No, though the slow start in the first game will need to be addressed. Catching the 76ers is less of a challenge than what happens against stronger teams who get a significant lead on you.
That's true, though it's not like it's a new development -- the team started slow in many of the games at the end of last season over the same time period they went like 25-10.
but, just to beat a deceased equine, it is not unexpected that the celtics starters, who often do not match the talent of other good teams' starters, may fall behind early on. but the celtic bench is supposedly so deep and good that as long as the opponent's lead is not too great, they can come back.
oh, and so as to not get too far away from the thread's theme, no, i dont want thomas to start. my reasons have been mentioned already above in some very good posts.
My concern would still be, how far behind? Despite what was achieved last season it is a dangerous assumption that you will be able to run better teams down, and by better I don't mean just the top ranked teams like the Cavs. The 76ers showed enough to suggest they will improve as their young squad matures and maybe shows enough to attract bigger fish. I like the depth and combinations that are building at the Celtics, but it is not like other teams are standing still and not developing.
I'm having a hard time getting you comment to be directly relevant to the previous comment and to itself.
The Celtics don't have superstars. They don't even have all star level players at the moment, though IT could score 20+ a game with 8+ assists given the minutes. The previous poster's point is along the lints of we are a deep team, but no combination of 5 players is going to be an above average starting lineup. So we will never have a big advantage at the start of the game when our opponent likely has their best 4 or 5 players on the floor, but we will often have an advantage when they go to their less effective bench and we go to our equally effective bench.
How is the development of other teams relevant?
The argument for starting IT would be that he is a legitimate 20 ppg scorer, which some would argue makes him our best player. The argument against him would be that we are a defensive oriented team and starting lineups would find it much easier to take advantage of IT's height. The other argument against him starting is that we are all-in on developing Smart as a PG, so we want to let both those guys to get a lot of minutes without the other. We also want AB defending starters, and only 2 of Smart, AB and IT can start the game.