Romeo Langford Thread

[Hal14]

Instead of showing signs of getting better, Romeo is looking more and more like a wasted pick.

He had managed to score 4 points in his last 3 games as a starter. 2 of those points was a lucky tip in.

Romeo, Nesmith, Grant and Semi are trash. It’s sad.

Pritchard is the only bright spot in the last few years of Danny’s picks.

Such a stupid post. Time Lord (27th pick less than 3 years ago) is top 10 in the NBA in PER, FG%, TS%, BPM, offensive rating, defensive rating, rebounding % and blocks %.

What's sad is calling guys trash who are only 21 or 22 years old. Anyone with any basketball knowledge knows it typically takes at least 3 seasons before you can actually begin to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether a player is working out or now. Unless we want to give up on all of these guys and then have it come back to bite us in the a## like it did with Billups, Joe Johnson, Bruce Bowen, etc.

You know few could also mean as low as 2 right?

You must be a huge Romeo or Nesmith fan to get so upset.

Few typically means 3 or more

Nesmith is only a rookie. He played 2 years of college ball and missed half the season one of those years.

Langford is in his 2nd year (after playing just 1 year of college ball) and has only played 50 games total in the NBA so he's essentially still a rookie.

They're both just babies and still early in their development. Far too early to call either of them "trash"

[return2glory]

Such a stupid post. Time Lord (27th pick less than 3 years ago) is top 10 in the NBA in PER, FG%, TS%, BPM, offensive rating, defensive rating, rebounding % and blocks %.

What's sad is calling guys trash who are only 21 or 22 years old. Anyone with any basketball knowledge knows it typically takes at least 3 seasons before you can actually begin to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether a player is working out or now. Unless we want to give up on all of these guys and then have it come back to bite us in the a## like it did with Billups, Joe Johnson, Bruce Bowen, etc.

You know few could also mean as low as 2 right?

You must be a huge Romeo or Nesmith fan to get so upset.

Few typically means 3 or more

Nesmith is only a rookie. He played 2 years of college ball and missed half the season one of those years.

Langford is in his 2nd year (after playing just 1 year of college ball) and has only played 50 games total in the NBA so he's essentially still a rookie.

They're both just babies and still early in their development. Far too early to call either of them "trash"

Few is more than 1 and at least 2. Timelord is excluded.

Romeo and Nesmith are playing like trash so they are trash. No one said anything about them not eventually getting better. As of this point Romeo has proven he can’t stay healthy nor shot. He was good at one thing coming into the league and that was driving to the basket and neither scoring or getting fouled. He hasn’t proven to do no of those things.

Nesmith came in known as a shooter on a small sample size. That seemed enough for Danny. Nesmith hasn’t even shot well. If they play like trash I’m going to call it like I see it.

[Patsfan1081]

Such a stupid post. Time Lord (27th pick less than 3 years ago) is top 10 in the NBA in PER, FG%, TS%, BPM, offensive rating, defensive rating, rebounding % and blocks %.

What's sad is calling guys trash who are only 21 or 22 years old. Anyone with any basketball knowledge knows it typically takes at least 3 seasons before you can actually begin to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether a player is working out or now. Unless we want to give up on all of these guys and then have it come back to bite us in the a## like it did with Billups, Joe Johnson, Bruce Bowen, etc.

You know few could also mean as low as 2 right?

You must be a huge Romeo or Nesmith fan to get so upset.

Few typically means 3 or more

Nesmith is only a rookie. He played 2 years of college ball and missed half the season one of those years.

Langford is in his 2nd year (after playing just 1 year of college ball) and has only played 50 games total in the NBA so he's essentially still a rookie.

They're both just babies and still early in their development. Far too early to call either of them "trash"

Wouldn’t call either trash but you used a lottery pick on him and Neismith, they should be able to give you more than 0 points if given 20 minutes of floor time. You have to at the very least show some developement, have a somewhat productive game every once and a while. Has Langford even scored in double digits once?

[greenroom31]

You know few could also mean as low as 2 right?

You must be a huge Romeo or Nesmith fan to get so upset.

Few typically means 3 or more

Nesmith is only a rookie. He played 2 years of college ball and missed half the season one of those years.

Langford is in his 2nd year (after playing just 1 year of college ball) and has only played 50 games total in the NBA so he's essentially still a rookie.

They're both just babies and still early in their development. Far too early to call either of them "trash"

Wouldn’t call either trash but you used a lottery pick on him and Neismith, they should be able to give you more than 0 points if given 20 minutes of floor time. You have to at the very least show some developement, have a somewhat productive game every once and a while. Has Langford even scored in double digits once?

0 points in 20 minutes — isn’t that what Fournier did today, while also blowing a bunch of defensive assignments?

[Hal14]

You know few could also mean as low as 2 right?

You must be a huge Romeo or Nesmith fan to get so upset.

Few typically means 3 or more

Nesmith is only a rookie. He played 2 years of college ball and missed half the season one of those years.

Langford is in his 2nd year (after playing just 1 year of college ball) and has only played 50 games total in the NBA so he's essentially still a rookie.

They're both just babies and still early in their development. Far too early to call either of them "trash"

Wouldn’t call either trash but you used a lottery pick on him and Neismith, they should be able to give you more than 0 points if given 20 minutes of floor time. You have to at the very least show some developement, have a somewhat productive game every once and a while. Has Langford even scored in double digits once?

I don't know but from what I have seen (even in a small sample size) he has the potential to be one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. And he had surgery on his right wrist, which is his shooting hand - understandable if he's not scoring a ton of points quite yet..

[Hal14]

Instead of showing signs of getting better, Romeo is looking more and more like a wasted pick.

He had managed to score 4 points in his last 3 games as a starter. 2 of those points was a lucky tip in.

Romeo, Nesmith, Grant and Semi are trash. It’s sad.

Pritchard is the only bright spot in the last few years of Danny’s picks.

Such a stupid post. Time Lord (27th pick less than 3 years ago) is top 10 in the NBA in PER, FG%, TS%, BPM, offensive rating, defensive rating, rebounding % and blocks %.

What's sad is calling guys trash who are only 21 or 22 years old. Anyone with any basketball knowledge knows it typically takes at least 3 seasons before you can actually begin to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether a player is working out or now. Unless we want to give up on all of these guys and then have it come back to bite us in the a## like it did with Billups, Joe Johnson, Bruce Bowen, etc.

Those numbers are misleading when someone can’t stay on the floor. I agree with the premise of you’re argument also only Ainge used all of his picks instead of addressing his depth issue with veteran players, he’s relying on these picks to give meaningful contributions right away. It would be fine having one of the Nesmith/Langford/G Williams types to develope, but his whole bench is rookie contract guys giving you nothing. Anyway you spin it Ainge did a poor job with the roster.

Time Lord has played in 47 out of the Celtics 61 games. Out of the 14 he's missed, 4 of them were due to COVID and 1 was a non-COVID related illness. So he's only missed 9 out of 61 games to injury. He's missed the past few games with knee soreness - before that he had gone over 2 months without missing a game to injury.

Time Lord has played in more games this season than:

Joel Embiid
Tristan Thompson
Marcus Smart
Kemba Walker
Anthony Davis
LeBron James
Kristaps Porzingis
Evan Fournier
Rajon Rondo
James Harden
Kevin Durant
Kyrie Irving
Christian Wood
Aaron Gordon
Jimmy Butler
Karl-Anthony Towns
D'Angelo Russell

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

Langford is a pretty good defender but he's so bad offensively the Celtics shouldn't be playing him honestly. I know smart has issues but his defense is so good it can offset his bad offense.

That cannot be said for Langford. I know this is pretty much his rookie year but he's not going to have a very long career if his offense doesn't improve.

[greenroom31]

Langford is a pretty good defender but he's so bad offensively the Celtics shouldn't be playing him honestly. I know smart has issues but his defense is so good it can offset his bad offense.

That cannot be said for Langford. I know this is pretty much his rookie year but he's not going to have a very long career if his offense doesn't improve.

So we waited until April for Romeo to come back, and now that he's finally healthy and in game shape... he's played his way out of the rotation.



Gotta laugh about it or you might cry

[Hal14]

Langford is a pretty good defender but he's so bad offensively the Celtics shouldn't be playing him honestly. I know smart has issues but his defense is so good it can offset his bad offense.

That cannot be said for Langford. I know this is pretty much his rookie year but he's not going to have a very long career if his offense doesn't improve.

The 2 bolded parts seem to contradict each other.

How will his offense improve if we don't play him?

Our defense was terrible yesterday - the biggest weakness with our defense yesterday was slow on rotations / not getting out on their shooters...which Langford is really freaking good at. Last time we played the Hornets (April 4 when we beat them by 30), Langford played 12 minutes (would have played more but it was a blowout) and Hornets players shot 0/13 when defended by him. Miles Bridges looked way too comfortable out there yesterday. This is what Langford did to him on April 4:

Watch on YouTube

But yesterday Langford sits on the bench the entire game and doesn't go in until garbage time

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

Langford is a pretty good defender but he's so bad offensively the Celtics shouldn't be playing him honestly. I know smart has issues but his defense is so good it can offset his bad offense.

That cannot be said for Langford. I know this is pretty much his rookie year but he's not going to have a very long career if his offense doesn't improve.

The 2 bolded parts seem to contradict each other.

How will his offense improve if we don't play him?

Our defense was terrible yesterday - the biggest weakness with our defense yesterday was slow on rotations / not getting out on their shooters...which Langford is really freaking good at. Last time we played the Hornets (April 4 when we beat them by 30), Langford played 12 minutes (would have played more but it was a blowout) and Hornets players shot 0/13 when defended by him. Miles Bridges looked way too comfortable out there yesterday. This is what Langford did to him on April 4:

Watch on YouTube

But yesterday Langford sits on the bench the entire game and doesn't go in until garbage time

I don't disagree defense was an issue yesterday but it was just part of the problem. The offense wasn't great and quite frankly the team seemed pretty damn lazy as well.

I don't think those statements contradict each other. He either needs to do better in practice and show the coaching staff some improvements on offense, maybe then he will get a few minutes a game and score some points.

Send him down to the G- League next season to try to improve his offense. (Of course I don't know if a third year play can get sent down to the G League.)

If this team is healthy I think Langford is close to unplayable because his offensive so bad. You just can't have a guy shooting 29% while looking a bit lost on offense getting any meaningful minutes unless he's an absolute lockdown stud on defense.

[JediMasterRevan]

Langford is a pretty good defender but he's so bad offensively the Celtics shouldn't be playing him honestly. I know smart has issues but his defense is so good it can offset his bad offense.

That cannot be said for Langford. I know this is pretty much his rookie year but he's not going to have a very long career if his offense doesn't improve.

The 2 bolded parts seem to contradict each other.

How will his offense improve if we don't play him?

Our defense was terrible yesterday - the biggest weakness with our defense yesterday was slow on rotations / not getting out on their shooters...which Langford is really freaking good at. Last time we played the Hornets (April 4 when we beat them by 30), Langford played 12 minutes (would have played more but it was a blowout) and Hornets players shot 0/13 when defended by him. Miles Bridges looked way too comfortable out there yesterday. This is what Langford did to him on April 4:

Watch on YouTube

But yesterday Langford sits on the bench the entire game and doesn't go in until garbage time

I don't disagree defense was an issue yesterday but it was just part of the problem. The offense wasn't great and quite frankly the team seemed pretty damn lazy as well.

I don't think those statements contradict each other. He either needs to do better in practice and show the coaching staff some improvements on offense, maybe then he will get a few minutes a game and score some points.

Send him down to the G- League next season to try to improve his offense. (Of course I don't know if a third year play can get sent down to the G League.)

If this team is healthy I think Langford is close to unplayable because his offensive so bad. You just can't have a guy shooting 29% while looking a bit lost on offense getting any meaningful minutes unless he's an absolute lockdown stud on defense.

And Romeo is not anywhere near a lock down stud.

He is a worse MKG.

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

The 2 bolded parts seem to contradict each other.

How will his offense improve if we don't play him?

Our defense was terrible yesterday - the biggest weakness with our defense yesterday was slow on rotations / not getting out on their shooters...which Langford is really freaking good at. Last time we played the Hornets (April 4 when we beat them by 30), Langford played 12 minutes (would have played more but it was a blowout) and Hornets players shot 0/13 when defended by him. Miles Bridges looked way too comfortable out there yesterday. This is what Langford did to him on April 4:

Watch on YouTube

But yesterday Langford sits on the bench the entire game and doesn't go in until garbage time

I don't disagree defense was an issue yesterday but it was just part of the problem. The offense wasn't great and quite frankly the team seemed pretty damn lazy as well.

I don't think those statements contradict each other. He either needs to do better in practice and show the coaching staff some improvements on offense, maybe then he will get a few minutes a game and score some points.

Send him down to the G- League next season to try to improve his offense. (Of course I don't know if a third year play can get sent down to the G League.)

If this team is healthy I think Langford is close to unplayable because his offensive so bad. You just can't have a guy shooting 29% while looking a bit lost on offense getting any meaningful minutes unless he's an absolute lockdown stud on defense.

And Romeo is not anywhere near a lock down stud.

He is a worse MKG.

And that is why it's going to be tough to play him. Maybe if he was a three-point specialist as well kind of like a Bruce Bowen sort of player he may be able to get to the rotation.

Shooting 29% and 33% from three isn't going to get you a ton of playing time. Maybe that will change next season and he will figure it out but the reality is not every player is cut out to have a long NBA career.

[Fencer reregistered]

Next offseason is make or break for Langford's career. He needs to improve his offense to at least the level of "tolerably bad". Better would be to either improve his offense beyond that, or to somehow also improve his body so that his defense can be at a stud level rather than just "surprisingly good".

[Hal14]

I don't disagree defense was an issue yesterday but it was just part of the problem. The offense wasn't great and quite frankly the team seemed pretty damn lazy as well.

I don't think those statements contradict each other. He either needs to do better in practice and show the coaching staff some improvements on offense, maybe then he will get a few minutes a game and score some points.

Send him down to the G- League next season to try to improve his offense. (Of course I don't know if a third year play can get sent down to the G League.)

If this team is healthy I think Langford is close to unplayable because his offensive so bad. You just can't have a guy shooting 29% while looking a bit lost on offense getting any meaningful minutes unless he's an absolute lockdown stud on defense.

And Romeo is not anywhere near a lock down stud.

He is a worse MKG.

And that is why it's going to be tough to play him. Maybe if he was a three-point specialist as well kind of like a Bruce Bowen sort of player he may be able to get to the rotation.

Shooting 29% and 33% from three isn't going to get you a ton of playing time. Maybe that will change next season and he will figure it out but the reality is not every player is cut out to have a long NBA career.

Looking at shooting percentages you have to take with a grain of salt considering:

a) only 12 games played this year is too small of a sample size
b) You play a guy less than 10 minutes in a game, what do you think he's gonna do? Can you really put much weight in shooting percentages if he isn't really given a chance to get in a flow/rhythm out there? Out of the 12 games he's played in, he's played 10+ mins in only 8 of those games. So now our sample size is even smaller.
c) He had wrist surgery...on his right wrist, his shooting hand so understandable if his shot is off
d) Right before he returned to the lineup he was recovering from COVID..which obviously takes its toll. Tatum's shooting percentages were way down for weeks after he returned from COVID. Langford shot 44.8% from the floor in his 1 year of college ball, which was average for an NCAA player that year. Competition obviously is better in NBA, but the Celtics changed his shot so you can expect him to improve his shot so I'd say around 45% FG is fair to expect from him. These are all guys on the Celtics shooting 45% or worse: Tatum, Pritchard, Smart, Kemba, Fournier

[31to6]

Slinky drives and finishes are Langford's offensive strengths. He can be a playmaker.

Not a catch-and-shoot 3 guy, which is our default expectation for most players on this roster. Though hopefully he can develop there, I think his shot looks 'fine'.

But slicing to the rim is where we need him. Even if it means we run a damn play or two for him sometime this season!

[LuckyLeprechaun]

And Romeo is not anywhere near a lock down stud.

He is a worse MKG.

And that is why it's going to be tough to play him. Maybe if he was a three-point specialist as well kind of like a Bruce Bowen sort of player he may be able to get to the rotation.

Shooting 29% and 33% from three isn't going to get you a ton of playing time. Maybe that will change next season and he will figure it out but the reality is not every player is cut out to have a long NBA career.

Looking at shooting percentages you have to take with a grain of salt considering:

a) only 12 games played this year is too small of a sample size
b) You play a guy less than 10 minutes in a game, what do you think he's gonna do? Can you really put much weight in shooting percentages if he isn't really given a chance to get in a flow/rhythm out there? Out of the 12 games he's played in, he's played 10+ mins in only 8 of those games. So now our sample size is even smaller.
c) He had wrist surgery...on his right wrist, his shooting hand so understandable if his shot is off
d) Right before he returned to the lineup he was recovering from COVID..which obviously takes its toll. Tatum's shooting percentages were way down for weeks after he returned from COVID. Langford shot 44.8% from the floor in his 1 year of college ball, which was average for an NCAA player that year. Competition obviously is better in NBA, but the Celtics changed his shot so you can expect him to improve his shot so I'd say around 45% FG is fair to expect from him. These are all guys on the Celtics shooting 45% or worse: Tatum, Pritchard, Smart, Kemba, Fournier

As someone who watched a lot of IU in Romeo's freshman year, this is misleading. He was a lousy 27% from 3 in college and even before the injury he got in college he was not shooting well from outside at all. His 45% was mostly on drives to the basket which he was his biggest strength at that level.

He absolutely can get better at shooting as that is one thing that historically guys improve the most consistently as pros, but let's not pretend like he was a good shooter in college or before his injuries. He wasn't.

[cloverleaf]

And Romeo is not anywhere near a lock down stud.

He is a worse MKG.

And that is why it's going to be tough to play him. Maybe if he was a three-point specialist as well kind of like a Bruce Bowen sort of player he may be able to get to the rotation.

Shooting 29% and 33% from three isn't going to get you a ton of playing time. Maybe that will change next season and he will figure it out but the reality is not every player is cut out to have a long NBA career.

Looking at shooting percentages you have to take with a grain of salt considering:

a) only 12 games played this year is too small of a sample size
b) You play a guy less than 10 minutes in a game, what do you think he's gonna do? Can you really put much weight in shooting percentages if he isn't really given a chance to get in a flow/rhythm out there? Out of the 12 games he's played in, he's played 10+ mins in only 8 of those games. So now our sample size is even smaller.
c) He had wrist surgery...on his right wrist, his shooting hand so understandable if his shot is off
d) Right before he returned to the lineup he was recovering from COVID..which obviously takes its toll. Tatum's shooting percentages were way down for weeks after he returned from COVID. Langford shot 44.8% from the floor in his 1 year of college ball, which was average for an NCAA player that year. Competition obviously is better in NBA, but the Celtics changed his shot so you can expect him to improve his shot so I'd say around 45% FG is fair to expect from him. These are all guys on the Celtics shooting 4 5% or worse: Tatum, Pritchard, Smart, Kemba, Fournier

A total FG% like that doesn't really mean anything in the 3-ball era. Pritchard's at 42% from 3, 49% from 2, and 92% for FTs. He's a shooter and Langford is more of a slasher.

[Fencer reregistered]

My big worry after Romeo was drafted was that his highlight videos didn't show a lot of scoring versatility. So there was no reason for confidence that the few things he was undeniably good at (such as drives attacking the right side of the basket) would evolve into an effective package in the pros.

[djFan71]

We need a Slart drop by in this one. He loved Romeo. I guess I could just read the first few pages again... he's only got 40 pages over 2 years since he's been a mythical being for most of that time.

I've loved his defense until the Nets game. He looked a little lost on team concepts in that one. Then he magically didn't play yesterday. Methinks they're related.

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

And that is why it's going to be tough to play him. Maybe if he was a three-point specialist as well kind of like a Bruce Bowen sort of player he may be able to get to the rotation.

Shooting 29% and 33% from three isn't going to get you a ton of playing time. Maybe that will change next season and he will figure it out but the reality is not every player is cut out to have a long NBA career.

Looking at shooting percentages you have to take with a grain of salt considering:

a) only 12 games played this year is too small of a sample size
b) You play a guy less than 10 minutes in a game, what do you think he's gonna do? Can you really put much weight in shooting percentages if he isn't really given a chance to get in a flow/rhythm out there? Out of the 12 games he's played in, he's played 10+ mins in only 8 of those games. So now our sample size is even smaller.
c) He had wrist surgery...on his right wrist, his shooting hand so understandable if his shot is off
d) Right before he returned to the lineup he was recovering from COVID..which obviously takes its toll. Tatum's shooting percentages were way down for weeks after he returned from COVID. Langford shot 44.8% from the floor in his 1 year of college ball, which was average for an NCAA player that year. Competition obviously is better in NBA, but the Celtics changed his shot so you can expect him to improve his shot so I'd say around 45% FG is fair to expect from him. These are all guys on the Celtics shooting 45% or worse: Tatum, Pritchard, Smart, Kemba, Fournier

As someone who watched a lot of IU in Romeo's freshman year, this is misleading. He was a lousy 27% from 3 in college and even before the injury he got in college he was not shooting well from outside at all. His 45% was mostly on drives to the basket which he was his biggest strength at that level.

He absolutely can get better at shooting as that is one thing that historically guys improve the most consistently as pros, but let's not pretend like he was a good shooter in college or before his injuries. He wasn't.

I don't know a ton about college players but I do know it was mentioned more than a few times how bad of shooter he was in college.

It completely makes sense now what you posted. He was shooting so well driving to the hoop because he was faster and more skilled than almost all the players he was up against.

Obviously with the talent in the NBA on a different level clearly he can't drive to the hoop the way he used to so he's relying on his shooting which he was never really good at to begin with.