Would a Celtics Warriors finals be more competitive than one we are getting?

[green_bballers13]

We would get absolutely crushed, esp without IT.

[Dannys Chipotle Guy]

Even if we had lebron it wouldn't be competitive

I think it would.

With a healthy Thomas and Lebron we could hang with them.

[Onslaught]

Even if we had lebron it wouldn't be competitive

I think it would.

With a healthy Thomas and Lebron we could hang with them.

They have a healthy Love and Irving and that's not helping him much. And Irving plays better D then I.T

[MVPPierceNoJoke]

Even if we had lebron it wouldn't be competitive

I think it would.

With a healthy Thomas and Lebron we could hang with them.

They have a healthy Love and Irving and that's not helping him much. And Irving plays better D then I.T

They wouldn't have a Bradley/Smart/Crowder/Brown/Rozier. I think those are the guys that would causes problems. Esp Smart and Bradley with their defense and off the ball movement

[the TRUTH]

To answer the OP, with a healthy IT, I do think we match up better against GS than we did against Cleveland. Our lack of rebounding and interior D wouldn't be nearly as exposed against the Warriors as it was against the Cavs. I still don't think we could win the series, but we'd have a chance to steal a game if Durant isn't hitting his shots in a particular game.

That being said, I don't think the Warriors have this thing wrapped up yet. I'm expecting one or two Cavs role players to catch fire in Game 3, and Irving is due for a great game as well. I'd give the Cavs a 60% chance to win Game 3. If those things happen and the Cavs win, though, LeBron will get - and gladly take - all of the credit for the win. If they lose and trail 3-0, no matter how well everyone else plays or how well he plays, LeBron - or his people - will publicly point the finger at someone else.

[Chris22]

No.
The Warriors are really, really good.

[Moranis]

No.  And for the record last year Golden State won the first two games by a combined 48 points, it is 41 points through two games this year. 

[slamtheking]

if everyone on the C's was healthy, slight chance of "maybe".

I've said all season this is a team that lives by the jumper and also dies by the jumper.  if they're hitting, they can beat anyone.  if not, they can lose to anyone.

C's have more quality defenders at the 1-3 positions to throw at GSW than Cleveland so they might be able to reign in GSW's bombers a little better but having seen how the C's would constantly sleepwalk at the beginning of games this postseason, they'd probably be in a 15-20 point hole before they woke up and started playing defense. 

[PhoSita]

No.

[tonydelk]

No but I think the Celtics style of play matches up better against Golden State then it does for the Cavs.  Teams that can push Boston around have much more success then perimeter teams.  I'm not saying that Boston would shut down Curry, Thompson and KD but the Celtics are better equipped to slow them down then the Cavs are.  The Cavs do not do well with teams that can move the ball like Golden State.  This is what Boston tries to do but they don't have the consistent shooters that Golden State has.  Now the Bench of Golden State IMO is better then Boston because of their length.  They would get a lot of offensive rebounds and 2nd chance points.  Golden State is just a monster in every way shape and form.

[YoungOne87]

green and durant would murder our front court...

[celts55]

I don't know about more competitive, but pretty sure Celtics would have the same record. 2-0

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

doubtful

[pearljammer10]

Considering the Cavs demolished us, no.

[safecracker]

It's possible that a healthy Celtics team would defend better than the Cavs. But you also have to score on one of the best defenses in the league.
So instead of losing 130-110, it would be something like 115-90. Still not competitive.