POLL: How confident do you feel; Cs beat Philly in 2nd round?

[Moranis]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

If Brown is out at all, or if he plays but is hampered by the injury, that's a big detriment to Boston—their biggest challenge has been offense, and Brown's one of their best scorers (as well as one of their best defenders).

Homecourt will be crucial, of course, but even with that advantage I think the Cs lose this series, even if Brown is 100% the entire series. They barely beat a team with a Giannis-Middleton combo, and I think the Embiid-Simmons combo is even better.

Then again, with how this Celtics team has come through so often this season despite long odds, it wouldn't surprise me if they won the series.

[Erik]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

[keevsnick]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

The Sixer won eight more games than the bucks. They are better offensively and defensively. They have better shooters. They may not have a player as good as Giannis, but they have two that are all-nba level. They are far better coached. They dominated their first round series.  Why is this even a discussion?

[gouki88]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

Well said, TP

[td450]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

Well said, TP

I don't think that Philly's top two are going to be as good as Milwaukee's were. Giannis played like a superstar and Middleton did too, regardless of how good he is over the long run.

Milwaukee got inconsistency from Bledsoe and very poor performances from everyone else. Philly has more guys that can score.

Philly surged because Simmons collapsed the defenses and Redick, Bellinelli and Ilyasova stepped up and made shots consistently. If we can defend the 3 point line and we shoot reasonably well ourselves, we have a good chance.

[umpacu]

Even with Jaylen on the court, I feel they have a better team right now. Philly in six (maybe even five) would be my guess. They're playing great. They have a good coach. They're really good defensively.

Still, a lot of things can happen though, and this Celtics team has a lot of fight in them. So, if everything goes right, we might win in seven. Who knows...

[footey]

Tonight's game will tell me a lot.  If Philly wins, it will be a short series--Philly wins in 5 games.

If we win tonight, without Jaylen, I think we will win the series in 7.  Because we don't win anything easily with this depleted roster.  But home court advantage will be the difference.

[Jiri Welsch]

The Celtics will win a game on the road this series. We just need to win one of these first two games and I like our chances!

[celticsclay]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

The Sixer won eight more games than the bucks. They are better offensively and defensively. They have better shooters. They may not have a player as good as Giannis, but they have two that are all-nba level. They are far better coached. They dominated their first round series.  Why is this even a discussion?

To be fair I think it was pretty commonly accepted that the Heat had the least talent of any team in the playoffs. I really don't have any idea how good the 76ers are at this point because they have had such a weird year. They played something like 23 out of 27 teams with losing records to close the season at a time when many of those teams had shut down even their good young players in perhaps the widest spread tanking of any season in NBA history. I believe the 76ers were actually sub .500 against teams that made the playoffs. If not, they were pretty deep into the season. So now I can't really pinpoint them. Are they a dominate great team? Or would they get streamrolled by a health celtics, the cavs and raptors? I really don't know.

[Moranis]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7).  The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt.  Middleton is a role player.  He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career.  He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush). 

The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.   

[celticsclay]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7).  The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt.  Middleton is a role player.  He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career.  He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush). 

The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.   

Middleton played solid defense averaged 20 points, 5 rebounds, 4 assists on 46/36/88 shooting splits. What does he have to do to impress you? I think most teams would kill to have a "role player" like him. He definitely could have been an all-star this season. Those numbers were all better than what Dragic put up who made the game.

[SHAQATTACK]

poorly

like our chances next year with Brown, Tatum, Hayward and Irving.

[footey]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7).  The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt.  Middleton is a role player.  He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career.  He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush). 

The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.   

Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems.  Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.

Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks.  We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton.  Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.

[Erik]

I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Sixers are all that much better than the Bucks.  Is Embiid better than Greek F?  Simmons is probably better than Middleton but not a better scoring option.  The Sixers seem to be the hotter team for sure and did have a better record overall than the Bucks but it should be pretty evenly matched I would think.

Game 1 is important.  We don't want to give away home court.

The Sixers are a much better team than the Bucks.  They have more top end talent (i.e. 2 to 1 on legit stars), they have better role players, and the role players fit much better with their 2 stars.  They also have a much better coach.  Bret Brown is the one coach left in the East that can legitimately match Stevens on an in game adjustment basis.

I like how you just multiply Giannis x 2 to get Simmons and Embiid as if they're remotely equal and completely dismiss how effective Middleton was. The Bucks played better than the Sixers are playing (and I believe CAN play).

Middleton isn't nearly as good as Simmons or Embiid.  The fact that he went off, shouldn't be used as a positive, it should be used as the negative it is.

I really don't care (and neither should you) about your perceived value of Khris Middleton. That's another debate that we could have and I will probably agree with you. Perhaps he's not as good of a player as Simmons and will never replicate this performance ever again. That's not the point. I'm referring to what actually happened. Middleton scored 24.6 ppg shooting 61% from 3pt and 59.8% overall against a stingy defense. And we beat them. And then you try to downplay what we just went up against and beat by citing that the Sixers have better role players (lumping Middleton into the role players bucket by process of not mentioning him) and by claiming that it's a negative (presumably because the Celtics defense was so horrible that even Middleton played great)? It doesn't line up with what we saw. The guy had some open looks, sure (who doesn't?). But he also drilled contested shots over and over again. I think that he was the 2nd best player on either team (if it's not Horford).

I respectfully think that your line of reasoning is disingenuous and that we should retrospectively consider Middleton a star for this particular playoff series.

Middleton has never shot better than 46.7% from the field in any season (his career best TS% is 57.7).  The fact that he shot 59.8% (71.7 TS%) doesn't mean he is a world class player, it means that Boston let a guy perform out of his butt.  Middleton is a role player.  He is a #3 type player at best as he has been his entire career.  He is slightly better than someone like JJ Redick (per 36, Redick actually scored more per game than Middleton did this year on a much higher TS% so it isn't as crazy as it may sound at first blush). 

The Sixers are a significantly better team than the Bucks.   

Both are really good shooters. But Middleton, due to his length, is tougher to defend. And I like JJ Redick, he will give us problems.  Redick is probably a better player defensively as well.

Of course the Sixers are a better team. But for some reason we just seem to defend Sixers better than we do the Bucks.  We are able to neutralize Embiid and Simmons better than we can Giannis and Middleton.  Whether that will remain true with our depleted roster will be answered very shortly.

I spit my drink out.

Look guys, we're entering absurdity here. It doesn't matter how good Middleton is. He played amazing. Superstar level. Moranis has the only point here that could be an actual point: Did the Celtics enable him to play well by playing poor defense? But I just don't buy it. I can certainly remember way more "how is he playing this good?" situations compared to "how are we leaving him wide open?" situations. Same with Giannis. For 6 games he was scoring from everywhere.

I don't know if I'm missing something here or if you guys just didn't watch the games. Giannis and Middleton played better than anything I've seen from Simmons and Embiid. If you want to go down the list of Redick vs Parker and Covington vs Thon Maker, fine, whatever. I don't care enough to argue who's better because all 4 are pretty average to me. But please do not put Middleton's series vs us into the role player bucket and please do not forget that we survived a series against 2 players who played at superstar level. That alone should tell you that we can win this series vs the Sixers.