Author Topic: No Hunter But no Green.  (Read 5743 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2016, 09:47:12 PM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1315
  • Tommy Points: 151
In one preseason game there was a 5-7 minute stint where all the speed players were in the lineup.
They pressured the ball incredibly well causing turnovers and taking their opponent completely out of the game.

It didn't work out the second time around. If I remember correctly the lineup consisted of Green, Rozier, Brown, Crowder(?) and Young. I might not have all the players correct, but for a brief moment I thought, "wow, this is quite a lineup!" 

My thoughts are that maybe Green needs to play with particular players to excel. Could be off base...just a thought. 

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2016, 10:30:53 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20208
  • Tommy Points: 1340
Quote
My thoughts are that maybe Green needs to play with particular players to excel. Could be off base...just a thought.

Green has not played well at various times of his career.   I think the onus is squarely on him and not who is playing with.

He has played ball for 14 years that is a lot of wear and tear on his body.  Parhaps he is losing a step?  He is 30 going on 31 if about 50 days

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenge01.html

He was cheap, low risk, high reward.   I can't believe folks are belly aching over Hunter who was a guy who people thought could shoot.   But watching him here, I think he was a product of volume shooting and my dad is the coach and green lighted me.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2016, 11:11:37 PM »

Offline chiken Green

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 608
  • Tommy Points: 75
I think we are looking at this wrong..  I believe Greens greatest value is what he can teach Brown about the game, on and off the court.  He pretty much stated that in the beginning of the season when he said he would be ready to start, Come off the bench or Log DNP's ... He is here to teach Brown how to be a professional.. How to be Ready when his number is called..

You guys should not expect much from Green.. His game is not what it use to be.. Just my opinion.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2016, 11:42:11 PM »

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
Green wasn't expected to be our starting SG... Nor become sixth man of the year lol.

Can we temper our expectations a little bit? Hunter or Green? Both are meh.
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2016, 11:55:39 PM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7691
  • Tommy Points: 447
I think we are looking at this wrong..  I believe Greens greatest value is what he can teach Brown about the game, on and off the court.  He pretty much stated that in the beginning of the season when he said he would be ready to start, Come off the bench or Log DNP's ... He is here to teach Brown how to be a professional.. How to be Ready when his number is called..

You guys should not expect much from Green.. His game is not what it use to be.. Just my opinion.
Ok, but who is supposed to teach Green how to be a professional?   I'm somewhat joking but I don't see how Green is qualified to mentor anyone.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2016, 12:18:53 AM »

Offline chiken Green

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 608
  • Tommy Points: 75


You guys should not expect much from Green.. His game is not what it use to be.. Just my opinion.
[/quote]Ok, but who is supposed to teach Green how to be a professional?   I'm somewhat joking but I don't see how Green is qualified to mentor anyone.
[/quote]

If you think about it, who on the team is better to mentor Brown.. Many many years ago Green was Brown. A crazy athletic raw guy who came in the league basically as a teenager. Green experienced a bunch of Superficial success because of his Ability to dunk but early on didn't do the things to make him worth keeping not just on A roster but in the league..  Green is basically the poster child for what Could happen if you think you can get by on Athletic ability alone.
Yes Brown is a smart, hard working kid.. but having Green around should hammer home how important having that work ethic is..

And if you think about things now.. Some night Brown gets 20 min others just 7.... He has to stay ready regardless.. This is what he can learn from a 10 year vet who at one point seemingly had the whole world at his fingertips.. 

Brown can learn alot from Green..

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2016, 12:24:55 AM »

Offline GRADYCOLNON

  • Anfernee Simons
  • Posts: 327
  • Tommy Points: 26
I wish Hunter could've remained instead of green because he was solid talent that needed some defensive seasoning to really bloom into a great role player.  That in mind, Green was a veteran presence assumed to provide structure in wake of losing Turner.  And it can obviously spun to benefit Brown's development and he can fill up minutes if a key guy gets injured. Overall, he presently adds more value than Hunter, while Hunter's value is tied to the future and potential. 

As we start to solidifying the core, expect Danny to find more veterans to fill similar roles rather than collect young talent.  A prime example found in the league is on Lebron's teams.  Lebron would always have two or three veterans who could fill in when a core member fell to an injury.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2016, 01:53:50 AM »

Offline Alleyoopster

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1315
  • Tommy Points: 151
I wish Hunter could've remained instead of green because he was solid talent that needed some defensive seasoning to really bloom into a great role player.  That in mind, Green was a veteran presence assumed to provide structure in wake of losing Turner.  And it can obviously spun to benefit Brown's development and he can fill up minutes if a key guy gets injured. Overall, he presently adds more value than Hunter, while Hunter's value is tied to the future and potential. 

As we start to solidifying the core, expect Danny to find more veterans to fill similar roles rather than collect young talent.  A prime example found in the league is on Lebron's teams.  Lebron would always have two or three veterans who could fill in when a core member fell to an injury.

Solid talent is questionable in my opinion. It's been stated over and over in this group. He's an advertised shooter who cannot shoot.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2016, 01:55:21 AM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
I am amazed that we give up Hunter a promising young player for a vet because he was ready to play this year but Green rides the pine. I am thankful the minutes go to brown but if you are not going to play green why cut Hunter. Green would have been picked up by another team if cut and we would have a promising second year player to trade for a wing if need be down the line. Hopefully Green will shows is worth but today I just don't get it the move.

Hunter might be able to stay in the league.  But he's not going to make a real difference on a contender.

Boston wants to be in the ECF this year. Guys get hurt, they may need Green - it's a long season.  Green is insurance, a known quantity, and he comes cheap.

The choice makes sense. 

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2016, 03:47:18 AM »

Offline GRADYCOLNON

  • Anfernee Simons
  • Posts: 327
  • Tommy Points: 26
I wish Hunter could've remained instead of green because he was solid talent that needed some defensive seasoning to really bloom into a great role player.  That in mind, Green was a veteran presence assumed to provide structure in wake of losing Turner.  And it can obviously spun to benefit Brown's development and he can fill up minutes if a key guy gets injured. Overall, he presently adds more value than Hunter, while Hunter's value is tied to the future and potential. 

As we start to solidifying the core, expect Danny to find more veterans to fill similar roles rather than collect young talent.  A prime example found in the league is on Lebron's teams.  Lebron would always have two or three veterans who could fill in when a core member fell to an injury.

Solid talent is questionable in my opinion. It's been stated over and over in this group. He's an advertised shooter who cannot shoot.

It's unfair to claim he can't shoot.  If he was given the opportunity to shoot off the dribble and develop an rhythm, he would be considered solid talent. Hence the future value. Also, he was replaced by someone who is experiencing a very similar issue.  Green doesn't play enough, so he doesn't shoot well, so people are saying he can't shoot.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2016, 03:47:38 AM »

Offline GRADYCOLNON

  • Anfernee Simons
  • Posts: 327
  • Tommy Points: 26
I wish Hunter could've remained instead of green because he was solid talent that needed some defensive seasoning to really bloom into a great role player.  That in mind, Green was a veteran presence assumed to provide structure in wake of losing Turner.  And it can obviously spun to benefit Brown's development and he can fill up minutes if a key guy gets injured. Overall, he presently adds more value than Hunter, while Hunter's value is tied to the future and potential. 

As we start to solidifying the core, expect Danny to find more veterans to fill similar roles rather than collect young talent.  A prime example found in the league is on Lebron's teams.  Lebron would always have two or three veterans who could fill in when a core member fell to an injury.

Solid talent is questionable in my opinion. It's been stated over and over in this group. He's an advertised shooter who cannot shoot.

It's unfair to claim he can't shoot.  If he was given the opportunity to shoot off the dribble and develop an rhythm, he would be considered solid talent. Hence the future value. Also, he was replaced by someone who is experiencing a very similar issue.  Green doesn't play enough, so he doesn't shoot well, so people are saying he can't shoot.

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2016, 06:26:31 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Green is a guy who is ready to go when his number is called. I think he was signed so that if we have to use some of our young guys in a trade we have someone familiar with the system who can contribute right away

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2016, 06:41:07 AM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9198
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I wish Hunter could've remained instead of green because he was solid talent that needed some defensive seasoning to really bloom into a great role player.  That in mind, Green was a veteran presence assumed to provide structure in wake of losing Turner.  And it can obviously spun to benefit Brown's development and he can fill up minutes if a key guy gets injured. Overall, he presently adds more value than Hunter, while Hunter's value is tied to the future and potential. 

As we start to solidifying the core, expect Danny to find more veterans to fill similar roles rather than collect young talent.  A prime example found in the league is on Lebron's teams.  Lebron would always have two or three veterans who could fill in when a core member fell to an injury.

Solid talent is questionable in my opinion. It's been stated over and over in this group. He's an advertised shooter who cannot shoot.

It's unfair to claim he can't shoot.  If he was given the opportunity to shoot off the dribble and develop an rhythm, he would be considered solid talent. Hence the future value. Also, he was replaced by someone who is experiencing a very similar issue.  Green doesn't play enough, so he doesn't shoot well, so people are saying he can't shoot.

You mean like in the DLeague, where he's shot 27.2% on 3s for his career?
I'm bitter.

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Commander Adams, Battlestar Galactica

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2016, 06:56:51 AM »

Offline rollie mass

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4270
  • Tommy Points: 1233
brad has stated he feared his ability to get hot,that he could put up points quick
he will come in handy its a long ,long season
in my previous post  i only mentioned nader as a player to watch for next year
i was a rj fan but nader may wind up an upgrade

imagine down 20 the other team relaxes puts in 2nd unit and green gets hot
 in a matter of minutes back in the game
i think he fits a specific purpose and was made aware of it before he was signed, therefore his statements on being a vet and he would do whatever it takes including DNP's

Re: No Hunter But no Green.
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2016, 07:32:15 AM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Chicago saw enough in Hunter to sign him for the rest of the year. If Hunter was on roster in Feburay he would have trade value for us to get a player like Green but better. Keeping Green and DNP's over Hunter was not wise. Hopefully Hunter will prove me right but yes with 3 rooks next year hard to see hunter staying but he did have more trade value than green.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek