Have these last 7 games changed your opinion on IT?

[JohnBoy65]

This is a 2 part question:

1) Are there still people who believe he's better suited to be a 6th man?

and

2) Does this change your opinion if he should be 'the guy' going forward?

The 2 largest criticisms on this board have been that he can't lead a team in the playoffs, and he's too short, he'd be instant offense off the bench.


I would be totally comfortable going forward with IT as the leader of this team. It'd be nice if he didn't take the max to leave us some cap flexibility, but he's earned it.  I think it'd be franchise mal-practice if the Celtics just let IT walk for nothing.

Just curious as to what people think now.

[chambers]

I was convinced about 4 months into the season when I'd watched him play and literally destroy pretty much all the elite NBA guards and saw that he wasn't this giant black hole on defense.
He needs a solid defensive supporting cast, but his overall impact is simply enormous.

Funny thing is that he could get even better.

I'd be willing to throw 4 years max contract at IT. He has proven he is one of the best scorers in the NBA and is passable on defense. He's like a mini James Harden. Will be cool to see how much better he can get.

Makes me wonder how many guys there are like IT just sitting on the end of a bench somewhere that will never get a real shot at being a star due to playing time/team situation.

[rollie mass]

todays ball players have extended schedule  but play many less minutes per game and travelling is much easier-so who knows how long his prime lasts but after that he becomes a darn good 6th man
with isaiahs mind set and being goal orientated
isaiah is world famous now and may give a team discount which will be made up for by endorsements-the face and leader of celtics even toothless he has that infectious smile
not only does boston love isaiah , so does the world and every player outside of isaiah caanan
every kid thats small or playing up in his age bracket-lots of pressure being the biggest little man ever-

[jbpats]

1) Situational. This series I actually strongly feel he'd be better suited as a sixth man. Reason being he can't defend Wall or Beal which was obvious yesterday. I think if you start Bradley and Smart you set a defensive tone that can contain those two, then you have Thomas come in off the bench create that spark against a bench that has no chance of keeping up with him. That being said this scenario works only in this series, which is why I say situational.

2) I still don't believe Thomas is the answer for this team, I am a big fan but am still against paying him the max under the assumption we get a top two pick this draft. Truth be told Thomas has had two good games in the playoffs, the others his shooting and overall play was not great, but obviously there were outside issues that likely affected his performance.

I think if there is anyone we should now be discussing about paying it's Bradley. I think he has stepped up as the leader of this team. His offensive game has taking a huge jump, he has confidence, and he is one of the best defenders in the NBA. I think if you were to ask me now if we should extend Bradley 5 years at 18 mil or Thomas at 5 years/30 mil, the answer is AB. Also keep in mind AB is only 26.

[JohnBoy65]

Here's another question based on some of the responses...... If we didn't have the Brooklyn '17 pick, or the 2 top prospects were big men, would this idea of IT not being the guy here be different? I think it's easy to say we don't need IT when we hopefully could have one of Ball/Fultz.

If our pick drops to 4, those 2 are certainly gone. Does that change the opinion of the 'we can't build with IT' folks?

[Roy H.]

I haven't changed my opinion. The guy is a star and we should build around him.

[CoachBo]

I haven't changed my opinion. The guy is a star and we should build around him.

This X1000.

IT4 is untouchable.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Here's another question based on some of the responses...... If we didn't have the Brooklyn '17 pick, or the 2 top prospects were big men, would this idea of IT not being the guy here be different? I think it's easy to say we don't need IT when we hopefully could have one of Ball/Fultz.

If our pick drops to 4, those 2 are certainly gone. Does that change the opinion of the 'we can't build with IT' folks?

I think this is the key. If we didn't have a shot to draft Fultz, I would max IT this summer. But...

My opinion keeps the same, I guess very impopular. He is a game changer in offense, but unfortunately also in defense, in spite of his willingness he doesn't have the physical tools to guard Rondo, Wall or Irving. I love IT, but I love the Celtics winning a title above any player. And I think you are more likely to get rings with Avery Bradley-like players (fine offense, top defense) than with Isaiah (top offense, lack of defense).

[Phantom255x]

Here's another question based on some of the responses...... If we didn't have the Brooklyn '17 pick, or the 2 top prospects were big men, would this idea of IT not being the guy here be different? I think it's easy to say we don't need IT when we hopefully could have one of Ball/Fultz.

If our pick drops to 4, those 2 are certainly gone. Does that change the opinion of the 'we can't build with IT' folks?

I think this is the key. If we didn't have a shot to draft Fultz, I would max IT this summer. But...

My opinion keeps the same, I guess very impopular. He is a game changer in offense, but unfortunately also in defense, in spite of his willingness he doesn't have the physical tools to guard Rondo, Wall or Irving. I love IT, but I love the Celtics winning a title above any player. And I think you are more likely to get rings with Avery Bradley-like players (fine offense, top defense) than with Isaiah (top offense, lack of defense).

You need BOTH type of players to win.

Who else on this team would you consider a "top offense" or "premium scorer" on this team.

[Surferdad]

Here's another question based on some of the responses...... If we didn't have the Brooklyn '17 pick, or the 2 top prospects were big men, would this idea of IT not being the guy here be different? I think it's easy to say we don't need IT when we hopefully could have one of Ball/Fultz.

If our pick drops to 4, those 2 are certainly gone. Does that change the opinion of the 'we can't build with IT' folks?

I think this is the key. If we didn't have a shot to draft Fultz, I would max IT this summer. But...

My opinion keeps the same, I guess very impopular. He is a game changer in offense, but unfortunately also in defense, in spite of his willingness he doesn't have the physical tools to guard Rondo, Wall or Irving. I love IT, but I love the Celtics winning a title above any player. And I think you are more likely to get rings with Avery Bradley-like players (fine offense, top defense) than with Isaiah (top offense, lack of defense).

What was the last team to win an NBA title this way? 2004 Pistons?  In retrospect, that team is considered the exception to the rule.  You need superstars (top offensive players), preferably 3.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Here's another question based on some of the responses...... If we didn't have the Brooklyn '17 pick, or the 2 top prospects were big men, would this idea of IT not being the guy here be different? I think it's easy to say we don't need IT when we hopefully could have one of Ball/Fultz.

If our pick drops to 4, those 2 are certainly gone. Does that change the opinion of the 'we can't build with IT' folks?

I think this is the key. If we didn't have a shot to draft Fultz, I would max IT this summer. But...

My opinion keeps the same, I guess very impopular. He is a game changer in offense, but unfortunately also in defense, in spite of his willingness he doesn't have the physical tools to guard Rondo, Wall or Irving. I love IT, but I love the Celtics winning a title above any player. And I think you are more likely to get rings with Avery Bradley-like players (fine offense, top defense) than with Isaiah (top offense, lack of defense).

You need BOTH type of players to win.

Who else on this team would you consider a "top offense" or "premium scorer" on this team.

The only one is Isaiah, that's true. But if we grab Fultz and Jaylen Brown keeps developing, we may have two "top offense" players that can also play good defense. I'm with you, it's only that I'm not convinced that paying Isaiah 30M per year will keep us into contention.

And I know we'd be number 4-5-6 seed without him, this is not the debate. The debate is if having him with a max contract until 2022 will allow us complete the team accurately, especially in defense. I have a lot of doubts in this sense, because what to do with IT will be essential for this team's future.

[BitterJim]

Here's another question based on some of the responses...... If we didn't have the Brooklyn '17 pick, or the 2 top prospects were big men, would this idea of IT not being the guy here be different? I think it's easy to say we don't need IT when we hopefully could have one of Ball/Fultz.

If our pick drops to 4, those 2 are certainly gone. Does that change the opinion of the 'we can't build with IT' folks?

I think this is the key. If we didn't have a shot to draft Fultz, I would max IT this summer. But...

My opinion keeps the same, I guess very impopular. He is a game changer in offense, but unfortunately also in defense, in spite of his willingness he doesn't have the physical tools to guard Rondo, Wall or Irving. I love IT, but I love the Celtics winning a title above any player. And I think you are more likely to get rings with Avery Bradley-like players (fine offense, top defense) than with Isaiah (top offense, lack of defense).

You need BOTH type of players to win.

Who else on this team would you consider a "top offense" or "premium scorer" on this team.

The only one is Isaiah, that's true. But if we grab Fultz and Jaylen Brown keeps developing, we may have two "top offense" players that can also play good defense. I'm with you, it's only that I'm not convinced that paying Isaiah 30M per year will keep us into contention.

And I know we'd be number 4-5-6 seed without him, this is not the debate. The debate is if having him with a max contract until 2022 will allow us complete the team accurately, especially in defense. I have a lot of doubts in this sense, because what to do with IT will be essential for this team's future.

We would not be a 4, 5 or 6 seed without Isaiah - I doubt we'd even make the playoffs. Our offense isn't just slightly worse without him, it's downright terrible. We lost to the 76ers without him playing. This team without Isaiah would probably be giving the Nets a lottery pick

[footey]

I haven't changed my opinion. The guy is a star and we should build around him.

This X1000.

IT4 is untouchable.

Agree.

[Darío SpanishFan]

We would not be a 4, 5 or 6 seed without Isaiah - I doubt we'd even make the playoffs. Our offense isn't just slightly worse without him, it's downright terrible. We lost to the 76ers without him playing. This team without Isaiah would probably be giving the Nets a lottery pick

And we lost to the Suns with him playing, that's not a valid argument.

I think this is too much. Overreaction, as usual in these forums. With, let's say, Rozier or Smart on the court, we would be also a playoff team. Defense also brings wins.

[showtime]

  We wouldn't come close to making the playoffs without Isaiah. He's a top 8 player in the NBA maybe higher. Anyone who thinks Isaiah shouldn't be a starter on this team, should pick a sport that they know something about, because it's obvious they don't know basketball.