Author Topic: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16  (Read 2089 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2016, 10:59:50 PM »

Offline meangreenmachine

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 407
  • Tommy Points: 36
Bender and Yabasule. Go for broke. But I'm happy with Brown and hope he develops into an all-star.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2016, 11:06:37 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
If I didn't trade number three, I probably would've picked Chriss. I think that kid is going to be something special, or at least could be if developed properly.
I like the "if developed properly". That way, if you are wrong in your evaluation, you can blame how they developed him.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2016, 11:11:51 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51956
  • Tommy Points: 3186
If I didn't trade number three, I probably would've picked Chriss. I think that kid is going to be something special, or at least could be if developed properly.
I like the "if developed properly". That way, if you are wrong in your evaluation, you can blame how they developed him.

Or this could just be a Celtics fan's evaluation who has watched our number six pick from 2014 not being developed properly by largely being played out of position/role...  ::)
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2016, 11:31:09 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
If I didn't trade number three, I probably would've picked Chriss. I think that kid is going to be something special, or at least could be if developed properly.
I like the "if developed properly". That way, if you are wrong in your evaluation, you can blame how they developed him.

Or this could just be a Celtics fan's evaluation who has watched our number six pick from 2014 not being developed properly by largely being played out of position/role...  ::)

I think Smart is being developed very properly.  He's an emotional player, and he's put in positions where that energy is more easily channeled into a positive (showing no fear in any defensive matchup) than a negative (playing PG and resorting to hero ball).  I think we'll see more ball-handling roles given to him in the future, when he's ready.  Stevens has a huge amount of trust in him, and with IT gone, he should get ample chances to run the second unit.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2016, 11:34:15 PM »

Offline beantownboy171

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 911
  • Tommy Points: 70
I really wanted Jaylen Brown at #3.

I was hoping for Ellenson at #16 once he fell. Zizic was another guy I liked at 16. I wanted Taurean Prince at that spot. But he was off the board.


Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2016, 11:39:08 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51956
  • Tommy Points: 3186
If I didn't trade number three, I probably would've picked Chriss. I think that kid is going to be something special, or at least could be if developed properly.
I like the "if developed properly". That way, if you are wrong in your evaluation, you can blame how they developed him.

Or this could just be a Celtics fan's evaluation who has watched our number six pick from 2014 not being developed properly by largely being played out of position/role...  ::)

I think Smart is being developed very properly.  He's an emotional player, and he's put in positions where that energy is more easily channeled into a positive (showing no fear in any defensive matchup) than a negative (playing PG and resorting to hero ball).  I think we'll see more ball-handling roles given to him in the future, when he's ready.  Stevens has a huge amount of trust in him, and with IT gone, he should get ample chances to run the second unit.

I disagree, at least offensively. He's clearly been at his best as a primary ball-handler, yet he played last year almost exclusively with Turner and/or Rozier as a spot-up shooter off the ball. Now, since he's had less offensive responsibilities, as you pointed out he has been well developed and utilized as a primary defensive option. However, that's not really the part of his game that needed much development; it's his offensive game that he needs more reps, especially as the primary ball-handler, or at least in a co-ball-handler situation.
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2016, 11:44:41 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
If I didn't trade number three, I probably would've picked Chriss. I think that kid is going to be something special, or at least could be if developed properly.
I like the "if developed properly". That way, if you are wrong in your evaluation, you can blame how they developed him.

Or this could just be a Celtics fan's evaluation who has watched our number six pick from 2014 not being developed properly by largely being played out of position/role...  ::)

I think Smart is being developed very properly.  He's an emotional player, and he's put in positions where that energy is more easily channeled into a positive (showing no fear in any defensive matchup) than a negative (playing PG and resorting to hero ball).  I think we'll see more ball-handling roles given to him in the future, when he's ready.  Stevens has a huge amount of trust in him, and with IT gone, he should get ample chances to run the second unit.
Agreed. We have done a great job with Smart. He is put in positions to succeed. He gets plenty of minutes. We let him focus on what he is good on -- defense, and we give him the green light to take open looks, even with a suspect jumper.

How many players in that draft have contributed as much as Smart? And I'm not talking about stat padding on bad teams, like when some here thought MarShon Brooks was going to be something.

Re: Who would you have taken at #3 and #16
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2016, 11:46:20 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
If I didn't trade number three, I probably would've picked Chriss. I think that kid is going to be something special, or at least could be if developed properly.
I like the "if developed properly". That way, if you are wrong in your evaluation, you can blame how they developed him.

Or this could just be a Celtics fan's evaluation who has watched our number six pick from 2014 not being developed properly by largely being played out of position/role...  ::)
Just another example of making oneself immune to correction. If things don't turn out the way your forecast, blame other variables so that you can still claim you were correct.