RealGM

FlatearthZorro wrote:

TheRealKaboom wrote:

Ill News wrote:Lol, it's hard not to overrate Tatum given the fantastic rookie season he had, and was even better during the playoffs. I mean, can you blame Celtics fans for hyping him? You're acting like we committed some crime here for suggesting he could be a superstar based on his incredible rookie year, when you guys would probably do the same. You're telling me if you had a rookie like that, you'd just be "Eh, this is probably his high point, it'll all be downhill from here!" Get outta here

He averaged 14/5/1 his rookie year. How was that fantastic and incredible?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

Scored 2nd most points for a rookie in playoff history behind Jabbar.

This can be misleading right? Most high profiled rookies get picked by crappy teams and as such, they don't even make the playoffs. Taytum might have scored 2nd most points for a rookie but his rookie season doesn't even crack top 50 in best rookie seasons.

Showtime23 wrote:

MagicBagley18 wrote:Like I said earlier we shall see soon enough....but I do trust GM’s of other teams and scouts etc over a fan base or real GM posters. I know that he’s still highly regarded by them and I still know that Tatum was still the the guy the pelicans wanted above all in an AD trade.

We annoint people way too soon and bury them way too easily- after they don’t meet the expectations set for them that were so high to begin with.

The only reason Tatum was coveted was that he was a rising star. Doesnt mean he can replace AD and no GM would remotely think about that possibility. Some people think Brown can wind up as the better player; Tatum should be very worried that he is not unanimously thought as the best young player even on his own roster.

Tatum really needs to show something why he should be considered as a special talent. Right now, he is nowhere close to a DPOY candidate and his scoring output is embarrassing to be called a star. A lot of players could easily shoot better than him if they cut down ill advised shots and make wide open jumpers. None of his skillset screams superstar/ all-star talent and Fox/Markk are all superior talents as of now.

No one ever mentioned he was as good as AD....that’s ridiculous. Point being he’s still very much a young prospect with a very high ceiling and to make a definitive statement on what his career will be is ridiculous and it’s compounded by the fact that people who do this for a living still think very highly of him.

I said no and my reasoning is simple. If his ceiling is his rookie playoffs, 18.5 and 4.4 with decent efficiency, I still do not see that as being franchise worthy. This is Jayson's 3rd season and unless he is a late bloomer, like Chancey Billups, it is put up or shut up time. 3rd seasons are almost always a key pointer to how good a player can be, so we will see.

With all of this being said, the Celtics may still have to pay him like a franchise player just to keep him.

FlatearthZorro wrote:

7footMONSTER wrote:

Sane wrote:
Did you quote the wrong post? I have no idea what you're referring to.

2018 Celtics without Kyrie beat the Bucks to make it to the ECF.
2019 Celtics with Kyrie lost to the Bucks in the 2nd Round.

You wrote the 2018 Celtics were better because they advanced to the Conference Finals without Kyrie.

It’s idiotic to compare these two teams because the Kyrie Celtics faced a much tougher Milwaukee Bucks team.

With the way our offense and defense functioned and the performance Irving put on in the series against the Bucks, I could make the case the Bucks faced a much worse C's team. Irving shot <.350 from the field, .180 from 3, and we allowed 30 more points per 100 with him on the court. So the argument can go either way.

Lol what? Kyrie shot those percentages because of the Bucks defense. What you’re saying belittles a Bucks defense that was super legit. Who did the ‘18 Celtics face that were that good defensively?

Obviously, we have to factor in chemistry issues with that Celtics team as well, but you cannot take away from Milwaukee what is their due.

Tiny ball wrote:

FlatearthZorro wrote:

7footMONSTER wrote:
2018 Celtics without Kyrie beat the Bucks to make it to the ECF.
2019 Celtics with Kyrie lost to the Bucks in the 2nd Round.

You wrote the 2018 Celtics were better because they advanced to the Conference Finals without Kyrie.

It’s idiotic to compare these two teams because the Kyrie Celtics faced a much tougher Milwaukee Bucks team.

With the way our offense and defense functioned and the performance Irving put on in the series against the Bucks, I could make the case the Bucks faced a much worse C's team. Irving shot <.350 from the field, .180 from 3, and we allowed 30 more points per 100 with him on the court. So the argument can go either way.

The Celtics always or near always played better when Irving did not play. All you have to do is look at last years wins and losses.

Yeah, let’s look at what happened in the regular season to gauge whether the Celtics were truly better when it matters without Kyrie.

You’re doing exactly what GS fans did with KD out with the “they’re better without KD!” narrative. Just, no.

CoP wrote:

Asif16 wrote:Dude I remember them clear as day. Im sure others as well.

Link a handful of threads on the GB started by Celtics fans that compared Tatum to Kobe or Brown to Pierce. Shouldnt be hard since you claimed they were all over the GB.

Link or GTFO

What he’s saying to you is that he’s not bothered to provide these links because like a number of posters have already said in this thread, that was truly the case last year on the GB, and I’m another one of those voices affirming it.

For the record, only because I suspect someone might go “you Raptors fans are all the same”, please believe me when I, the hardest Raptors critic I know, says it has absolutely nothing to do it. And if you don’t want to believe me, like I said, other posters have affirmed what Asif16 has said as well in this thread alone.

Zombiesonics wrote:

valrond1 wrote:Right now? No, he isn't, not by a long shot.
But he has the potential to becoming one down the road. About half of the best top 15 players now weren't franchise players at Tatum's age

Straightforward and 100% correct. there seem to be posters ITT who simply have a personal issue with Boston or Celtic fans. It’s indisputable Tatum is one of the best prospects for his age group, he is very young.

So no right now he's not a franchise player, will he be an mvp? I have no clue he just turned 21, but he’s shown the trajectory to reach an all nba level for sure.

Trajectory? He was good in his first season and showed regression in his second season. What trajectory are you talking about?

TerryTate wrote:Honestly this thread should be bumped around the New Year or AS Break.

I mean.... see how Tatum and a lesser extent Brown play with Kemba. See if Kyrie was truly one of the major problems in Boston.
Right now, all I see is celtics fan say Kyrie was a problem and division rivals nets fan... say it was the young guys fault. It'll all be revealed in a few months.

It'll kill some of the stupid arguments of Kyrie made Boston better. Personally, I don't know why Nets fans keep fapping to guy that hasn't proved anything outside of being Lebron's robin.

While I agree to a certain extent, Rozier not being there anymore will definitely help morale and chemistry as well, as there was obvious tension from the PG spot last year.

FlatearthZorro wrote:

TheRealKaboom wrote:

Ill News wrote:Lol, it's hard not to overrate Tatum given the fantastic rookie season he had, and was even better during the playoffs. I mean, can you blame Celtics fans for hyping him? You're acting like we committed some crime here for suggesting he could be a superstar based on his incredible rookie year, when you guys would probably do the same. You're telling me if you had a rookie like that, you'd just be "Eh, this is probably his high point, it'll all be downhill from here!" Get outta here

He averaged 14/5/1 his rookie year. How was that fantastic and incredible?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

Scored 2nd most points for a rookie in playoff history behind Jabbar.

Lol. And Brandon Jennings was arguably the best rookie in a class that included Steph in their rookie seasons. Your point?

LakersSoul wrote:

TheRealKaboom wrote:

Ill News wrote:Lol, it's hard not to overrate Tatum given the fantastic rookie season he had, and was even better during the playoffs. I mean, can you blame Celtics fans for hyping him? You're acting like we committed some crime here for suggesting he could be a superstar based on his incredible rookie year, when you guys would probably do the same. You're telling me if you had a rookie like that, you'd just be "Eh, this is probably his high point, it'll all be downhill from here!" Get outta here

He averaged 14/5/1 his rookie year. How was that fantastic and incredible?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

He was getting better throughout the season. Then in the playoffs he was Celtics best player and looked like a damn superstar.

Last season, he came crashing down and a lot of flaws were shown. He went from “no trade” list to “possible trade list”.

He definitely did not look like a superstar in the ‘18 playoffs, but I do agree that he elevated his game from that regular season.

PistolPeteJR wrote:

FlatearthZorro wrote:

7footMONSTER wrote:
2018 Celtics without Kyrie beat the Bucks to make it to the ECF.
2019 Celtics with Kyrie lost to the Bucks in the 2nd Round.

You wrote the 2018 Celtics were better because they advanced to the Conference Finals without Kyrie.

It’s idiotic to compare these two teams because the Kyrie Celtics faced a much tougher Milwaukee Bucks team.

With the way our offense and defense functioned and the performance Irving put on in the series against the Bucks, I could make the case the Bucks faced a much worse C's team. Irving shot <.350 from the field, .180 from 3, and we allowed 30 more points per 100 with him on the court. So the argument can go either way.

Lol what? Kyrie shot those percentages because of the Bucks defense. What you’re saying belittles a Bucks defense that was super legit. Who did the ‘18 Celtics face that were that good defensively?

Obviously, we have to factor in chemistry issues with that Celtics team as well, but you cannot take away from Milwaukee what is their due.

Bucks under Kidd were a disaster defensively.

Article from 538

“If the Milwaukee Bucks had simply played a standard NBA defense, Jason Kidd would likely still have a job.

The hypothesis: An athletic roster that forces turnovers and extra passes will lead invariably to a top defense. The finding: Not if achieving those goals means giving opponents a clear run at the rim on practically every possession.

The Bucks defense has been plain bad for most of the season. It saw a brief uptick after acquiring point guard Eric Bledsoe, but at the time of Kidd’s firing, it ranked 26th in the league in points allowed per 100 possessions (111.3), just behind the sad-sack Atlanta Hawks.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bucks-great-defensive-experiment-is-over/amp/

Bucks were a different team in 2018 under Kidd. This is without even mentioning the development of Giannis or the additions of Lopez, Mirotic, Hill, and Ilyasova the following season.

nope

He's more Glenn Robinson than Kobe Bryant, so no

PistolPeteJR wrote:

Tiny ball wrote:

FlatearthZorro wrote:
With the way our offense and defense functioned and the performance Irving put on in the series against the Bucks, I could make the case the Bucks faced a much worse C's team. Irving shot <.350 from the field, .180 from 3, and we allowed 30 more points per 100 with him on the court. So the argument can go either way.

The Celtics always or near always played better when Irving did not play. All you have to do is look at last years wins and losses.

Yeah, let’s look at what happened in the regular season to gauge whether the Celtics were truly better when it matters without Kyrie.

You’re doing exactly what GS fans did with KD out with the “they’re better without KD!” narrative. Just, no.

I watched every Celtics game but one last year. I have went back and looked at the won lost of games with Kryeee and without Kryee. The Celtics were just lots better without him. Every time he would sit they would go on winning streak. He would come back and the loses would pile up. He was a total cancer to the Celtics organization. Thank God he is a net and not a Celtic.

mtron929 wrote:

FlatearthZorro wrote:

TheRealKaboom wrote:He averaged 14/5/1 his rookie year. How was that fantastic and incredible?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

Scored 2nd most points for a rookie in playoff history behind Jabbar.

This can be misleading right? Most high profiled rookies get picked by crappy teams and as such, they don't even make the playoffs. Taytum might have scored 2nd most points for a rookie but his rookie season doesn't even crack top 50 in best rookie seasons.

Producing like that in the playoffs is amazing. That the Celtics playing that many playoff games with 60 million dollars not playing is amazing. Those young guys played really well.

TerryTate wrote:Honestly this thread should be bumped around the New Year or AS Break.

I mean.... see how Tatum and a lesser extent Brown play with Kemba. See if Kyrie was truly one of the major problems in Boston.
Right now, all I see is celtics fan say Kyrie was a problem and division rivals nets fan... say it was the young guys fault. It'll all be revealed in a few months.

It'll kill some of the stupid arguments of Kyrie made Boston better. Personally, I don't know why Nets fans keep fapping to guy that hasn't proved anything outside of being Lebron's robin.

After watching the Last FIBA game Kemba is a ball stopper. He dribbles way too much and is super slow getting the offence started. He took a lot of bad shots. If he is playing like this for Pop odds are he is not coachable? It looks like Danny should have saved the money and or got a young guy. If you were going to spend money Brogdon might have been better choice? Think he has been hurt a lot that might be the reason they passed on him? So the Celtics young guys might be in same boat as last year. Point guard that shoots too much, can't get the offence started and likes to dribble the clock away.

mtron929 wrote:

FlatearthZorro wrote:

TheRealKaboom wrote:He averaged 14/5/1 his rookie year. How was that fantastic and incredible?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

Scored 2nd most points for a rookie in playoff history behind Jabbar.

This can be misleading right? Most high profiled rookies get picked by crappy teams and as such, they don't even make the playoffs. Taytum might have scored 2nd most points for a rookie but his rookie season doesn't even crack top 50 in best rookie seasons.

THat's misleading, too, cause Tatum didn't get the chance to crack "the top 50". Him and Brown were the main guys only after Kyrie went down. So yea it goes both ways, obviously.

Can grow into one but I don't see it happening

Everyone will have a different opinion (largely based on whether or not they like the Celtics). He is still very very young so it's hard to say exactly what his ceiling is, but he already has 12.1 win shares in his young career. For reference, a guy like Ingram has 4.5 in 3 years, Mitchell 10.2, Durant had 10.2 after 2 years, PG had 8.4, AD 16.5, LeBron 19.4, Kawhi 11.7, Giannis 7.4 etc. He's a very very good, albeit young player. Not sure he'll ever be LeBron level but PG and KD trajectories seem very possible. Very underrated defender, still developing physically which is the key for him. Getting stronger so he can attack the rim, get to the line more. He's going to be a very good player for a very long time.

bisme37 wrote:I mean, not yet. He's like two years older than my cat.

Picture of kitty or didn't happen.

This is an action shot of a cat named Big Baby Davis.

http://prod.static9.net.au/_/media/2018/01/25/11/30/180125_coach_fat_cat.jpg