Celtics exposed?

[Curmudgeon]

Celts are a playoff team but the interior defense is definitely an issue. Kanter isn't going to start though, they'll have someone in there for defensive purposes, whether it ends up being RW3, Grant Williams, Theis, Poirier, or whoever. There's been one preseason game so lots of things to work out but losing Al makes it really tough defensively. What I'm pretty sure of though is that Marcus Smart has to start next to Kemba and right now it looks like Hayward would be the odd one out of the starting lineup. I think Tatum and Brown can play better defense than Hayward and I'm not sure they need Gordon's offense with the starting unit.

Grant Williams is 6'7" on a good day. There's no way he could start at the 5.

LOL, Draymond Green is 6-5 (with the new "honest" measurements) and the Warriors won multiple championships with him playing center a fair portion of the time. I'm not saying Williams is the next Draymond Green, but the game has changed. It's the "sprawl ball" era and the game is about spacing and shooting the trey. You don't need multiple seven footers to get all of the long rebounds, but you do need guys who are quick to the ball.

Theis (who is an honest 6-8 with long arms) will start at center for the Celtics and he'll do fine. Kanter will come off the bench. I would also like Stevens to experiment with a a Poirier/Grant Williams combo in the front court. That pairing looked very good against the Cavs last night. Yes, I know, it was just the Cavs, so there's no point in getting excited.

[SmartWentCrazy]

so nurse would be hired before stevens today? by an organization if a team could have both?....no chance.

i'm not even high on stevens right now and i think he did a terrible job last year. that was one year however and i look at the total volume of work and the situations both were in and the superstars on each team.

i think kyrie **** all over nick nurse way worse than he did to stevens and i think stevens would thrive coaching a superstar like kawhi and gritty players like siakim and gasol and even vanvleet.

I think this is bold and selling Nurse short— Pop, easily the best coach in the league, struggled to deal with Kawhi the season before. Nurse did an unbelievable job here.

i don't think kawhi had any issues with pops coaching, i think kawhi didn't like how they handled his injury and how pops guys like parker commented on it. i also think kawhi was hell bent on getting out of SA and to LA anyway shape or form and he was also coming to toronto after being slandered by the public and accused of dogging an injury after only playing 9 games and if he acted out or didn't fit in he would be labeled. wrong or right.

kawhi and pop had a pretty damn good run and won a championship together, he also helped and was pivotal role in kawhi developing like he did. so i don't think they really struggled in terms of basketball it was more behind the scenes differing of opinions on how business was conducted.

so you think it's selling nurse short, i think his impact was inflated he inherited a team that was perennially in the playoffs and although they struggled they took demar away and replaced him with a top 3 player IMO in kawhi, at worst top 5. the team's infrastructure was there from a team who made an ECF appearance 2 seasons ago and i think the big difference maker in the end result was kawhi- elite superstar player not nick nurse 1st time head coach.

it's funny when you get a top 5 elite elite levelheaded player like kawhi and add him to a good team how much it makes a difference.

Nurse was a big reason they were so good the year before— he was the architect behind their revamped offense. I think you are really, truly selling him short— hes been incredibly innovative both offensively and defensively and won a title.

To be honest, it sounds like were talking past each other and not going to agree so I will tap out.

[Curmudgeon]

I thought Nick Nurse did an excellent job last year-- better than Stevens, although I blame last year's debacle on Irving. If Ainge had acquired Kawhi instead of Kyrie, the Celtics would have won the East.

[MagicBagley18]

I think this is bold and selling Nurse short— Pop, easily the best coach in the league, struggled to deal with Kawhi the season before. Nurse did an unbelievable job here.

i don't think kawhi had any issues with pops coaching, i think kawhi didn't like how they handled his injury and how pops guys like parker commented on it. i also think kawhi was hell bent on getting out of SA and to LA anyway shape or form and he was also coming to toronto after being slandered by the public and accused of dogging an injury after only playing 9 games and if he acted out or didn't fit in he would be labeled. wrong or right.

kawhi and pop had a pretty damn good run and won a championship together, he also helped and was pivotal role in kawhi developing like he did. so i don't think they really struggled in terms of basketball it was more behind the scenes differing of opinions on how business was conducted.

so you think it's selling nurse short, i think his impact was inflated he inherited a team that was perennially in the playoffs and although they struggled they took demar away and replaced him with a top 3 player IMO in kawhi, at worst top 5. the team's infrastructure was there from a team who made an ECF appearance 2 seasons ago and i think the big difference maker in the end result was kawhi- elite superstar player not nick nurse 1st time head coach.

it's funny when you get a top 5 elite elite levelheaded player like kawhi and add him to a good team how much it makes a difference.

Nurse was a big reason they were so good the year before— he was the architect behind their revamped offense. I think you are really, truly selling him short— hes been incredibly innovative both offensively and defensively and won a title.

To be honest, it sounds like were talking past each other and not going to agree so I will tap out.

I’ve followed them and him I understand the impact he had offense but I think the next level jumpto champion was because of kawhi but It’s cool we mostly always agree so we can agree to disagree here.

[Gooner]

Except that makes zero sense as a comparison. Nurse has coached a full NBA season.

After one year guys like Tyron Lue were being hailed as great coaches. One year is not enough. You need to show it over 3 or 4 seasons imo

Sure, but again, objectively, there's no way to say Stevens is better than Nurse.

Nurse just coached a team to the championship. Regardless if he had Kawhi or not, that's something that can't be ignored.

Absolutely, it was a team that was seen as a failure in the playoffs previously. Kawhi changed the dynamic mostly, but you can't win a championship without great coaching. Stevens is a decent basketball mind, even though his offense is nothing special. He knows how to reach young players and make them play hard. But we still don't know if he is a leader.

[Gooner]

I thought Nick Nurse did an excellent job last year-- better than Stevens, although I blame last year's debacle on Irving. If Ainge had acquired Kawhi instead of Kyrie, the Celtics would have won the East.

I'm not sure about that. Kawhi wouldn't talk as much as Kyrie, but you would still have the same issue with too many players at same positions wanting to be stars, and Terry Rozier chucking because he sees himself as a top point guard. Brad couldn't handle that. Kyrie is gone now, so we'll see what the real issue is. For me Kyrie wasn't at the core of the issue, but he added fuel to the fire and burned the whole house down in the end.

[Snotbubbles]

Yeah, I see your point and agree that your depth issues at C were huge last year. Horford helps that, but then if you start moving Harris or Simmons to the 4, you create depth issues elsewhere, especially with the loss of Butler. The bottom line here is that Horford can only do so much - his mpg have been trending down as it is. He can only back up Embiid at the 5 for so many minutes, and he can only play the 4 alongside Embiid for so many minutes. If BB starts shuffling pieces around, it could create holes elsewhere. Anyway, I think that's a minor concern compared to the upside of getting Horford, at least in the near term.

The Sixers have a pretty position-less lineup. Richardson is the smallest starter at 6-6. Then the first three off the bench appear to be Mike Scott (6-8), James Ennis (6-7) and Thybulle (6-5). So really, apart from who is playing center, the other 4 position should be fairly flexible defensively.

That doesn't really change my point about it creating possible overall depth issues elsewhere. You gain depth at the 4 and 5 but absolutely lose it at the 2 and 3 with Butler gone.

But they lost Butler and got Richardson, lost Redick and got Horford (which moves Harris to the 3). They returned Scott and Ennis, so the depth is the same as it was for last years playoffs, it's just that Harris is now playing the 3 instead of the 4. Can Harris handle the minutes at the 3? We'll see. He was a 3 early in his career before everyone started moving to small-ball lineups.

[XxIronChainzxX]

After one year guys like Tyron Lue were being hailed as great coaches. One year is not enough. You need to show it over 3 or 4 seasons imo

Sure, but again, objectively, there's no way to say Stevens is better than Nurse.

Nurse just coached a team to the championship. Regardless if he had Kawhi or not, that's something that can't be ignored.

Absolutely, it was a team that was seen as a failure in the playoffs previously. Kawhi changed the dynamic mostly, but you can't win a championship without great coaching. Stevens is a decent basketball mind, even though his offense is nothing special. He knows how to reach young players and make them play hard. But we still don't know if he is a leader.

Even some of his troll coaching was great. For example I loved the Box and 1 in the Finals because it was also a psychological shot across the bow.

[ITYSL]

The Sixers have a pretty position-less lineup. Richardson is the smallest starter at 6-6. Then the first three off the bench appear to be Mike Scott (6-8), James Ennis (6-7) and Thybulle (6-5). So really, apart from who is playing center, the other 4 position should be fairly flexible defensively.

That doesn't really change my point about it creating possible overall depth issues elsewhere. You gain depth at the 4 and 5 but absolutely lose it at the 2 and 3 with Butler gone.

But they lost Butler and got Richardson, lost Redick and got Horford (which moves Harris to the 3). They returned Scott and Ennis, so the depth is the same as it was for last years playoffs, it's just that Harris is now playing the 3 instead of the 4. Can Harris handle the minutes at the 3? We'll see. He was a 3 early in his career before everyone started moving to small-ball lineups.

Yes, their depth is the same, but it's better in one area and worse in another. That's all I'm saying. They lost Butler (a 2/3) and gained Richardson (a 2/3). They lost Redick (a 2) and gained Horford (a 4/5). So they addressed a need for depth at the 4/5 but may have depth issues at the 2/3. You can talk chemistry and everything, but I don't think anyone outside of Philly would say that losing the best of those four, a top 15 player in Butler, is anything but a loss of depth at the 2/3.

[Prokorov]

The Sixers have a pretty position-less lineup. Richardson is the smallest starter at 6-6. Then the first three off the bench appear to be Mike Scott (6-8), James Ennis (6-7) and Thybulle (6-5). So really, apart from who is playing center, the other 4 position should be fairly flexible defensively.

That doesn't really change my point about it creating possible overall depth issues elsewhere. You gain depth at the 4 and 5 but absolutely lose it at the 2 and 3 with Butler gone.

But they lost Butler and got Richardson, lost Redick and got Horford (which moves Harris to the 3). They returned Scott and Ennis, so the depth is the same as it was for last years playoffs, it's just that Harris is now playing the 3 instead of the 4. Can Harris handle the minutes at the 3? We'll see. He was a 3 early in his career before everyone started moving to small-ball lineups.

i think its more the dynamic then it is the talent swaps/calibur players

Butler did alot of offense creation especially in the playoffs. can richardson match that?

Horford and Reddick both stretch the floor but in very different ways

[Snotbubbles]

That doesn't really change my point about it creating possible overall depth issues elsewhere. You gain depth at the 4 and 5 but absolutely lose it at the 2 and 3 with Butler gone.

But they lost Butler and got Richardson, lost Redick and got Horford (which moves Harris to the 3). They returned Scott and Ennis, so the depth is the same as it was for last years playoffs, it's just that Harris is now playing the 3 instead of the 4. Can Harris handle the minutes at the 3? We'll see. He was a 3 early in his career before everyone started moving to small-ball lineups.

i think its more the dynamic then it is the talent swaps/calibur players

Butler did alot of offense creation especially in the playoffs. can richardson match that?

Horford and Reddick both stretch the floor but in very different ways

Butler's offense creation was done to the detriment of Simmons game. I think it's pretty obvious that Simmons needs to take the next step in his development. Butler didn't really fit very well with the young pieces the Sixers had. So Elton Brand accumulated guys who can play off the ball so that Simmons' game can flourish. Jimmy Bulter wasn't that type of player. He needed the ball in his hands. So my response to you is that the Sixers are very different from last year, but I think the pieces fit together much better.

[Prokorov]

But they lost Butler and got Richardson, lost Redick and got Horford (which moves Harris to the 3). They returned Scott and Ennis, so the depth is the same as it was for last years playoffs, it's just that Harris is now playing the 3 instead of the 4. Can Harris handle the minutes at the 3? We'll see. He was a 3 early in his career before everyone started moving to small-ball lineups.

i think its more the dynamic then it is the talent swaps/calibur players

Butler did alot of offense creation especially in the playoffs. can richardson match that?

Horford and Reddick both stretch the floor but in very different ways

Butler's offense creation was done to the detriment of Simmons game. I think it's pretty obvious that Simmons needs to take the next step in his development. Butler didn't really fit very well with the young pieces the Sixers had. So Elton Brand accumulated guys who can play off the ball so that Simmons' game can flourish. Jimmy Bulter wasn't that type of player. He needed the ball in his hands. So my response to you is that the Sixers are very different from last year, but I think the pieces fit together much better.

Is that really accurate (they added more offball guys point)?

Butler 22% usage with Philly. Richardson was 21% last year. Butler did have less catch and shoot threes (78% of his attempts from three vs 84% for richardson) but mostly they are on-ball players who can catch and shoot in similar fashion

I dont know that id say that horford is more of an offball/catch and shoot guy that reddick is, although both stretch the floor.

I'm fine with the idea moving butler allows Simmons to grow. but whats that process look like? is it day 1? is it january?

my point isnt philly will be worse or be bad or not be the easts best team in the end. my point is they arent a lock to have the 2nd most regular season wins due to all the change and the lack of depth and embiids injury ihistory/maintenance.

id say they are better then toronto but i could see toronto having more wins. maybe brooklyn maybe indy...

[Darth Celtic]

They're just tossed in with the elite without having earned it.

Eastern Conference Finals 2 of the last 3 years?

And the Raps have been 2 of the last 4. And have won 50 games how many years in a row?

But the talk around the Raps is solely around loosing Kawhi. The talk around the Celtics isn't around losing their entire frontcourt or having a razor thin bench, it's around Kemba and the growth of the young kids.

Funny thing is I actually like this Celtics team. I love Kemba, I believe in Tatum, love Brown and Smart is my spirit animal.

But having them almost unanimously ranked above the Pacers, Nets and Raptors for no other reason than they're the Celtics is ridiculous.

Celtics bench missing the teams top 7 players just beat the Cavs starters by 20. So, paper thin is maybe pushing it.

[Duffman100]

Eastern Conference Finals 2 of the last 3 years?

And the Raps have been 2 of the last 4. And have won 50 games how many years in a row?

But the talk around the Raps is solely around loosing Kawhi. The talk around the Celtics isn't around losing their entire frontcourt or having a razor thin bench, it's around Kemba and the growth of the young kids.

Funny thing is I actually like this Celtics team. I love Kemba, I believe in Tatum, love Brown and Smart is my spirit animal.

But having them almost unanimously ranked above the Pacers, Nets and Raptors for no other reason than they're the Celtics is ridiculous.

Celtics bench missing the teams top 7 players just beat the Cavs starters by 20. So, paper thin is maybe pushing it.

a) It's the preseason.
b) It's the Cavs.

[Harry Garris]

Celts are a playoff team but the interior defense is definitely an issue. Kanter isn't going to start though, they'll have someone in there for defensive purposes, whether it ends up being RW3, Grant Williams, Theis, Poirier, or whoever. There's been one preseason game so lots of things to work out but losing Al makes it really tough defensively. What I'm pretty sure of though is that Marcus Smart has to start next to Kemba and right now it looks like Hayward would be the odd one out of the starting lineup. I think Tatum and Brown can play better defense than Hayward and I'm not sure they need Gordon's offense with the starting unit.

Grant Williams is 6'7" on a good day. There's no way he could start at the 5.

LOL, Draymond Green is 6-5 (with the new "honest" measurements) and the Warriors won multiple championships with him playing center a fair portion of the time. I'm not saying Williams is the next Draymond Green, but the game has changed. It's the "sprawl ball" era and the game is about spacing and shooting the trey. You don't need multiple seven footers to get all of the long rebounds, but you do need guys who are quick to the ball.

Theis (who is an honest 6-8 with long arms) will start at center for the Celtics and he'll do fine. Kanter will come off the bench. I would also like Stevens to experiment with a a Poirier/Grant Williams combo in the front court. That pairing looked very good against the Cavs last night. Yes, I know, it was just the Cavs, so there's no point in getting excited.

Draymond doesn't start at the 5 outside of a couple games in the playoffs each year. Yes there are a few guys in the NBA who are Grant Williams' size who can play limited minutes at center, but that is because they are elite athletes or defensive geniuses like Draymond. Grant Williams is definitely not a great athlete and whether he has the instincts to be able to protect the rim despite his athletic shortcomings remains to be seen I guess.

[Curmudgeon]

Grant Williams' elite physical attribute is strength. He was by far the strongest player at the Chicago predraft camp. Can he play center in the NBA? Who knows? I doub if he will play much center this year, since the Celtics already have five of them (Theis, Kanter, Williams, Poirier, Fall).

[Darth Celtic]

Funny how the BSPN analysts couldn't see this coming .No interior defense... You lose Morris, Horford, and Baynes, replace that with Kanter and what did they expect?Instead of talking about the Celts being a top 4 Eastern team and whether Kemba could replace Kyrie , they needed to be asking if they can even make the playoffs as a "donut" team.

25 pages of not aging well at all to realize in the end this thread was made by a Knicks fan.....

[Curmudgeon]

People are understandably skeptical of the Celtics after Kyrie's defection and Horford's departure, especially after last year's team was predicted to win the EC. My advice to them is to hold their bets, because this year's early vibe is completely different. Unlike last year's team, which was terrible in the preseason, this year's group is playing good, unselfish basketball.

[LewisnotMiller]

People are understandably skeptical of the Celtics after Kyrie's defection and Horford's departure, especially after last year's team was predicted to win the EC. My advice to them is to hold their bets, because this year's early vibe is completely different. Unlike last year's team, which was terrible in the preseason, this year's group is playing good, unselfish basketball.

To me, their ceiling looks lower than last years team, but the chance of reaching that ceiling is way, way higher.
Plus, I will have less chance of throwing my tv remote through a window in frustration. I can handle winning and losing, but I'm too old school to handle some of the crap last year in terms of execution and off-court drama.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't know about the off-court stuff, but the on-court stuff was plain to see. I could go into a detailed analysis, but the short description is that they played bad basketball. All dribbling, no passing on offense. Phony hustle on defense. It was embarrassing, really.