Thon Maker vs Dragan Bender

[vjcsmoke]

He can shoot -inside or outside. He can pass, rebound and block shots. Run the court. Hard to find any one player who can do all those things. The only question is his level of experience. How does he match up against college level players? How well can he defend?

College level players?  That doesn't matter any more.  What matters is how Maker would stack up against NBA level athletes.

I like Maker but he's extremely raw and he's more worth of our early 2nd round selection than a 1st imo.  He's a very risky pick.

[Beat LA]

This is really a simple discussion: You've assembled a core which has overachieved and had some success.

Now, are you going to add to that core to give them a chance at more success, or are you going to flip them the bird with these two, sending the clear message that "You stink. We can't win any more with you so we're going to make a massive reach with the best draft pick we've had in 20 years, and we've lost interest in your success."

I'm not sure that we've really had success.  I'll give you that we've overachieved, but the regular season success seams completely hollow to me.  What we should have been doing, imo, is to develop our young players and see which ones are keepers and which ones aren't, and I've never bought this whole, "we're contending now so we don't have time to develop rookies," when the reality is that, had Stevens ever given guys like RJ Hunter and Mickey even the 16.6 mpg that Jerian Grant got on the Knicks, by the end of the year we would have had two guys who wouldn't have felt lost in the moment in the playoffs, especially in case of injuries, which unfortunately occurred.  I'm not expecting them to be all stars, but they could have helped with passing (Hunter) and shot blocking (Mickey), which we sorely lack as presently constructed.  Having guys play in the d league all year accomplished absolutely nothing, imo.  Just throw the kids out there and see what happens, and don't give up on them after 3-5 games.  That just destroys confidence and regresses their development.  You can't just go through a season of not playing either guy and then chew out RJ Hunter for not being perfect on defense in the playoffs like it's his fault for never getting enough time to learn the intricacies of the defense at the pro level.  That's what coaching is for, or perhaps Stevens just doesn't get that. 

I thought it was really telling in an espn article a month or so ago in which they asked him about the rotations and why guys didn't get playing time during the year, and his response was pretty much what I thought it would be, unfortunately, in that he didn't see how the young guys could ever really get time because of all of the guys ahead of them have experience.  I believe his line was, "Who are you sitting?" and then listed guys like Turner, etc.  It's the old 'employers want experienced workers but you'll never become experienced if you don't get experience' argument, which is always crap, imo.  Just because a guy has been in the league for x amount of years doesn't mean that they are automatically better players than the newcomers, and there were plenty of times during the year where Turner couldn't stop turning it over, Bradley went through a horrendous slump, especially from 3 point range, iirc, Zeller did absolutely nothing, Amir had the foot thing, Lee sucked, Sully was crap, Jerebko (really?), and KO couldn't get out of his own head to say the least, etc., and yet Stevens always stuck with the experienced players, when what he should have been doing was recognizing that certain guys don't have it on a particular night, so give someone else a chance.  You want to tell me that Mickey couldn't have helped with shot blocking and rebounding, not to mention athletically?  Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the guy or anything, but I don't think that it could have hurt to at least try him out, and not 1:30 in garbage time.  That is no way to develop players, in my view, but whatever .

Now, as to the point about adding to 'our core', what exactly is that, because I don't think we have one foundation player on this team.  Isaiah is already 27, Bradley will be 26 in November, Crowder will be the same age in July, Turner will be 28 in November, KO is already 25 and not showing anything (I never understood that pick), Jerebko is a 29 year old role player, etc.  What we have is a collection of complimentary pieces that would be great on contending teams, like Bradley, for example.  Put him on OKC and they could very well at least reach the finals. 

Again, it's not that these guys are bad players, but if you think that they're going anywhere you're seriously mistaken, imo.  I'm not giving the guys the bird, here, but this team is a paper tiger that isn't going anywhere fast.  It's actually pretty ironic that Ainge started his tenure by blowing up the group that had gone as far as it could have in the early 2000s but doesn't appear to see that he's actually created close to that same club over the past two seasons (scrappy defense, although I think it's dirty, quite honestly, and shoot a ton of threes even though we don't have the weapons to make that style of play work, although we could always try that guy off the bench...oops, never mind ), except that this time, there's no Paul Pierce for him to build around.  I say tear it all down and start again.  We could completely rebuild with this year's draft and in 2017, even without the Nets' pick next season, but we'd have to endure a few growing pains, first.  Would you rather have a 3-4 year window before we'd have to do this all over again, or would you prefer a 5-8, and possibly longer, run with draft picks?  Idk about you guys, but I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Short term pain (maybe) for long term gain.  How about it, people?  Remember when everyone wanted to make the playoffs instead of choosing to develop our younger guys (not tank - there's a difference) and we ended up getting swept at the cost of Myles Turner?  Yeah, how'd that turn out for us (sarcasm)? Always think big picture.

Okay, rant over.  I know, I know, I'm nuts .

[cltc5]

This is really a simple discussion: You've assembled a core which has overachieved and had some success.

Now, are you going to add to that core to give them a chance at more success, or are you going to flip them the bird with these two, sending the clear message that "You stink. We can't win any more with you so we're going to make a massive reach with the best draft pick we've had in 20 years, and we've lost interest in your success."

I'm not sure that we've really had success.  I'll give you that we've overachieved, but the regular season success seams completely hollow to me.  What we should have been doing, imo, is to develop our young players and see which ones are keepers and which ones aren't, and I've never bought this whole, "we're contending now so we don't have time to develop rookies," when the reality is that, had Stevens ever given guys like RJ Hunter and Mickey even the 16.6 mpg that Jerian Grant got on the Knicks, by the end of the year we would have had two guys who wouldn't have felt lost in the moment in the playoffs, especially in case of injuries, which unfortunately occurred.  I'm not expecting them to be all stars, but they could have helped with passing (Hunter) and shot blocking (Mickey), which we sorely lack as presently constructed.  Having guys play in the d league all year accomplished absolutely nothing, imo.  Just throw the kids out there and see what happens, and don't give up on them after 3-5 games.  That just destroys confidence and regresses their development.  You can't just go through a season of not playing either guy and then chew out RJ Hunter for not being perfect on defense in the playoffs like it's his fault for never getting enough time to learn the intricacies of the defense at the pro level.  That's what coaching is for, or perhaps Stevens just doesn't get that. 

I thought it was really telling in an espn article a month or so ago in which they asked him about the rotations and why guys didn't get playing time during the year, and his response was pretty much what I thought it would be, unfortunately, in that he didn't see how the young guys could ever really get time because of all of the guys ahead of them have experience.  I believe his line was, "Who are you sitting?" and then listed guys like Turner, etc.  It's the old 'employers want experienced workers but you'll never become experienced if you don't get experience' argument, which is always crap, imo.  Just because a guy has been in the league for x amount of years doesn't mean that they are automatically better players than the newcomers, and there were plenty of times during the year where Turner couldn't stop turning it over, Bradley went through a horrendous slump, especially from 3 point range, iirc, Zeller did absolutely nothing, Amir had the foot thing, Lee sucked, Sully was crap, Jerebko (really?), and KO couldn't get out of his own head to say the least, etc., and yet Stevens always stuck with the experienced players, when what he should have been doing was recognizing that certain guys don't have it on a particular night, so give someone else a chance.  You want to tell me that Mickey couldn't have helped with shot blocking and rebounding, not to mention athletically?  Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the guy or anything, but I don't think that it could have hurt to at least try him out, and not 1:30 in garbage time.  That is no way to develop players, in my view, but whatever .

Now, as to the point about adding to 'our core', what exactly is that, because I don't think we have one foundation player on this team.  Isaiah is already 27, Bradley will be 26 in November, Crowder will be the same age in July, Turner will be 28 in November, KO is already 25 and not showing anything (I never understood that pick), Jerebko is a 29 year old role player, etc.  What we have is a collection of complimentary pieces that would be great on contending teams, like Bradley, for example.  Put him on OKC and they could very well at least reach the finals. 

Again, it's not that these guys are bad players, but if you think that they're going anywhere you're seriously mistaken, imo.  I'm not giving the guys the bird, here, but this team is a paper tiger that isn't going anywhere fast.  It's actually pretty ironic that Ainge started his tenure by blowing up the group that had gone as far as it could have in the early 2000s but doesn't appear to see that he's actually created close to that same club over the past two seasons (scrappy defense, although I think it's dirty, quite honestly, and shoot a ton of threes even though we don't have the weapons to make that style of play work, although we could always try that guy off the bench...oops, never mind ), except that this time, there's no Paul Pierce for him to build around.  I say tear it all down and start again.  We could completely rebuild with this year's draft and in 2017, even without the Nets' pick next season, but we'd have to endure a few growing pains, first.  Would you rather have a 3-4 year window before we'd have to do this all over again, or would you prefer a 5-8, and possibly longer, run with draft picks?  Idk about you guys, but I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Short term pain (maybe) for long term gain.  How about it, people?  Remember when everyone wanted to make the playoffs instead of choosing to develop our younger guys (not tank - there's a difference) and we ended up getting swept at the cost of Myles Turner?  Yeah, how'd that turn out for us (sarcasm)? Always think big picture.

Okay, rant over.  I know, I know, I'm nuts .

100% agree with you.  Unfortunately we're the minority.  Stevens is a terrible rotation coach.  He's being the same way doc rivers was.  I see rookies getting playing time and think what about our guys?  Then there's the idiotic drafting by ainge... .  I don't trust him to put a decent team together.  I think he's hoping for another home run with trades but I don't think it will happen.  So we draft players and Brad never uses them!  Or we draft players like James young, olynyk, etc and hope they do well.  We need to stop drafting potential and get players that have killer instinct.  Forget culture, what good does that do if we are mediocre year in and year out.  We're not an attractive destination and we're gonna have to build through the draft.  Ainge needs to get some decent players that can play and or Brad needs to play them.

[alldaboston]

This is really a simple discussion: You've assembled a core which has overachieved and had some success.

Now, are you going to add to that core to give them a chance at more success, or are you going to flip them the bird with these two, sending the clear message that "You stink. We can't win any more with you so we're going to make a massive reach with the best draft pick we've had in 20 years, and we've lost interest in your success."

I'm not sure that we've really had success.  I'll give you that we've overachieved, but the regular season success seams completely hollow to me.  What we should have been doing, imo, is to develop our young players and see which ones are keepers and which ones aren't, and I've never bought this whole, "we're contending now so we don't have time to develop rookies," when the reality is that, had Stevens ever given guys like RJ Hunter and Mickey even the 16.6 mpg that Jerian Grant got on the Knicks, by the end of the year we would have had two guys who wouldn't have felt lost in the moment in the playoffs, especially in case of injuries, which unfortunately occurred.  I'm not expecting them to be all stars, but they could have helped with passing (Hunter) and shot blocking (Mickey), which we sorely lack as presently constructed.  Having guys play in the d league all year accomplished absolutely nothing, imo.  Just throw the kids out there and see what happens, and don't give up on them after 3-5 games.  That just destroys confidence and regresses their development.  You can't just go through a season of not playing either guy and then chew out RJ Hunter for not being perfect on defense in the playoffs like it's his fault for never getting enough time to learn the intricacies of the defense at the pro level.  That's what coaching is for, or perhaps Stevens just doesn't get that. 

I thought it was really telling in an espn article a month or so ago in which they asked him about the rotations and why guys didn't get playing time during the year, and his response was pretty much what I thought it would be, unfortunately, in that he didn't see how the young guys could ever really get time because of all of the guys ahead of them have experience.  I believe his line was, "Who are you sitting?" and then listed guys like Turner, etc.  It's the old 'employers want experienced workers but you'll never become experienced if you don't get experience' argument, which is always crap, imo.  Just because a guy has been in the league for x amount of years doesn't mean that they are automatically better players than the newcomers, and there were plenty of times during the year where Turner couldn't stop turning it over, Bradley went through a horrendous slump, especially from 3 point range, iirc, Zeller did absolutely nothing, Amir had the foot thing, Lee sucked, Sully was crap, Jerebko (really?), and KO couldn't get out of his own head to say the least, etc., and yet Stevens always stuck with the experienced players, when what he should have been doing was recognizing that certain guys don't have it on a particular night, so give someone else a chance.  You want to tell me that Mickey couldn't have helped with shot blocking and rebounding, not to mention athletically?  Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the guy or anything, but I don't think that it could have hurt to at least try him out, and not 1:30 in garbage time.  That is no way to develop players, in my view, but whatever .

Now, as to the point about adding to 'our core', what exactly is that, because I don't think we have one foundation player on this team.  Isaiah is already 27, Bradley will be 26 in November, Crowder will be the same age in July, Turner will be 28 in November, KO is already 25 and not showing anything (I never understood that pick), Jerebko is a 29 year old role player, etc.  What we have is a collection of complimentary pieces that would be great on contending teams, like Bradley, for example.  Put him on OKC and they could very well at least reach the finals. 

Again, it's not that these guys are bad players, but if you think that they're going anywhere you're seriously mistaken, imo.  I'm not giving the guys the bird, here, but this team is a paper tiger that isn't going anywhere fast.  It's actually pretty ironic that Ainge started his tenure by blowing up the group that had gone as far as it could have in the early 2000s but doesn't appear to see that he's actually created close to that same club over the past two seasons (scrappy defense, although I think it's dirty, quite honestly, and shoot a ton of threes even though we don't have the weapons to make that style of play work, although we could always try that guy off the bench...oops, never mind ), except that this time, there's no Paul Pierce for him to build around.  I say tear it all down and start again.  We could completely rebuild with this year's draft and in 2017, even without the Nets' pick next season, but we'd have to endure a few growing pains, first.  Would you rather have a 3-4 year window before we'd have to do this all over again, or would you prefer a 5-8, and possibly longer, run with draft picks?  Idk about you guys, but I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Short term pain (maybe) for long term gain.  How about it, people?  Remember when everyone wanted to make the playoffs instead of choosing to develop our younger guys (not tank - there's a difference) and we ended up getting swept at the cost of Myles Turner?  Yeah, how'd that turn out for us (sarcasm)? Always think big picture.

Okay, rant over.  I know, I know, I'm nuts .

The 4th best defense in the NBA was dirty? Sorry bud, I can't take you seriously if you think that.

[alldaboston]

Wow. These last few posts have been absolutely pathetic.

[Beat LA]

This is really a simple discussion: You've assembled a core which has overachieved and had some success.

Now, are you going to add to that core to give them a chance at more success, or are you going to flip them the bird with these two, sending the clear message that "You stink. We can't win any more with you so we're going to make a massive reach with the best draft pick we've had in 20 years, and we've lost interest in your success."

I'm not sure that we've really had success.  I'll give you that we've overachieved, but the regular season success seams completely hollow to me.  What we should have been doing, imo, is to develop our young players and see which ones are keepers and which ones aren't, and I've never bought this whole, "we're contending now so we don't have time to develop rookies," when the reality is that, had Stevens ever given guys like RJ Hunter and Mickey even the 16.6 mpg that Jerian Grant got on the Knicks, by the end of the year we would have had two guys who wouldn't have felt lost in the moment in the playoffs, especially in case of injuries, which unfortunately occurred.  I'm not expecting them to be all stars, but they could have helped with passing (Hunter) and shot blocking (Mickey), which we sorely lack as presently constructed.  Having guys play in the d league all year accomplished absolutely nothing, imo.  Just throw the kids out there and see what happens, and don't give up on them after 3-5 games.  That just destroys confidence and regresses their development.  You can't just go through a season of not playing either guy and then chew out RJ Hunter for not being perfect on defense in the playoffs like it's his fault for never getting enough time to learn the intricacies of the defense at the pro level.  That's what coaching is for, or perhaps Stevens just doesn't get that. 

I thought it was really telling in an espn article a month or so ago in which they asked him about the rotations and why guys didn't get playing time during the year, and his response was pretty much what I thought it would be, unfortunately, in that he didn't see how the young guys could ever really get time because of all of the guys ahead of them have experience.  I believe his line was, "Who are you sitting?" and then listed guys like Turner, etc.  It's the old 'employers want experienced workers but you'll never become experienced if you don't get experience' argument, which is always crap, imo.  Just because a guy has been in the league for x amount of years doesn't mean that they are automatically better players than the newcomers, and there were plenty of times during the year where Turner couldn't stop turning it over, Bradley went through a horrendous slump, especially from 3 point range, iirc, Zeller did absolutely nothing, Amir had the foot thing, Lee sucked, Sully was crap, Jerebko (really?), and KO couldn't get out of his own head to say the least, etc., and yet Stevens always stuck with the experienced players, when what he should have been doing was recognizing that certain guys don't have it on a particular night, so give someone else a chance.  You want to tell me that Mickey couldn't have helped with shot blocking and rebounding, not to mention athletically?  Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the guy or anything, but I don't think that it could have hurt to at least try him out, and not 1:30 in garbage time.  That is no way to develop players, in my view, but whatever .

Now, as to the point about adding to 'our core', what exactly is that, because I don't think we have one foundation player on this team.  Isaiah is already 27, Bradley will be 26 in November, Crowder will be the same age in July, Turner will be 28 in November, KO is already 25 and not showing anything (I never understood that pick), Jerebko is a 29 year old role player, etc.  What we have is a collection of complimentary pieces that would be great on contending teams, like Bradley, for example.  Put him on OKC and they could very well at least reach the finals. 

Again, it's not that these guys are bad players, but if you think that they're going anywhere you're seriously mistaken, imo.  I'm not giving the guys the bird, here, but this team is a paper tiger that isn't going anywhere fast.  It's actually pretty ironic that Ainge started his tenure by blowing up the group that had gone as far as it could have in the early 2000s but doesn't appear to see that he's actually created close to that same club over the past two seasons (scrappy defense, although I think it's dirty, quite honestly, and shoot a ton of threes even though we don't have the weapons to make that style of play work, although we could always try that guy off the bench...oops, never mind ), except that this time, there's no Paul Pierce for him to build around.  I say tear it all down and start again.  We could completely rebuild with this year's draft and in 2017, even without the Nets' pick next season, but we'd have to endure a few growing pains, first.  Would you rather have a 3-4 year window before we'd have to do this all over again, or would you prefer a 5-8, and possibly longer, run with draft picks?  Idk about you guys, but I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Short term pain (maybe) for long term gain.  How about it, people?  Remember when everyone wanted to make the playoffs instead of choosing to develop our younger guys (not tank - there's a difference) and we ended up getting swept at the cost of Myles Turner?  Yeah, how'd that turn out for us (sarcasm)? Always think big picture.

Okay, rant over.  I know, I know, I'm nuts .

The 4th best defense in the NBA was dirty? Sorry bud, I can't take you seriously if you think that.

Yes, it was, especially Smart and Crowder who beat the crap out of the opposition and then have the gall to complain if someone breathes on them when they go to the basket.  There's a reason why we were called for so many fouls - it's because we fouled.  A lot.  Just because you have a 4th rated defense doesn't mean that it's clean.  We're not the Bad Boys or the Knicks from the early 90s, yet, but we're getting there, especially given Stevens' propensity to value players like Smart and Crowder, who both really should have played football.  His Butler teams were the same way, aside from Mack and Hayward, iirc, but most of college basketball is like that now, anyway - just beat the crap out of your opponent because you have no skill.  I'm not surprised that our offense has been so, embarrassing, quite frankly, at times, when you consider that Stevens' team  shot 18.8% in the title game against UCONN in 2011.  Read that again.  18.8% How is that even possible?  I couldn't watch it, honestly.  Connecticut shot 34.5%, themselves, and that game set the sport back about 25 years, in my view.  It was atrocious.  It was like watching 10 Marcus Smart's out there.  At some point, it's not just 'good defense'.  When neither team shoots 40%, and one of them doesn't even make 1 in 5 shots, that's an offensive problem, and a serious one, at that.  Like, change-your-philosophy bad. 

Btw, here's the box score - http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=310940041

See anything familiar, especially in terms of three point attempts and thoroughly losing the rebounding battle 53-41.  I mean, I recognize that we don't really have any good 3 point shooting aside from Bradley (KO can't stay on the court and Stevens refuses to give the young guys a chance), but the fact that Stevens has continued to stick to this ridiculous style given the players on our team makes me wonder if he knows how to coach any other way, especially with regards to big men.  There are at least a few good-to-excellent post players who we can get in the draft this year, but why bother selecting such talent if Stevens is just going to tell them to shoot 3s instead of playing to their strengths and giving us an actual inside presence?  He's trying to mold players to fit his dumb 'system', which is nothing more than an overdose on 3 pointers, really, instead of looking at who and what he has and developing a style of play that gets the most out of everyone.  Am I making any sense?  I can't even play and I thought that that was basketball 101, or did I miss a memo?  I think I missed a memo (sarcasm) .

[alldaboston]

Getting called for fouls and not being able to shoot =/= playing dirty.

Sorry BeatLA, can't take you seriously anymore.

[Ilikesports17]

We had a physical defense. If you want to call it dirty thats fine with me although I would disagree.

I didnt see many cheap shots or classless plays by our defense this past year (Marcus didnt wack anyone did he?)

Either way, I am definitely OK with a physical, hard nosed defense. It yields results. A lot of people felt KG was classless or dirty, but thats A OK with me. give me a team of KGs any day.

[chilidawg]

I thought this was a Thon Maker/Dragan Bender thread?

[Beat LA]

This is really a simple discussion: You've assembled a core which has overachieved and had some success.

Now, are you going to add to that core to give them a chance at more success, or are you going to flip them the bird with these two, sending the clear message that "You stink. We can't win any more with you so we're going to make a massive reach with the best draft pick we've had in 20 years, and we've lost interest in your success."

I'm not sure that we've really had success.  I'll give you that we've overachieved, but the regular season success seams completely hollow to me.  What we should have been doing, imo, is to develop our young players and see which ones are keepers and which ones aren't, and I've never bought this whole, "we're contending now so we don't have time to develop rookies," when the reality is that, had Stevens ever given guys like RJ Hunter and Mickey even the 16.6 mpg that Jerian Grant got on the Knicks, by the end of the year we would have had two guys who wouldn't have felt lost in the moment in the playoffs, especially in case of injuries, which unfortunately occurred.  I'm not expecting them to be all stars, but they could have helped with passing (Hunter) and shot blocking (Mickey), which we sorely lack as presently constructed.  Having guys play in the d league all year accomplished absolutely nothing, imo.  Just throw the kids out there and see what happens, and don't give up on them after 3-5 games.  That just destroys confidence and regresses their development.  You can't just go through a season of not playing either guy and then chew out RJ Hunter for not being perfect on defense in the playoffs like it's his fault for never getting enough time to learn the intricacies of the defense at the pro level.  That's what coaching is for, or perhaps Stevens just doesn't get that. 

I thought it was really telling in an espn article a month or so ago in which they asked him about the rotations and why guys didn't get playing time during the year, and his response was pretty much what I thought it would be, unfortunately, in that he didn't see how the young guys could ever really get time because of all of the guys ahead of them have experience.  I believe his line was, "Who are you sitting?" and then listed guys like Turner, etc.  It's the old 'employers want experienced workers but you'll never become experienced if you don't get experience' argument, which is always crap, imo.  Just because a guy has been in the league for x amount of years doesn't mean that they are automatically better players than the newcomers, and there were plenty of times during the year where Turner couldn't stop turning it over, Bradley went through a horrendous slump, especially from 3 point range, iirc, Zeller did absolutely nothing, Amir had the foot thing, Lee sucked, Sully was crap, Jerebko (really?), and KO couldn't get out of his own head to say the least, etc., and yet Stevens always stuck with the experienced players, when what he should have been doing was recognizing that certain guys don't have it on a particular night, so give someone else a chance.  You want to tell me that Mickey couldn't have helped with shot blocking and rebounding, not to mention athletically?  Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the guy or anything, but I don't think that it could have hurt to at least try him out, and not 1:30 in garbage time.  That is no way to develop players, in my view, but whatever .

Now, as to the point about adding to 'our core', what exactly is that, because I don't think we have one foundation player on this team.  Isaiah is already 27, Bradley will be 26 in November, Crowder will be the same age in July, Turner will be 28 in November, KO is already 25 and not showing anything (I never understood that pick), Jerebko is a 29 year old role player, etc.  What we have is a collection of complimentary pieces that would be great on contending teams, like Bradley, for example.  Put him on OKC and they could very well at least reach the finals. 

Again, it's not that these guys are bad players, but if you think that they're going anywhere you're seriously mistaken, imo.  I'm not giving the guys the bird, here, but this team is a paper tiger that isn't going anywhere fast.  It's actually pretty ironic that Ainge started his tenure by blowing up the group that had gone as far as it could have in the early 2000s but doesn't appear to see that he's actually created close to that same club over the past two seasons (scrappy defense, although I think it's dirty, quite honestly, and shoot a ton of threes even though we don't have the weapons to make that style of play work, although we could always try that guy off the bench...oops, never mind ), except that this time, there's no Paul Pierce for him to build around.  I say tear it all down and start again.  We could completely rebuild with this year's draft and in 2017, even without the Nets' pick next season, but we'd have to endure a few growing pains, first.  Would you rather have a 3-4 year window before we'd have to do this all over again, or would you prefer a 5-8, and possibly longer, run with draft picks?  Idk about you guys, but I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Short term pain (maybe) for long term gain.  How about it, people?  Remember when everyone wanted to make the playoffs instead of choosing to develop our younger guys (not tank - there's a difference) and we ended up getting swept at the cost of Myles Turner?  Yeah, how'd that turn out for us (sarcasm)? Always think big picture.

Okay, rant over.  I know, I know, I'm nuts .

100% agree with you.  Unfortunately we're the minority.  Stevens is a terrible rotation coach.  He's being the same way doc rivers was.  I see rookies getting playing time and think what about our guys?  Then there's the idiotic drafting by ainge... .  I don't trust him to put a decent team together.  I think he's hoping for another home run with trades but I don't think it will happen.  So we draft players and Brad never uses them!  Or we draft players like James young, olynyk, etc and hope they do well.  We need to stop drafting potential and get players that have killer instinct.  Forget culture, what good does that do if we are mediocre year in and year out.  We're not an attractive destination and we're gonna have to build through the draft.  Ainge needs to get some decent players that can play and or Brad needs to play them.

While I understand, and agree, with the argument that if so and so was good enough, they'd play, what I find deeply disturbing is just what you mentioned in regards to a killer instinct, but on a more basic level, it's about a serious lack of work ethic.  Just look at Gerald Green, Fab Melo, and James Young.  Now, I'd like to apologize to the forum for wanting Young.  It was a tough choice between him and Hood and the second after we took the former I felt like we'd made a huge mistake, but I was still wrong.  My only saving grace is that I never saw anything in scouting reports that mentioned a poor work ethic or motor in regards to Young, only to recently do a google search about his work ethic and was extremely disappointed that there were fans out there who stated that he had been called out by Cal, etc., with regard to this issue.  Had I know that that was the case, I never would have wanted him, but it's still my fault for missing that.  Sorry, guys .  Now, I type in every player's name and work ethic followed by another search regarding their motor, or lack therof, lol .

Still, what's ultimately disturbing is that Ainge continues to take players like this, when he has more information than we do, and for what?  I found an old article about Fab Melo which said that the Celtics were going to teach him how to work . STOP.  You can't teach someone how to work or have that fire - they either have it or they don't, so my question is why does Danny keep making the same mistake?  We'll never get anywhere if this continues.  I found another article by Kevin O'Conner in which, he, himself, nearly fell off his chair after hearing Ainge say that James Young played 'very good defense' in college.  WHAT?

Here's the link - http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/9/24/6342021/setting-expectations-for-boston-celtics-rookie-wing-james-young-kentucky-nba-draft-2014-analysis

On the other hand, it's great to find guys with great work ethics and love for the game, but if there's no talent there, it really doesn't get you anywhere, and yes, I'm talking about Smart.  I was wrong on him, too, bc for once I really didn't look at a lot of footage on him, but I do remember not being 'wowed' at all at any point from said highlights.  I usually do my research, so I don't know why I didn't that year, but in fairness to Smart, I went back and watched his best game, offensively, and his worst game, by the same measure, as well as another good game, and I have to tell you, I don't understand why anyone who watched him could have wanted him.  In a game at Kansas, alone, he flopped at least 5 times, and I can't stand his dirty, Artest-like style of play.  Why did we want this guy?  His workout was also reportedly horrible, but I don't think that you should ever draft someone based on workouts, unless we're talking about international or high school players who haven't gotten a chance to play against the top dogs in college, but that's me.

That aside, his shot selection in all 3 games was horrible, and his percentage was only bailed out by the refs actually calling fouls for him, which, often times, we non-existent, imo.  He blatantly flopped, kicked his leg out when attempting 3 pointers like Reggie Miller and World B. Free, but he also didn't display any ball-handling ability or footwork that would help him get his shot off.  I don't think I've even ever seen him dribble between his legs or behind his back - can he do that?  It's a serious question.  Again, I wished that I'd seen those games, but I didn't get around to it for whatever reason, partly because I figured that Ainge could figure out the 6th pick in a draft, but apparently not, and the thought of him having the 3rd pick terrifies me.

What I've noticed, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to value these more will-than-skill players like Smart and Crowder, and perhaps even Jaylen Brown (dear god help us), only to compound the mistake by drafting guys with some ability, in theory, like James Young, and, to a lesser extent, KO, who either don't have the work ethic or fire on the court.  Ideally, you'd look for the players with both the talent and drive to succeed, but I don't know what he's doing.

To my untrained eye, I think the best way to evaluate prospects is

1.  watch their worst games, in terms of scoring, as opposed to their best games.  Don't even bother with the latter.  In their worst games, look to see if the effort is still there and if they can and do contribute in other areas, like rebounding, passing, and defense.  If they can contribute without scoring, that's a good indicator of an all around player as opposed to someone like Young who can't even dribble.  Ugh.  It also helps if they can get to the free throw line to somewhat offset scoring problems, just thought I'd throw that in there.

2.  investigate their work habits and motors.  Are they gym rats?  Do they love basketball?  If they were immature early on in their careers, have they become examples to their teammates as upperclassmen in regards to work, etc.?  Do they lose focus or coast through games?  In regards to the last point, that rules out Brice Johnson, Damian Jones, and AJ Hammons, to me, and Chinanu Onuako was criticized by Pitino in regards to his attitude and work ethic last year (so idk if that has improved or not), not to mention that he just had a minor heart procedure of which I did not further investigate, but that's not good, which is too bad, because I love his passing ability, but based on what I've read up to now, I think I'd pass.

3.  find out if they have any bad habits off of the court, like drugs with Robert Upshaw, for example.

That's where I'd start, anyway.  TP for you, btw .

[Beat LA]

Wow. These last few posts have been absolutely pathetic.

How so?

[Beat LA]

We had a physical defense. If you want to call it dirty thats fine with me although I would disagree.

I didnt see many cheap shots or classless plays by our defense this past year (Marcus didnt wack anyone did he?)

Either way, I am definitely OK with a physical, hard nosed defense. It yields results. A lot of people felt KG was classless or dirty, but thats A OK with me. give me a team of KGs any day.

You know, I never thought that KG was classless or dirty, but maybe that's my green goggles .  I don't have a problem with tough defense, but there's more to the game than that, and the egregious flopping by Smart needs to stop. 

It just looks to me like Stevens has them all playing that defense with the idea being that, if they all do it, it would be tougher for the officials to call it on everyone, which is what the Pistons did, and I don't like it, and neither do the officials, by the looks of it.  Many of our games were football ones, honestly, but again, maybe that's just me.

[Beat LA]

Getting called for fouls and not being able to shoot =/= playing dirty.

Sorry BeatLA, can't take you seriously anymore.

I'm not sure that that's what I said.  I just feel that college basketball is full of a bunch of guys who can't play, so they just beat the crap out of everyone.  In the pros, not being able to shoot has nothing to do with being dirty or not, except in the case of Marcus Smart , but there has to be a reason that we're always called for a lot of fouls, aside from the fact that the officials have always hated us, haha .  Perhaps we should try to adapt to how the game is being officiated as opposed to just hacking away at guys all the time.  It'd certainly help our efforts towards addressing the disparity at the free throw line, unless, of course, we're playing Cleveland .

[nickagneta]

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you start beating a drum that Stevens and Doc Rivers are alike and bad coaches because they value hard nosed, tough defense and believe that young players should earn their playing time and not be given it, then, well, you just lose me there. Did you ever think the reason both coaches didnt play their young players is because their young players that didnt play werent very good?

Almost no player Doc didnt give playing time too ever went anywhere else and became anything worth while. If you watched the rookies this year, none of them showed they belonged on an NBA court until Rozier at the end of the season. Hunter couldnt shoot at the NBA level, the D League level, in summer league or in his last year of college. He didnt belong on the court. Same for Mickey. He has one skill, shot blocking. Other than that, he is lost. He didnt belong on an NBA court this year. All three were lost when the were given time during the year, missing defensive assignments, not playing the pick and roll well, poor shooting, and being out of position on the offensive end of the court.

And this team has a core. You act like players between the ages of 25 and 27 are over the hill. Heck, the are still developingband getting better. Yes, they are limited individually but as a group the cohesion amd chemistry is outstanding. When you get that, you have a core. What Ainge has to do is add a couple of stars to the core and this team is a title contender.

These occassional posts with "we need to blow it up and start over" themes are ridiculous. We already did that. Are we are going to go all Hinkie and tank and play rookies even though they are ready and suck forever? Boston competes. This team is just a couple of great players away and the Celtics have the assets and cap space over the next couple of years to get those players. You have to be patient and give Ainge time to get those players.

We are in year two of fhe rebuild. Rebuilds take time.

[hwangjini_1]

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you start beating a drum that Stevens and Doc Rivers are alike and bad coaches because they value hard nosed, tough defense and believe that young players should earn their playing time and not be given it, then, well, you just lose me there. Did you ever think the reason both coaches didnt play their young players is because their young players that didnt play werent very good?

Almost no player Doc didnt give playing time too ever went anywhere else and became anything worth while. If you watched the rookies this year, none of them showed they belonged on an NBA court until Rozier at the end of the season. Hunter couldnt shoot at the NBA level, the D League level, in summer league or in his last year of college. He didnt belong on the court. Same for Mickey. He has one skill, shot blocking. Other than that, he is lost. He didnt belong on an NBA court this year. All three were lost when the were given time during the year, missing defensive assignments, not playing the pick and roll well, poor shooting, and being out of position on the offensive end of the court.

And this team has a core. You act like players between the ages of 25 and 27 are over the hill. Heck, the are still developingband getting better. Yes, they are limited individually but as a group the cohesion amd chemistry is outstanding. When you get that, you have a core. What Ainge has to do is add a couple of stars to the core and this team is a title contender.

These occassional posts with "we need to blow it up and start over" themes are ridiculous. We already did that, we are going to go all Hinkie and tank and play rookies even though they are ready and suck forever. Boston competes. This team is just a couple,of great players away and the Celtics have the assets and cap space over the next couple of years to get those players. You have to be patient and give Ainge time to get those players.

very good post nic, and tp for your thoughts.

now, if only the OP would re-title this thread....