were exceptional. They were better than the Warriors backups. They were better than the Clippers backups.

Yes, but the starting lineup is probably in the bottom third of the league.  So . . . which is most important: 1st unit, 2nd unit, or 3rd string?

This. We have a very deep team, but when it's hard to differentiate between your first man and your fifteenth, you're not going to find success in the NBA.

[celticsfan8591]

As others have said, this is definitely false. Depth is radically overrated in basketball and even our young talent isn't as impressive as other teams' young talent.

I still think we have a good future because of the possibility of continuing to consolidate our assets and see some of these young guys exceed expectations. But the fact we have good depth isn't going to translate much into wins this year. As others have pointed out, this is a star driven league and the fact we have a nice third string PF doesn't mean that much.

Tell that to the 2014-15 Cavs, 2013-14 Heat, 2012-2013 Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder for the last 5-6 years.

A positive counter-example are the 2007-08 Celtics, where we blew out teams and closed out games because of our depth.

Of course there's a lot more examples than just those three teams but I'll leave the rest as an exercise for you.

Losing top players kills even teams with depth.  That's not the issue at hand.

The Cavs lost some players last year but they didn't have depth before that.

The 2013-14 Heat were healthy and had no depth.

The 2012-13 Pacers were healthy and had no depth.

The Thunder, aside from last year, were always healthy but had no depth outside a 6th man.

So your argument is that those title contenders wore down at the end of the season because they had no depth?  Can't argue with that, but those teams were also title contenders in the first place because they had elite players.  Those teams' stars enabled them to get far enough to get let down by their bench.  The teams without stars, meanwhile, were already long gone from the playoffs.  Just to use one of your examples, the Cavs might have lost the Finals because LeBron got tired and they didn't have adequate help for him, but that only happened after they made the playoffs over a bunch of teams with no stars and swept the starless Celtics and Hawks in the playoffs.  Who's the best player the Cavs faced before the finals?  Probably Jimmy Butler, who not-so-coincidentally played for the only team that beat the Cavs before the finals.  Stars win in the playoffs.

[GreenCoffeeBean]

With a little bit of player development (Smart, Bradley, Turner) our starting five can move from the bottom third to the middle third. As much hate as Evan Turner gets on this board, I expect him to look a lot more comfortable in year two and do some really positive things for us.

[Eja117]

True.

I was listening to the radio the other day and they made the case that it was clear on the West Coast road trip the Celts 2nd and 3rd units were exceptional. They were better than the Warriors backups. They were better than the Clippers backups.

Yes, but the starting lineup is probably in the bottom third of the league.  So . . . which is most important: 1st unit, 2nd unit, or 3rd string?

Definitely first, but then injuries happen and blah blah.  Our coach is in the top 1 in the league so that has to matter

[GreenCoffeeBean]

As others have said, this is definitely false. Depth is radically overrated in basketball and even our young talent isn't as impressive as other teams' young talent.

I still think we have a good future because of the possibility of continuing to consolidate our assets and see some of these young guys exceed expectations. But the fact we have good depth isn't going to translate much into wins this year. As others have pointed out, this is a star driven league and the fact we have a nice third string PF doesn't mean that much.

Tell that to the 2014-15 Cavs, 2013-14 Heat, 2012-2013 Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder for the last 5-6 years.

A positive counter-example are the 2007-08 Celtics, where we blew out teams and closed out games because of our depth.

Of course there's a lot more examples than just those three teams but I'll leave the rest as an exercise for you.

Losing top players kills even teams with depth.  That's not the issue at hand.

The Cavs lost some players last year but they didn't have depth before that.

The 2013-14 Heat were healthy and had no depth.

The 2012-13 Pacers were healthy and had no depth.

The Thunder, aside from last year, were always healthy but had no depth outside a 6th man.

So your argument is that those title contenders wore down at the end of the season because they had no depth?  Can't argue with that, but those teams were also title contenders in the first place because they had elite players.  Those teams' stars enabled them to get far enough to get let down by their bench.  The teams without stars, meanwhile, were already long gone from the playoffs.  Just to use one of your examples, the Cavs might have lost the Finals because LeBron got tired and they didn't have adequate help for him, but that only happened after they made the playoffs over a bunch of teams with no stars and swept the starless Celtics and Hawks in the playoffs.  Who's the best player the Cavs faced before the finals?  Probably Jimmy Butler, who not-so-coincidentally played for the only team that beat the Cavs before the finals.  Stars win in the playoffs.

Using an NBA Unicorn who intentionally stays in the perenially weak Eastern Conference as the basis of your argument is a bit unfair. Look at teams in the West with one or more stars that barely made to blatantly missed the playoffs: OKC, New Orleans, Sacramento

Also, is the goal just to be a contender (very easy to do in the East) or win banners? :/

[Ogaju]

one important and unappreciated point is that we have a young team that should continue to grow and gain experience, and as other teams age and lose a step our team is still on the upward trend of strength and experience. That cannot be understated. We are okay the way we are right now, but if a couple of our young players as a break out year or career then we are that much better for it.

Young players that could have break out careers are, Smart, Bradley, KO, Sully.

[D.o.s.]

True.

I was listening to the radio the other day and they made the case that it was clear on the West Coast road trip the Celts 2nd and 3rd units were exceptional. They were better than the Warriors backups. They were better than the Clippers backups.

CBS isn't afraid to pull an Avery or a Smart or a Zeller because he knows he has IT and Amir that can come right in.

Yeah.

I'm positive that this team is almost unprecedented in terms of structure.

You go in, every night, with 13 guys who are virtually interchangeable. You have 8 fresh bodies that you can mishmash.

The problem is that those 13 players are nearly all NBA-bench level.

One  good recent example of bench depth and it's relative importance: The trail blazers put together two 50 win seasons in the West while having one of the worst benches in the league.

[ederson]

True.

I was listening to the radio the other day and they made the case that it was clear on the West Coast road trip the Celts 2nd and 3rd units were exceptional. They were better than the Warriors backups. They were better than the Clippers backups.

CBS isn't afraid to pull an Avery or a Smart or a Zeller because he knows he has IT and Amir that can come right in.

I`d be ecstatic if this was true while having 2-3 all stars in the 1st unit.... Unfortunately imo this  means that the Cs have a starting five that`s a very good backup team and not that the 2nd unit is a decent starting lineup

[Eja117]

True.

I was listening to the radio the other day and they made the case that it was clear on the West Coast road trip the Celts 2nd and 3rd units were exceptional. They were better than the Warriors backups. They were better than the Clippers backups.

CBS isn't afraid to pull an Avery or a Smart or a Zeller because he knows he has IT and Amir that can come right in.

I`d be ecstatic if this was true while having 2-3 all stars in the 1st unit.... Unfortunately imo this  means that the Cs have a starting five that`s a very good backup team and not that the 2nd unit is a decent starting lineup

To me personally...this is like Bill Parcell's saying "you are exactly what your record says you are"

[dreamgreen]

I would say true.  This team is deep and young.  Plus I think we have talent which is going to do a lot of good things this year.  Our team is loaded.  I think we are a top 10 team as is.  The issue is what we have isn't it.  Or is it?

Top 10 team? Wow...

Which of these teams is Boston ahead of?

Cleveland - better than Boston
Clippers - just signed Paul Pierce, better than Boston
Spurs
Rockets
Pelicans
Thunder
Warriors
Memphis
Hawks
Bucks

And there are certainly other teams with convincing arguments: Bulls, Heat, Pacers, Suns, Raptors, Wizards, etc.

I'll rate each team and say if they're better or worse than us, or about even.

Cleveland - better: Only because of Mosgov/Thompson control the boards well
Clippers - better: Just signed Celtics HoFer Paul Pierce this offseason
Spurs - worse: Because they're old. even their coach is an older version of CBS.
Rockets - worse: They rely too heavily on a shoot-first SG while C's have a team-first philosphy
Pelicans - even: They were 8th seed last year. We'll see how AD pans out for them.
Thunder - worse: They didn't make the playoffs last year. 'Nuff said.
Warriors - even: Even if they won last year, well, we now have Lee. They have Gerald Wallace. Boom!
Memphis - even: C's backcourt is practically like theirs. Strong perimeter defenders!
Hawks - worse: they lost their heart and soul in Carroll while we kept Crowder
Bucks - worse: what have their young guys proven? Jabari is still practically a rookie

As for the other teams:
Bulls - worse: D-Rose is old and injury-prone
Heat - worse: Getting old and hasn't been the same since Lebron left. Couldn't even make the playoffs last year
Pacers - worse: Lost their bigs so they have no more D. Plus, they didn't make the playoffs.
Suns - worse: Non-playoff team and they lost IT4 to us last year.
Raptors - worse: Lost Amir Johnson and Lou Williams. They'll be worse than last year.
Wizards - worse: Lost Celtics HoFer Paul Pierce

So in conclusion, the Celtics are probably 6th best team, at worst!!11!1!!

</greengoggles>

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

[Scintan]

As others have said, this is definitely false. Depth is radically overrated in basketball and even our young talent isn't as impressive as other teams' young talent.

I still think we have a good future because of the possibility of continuing to consolidate our assets and see some of these young guys exceed expectations. But the fact we have good depth isn't going to translate much into wins this year. As others have pointed out, this is a star driven league and the fact we have a nice third string PF doesn't mean that much.

Tell that to the 2014-15 Cavs, 2013-14 Heat, 2012-2013 Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder for the last 5-6 years.

A positive counter-example are the 2007-08 Celtics, where we blew out teams and closed out games because of our depth.

Of course there's a lot more examples than just those three teams but I'll leave the rest as an exercise for you.

Losing top players kills even teams with depth.  That's not the issue at hand.

The Cavs lost some players last year but they didn't have depth before that.

The 2013-14 Heat were healthy and had no depth.

The 2012-13 Pacers were healthy and had no depth.

The Thunder, aside from last year, were always healthy but had no depth outside a 6th man.

The Celtics lost Garnett and were done.  The Celtics lost Perkins and were done.

Same = Same

Teams don't lose because they're down to their #13 player.  They've already lost by then.

[clover]

As others have said, this is definitely false. Depth is radically overrated in basketball and even our young talent isn't as impressive as other teams' young talent.

I still think we have a good future because of the possibility of continuing to consolidate our assets and see some of these young guys exceed expectations. But the fact we have good depth isn't going to translate much into wins this year. As others have pointed out, this is a star driven league and the fact we have a nice third string PF doesn't mean that much.

Tell that to the 2014-15 Cavs, 2013-14 Heat, 2012-2013 Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder for the last 5-6 years.

A positive counter-example are the 2007-08 Celtics, where we blew out teams and closed out games because of our depth.

Of course there's a lot more examples than just those three teams but I'll leave the rest as an exercise for you.

Losing top players kills even teams with depth.  That's not the issue at hand.

The Cavs lost some players last year but they didn't have depth before that.

The 2013-14 Heat were healthy and had no depth.

The 2012-13 Pacers were healthy and had no depth.

The Thunder, aside from last year, were always healthy but had no depth outside a 6th man.

So your argument is that those title contenders wore down at the end of the season because they had no depth?  Can't argue with that, but those teams were also title contenders in the first place because they had elite players.  Those teams' stars enabled them to get far enough to get let down by their bench.  The teams without stars, meanwhile, were already long gone from the playoffs.  Just to use one of your examples, the Cavs might have lost the Finals because LeBron got tired and they didn't have adequate help for him, but that only happened after they made the playoffs over a bunch of teams with no stars and swept the starless Celtics and Hawks in the playoffs.  Who's the best player the Cavs faced before the finals?  Probably Jimmy Butler, who not-so-coincidentally played for the only team that beat the Cavs before the finals.  Stars win in the playoffs.

A strong third string is poor inventory management, like putting perishable items into long-term storage--it's gotta lead to a decline in asset value.

[Soytiz]

I think this team, as currently constituted, could make the playoffs. As for winning in the playoffs, it's kind of murky or blurred... I want to see how the team performs before making a definitive statement on the matter.

On another note, love that Paul Pierce is still keeping an eye on the team. Looks like he is getting ready for that GM phase of his career...

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/07/nba_notebook_paul_pierce_likes_what_he_c_s