Author Topic: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?  (Read 14569 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2015, 06:16:16 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8676
  • Tommy Points: 1138
Kevin Ding is the guys name?? Seriously I'll punch him right in the face. I'll bet he's from New York.

 His Nick name. The Dinger.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2015, 06:24:07 PM »

Online Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7837
  • Tommy Points: 770
To put it in further perspective, this guy is saying Boston is going to go from winning 40 games last season to no more than 22 or 23 next season.  Has any team ever done that without...

A.  Serious injuries to more than one player?

B.  Blowing up a team and trading away its best talent?

Mike


The Bucks won 38 games in 2013 and 15 games the next year.  To accomplish that, they:

- Traded Brandon Jennings for Brandon Knight & Khris Middleton
- Traded Tobias Harris for JJ Redick and then traded Redick for Caron Butler and little else
- Trade Luc Richard Mbah a Moute for nothing
- Let Monta Ellis and Sam Dalembert walk in free agency
- Signed OJ Mayo, who played only 50 games or so
- Lost Ilyasova, Pachulia, and Caron Butler for around 30 games each
- Lost Larry Sanders for all but 20 games



So, they let a lot of key guys go either by trade or in free agency and the younger players and free agents who were meant to replace them were either not ready to contribute or were injured for almost half the season.

The biggest part was that they were a team predicated on defense and they replaced Larry Sanders and Samuel Dalembert with a combination of Zaza Pachulia, John Henson, Jeff Adrien, and Ekpe Udoh.
The other thing that happened to that Milwaukee team is they hired Larry Drew as their head coach. Hiring Larry Drew is the equivalent of an injury to a starter.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2024

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2015, 06:34:04 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
More serious stuff in the same report.

NOP: 18
Detroit: 16
Phoenix: 14
Utah: 11
OKC: 2

So, NOP is not making the playoffs (9th in the West); Phoenix (8-seed), Detroit (8-seed) and Utah (7-seed) are making the playoffs; and OKC has more chances of finishing first in the West than GSW (3) and SAS (5).


Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2015, 06:36:04 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Kevin Ding is the guys name?? Seriously I'll punch him right in the face. I'll bet he's from New York.

 His Nick name. The Dinger.

He apparently is a Lakers fan. He writes a lot of articles on them.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2015, 06:38:22 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

I think it's the latter. 
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2015, 06:40:07 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

I think it's the latter.

I agree, actually. Just illustrating that they're both fairly extreme statements.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2015, 06:42:50 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Yep, that's Bleacher Report for ya.

No explanation given to support the conclusion aside form the entirely subjective opinion of the author, and very little even at that.


The Celts have way too much depth to fall that far.  To end up with the 3rd worst record they'd have to be put in a position where they are relying on rookies or washed up vets for big minutes.  I just don't see how that could happen, unless the team jet crashes or something.
New scientific evidence proves Bleacher was right all along.


Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2015, 07:13:42 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Ought to show folks how little our guys are respected outside of Boston though to some degree.  Folks think we had a bad offseason too, and a crap draft outside of Boston.

I think Ainge did what he could, I like our picks, I do not think they are all world.   But I think three of them are NBA quality players.

I don't think that true at all. If anything it's the opposite. I heard all these folks around here hooting and hollering about how we could possibly give Amir Johnson 12 million or drafting two guards in the 1st round but everything I read from sources outside the Boston media (Lowe, Pelton, Ford after the draft) have said they liked and agreed with the moves we've made so far.

Kinda confirmed it when I heard the Lowe/Dudley podcast today, a lot of guys around the league, both GM's and players, like what's going Stevens and Co. Are doing this year, considering our circumstances.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2015, 07:15:47 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

The other thing that happened to that Milwaukee team is they hired Larry Drew as their head coach. Hiring Larry Drew is the equivalent of an injury to a starter.

Good point; I forgot that they went from Skiles to Drew.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2015, 07:28:28 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
Yep, that's Bleacher Report for ya.

No explanation given to support the conclusion aside form the entirely subjective opinion of the author, and very little even at that.


The Celts have way too much depth to fall that far.  To end up with the 3rd worst record they'd have to be put in a position where they are relying on rookies or washed up vets for big minutes.  I just don't see how that could happen, unless the team jet crashes or something.
Please this would be the best thing for us and make me the happiest lad in North America......not the plane crash though, through trading my usual list of suspects for prospects and picks.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2015, 08:02:50 PM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8676
  • Tommy Points: 1138
Kevin Ding is the guys name?? Seriously I'll punch him right in the face. I'll bet he's from New York.

 His Nick name. The Dinger.

He apparently is a Lakers fan. He writes a lot of articles on them.




 Thank you Greece, Tp. It's obvious he's not neutral.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2015, 08:57:50 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
Which is more outlandish -- too talented to win fewer than 50 or 28th out of 30?

I think it's the latter.

I agree, actually. Just illustrating that they're both fairly extreme statements.

One's very optimistic improving 10 wins though the team seemed to gel in the second half with the IT addition and since has added some talent.

The other is bizarre. 18 games last season was good for the third spot. How does anyone here explain how it's remotely plausible to go from 40 to 18 barring a plane crash?

Grouping the two statements together is extreme.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2015, 09:12:44 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Ok.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2015, 09:24:29 PM »

Offline Greyman

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 784
  • Tommy Points: 211
Suits me if we are underestimated, unfortunately I doubt many coaches and players feel like the author does. I am optimistic about what has happened and the improvement we can expect from our young players. I am really keen to see how 'good' this group under CBS can be.

Would it be against the rules to suggest that everybody sends this guy an email to let him know how wrong he is?

Re: Celtics ranked 28th? Seriously?
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2015, 10:03:05 PM »

Offline kheldar52077

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 75
  • Tommy Points: 8
Its bleacher report for Poseidon's sake!