Would we have won yesterday with Bradley?

[celticsclay]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

[Chris22]

Brad should have left Green on DeRozan.
Green is the only Celtic with the length to cover him.

[Kuberski33]

Brad should have left Green on DeRozan.
Green is the only Celtic with the length to cover him.

When DeRozan goes off like that, no one in the league is guarding him.  Best hope is to double him and try to make someone else beat you. And if they had done that someone else would have beaten us. The collapse was a collective effort though not surprising.

[greece66]

What Celticsclay says makes sense

>having another player playing 30 minutes would have certainly helped with the team being gassed.

Having Smart start hurts our bench.

Having said this, we were lucky enough to have Smart play one of his best games so far. This will be something to remember from an otherwise annoying L.

[Moranis]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played.  Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston. 

[SHAQATTACK]

I think we would have won.

We just can't seem to have a complete heathy team when we play the Raptors.

They are actually worse team .  If either of their big two is out ......like Cavs missing LeBron they really suck .

AB s defense would have went along way to help wear down their two ISO players .

Their two ISO players and game is not goi g going to beat Spurs , Warriors or Lebron in a series

[celticsclay]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

[Chief]

Smart on Demar, Bradley on Lowry,  and Crowder on Carroll are the matchups. So, yes, I think it would of helped but I'm not sure we would of won.

It4 has to play too. He just doesn't match up good against them.

[flybono]

I would have the lotto if only the last ball was 6 and not a 5

[Moranis]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston. 

[Ilikesports17]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

Bradley would have likely been a massive help against Lowry/Derozan.

There is literally no way to know if we would have won with Avery Bradley but to act like our 3rd best player would have had no impact on the game seems a little ridiculous.

[Moranis]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

Bradley would have likely been a massive help against Lowry/Derozan.

There is literally no way to know if we would have won with Avery Bradley but to act like our 3rd best player would have had no impact on the game seems a little ridiculous.

Having no impact and making no difference in the outcome are two entirely different things.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

Bradley would have likely been a massive help against Lowry/Derozan.

There is literally no way to know if we would have won with Avery Bradley but to act like our 3rd best player would have had no impact on the game seems a little ridiculous.

Having no impact and making no difference in the outcome are two entirely different things.

Not by that much. This was not a blowout. Maybe 1st team all defense Avery Bradley prevents Derozan from getting quite so hot. Maybe he provides an outlet for Isaiah down the stretch.

1 or two little plays could have made all the difference last night. It was a tie game with 2 minutes to go.

[celticsclay]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

First of all, I don't dislike Sullinger. Don't assume I do just because I don't think he is a difference maker does not mean I dislike him. Obviously the majority, if not all, GM's agree with me because the only salary he could get was equivalent to what 9th and 10th players off the bench are getting.

Secondly, you should know this because you follow the Celtics, but I will remind you. Sullinger was a role player, and one with a diminishing role at that for us last season. On a team seriously lacking front court depth he averaged 13 minutes per game in the playoffs last season. He had a solid early half of the season last year but really faded down the stretch. He has also missed serious time throughout his career with this being his 5th season it is already his 3rd season he has missed more than 24 games. If a guy has always had conditioning issues and always had injury issues (which are related) it doesn't make sense to say someone is getting a raw deal or shorthanded when out of shape injured player isn't playing.

Overall, you are just showing your ridiculous bias again in this thread and it is embarrassing to think of you as a fellow celtics fan because you have such an anti-celtics agenda. We were missing a guy that made all-first team defense, is averaging 18 points a game, 7 rebounds and shooting elite numbers from the field in a game we led the whole way and was tied with 2 minutes left. Any reasonable fan in the world would think it was a fair question to think we could have won the game if we were not missing an elite player.

Well any fan except for you. You choose to focus on a constantly injured out of shape guy on a peanuts contract that in a best case scenario for the Raptor may play 12-18 minutes in a game.
I seriously wonder if you are this miserable a person to talk to in real life filled with negativity and grasping at straws of things that don't make sense.

[Moranis]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

Bradley would have likely been a massive help against Lowry/Derozan.

There is literally no way to know if we would have won with Avery Bradley but to act like our 3rd best player would have had no impact on the game seems a little ridiculous.

Having no impact and making no difference in the outcome are two entirely different things.

Not by that much. This was not a blowout. Maybe 1st team all defense Avery Bradley prevents Derozan from getting quite so hot. Maybe he provides an outlet for Isaiah down the stretch.

1 or two little plays could have made all the difference last night. It was a tie game with 2 minutes to go.

Or maybe they go to Valanciunas more, or Carroll, or Lowry.  I don't think he would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome because I think Toronto is a better team than Boston is especially in Toronto.  In the first game, when Smart and Bradley played (without Thomas), Lowry went off and had the huge game while DeRozan took a lesser role (and Jonas didn't do much of anything).  Heck in that game Norman Powell (starting for Carroll) went off for 20 points.  I just don't see Boston consistently beating Toronto if both teams are healthy (and I'm even willing to call Toronto healthy without Sullinger).  Toronto is just a terrible match-up for Boston as the teams are currently constructed.  I think the matchup problems are even worse when Sullinger is taking the minutes of Nogueria and Poeltl.  Contrary to what CC seems to think, I'm a Celtics fan and hope they do well, but I'm also a realist and there are two teams in the East that are clearly better than Boston.  I don't think it would take much to close the gap on Toronto though.  A guy like Chandler, Bogut, or Monroe would do wonders for Boston in a series against Toronto.  That is why I've been advocating for those type of trades for awhile now.  I want Boston to make the ECF and have a shot against Cleveland, but without some moves I just don't see Boston ever getting by Toronto.