Thon Maker vs Dragan Bender

[Scintan]

Why are people arguing about Bender as if they've got the full 411 about him?  Unless someone here has been flying over to watch the kid practice and play, nobody here has anything but the vaguest idea about the kid.

[Beat LA]

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.

Lol we're only a couple of great players away.  Woo.  So is every other team not named OKC, GSW, SAS, LAC, Portland, and Cleveland, and of that group, only the Warriors and Cavs are left as of right now.  Everyone needs talent.  Why not use the picks and get our star(s) the old fashioned way? 

I alluded to the whole 'if they were good enough they would have played' thing, and while I don't necessarily disagree, we don't have Rondo, Ray, Pierce, and KG, anymore, and we aren't even close to contending, so we are not in a position to restrict young players' time just to give it to some middling veteran in order to put together a nice regular season record and then flame out in the first round.  No, we need to develop the talent, and I also think that veterans should have to 'earn' their time, as well.  As I said, there were plenty of times during this past year when our older guys weren't getting it done, but Stevens never utilized the opportunity to see if RJ or Mickey could play.  And by play, I don't mean, "here, kid, go stand in the corner and try not to mess anything up.  Oh, and I know that you haven't played in a few weeks, but if you miss your first shot (which was probably a 3 ) you won't see the court again this year."  Stevens doesn't let these guys make mistakes, which only stunts their development.  What I also don't understand is how he can expect anyone, let alone an inexperienced youngster, to suddenly come in off the bench cold and hit outside shots.  How many players in the history of the game have been able to do that?  Ricky Pierce, Vinnie Johnson, Mark Aguirre, Junior Bridgeman, Mike Glenn, Dale Ellis, Sichting, Wedman, Kerr, Eddie Johnson (not the perv), and Ben Gordon are the ones that immediately came to mind, and maybe Ainge, maybe, over the last, what 35+ years?  My point being, instead of just having them take a jumper, cold, get them a layup and/or free throws to start out with, and then their jumpers will start to fall.  It's a tale as old as time, but quick, someone do the analytics to see if there's anything to this revolutionary theory (sarcasm).   Give me a break. 

I also wouldn't use Doc as an example.  He couldn't even figure out how to successfully implement Lance Stephenson into his rotation this year, only to see him play great in Memphis.  They really could have used him against Portland, but whatever .

As to your points about the rookies, when did Mickey ever get time?  When?  I must have missed his 17 second stint in that 35 point blowout against the Sixers, oh lawd (sarcasm).  Again, I'm not saying he'll be an all star, nor am I a fan of his, but his one skill that you mentioned would have helped our interior defense, but you have to be willing to live with some growing pains.  Guys aren't always finished products coming out of school, which is where this whole coaching thing comes into play.  I just don't see how you can blame someone for not being accustomed to a 'system' in which they've never played.  At least Mickey tries, which is more than you could ever say for Zeller, and Hunter adds much more to the game than just his supposed calling card of shooting - his passing would really help our offense and his length has helped on defense, although he does need to get stronger.  In regards to Rozier, well, sure, he had the yips his first few outings, but he was okay at times in the playoffs, I guess, although I never understood that pick, and I'm not even on the Bobby Portis bandwagon.

Finally, our guys might have defensive chemistry, but that is certainly not the case on offense, so while that might make for a nice bench unit I hardly see it as a core, and I'm not advocating for a Philadelphia approach in blatantly tanking.  All I'm saying is that we should take advantage of this rare opportunity of a deep draft and a plethora of picks to completely revamp the team, because as currently constructed, we're not going anywhere, in my view, but clearly we disagree, and that's okay . I hope that I haven't ticked you off too much.

Anyway, back on topic.  I think we should take Maker just for the dumb nicknames we can come up with for him.  At present, I can only think of one for the other guy, and that would be Dragan 'Fender' Bender , but Maker has so much more potential . Just think,

The decision Maker, the difference Maker, what a shot-maker, and, in Kevin Harlan's ridiculous voice circa Lebron James with no regards to human life , "Oh, Lebron James went in for the slam but instead met his Maker!" That's it for now.  Feel free to add as many as you want .

[ThePaintedArea]

Did you ever think the reason both coaches didnt play their young players is because their young players that didnt play werent very good?

It's a tall mountain to climb - the NBA championship is won by extraordinary effort by extraordinary men.  If you reward anything but winning, anything but going beyond ordinary, you probably aren't getting to the top.  Young players, even the really talented, have no real idea what it's going to take. 

Rewarding anything but winning basketball undermines every link in the chain.  Vets, who are playing for their careers, can't be punished for playing winning basketball.  Coaches have careers on the line, too - will you ask them to undermine themselves? 

...Same for Mickey. He has one skill, shot blocking. Other than that, he is lost. He didnt belong on an NBA court this year.

I wouldn't go that far about him not belonging - he earned his 57 minutes, or whatever it was, with a very good showing in the D league.  And he clearly has other skills - FT shooting, for instance, translates well to the NBA, and, most intriguing, it looks like he's got a jump shot.  I don't know if you'd call his body a "skill" - but it is something he's developed to an NBA level.

But I hope that I've made clear that I agree with your main point.

... 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. 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. [...]

I would only add the other "C" word to your "Cohesion" and "Chemistry":  Continuity.  There is no substitute for keeping your Core group together so that they can build those other things, so that you've got a winning Culture, so that your team defense is "on a string", as the current expression goes.

You need guys like Jerebko.  He's not a starter on a contender, but as a ninth or tenth man he's invaluable.  He's a middle linebacker on defense, he knows where everyone's supposed to be on offense, he directs traffic - and he competes his ass off and puts in the work on his game.  He's a leader. 

Red Auerbach said, "Everyone's a role player." 

There are lots of jobs to be done, and you need winners up and down the roster.  I've seen people say that Jonas is replaceable.  Really?  Every time you shuffle guys in and out of your roster you break whatever continuity you built, whatever institutional wisdom he was bringing to practice, to training camp, to the locker room, to the bench, to the floor.  Sure, you can find stretch 4's who play excellent team defense at an NBA level - though the list is not long - but even if you did replace JJ with someone comparable you've lost everything that you gained by having a guy like that stick around for multiple seasons.

I'm with you here: Maintain the Core and Add Two Stars. 

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

I think that it's year three.  Pierce and Garnett were gone at the end of the 2012/13 season, and Brad Stevens was a rookie coach in the 2013/14 season.

With that quibble out of the way, I'd say that the rebuild is not only going nicely, but is ahead of schedule.  Kudos to Danny Ainge - very impressive.

[cltc5]

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.

So then what the hell is Stevens doing with these kids all season?  You're telling me they're not improving at all in practice that they need to sit the bench for 3/4 of the season?  What about getting some meaningful playing time to help with this?  Again poor coaching.  We're so enamored with squeaking into the playoffs so we can have a feel good story and boast about how we're just players away while we sacrifice draft picks and player development.  Two straight playoff appearances we looked every bit a team that deserves to not be there with our all star pg.  The reality is most fans don't want to hear the truth that this team needs serious development  at every position and safe coaching and drafting on potential isn't going to get it.  Ainge needs to understand the big 3 ain't happening again, and Stevens, if he's such a great coach needs to start finding a way to develop what he has if Danny's going to keep drafting potential.( hello you bum, James young)  Otherwise around and around we go.

On smart, I like him and the pick, but he was bpa and honestly I think getting Isaiah has hindered his growth.  Smart does flop a lot but so does lebron James and dwade.  Until the league gets a handle on it he's gonna try to get away with it.

I don't like roZier.  But I don't hate him either.  Hated the pick and don't hink he's a good pg at all for us. He's taking up a spot.  He's quick but that's it.  Hunter, he's a jack of all trades and think he can fit in as a role player, he needs to get that 3 down, but if he can't get development he's gonna fade into oblivion. Mickey is more than a shoot blocker.  He run the floor well and can get in position for rebounds, something sully has regressed in and Ko is absolutely deplorable in. 

My fear is, we don't make any big splashes, we end up having to draft and instead of getting a star player and moving some dead weight were gonna get guys that can "potentially" help down the road and will either not see meaningful minutes or get traded.  Then guess what, were right back here the next 2-3 years saying the same things 

[ThaPreacher]

I think there's a pretty good chance that both Maker and Bender suck in the NBA. Both these guys are getting drafted off potential. I've watched the Bender highlights and haven't been all that impressed. Then again I woulda said the same thing about Porzingas and a lot of people were wrong about him.

I just hope LA or Philly fall in love with Bender and one of the top 2 picks falls to us.

Coming from a guy named AcieEarl, I might have to trust your authority on not making it in the NBA.

[SHAQATTACK]

Maker plays like a lion .....if he fails it won't be for lack of effort.

[CoachBo]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

[BitterJim]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

He should play whatever players give us the best chance to play.  If they really need minutes, they can get them in Maine

[Beat LA]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

[ThePaintedArea]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

He should play whatever players give us the best chance to play.  If they really need minutes, they can get them in Maine

Wull, yuh.  That's why there's a development league.

[CoachBo]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

[cltc5]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

[Beat LA]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

I'm just tired of veterans always getting priority over young guys just because they've been in the league longer.  I bet if we had an entire team of rookies that Stevens would send them all down the d league and call up more experienced minor guys from the d league just so that he doesn't have to spend as much time having to actually develop them.  Perhaps if he'd integrated the kids early on, the loss of Bradley might not have been so bad, because at least we would have had 2-3 guys who had gotten enough run during the year to be contributors in the postseason as opposed to looking like deer in the headlights.

I also don't see how any of what I've cited is at all self-serving.  Stevens doesn't always play the best players - he plays the guys with whom he is the most familiar, routinely going to Smart even after he makes a boneheaded play or takes a bad shot, and the same goes for Turner, while he doesn't allow the young guys the leash to make mistakes.  Remember when Bradley fouled at the buzzer in Milwaukee that cost us the game?  That was one of the dumbest non-Marcus Smart things I've ever seen, but Stevens still gave Bradley his minutes in the next game.  Imagine if Rozier, Hunter, or Mickey would have done that - none of them would have gotten another second of playing time for the rest of the year.  I just want consistency.  There were many stretches during the season where guys like Crowder, Jerebko, Bradley, Turner, Sully, and Smart simply weren't getting it done on either end, and yet he never gave any of the young guys the chance to plug the gap, and if he did give them minutes, it was a one game deal.  Who does that?  If a guy has his career high, keep playing him.  Rewarding him for his hard work and letting him know that the coaching staff has faith in him will only make the guy work harder and be more confident, which will ultimately translate to better play, but you have to be willing to give them the time.  What's wrong with any of that?

[Beat LA]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

Right?  The least he could have done would have been to give the veterans the game off whenever they played the 76ers and to start the young guys.  See what they can do in real minutes.  It's the sixers for crying out loud, so why risk injury to a starter in a meaningless game?  Is that really too much to ask for?  Pop gives his older guys nights off all the time and gives their minutes to someone who needs the time, and the result has only benefited his club in the long run.  Why can't we do the same?  Our team isn't exactly a contender, and that's being kind.  Play the kids.  You'll never know what you have, or don't, as the case may be, until you try. 

[nickagneta]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

This response just illustrates a basic lack or people management and coaching knowledge. You play the players that have shown they are the best through watching them in practice, seeing how they understand the systems, making sure they are watching scouting videos and videos of their play to get better, watching them in walk arounds and seeing how that all translates to on court performance. Stevens and Doc before him did all these thingsvand determined certain players were ready or good enough to play. Just because you dont see these things and are not privy to everything the coaches are privy to, doesn't mean the coaches are wrong. They have more info than you and have determined what is the best way to develop the young talent and handing thwm playing time isnt it.

Regarding substitutions when players go bad, you show no understanding of coaching. Yoyoing players when they have a bad quarter, half or game is the worst thing you can do to players. Players perform better long term when they are comfortable knowing their role. Always leaving a player wondering if they are going to be yanked because they did a couple of things wrong or shot poorly will kill the player's confidence and performance. The players in the rotation have to know they are going to be playing a certain role for certain minutes consistently for them to have the best, most consistent performances.

Also, you have to promote chemistry and confidence between the players and doing what you propose will hurt the chemistry and have players calling into question their ability to play with players they dont deem worthy. This will also cause problems between players and coaches and lead to a coach losing the locker room.

Lastly, from a people management perspective, you must have a certain chain of command, so to speak, a certain pecking order that must be maintained to optimize the team dynamic. People want familiarity, they want consistency in decision making, they want to be led by someone they respect who's decisions they dont call into question. What you are suggesting is chaos management. Thats about the worst type of management you can have and untimately causes the product and production of that product to suffer.

Players and coaches want to win. Veterans want to win, they could care less about development of young players. Coaches are paid to win while developing talent the best they can. Stevens and Doc before him have determined players earning time and if they have to play in the D League is the best way to develop them. Since this has happened to two coaches while under Ainge means that Ainge agrees with this philosophy. The track record of this organization in developing youth is excellent. Very few players have gone on to be something more somewhere else, basically meaning they get the best out of their players.

This is all very easy to see if you simply put trust in this organization and coaching staff and stop thinking that because you havent seen the young players play that the organization doesnt know how to develop players or have the wrong opinion of the quality of the players that arent getting playing time. This team shouldnt play young players simply to prove that they cant play to their fan base. Thats moronic.