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

[Ogaju]

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

I read the article to the end, and the little story about Becky Hammon. Is it really fair to compare the proficiency of women and men in team sports. There was an attempt to compare Mia Hamm with Pele because of her goal scoring record. I thought that was totally inappropriate because it is just a different level of proficiency and competition between men and women soccer, now this clown is this article is comparing Hammon's proficiency to the likes of Jordan, Kobe and Miller -- this is a joke. You simply cannot compare efficiency in men's soccer with women's soccer or men's basketball with women's basketball.

[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.

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? :/

My point wasn't that stars are sufficient to win a title, my point was that they're necessary.  Sure, there are teams, especially in the west, that don't get far with a star player.  Only one team can win so there will be teams with star players who don't.  But of the teams ahead of the teams you mentioned all have stars too.  How many teams can you think of that were legitimate title contenders without a star player?  Off the top of my head, I can think of the 2004 Pistons (a massive outlier) and maybe last year's Hawks and those post-Melo Nuggets teams (and neither of those teams every really came that close to winning a title).  And obviously the goal is to win a title, but you need to have some luck to do that.  The best anyone can do is to build a contender and hope you catch the breaks you need to win a title.  And I define a contender as a team with a legitimate chance to win a title, not a team that advances far in a pathetic conference. 

[Csfan1984]

True as the term winning (technically being above .500") and playoff (making playoffs) are very likely because roster is deep enough to give great effort 72 games.

I still don't really love this roster though. Much rather have top 3 heavy team with a solid 5 role-players than 15 great role-players.

[Rosco917]

Play fast, run when you can, move the ball, defend hard, substitute often.

[Boris Badenov]

Play fast, run when you can, move the ball, defend hard, substitute often.

Where's Rick Pitino when you need him?

Never mind. I didn't say that.

[GreenWarrior]

so ultimately what this team is set up to win is a late first rnd. pick.

...Awesome...

[D.o.s.]

Play fast, run when you can, move the ball, defend hard, substitute often.

Where's Rick Pitino when you need him?

Never mind. I didn't say that.

Too soon?

Anyway, this can work if you have, say, the HCA of a Pepsi arena. For the other 29 teams in the NBA, not so much.

[LGC88]

so ultimately what this team is set up to win is a late first rnd. pick.

...Awesome...

Having good young players and trying to outperform the eastern conference while having 55 millions of cap space next season might not be bad for a FA destination.
In the mean time the Nets is working very hard to give us a lottery pick.
Difficult to ask for more at this point of the rebuild.

[mctyson]

I would say false. The NBA is a star-driven league.

It is a star-drive league no doubt.  But you do not need a 1st team all-NBA player to win and challenge for a title.

Atlanta and Memphis are great examples of this.  That's the Celtics model right now.  They just need to develop one guy into a Horford/Gasol level type talent. 

[GreenWarrior]

so ultimately what this team is set up to win is a late first rnd. pick.

...Awesome...

Having good young players and trying to outperform the eastern conference while having 55 millions of cap space next season might not be bad for a FA destination.
In the mean time the Nets is working very hard to give us a lottery pick.
Difficult to ask for more at this point of the rebuild.

I don't believe free agency is legitimately on the table as an option. we couldn't even get Aldridge or Monroe to visit.

and the Nets picks are losing value because from what I understand it's considered a weak draft.

so far we're rebuilding with late rnd. picks and hoping they're more than advertised(some are already convinced they are.... ). this is becoming a lot of hoping and praying. when we could have been hoping and praying on players projected to flat out be more talented than what we've gotten.

[GreenWarrior]

I would say false. The NBA is a star-driven league.

It is a star-drive league no doubt.  But you do not need a 1st team all-NBA player to win and challenge for a title.

Atlanta and Memphis are great examples of this.  That's the Celtics model right now.  They just need to develop one guy into a Horford/Gasol level type talent.

what have those teams won? what big name free agents are they luring? if winning a lot of games with nothing to show for it is the goal...that's not very hard to do.

[wdleehi]

It could once again lead to fake East success.  Sub 500 team makes the playoffs because they just play harder every night.


Come playoff time when the rest of the league cranks it up, the Celtics have no higher gear.  They get swept by a top seed.

[crimson_stallion]

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
Clippers
Spurs
Rockets
Pelicans
Thunder
Warriors
Memphis
Hawks
Bucks

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

Right now, I'd say the Hawks and Pelicans are a fair argument.

We might be able to give Memphis a run - aside from Conley their team is built around aging stars (Gasol, Randolf) and it's only a matter of time before they start declining.

I think we give the Bucks a good run.  I know they added Monroe, but they still don't really have a genuine 'star' player.  They are similar to us in that regard - lots of good players, lack of great ones.

 

The Wizards are a dark horse that should probably be on that list.  Anytime you have Wall, Beal, Gortat and Nene that's a pretty solid team - losing Pierce hurts them in the playoffs in a big way, but that's still a tough unit.

[Celtics4ever]

It could once again lead to fake East success.  Sub 500 team makes the playoffs because they just play harder every night.


Come playoff time when the rest of the league cranks it up, the Celtics have no higher gear.  They get swept by a top seed.

Just ask the Hawks, I agree. TP.

[PhoSita]

It could once again lead to fake East success.  Sub 500 team makes the playoffs because they just play harder every night.


Come playoff time when the rest of the league cranks it up, the Celtics have no higher gear.  They get swept by a top seed.

Thumbs way up.