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

[crimson_stallion]

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.

If the Hawks of this year can make the ECF (and the Spurs of 2013/14 can win a championship) then nothing is out of the question.

Neither of those teams really had that much more raw talent than we do this year.  Both teams won by being filled with 'good' players, by playing as a team (rather than a 12 man ISO) and by utilizing their depth.

Most people didn't even thing the Celtics had hope of making the playoffs last year - I said from the very start that we would compete for one of the final playoff spots in the East, and that anything from a 10th seed to an 6th seed was realistically possible.  In the end we finished 7th. 

By no means suggesting that the Celtics will make the ECF or compete for a title this year, just saying that the league has proven to us that nothing is impossible. 

[obnoxiousmime]

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.

If the Hawks of this year can make the ECF (and the Spurs of 2013/14 can win a championship) then nothing is out of the question.

Neither of those teams really had that much more raw talent than we do this year.  Both teams won by being filled with 'good' players, by playing as a team (rather than a 12 man ISO) and by utilizing their depth.

Most people didn't even thing the Celtics had hope of making the playoffs last year - I said from the very start that we would compete for one of the final playoff spots in the East, and that anything from a 10th seed to an 6th seed was realistically possible.  In the end we finished 7th. 

By no means suggesting that the Celtics will make the ECF or compete for a title this year, just saying that the league has proven to us that nothing is impossible.

Horford is like a poor man's Duncan. We don't even have a poor man's Horford on the roster now. We also don't have anybody close to Paul Millsap or Kawhi Leonard on the team, and no one close to being as efficient a shooter from long-range as Green or Korver (both of whom were among the league leaders in 3 pts made and 3 pt pct.).

I simply don't believe we have as much talent as those teams and I've always rejected the idea that the Spurs were a team "without stars" the year they won the title.

We still need that versatile two-way big man that solidifies the D and isn't useless on offense like present-day Duncan or Horford. We still need good-to-great 3 pt. shooting from at least 2-3 of our players positions 1-4. We still need a wing player who can create his own shot if needs be. We need someone who can drive and finish at the rim from time to time, or at least get to the line consistently.

We need stars, basically. Stars are stars because they do multiple things well, or they do a couple things freakishly well, like Ben Wallace being one of the best athletes in the league, rebounding and blocking shots at elite levels but doing everything else poorly.

Marcus Smart at least does one thing extremely well, that is defense. However, he is not a great shooter or finisher at the rim and his distribution ability is just average for a PG. He does not have great athleticism either, though he is athletic enough to get by. Since distribution and athleticism are more innate abilities than acquired ones it is really critical that he becomes a good shooter.

All these other guys we have don't really show any potential to be great at at least one thing, much less great at multiple things. Some of them are undersized, all have trouble creating their own shot, don't have great 3 pt. ability, or are not good defenders.

[LGC88]

As always the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
We are not gonna win the eastern conference like the Hawks did.
We are not gonna end up in the lottery either.
There are simply too many good things in this team to ignore.
If some of you chose to ignore them, good for you, you will be pleasantly surprised of the results.

[spikelovetheCelts]

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.

We have players who are growing. 10 no but 14 would be reachable this year. We are one trade away from top 10.

[chambers]

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.

If the Hawks of this year can make the ECF (and the Spurs of 2013/14 can win a championship) then nothing is out of the question.

Neither of those teams really had that much more raw talent than we do this year.  Both teams won by being filled with 'good' players, by playing as a team (rather than a 12 man ISO) and by utilizing their depth.

Most people didn't even thing the Celtics had hope of making the playoffs last year - I said from the very start that we would compete for one of the final playoff spots in the East, and that anything from a 10th seed to an 6th seed was realistically possible.  In the end we finished 7th. 

By no means suggesting that the Celtics will make the ECF or compete for a title this year, just saying that the league has proven to us that nothing is impossible.

The difference between the 2013/14 Spurs and 15' Hawks is other worldly. Tim Duncan and Parker were top 15-20 NBA players and both top 5 at their position that season and perennial All NBA team contenders. They were coached by the greatest mind in the world for 10 years with former perennial All Star and 6th man of the year contender coming off the bench.  The Hawks had two top 30 players who are borderline All Star Caliber players in one of the poorest conferences in NBA history.

I understand the Hawks comparison, but the Spurs are in a different world to the Hawks.
We are currently a poor man's Hawks squad.
Even Danny Ainge said the Hawks weren't true contenders midway through 2014/15 at their peak.

[D.o.s.]

As always the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
We are not gonna win the eastern conference like the Hawks did.
We are not gonna end up in the lottery either.
There are simply too many good things in this team to ignore.
If some of you chose to ignore them, good for you, you will be pleasantly surprised of the results.

More middling picks after a first round exit doesn't sound like a pleasant surprise to me.

[Jon]

The Hawks are a bad example. They will never win a title as currently constructed and if they were in the West, they'd be a borderline playoff team at best.

[crimson_stallion]

Horford is like a poor man's Duncan. We don't even have a poor man's Horford on the roster now.

Umm

Al Horford is a poor man's Tim Duncan just like Even Turner is a poor man's Scottie Pippen...

Honestly not sure where you got that comparison from but Horford and Duncan are very different players, and are on entirely other levels. 

A more accurate comparison to Horford would be David Lee, David West or...Jared Sullinger. 

In fact as far as pure skill/talent goes, Sully is probably a step above Al Horford - he's a more versatile scorer, arguably abetter passer, and definitely a better rebounder.  His mentality (which leads to poor shot selection and poor conditioning) is the only thing holding Sully back from being better than Horford has ever been.

We also don't have anybody close to Paul Millsap or Kawhi Leonard on the team, and no one close to being as efficient a shooter from long-range as Green or Korver (both of whom were among the league leaders in 3 pts made and 3 pt pct.).

That's actually not true.

Isaiah Thomas and Jonas Jerebko are right up there with Green as shooters. 

They aren't on par with Korver, but then Korver also can't do other things those guys can do such as I don't know...anything other than shooting?

As for Milsap / Leonard - both guys are over glorified role players who have their 'value' exhagerated because they are playing on good teams.  If either of those guys was on the Kings or the Timberwolves, you wouldn't hear a word about them.

Did anybody talk about Milsap in 13/14 when the Hawks DIDN'T have the best record in the East?  Nope.  He may as well not have existed.

Likewise nobody would have talked about Leonard two years from now if Aldridge didn't come along, because the Spurs would be TERRRIBLE after Duncan's retirement if they never lucked out with the FA signing...and as soon as the team went bad, Leonards rep would fade again.   

Not saying Millsap and Leonard aren't very good players, just saying that neither one of them is actually a legit star.  They just really, really good support players.

I simply don't believe we have as much talent as those teams and I've always rejected the idea that the Spurs were a team "without stars" the year they won the title.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Leonard and 37 YO Duncan were the best players on that team, and IMHO neither of those guys was a star.

We still need that versatile two-way big man that solidifies the D and isn't useless on offense like present-day Duncan or Horford.

Amir Johnson solidified the D, and he isn't useless on offence.   

We still need good-to-great 3 pt. shooting from at least 2-3 of our players positions 1-4.

Isaiah Thomas, Jonas Jerebko, Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynyk.

We still need a wing player who can create his own shot if needs be.  We need someone who can drive and finish at the rim from time to time, or at least get to the line consistently.

Isaiah Thomas

We need stars, basically. Stars are stars because they do multiple things well, or they do a couple things freakishly well, like Ben Wallace being one of the best athletes in the league, rebounding and blocking shots at elite levels but doing everything else poorly.

Kelly Olynyk does multiple things well (pass, score, rebound).  Jared Sullinger does multiple things well (pass, score, rebound).  Even turner does multiple things well (pass, dribble, get to the basket, midrange shooting).  Jerebko does multiple things well (shoot, defend, rebound, general hustle).

Isaiah Thomas scores freakishly well.  Marcus Smart and Avery Bradley defend freakishly well.   

Marcus Smart at least does one thing extremely well, that is defense. However, he is not a great shooter or finisher at the rim and his distribution ability is just average for a PG. He does not have great athleticism either, though he is athletic enough to get by. Since distribution and athleticism are more innate abilities than acquired ones it is really critical that he becomes a good shooter.

He was also a 20 year old rookie last year, the year you're making all of these conclusions based on.

All these other guys we have don't really show any potential to be great at at least one thing, much less great at multiple things. Some of them are undersized, all have trouble creating their own shot, don't have great 3 pt. ability, or are not good defenders.

Mickey has the potential to be a great defender.

Sully has the potential to be a great rebounder and post score (if he gets his head in it)

Smart, Bradley and Crowder both have the potential to be great defensive players

Olynyk, Hunter and Jerebko have the potential to be great shooters

Thomas and Rozier have the potential to be great scorers

[Jesus Shuttlesworth #20]

The title of this thread makes me want to puke and is the most false statement I have ever seen on Celticsblog which is saying something because 99.9% of posts on this blog are utterly ridiculous and false.

[crimson_stallion]

The difference between the 2013/14 Spurs and 15' Hawks is other worldly. Tim Duncan and Parker were top 15-20 NBA players and both top 5 at their position that season and perennial All NBA team contenders. They were coached by the greatest mind in the world for 10 years with former perennial All Star and 6th man of the year contender coming off the bench.  The Hawks had two top 30 players who are borderline All Star Caliber players in one of the poorest conferences in NBA history.

We will have to agree to disagree

Tim Duncan averaged 15 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists 2 blocks in 2013/14 as a 37 year old.  Impressive numbers for a man of his age, no doubt.  But top 15-20 in the NBA?  No.  That ship had long sailed.

Tony Parker averaged 16 points, 6 assists, 2 rebounds in 2013/14 while being (as he still is today) one of the worst defensive players in the NBA.  He was not even close to a top 15-20 player in the NBA.

Manu Ginobili averaged 12 points, 3 rebounds and 4 assists in 2013/14 at age 36.  He was once a starting calibre player who was moved to a 6th man role in order to boost the bench - that was no longer the case by this time.  He was not a starting calibre player anymore by any stretch of the imagination - he was a scoring role player.  A 'spark plug' off the bench. Nothing more.

- Duncan was no better as a 37 year old in 2013/14 than Al Horford was last year.
- Tony Parker was no better as a 31 year old in 2013/14 than Jeff Teague was last year.
- Manu Ginobili was no better as a 36 year old in 2013/14 than Kyle Korver was last year.
- Kawhi Leonard was no better as a prospect in 2013/14 than Paul Milsap was this year.

The Spurs had absolutely nothing talent-wise in 2013/14 that the Hawks didn't have in 2014/15.  The Spurs just went further because of matchups (their depth was too much against the top heavy Heat) and because of great coaching (they play as a team, and utilise everybody's strengths well). 

P.s.

Again, I'm by no means suggesting that we are as good as the 2013/14 Spurs or that we're as good as the 2014/15 Hawks - nor am I suggesting we will win as many games. 

All I'm saying is that gap between the talent level those teams had in those years, and the talented level we might potentially have this year, is not that great. 

The vast majority of predictions / comparisons people are making are being based on player's talent levels as they were last year, despite the fact that most guys on our team are 28 or younger, and have significant potential to be better in 2015/16 than they were last year. 

Nobody has any idea of how good this team could potentially be next year, not until we get to at least the All-Star break.

[SHAQATTACK]

Teamed based team play from one end of the bench to the other .....over one or two stars and 12 scrubs .  Coach and full talent  team over a pair of stars and retreaded coach . Seems to,be the trending approach.

[Celtics4ever]

A more accurate comparison to Horford would be David Lee, David West or...Jared Sullinger. 

I agree with a lot of your post but I do not agree with Sullinger being like Horford for this reason although he has a similar skill-set.   Players are at their best when they play to their strengths.   Horford, embraces what he is and his limitations.   Sullinger has spent a lot of his time, trying and failing to broaden his shooting from down town.  Whether this is up to the Celtics brass or not is a matter of conjecture but the time to practice your shot is now, in the summer time and not during the season so much.   I would like CBS to put him more in the mid range where he can shoot and in the low post where he is effective.   But Horford has a mind-set where he embraces who is and plays to his strengths.   Sully does not always do that. 

Pros have a good deal of leeway where they shoot in the offense.   They may be positioned on the floor by it but they choose when to shoot and where unless it is a drawn play or the shot-clock necessitates they shoot.  Good player take shots they have a chance that they can make and ones that they shoot a high percentage at.   Horford does this really well. It is often called playing within your game. 

Tim Duncan averaged 15 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists 2 blocks in 2013/14 as a 37 year old.  Impressive numbers for a man of his age, no doubt.  But top 15-20 in the NBA?  No.  That ship had long sailed.

Tony Parker averaged 16 points, 6 assists, 2 rebounds in 2013/14 while being (as he still is today) one of the worst defensive players in the NBA.  He was not even close to a top 15-20 player in the NBA.

Manu Ginobili averaged 12 points, 3 rebounds and 4 assists in 2013/14 at age 36.  He was once a starting calibre player who was moved to a 6th man role in order to boost the bench - that was no longer the case by this time.  He was not a starting calibre player anymore by any stretch of the imagination - he was a scoring role player.  A 'spark plug' off the bench. Nothing more.

 

They are however clutch and play as a team as well as anyone.

[crimson_stallion]

A more accurate comparison to Horford would be David Lee, David West or...Jared Sullinger. 

I agree with a lot of your post but I do not agree with Sullinger being like Horford for this reason although he has a similar skill-set.   Players are at their best when they play to their strengths.   Horford, embraces what he is and his limitations.   Sullinger has spent a lot of his time, trying and failing to broaden his shooting from down town.  Whether this is up to the Celtics brass or not is a matter of conjecture but the time to practice your shot is now, in the summer time and not during the season so much.   I would like CBS to put him more in the mid range where he can shoot and in the low post where he is effective.   But Horford has a mind-set where he embraces who is and plays to his strengths.   Sully does not always do that. 

Pros have a good deal of leeway where they shoot in the offense.   They may be positioned on the floor by it but they choose when to shoot and where unless it is a drawn play or the shot-clock necessitates they shoot.  Good player take shots they have a chance that they can make and ones that they shoot a high percentage at.   Horford does this really well. It is often called playing within your game.

I agree completely, but the question here is:
'what we lack in talent is made up by our depth and youth'

Key word there being 'talent'.

In terms of pure talent, skill and even basketball IQ...Sully is right up there with Horford.  Any disadvantages Sully has compared to Horford are a direct or indirect result of his questionable attitude and decision making - all cerebral.

If Sully ever gets his head where it's supposed to be, there's absolutely nothing stopping him from becoming every bit as good as (if not even better than) Horford.

They are however clutch and play as a team as well as anyone.

Also correct, but again we're talking about pure talent level here, as that was the subject of the thread to begin with.

My argument basically is that the main thing separating the 13/14 Spurs from the current day Celtics are:

a) Experience / vet savvy
b) Team chemistry (those guys have been together a LONG time)
c) Coaching

Boston will develop more of both as they develop together as a team, so their levels of experience and chemistry will only get better...especially under Brad Stevens and with the addition of a couple of nice extra veterans (Lee, Johnson). 

Also Boston has some clutch players of their own in Smart, Thomas.

[PhoSita]

The Hawks are a bad example. They will never win a title as currently constructed and if they were in the West, they'd be a borderline playoff team at best.

I think this is going too far.  We forget how good Atlanta was at times last year because of how things ended for them.

[SHAQATTACK]

Celtics have the type of team to make some noise in the regular season......as the star coast ...are held out resting ...running on 7 cyl......Celtics will LOOK very competitive.......sorta fools gold really , as many of the stars don't go all out .

It's the playoffs where LeBron, CP3 , the rest ..turn the wick up and we will fall short.

Like the hawks ....good coach .....hard workers .....but their level of talent doesn't allow them to compete when LeBron is playing at his hardest.