ImageImageImage

Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman

User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#1 » by campybatman » Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:27 am

Winning the NBA championship is far more important. People tend to remember you when you've won a championship. The regular season is the regular season.

It could depend on how much Cleveland and Orlando push Boston, and how much San Antonio and Denver or Portland push Los Angeles. Otherwise, there isn't really a point or a need to win seventy-two or seventy-three games during the regular season unless you really want to clinch home court advantage throughout the playoffs, convincingly.

A team like Orlando could have a chip on their shoulders and desire to dominate this season. Still, winning seventy or more games shouldn't be a serious goal. If it is... Then your team isn't looking at the bigger picture. Sometimes, records just get broken without you trying to break them. That could be the case here for either one of the best teams in the NBA this season.



"'Oh definitely. Definitely, playing with those three other guys, also combining that with the guys we have on the bench, I think we can definitely can. Me personally, I think we can get that Bulls record. You know we have the talent for it. We have the will for it and ... I think we have the defense for it."



Because honestly, I really do feel that. That was a good team. They had some [Hall of Famers] on there, but we have a few on this team, too."


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba,195434



"I don't want the players to get that as a goal," he told the LA Daily News. "That's not a goal. The goal is to go through the season in an orderly fashion and build momentum through the end of the year. I think it just takes so much out of you to push that all the time, to just keep pushing it.

"A lot of things could happen."


http://www.nesn.com/2009/10/phil-jackso ... -wins.html



Image
ImageImage



Image



Top 10 Teams in NBA History
http://www.nba.com/history/toptenteams_index.html



This list doesn't include the sixty-six win 2007-2008 championship Boston Celtics team, or the sixty-five win 2008-2009 championship Los Angeles Lakers team. Or, obviously, the best team(s) this season.
PPAW4Life
Banned User
Posts: 1,546
And1: 1
Joined: Nov 23, 2007

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#2 » by PPAW4Life » Wed Nov 4, 2009 7:09 am

No I don't think that's the teams goal by any means.

I think their goal is to be the best damn defensive team they can be and if that leads to winning 72 games or more then so be it.

We all know that when it comes to the playoffs it's almost a crap shoot...who is playing the hottest....who is healthiest....who's team has homecourt....etc.

I'm damn proud of this team and the identity it instills.
User avatar
Joselo16
Veteran
Posts: 2,594
And1: 16
Joined: May 10, 2004
Location: Springfield, MA

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#3 » by Joselo16 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 7:33 am

Exactly what PPAW4Life wrote! I don't know why its such a big deal! I don't think their only goal is to just win 72 games. They are playing to win every game they play, just like every other team in the league. They also have a goal (which I believe they hold a little higher) in that they want to be known as the best defensive team in league history, but the highest team goal is definitely #18! Teams can have multiple goals, right!

The best defense in league history could lead to best record in history, along the way to a championship!!! I don't see anything wrong here!

Gotta love these team goals as opposed to hoping to suck bad enough to get the #1 overall pick! Hows Greg Oden doing? Is he still developing?
Image
You have just been Perk'd!!!
Jimmy76
RealGM
Posts: 14,548
And1: 9
Joined: May 01, 2009

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#4 » by Jimmy76 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:02 am

I think you guys should focus more on staying healthy than trying to win as many regular season games as possible

Id put a an absolute 36 minute cap on the minutes of pierce, ray, and especially garnett and ideally play them less than that

rings are whats important nothing else
User avatar
Joselo16
Veteran
Posts: 2,594
And1: 16
Joined: May 10, 2004
Location: Springfield, MA

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#5 » by Joselo16 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:35 am

Yes we want them fresh for the playoffs, but why limit their minutes now when they just started playing, if anything limit them after the playoff spot (ideally #1 seed) is secured. Injuries will always happen and KG didn't injure himself because he was tired while Ray and Paul didn't play that bad in the playoffs last year after playing all those minutes. In my belief the fact that we have a legit bench this year as opposed to last, will prove to be very beneficial to the Big 3's health! Plus if we keep blowing teams out it won't even matter!
Image
You have just been Perk'd!!!
BillessuR6
General Manager
Posts: 8,786
And1: 2,614
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
 

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#6 » by BillessuR6 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:43 am

The only goal this team has is winning the championship! No one is really thinking about 72 wins...
sunshinekids99
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,745
And1: 229
Joined: Apr 10, 2001

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#7 » by sunshinekids99 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:51 am

Goal should just be the one seed overall. Unless of course the Celtics have injury issues like last season. There is no reason to even think about 72 wins.
Image
User avatar
campybatman
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,100
And1: 185
Joined: Apr 19, 2007

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#8 » by campybatman » Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:05 am

Obviously, the national media need a "story." Personally, I think no team should want to burn themselves out chasing a likely unachievable goal.

When you put that out there, you might be speaking for yourself. Because all the players and coaching staff that were here before Wallace presumingly want to get back to the NBA Finals.

The Boston Celtics play like a selfless team.

It's alright to feel confident, but don't over do it. Hopefully, Rasheed won't talk about it again.
Kefa461
RealGM
Posts: 12,530
And1: 430
Joined: Jul 03, 2003
Location: Member of Celtic Nation since '64
       

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#9 » by Kefa461 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:27 am

The goal is to win every game.......









8-)
WE ARE CELTIC NATION
17 TITLES, ON TO #18.
User avatar
MyInsatiableOne
General Manager
Posts: 9,319
And1: 180
Joined: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Midwest via New England
Contact:
     

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#10 » by MyInsatiableOne » Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:42 am

Let's just get HCA and win the title! :rock: :rocking: :rockon:
It's still 17 to 11!!!!
sam_I_am
RealGM
Posts: 16,722
And1: 9,508
Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#11 » by sam_I_am » Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:46 am

I don't think the goal is to win 72 games. I think what the players are saying to the world with Rasheed's declaration is that they know what they have in the locker room and that KG, Allen, Pierce and Wallace - who have seen a lot of teams - know how freaking good this roster is.

It is no stretch to say this team could win 72 games because it is an incredibly talented team. Could the 72 win Bulls bench ever outscore the starters 62-43? I seriously doubt it.
"I think the criticism's stupid," Stevens said. "So I don't care. I'm with Jaylen (Brown) on that. Those two had achieved more than most 25 and 26 year olds ever had. I'd rather be in the mix and have my guts ripped out than suck."
User avatar
BIG EDDIE
Rookie
Posts: 1,067
And1: 12
Joined: Sep 08, 2001
Location: Z

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#12 » by BIG EDDIE » Wed Nov 4, 2009 12:45 pm

Kefa461 wrote:The goal is to win every game.......



8-)


Truth said right there. And it's pretty obvious, the goal is to win the next game. So for now, the goal is 6-0.
Of course there will be some situions where Doc needs to decide whether to bring in Garnett or Pierce in a close game, or let them rest a bit, but I think Boston has enough weapons to have a serious winning chance against any given team, on any given floor.
So yeah, the goal is 82-0. After a loss it will be 81-1 and so on.
Right now, the Celts are looking as good as the 72-win Bulls, and you have to admit, that you somehow measure them by the 72 wins. Were they better than the 97-98 Bulls? Maybe not, but still you are talking about the 95-96 Bulls and not the 97-98 Bulls as probably the best team ever.
Life may not be the party we hoped for but while we are here we might as well dance!
User avatar
Joselo16
Veteran
Posts: 2,594
And1: 16
Joined: May 10, 2004
Location: Springfield, MA

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#13 » by Joselo16 » Wed Nov 4, 2009 1:42 pm

"The goal is 82-0. After a loss it will be 81-1 and so on" by BIG EDDIE

Right on, thats why I don't understand why its such a big thing with the media when its the same goal every team sets for themselves! Is it cause Rasheed was the one that said it or because it was said in the first place? I could care less record wise, as long as #18 ends up in the garden!
Image
You have just been Perk'd!!!
GuyClinch
RealGM
Posts: 13,345
And1: 1,478
Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#14 » by GuyClinch » Wed Nov 4, 2009 5:22 pm

You still want HCA. And if your close to 72 though and it doesn't matter you still play for it, IMHO. A patriot like doom is not guaranteed. If you have to play your starters like 10 extra games then no.. but like one game for immortality - hell ya.

Pete
User avatar
ParticleMan
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 15,071
And1: 9,074
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
     

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#15 » by ParticleMan » Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:21 pm

it shouldn't be a goal but if we stay healthy i think we will win 72.

this team is a defensive monster, and has enough weapons on O that it shouldn't have more than 10 losses.
sam_I_am
RealGM
Posts: 16,722
And1: 9,508
Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#16 » by sam_I_am » Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:35 pm

Lets say at the end of the season Doc has Paul, Ray and KG in street clothes. How many games is Perk-Wallace-Daniels-House-Rondo going to lose? Like last night.... you rest the starters and the reserves come in and blow the team out anyway.
"I think the criticism's stupid," Stevens said. "So I don't care. I'm with Jaylen (Brown) on that. Those two had achieved more than most 25 and 26 year olds ever had. I'd rather be in the mix and have my guts ripped out than suck."
GuyClinch
RealGM
Posts: 13,345
And1: 1,478
Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#17 » by GuyClinch » Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:44 pm

Sure the bench can win alot of games - and if you had a run of games against lower level teams you could play the bench. But I think that if you had a scenario with an up and coming team trying for playoff seedings and you needed only one or two wins to reach that magical number you absolutely go for it. Your not assured Patriot like doom and depending on how you used your guys during the regular season they might not be on the verge of "burning out." The way the C's are going they might want the practice!

Pete
User avatar
Bad-Thoma
Head Coach
Posts: 7,199
And1: 10,070
Joined: Feb 22, 2006
Location: Still riding proud on the C's bandwagon

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal 

Post#18 » by Bad-Thoma » Thu Nov 5, 2009 12:13 am

It's a rare occasion that I fully agree with GuyClinch, but I must give him his due here, right on Guy.

Return to Boston Celtics