Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?

[M.A.]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2529441-nba-pecking-order-for-2015-16-becoming-clear-after-another-busy-offseason

I have to say he utilized quite the cop-out to justify having the Celtics below the T-wolves, Blazers, Magic, Nets, Hornets, Knicks, Kings and Lakers.

"28. Boston Celtics: At some point, all the shrewd angling and savvy saving is going to cease to feel good without results—and that point is the coming season. It will take all of Marcus Smart's intensity and bravado and Brad Stevens' touch to avoid a lethargic winter in Boston."

? This is a team that only improved from last year, and since they didn't spend a ton of money overpaying for F/A's they've obviously regressed to the 3rd worst team in basketball. I'm sorry, but even from a pessimistic outlook that's some awfully poor reasoning.

Maybe I am crazy. Well, I am crazy, but even I know the Celtics aren't the third worst team in the NBA. They will continue to improve from last year.

[max215]

You're not crazy. BR is a complete joke. This is the same site that suggested the C's trade Smart and 2 Brooklyn picks for.... Joakim Noah. I believe they also had D'Angelo Russell as one of the top 15 performers of SL, despite the fact that he was universally recognized as the single most disappointing player in Vegas.

[jpotter33]

Haha I saw this earlier too and about crapped my pants when I read it.

But it is Bleacher Report, so it's not like it is surprising how off-base this is. The sad thing is that Kevin Ding is one of their better writers, and this is the quality of literature he is putting out. Also, he's a notorious Lakers homer, so that explains at least some of it.

[D.o.s.]

Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

[saltlover]

That's what you get for clicking on Bleacher Report.  Let that be the last time you make such a mistake.  Another sports blog I visit actually has a "no Bleacher Report rule."

[max215]

Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

Ehh, it's close. I'll put it this way: I think the C's could win 50 games, but I don't see any scenario in which they wind up with the third best lottery odds. The talent is just too evenly spread out to fully tank, which is what you'd have to do to be 28th.

[Rosco917]

Perfect...If I were CBS I would use this crap to ignite this team. Now we'll see which players respond in what way.   

[MJohnnyboy]

Yeah I'll echo what everyone else is saying: ITS BLEACHER REPORT

Bleacher report is full of hacks. Once in a while one of their writers puts out something good but usually its pretty shortsighted. I looked this guy up. He's a Lakers fan, so of course he'll put the Celtics that low. He had the Lakers number 20 which I think is downright impossible with that roster. Looks to me like a we got a Homer on the web.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but when the Celtics capitalize on last year, it'll make it all the sweeter seeing this guy eat his words.

[jambr380]

I say we go back to talking about SI's prediction of 47 wins. That is way more uplifting (and reputable)

[Donoghus]

Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

Both are pretty ridiculous although I'd actually lean towards the 50 win item being the more realistic of the two.

[D.o.s.]

Also, and for what it's worth: Bleacher Report has a handful of good writers and occasionally some very good content. They are not very good overall because they existed to exploit the way traffic is measured on the Internet, and they have very famously screwed a lot of writers over by refusing to pay them. They will basically publish anything as long as it gets them clicks.

[TheTruthFot18]

I'd say 28th is our floor for this season so that's just someone's opinion. We could also be as high as 12-13.

Seriously though, how could the Knicks, Lakers, Pistons, and Blazers be ahead of us? Hornets, Nets, Kings, and Suns are even questionable.

[mmmmm]

Also, and for what it's worth: Bleacher Report has a handful of good writers and occasionally some very good content. They are not very good overall because they existed to exploit the way traffic is measured on the Internet, and they have very famously screwed a lot of writers over by refusing to pay them. They will basically publish anything as long as it gets them clicks.

Which is pretty much why I didn't bother to click on the link in the OP.

[greece66]

Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

To be fair, what he said was not to win 50 not fewer than 50

[D.o.s.]

Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

To be fair, what he said was not to win 50 not fewer than 50

They mean exactly the same thing.