KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

Celtics looked strong vs Wizards in game 1. Boston shoots a TON of threes, which I'm not for. When they worked the ball inside, it opened up better quality shots outside which was great to see.

Rm why are you not for taking threes? Celtics have good enough shooters to launch a large number of them imo.

Personally I don't watch much NBA but with my injury I have nothing to do and have been watching all the Celts playoff games.

I really like Smart and Bradley and Horford. IT is an amazing scorer but I wonder if a team can win with him as its main offensive option given how badly height effects his rebounding and D.

Def not as good as the 07-11 Celtics tho. I remember watching them for the first time and the Defense and ball movement were just otherworldly for someone who was used to watching CBB games for basketball the past decade or so it was mind blowing

I don't know about you guys but I'm more excited to see which way the ping pong balls bounce tomorrow night than whether the Celtics can win game 7 tonight for the right to lose to Cleveland.

Kelly the X factor.

STC wrote:I don't know about you guys but I'm more excited to see which way the ping pong balls bounce tomorrow night than whether the Celtics can win game 7 tonight for the right to lose to Cleveland.

I just want to see them competitive ... I know people keep talking about the Cleveland series as a known loss, and I'm ok with that, but even if they lose 4-0, or 4-1, I'd like to see 2-3 of those losses be competitive games, reasonably close in the 4th quarter with Cleveland squaking it out or even pulling away. I'd be very disappointed if the C's get absolutely demolished in a short series.

rjsuperfly66 wrote:

STC wrote:I don't know about you guys but I'm more excited to see which way the ping pong balls bounce tomorrow night than whether the Celtics can win game 7 tonight for the right to lose to Cleveland.

I just want to see them competitive ... I know people keep talking about the Cleveland series as a known loss, and I'm ok with that, but even if they lose 4-0, or 4-1, I'd like to see 2-3 of those losses be competitive games, reasonably close in the 4th quarter with Cleveland squaking it out or even pulling away. I'd be very disappointed if the C's get absolutely demolished in a short series.

Agree, getting blown out in the ECF does nothing to show that they may be a piece away from being a legit championship contender. A good showing in the ECF (even if it is losing close, competitive games) will go a long way in attracting players to help strengthen the roster.

Regardless, it is going to be fascinating to see how the ping-pong balls bounce tonight and how it ultimately impacts the evolution and development of the roster.

I think the C's are destined for a draft-build, which I think I'm coming around more now on than I was before ... If the C's land a marquee FA (lets say Hayward), and can go IT + Hayward + Horford, and now they have the drafted guys that go Brown + 2017 Top 4 + 2018 Top 4, they might have a shot at having a team with two different sets of a "Big 3," the present Big 3 and the Future Big 3. Now, I don't think the present Big 3 are good enough to win a Championship, but if the other guys can grow around them, that might be enough to "win now" and win 5 years from now. I guess the problem with that is what do they do with the spare parts? Smart, Crowder, Bradley, Olynyk, and Rozier all seem to have some value, but not enough to make a substantial deal without trading most, if not all of those pieces plus a pick. But if you keep them, they'll likely all hit FA, command $15-$20 mil per, and leave Boston who won't be able to support a current Big 3 and a future Big 3. But is that a risk worth taking? If anything, hopefully they can move 1 or 2 of them to fill a hole, but I don't even think they view rebounding/defense as a potential hole, because they stashed Zizic from last year's draft who at 6'11, projects as a major rebounder, and while raw, projects in the same light as Nurkic and Jokic.

Celtics win the Lottery and nab the #1 Pick in the Draft
Bring on the Cavs

Everyone is saying that Fultz will be one of the best guards drafted in a while. Funny to think we were recruiting him a year ago.
Let the Lakers have their hype, media attention, and $495 shoes, and the Celtics will add to their ECF roster.

I'm really torn between Fultz and Ball. Ultimately I think the Ball family is such a distraction you should go with Fultz unless your convinced he is a top 5 player in the league and you can somehow manage him and his father.

The problem with ball is how much has his father rubbed off on his kid? I could easily see him playing in China 5 years from now while his family fighting bankruptcy while attempting some insane antitrust suit against the NBA.

Does it bother anyone that Fultz and Washington went 9-22 last year,
and Lorenzo Romar got fired?
I made it a point to watch late games when Washington played,
to see what Fultz was about.
Good shooter and ball handler.
However, unlike any transcendent players, he did not
make the players around him, better.
His body language would revert to sad sack mode when
things weren't going well.
I realize he's young, but I found it off putting.
Jackson from Kansas is actually more what the
Celts need.
He's a little raw, but very talented.
So many guards, and no real interior game,
no rim protector.
How many times do opponents just drive right to the basket
on them?
If they could sign Hayward, at least it would give them
a scorer at different points on the floor, besides Thomas.

It's tough to say ... I like Josh Jackson, but he's a guy who made positive contributions on a team that probably would have made the Sweet 16 with or without him. If you put him on a bad team, or a team with a mediocre roster, would his interactions/reactions resemble that of Fultz? And vice versa, how would Fultz' attitude and playmaking ability been if he played on a team with a POY-candidate like Frank Mason, Devonte Graham, etc?

rodfromcranston wrote:Does it bother anyone that Fultz and Washington went 9-22 last year,
and Lorenzo Romar got fired?
I made it a point to watch late games when Washington played,
to see what Fultz was about.
Good shooter and ball handler.
However, unlike any transcendent players, he did not
make the players around him, better.
His body language would revert to sad sack mode when
things weren't going well.
I realize he's young, but I found it off putting.
Jackson from Kansas is actually more what the
Celts need.
He's a little raw, but very talented.
So many guards, and no real interior game,
no rim protector.
How many times do opponents just drive right to the basket
on them?
If they could sign Hayward, at least it would give them
a scorer at different points on the floor, besides Thomas.

I'd be more worried if there was a stronger correlation between team success in the college game vs. the NBA. Like, Carmelo Anthony won an NCAA championship, but hasn't improved his defense in X years of being in the league. Kevin Durant was a skinny guy who looked like only a scorer, on an average team, and he's now one of the league's better defenders too. (To just cherry pick a couple players that jumped to my head.) I think it's more important to get a feel for the player in interviews and workouts, and watching tape.

I was very disappointed, I felt the other night was a complete F performance.
If I had to scale:
A: Win
B: Competitive To The End
C: Competitive For At Least a Half
D: Competitive For At Least a Quarter
F: Non-Competitive After a Quarter
The way the game played out the other night, it was basically over after 10 minutes.
All I would like is an average B/B- performance, is that so much to ask?

if the other night was a disappointment imagine what Friday night is ????

72-31 at the half, Cleveland leads in Boston, unbelievable. Greatest half time deficit in the history of NBA Playoff Basketball.

Stink, stank, stunk!!!!!
Disgraceful effort.

This may be over in 3 games. Why wait?

Wait until next year. With Thomas looking hobbled with a sore hip, the Celtics are toast.

Even with him at full strength, no chance.

That's the reality of the modern-day NBA.
Lebron's dominance is impossible to stop, and the Cavs are more than strong enough at every other position.
If Lebron will be Lebron for another 3-5 years, the C's might not be able to match his firepower, but they need to basically be better at almost every other position, and that's why this series is not and will not be competitive.
It's amazing, the C's system is not set up for a "true post" player, but Tristan Thompson has a tremendous role combined with the shooters around him. From a pure talent standpoint, he's not as good as Horford (I don't even think it's close), but in that system, he can be a factor.
Two games, two F performances.

Thomas ruled out for the series with hip injury

Lebron with 11 points and 6 turnovers. Compete 180, incredible really. Celtics played much better defense and aggressiveness.

LeBron won't play like that again sports fans. Very surprising, but the Cavs have blown big late leads many times this season.

For that reason, I think the Warriors win the title over the Cavs in 6.

rambone 78 wrote:LeBron won't play like that again sports fans. Very surprising, but the Cavs have blown big late leads many times this season.

For that reason, I think the Warriors win the title over the Cavs in 6.

Yeah - I kind of view game three as the Cavs mistakenly thinking the series was done, and the Celtics might just roll over. Whereas the Warriors series, Golden State is going to want to blow their doors off every game. The Cavs have blown games because outside of LeBron, Tristan Thompsons and (healthy) J.R. Smith, there aren't many defensive stoppers on that team.

Series probably only goes as far as Marcus Smart's shooting (which...didn't he set an NBA record for FG% futility in March and/or April?), but...Isaiah...as great a scorer as he is...in the playoffs, is like a "welcome" sign on defense. Any time you have a team basing 90% of their sets on "Who does #4 have?"...that's a problem...

NYGFan_Section208 wrote:Series probably only goes as far as Marcus Smart's shooting (which...didn't he set an NBA record for FG% futility in March and/or April?), but...Isaiah...as great a scorer as he is...in the playoffs, is like a "welcome" sign on defense. Any time you have a team basing 90% of their sets on "Who does #4 have?"...that's a problem...

To be fair to him, it's hard to judge him on the past two weeks or so, since the hip problem clearly limited him. He wasn't a great defender in the regular season, but he was playable out there.

I spent the last week or so watching Washingtons games and I must say I not strongly think staying pat and taking Fultz if our best bet.

One thing that really sticks out is how smooth and fluid he is with the basketball. The way he can accelerate, or decelerate as with such fluidity all while staying in control even at top speed is just something you rarely see with players at any level. On top of this he has a soft touch and is a natural finisher who showed some excellent passing instincts on an awful Washington team although he is clearly a shoot first PG at this point I see I'm as a pg who should average 6+apg per 36mins immediately and could improve that as he matures.

He has a nice fluid shooting motion and is very good at using his size to hit fadeaways over defenders. I think he has a solid chance of keeping tat 40%+ FG shooting in the NBA. I rather think his mediocre free throw shooting was more of an aberration. It's hard not to see him as at worse an above average shooter.

His Athleticism shines through on defense also where he is a terrific shotblocker with quick hands and good instincts. He will need to fill out to be a top defender in the NBA however and looks more like 6-4 than the listed 6-6.

Overall I think he could be even better in the NBA on a not awful team where the defense will not be keying in on him every possession. The extra spacing and quality screeners you see in the NBA could really unlock his game. His upside is legit as good as any PG I can recall, if he fills out think something like a pre-injury Derek Rose with a bit more finesse and better shooting, and better passing. but less physicality. He's got a legit chance to be a guy who gives you 35-40mpg 20-25ppg, 6-8apg, 40% 3fg, 6rpg, 2stl, guy in a few years is elite shot blocker for a guard and an overall strong defender.

I loved watching Jason Tatum when I saw him live in AAU a year ago. He has a very nice, soft shooting touch. I was thinking a few weeks ago how I would love to see the Celtics get Tatum but never thought it possible. I would have taken Tatum over anyone else, I liked his game so much.

Now Ainge trades away the rights to #1 away to Philly and believe it or not, the Celts might take the guy I wanted all along.

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports ... -to-philly

Fultz never made anyone around him better.
His body language is awful.
Of the PGs, I think Fox from Kentucky is clearly better than
Fultz or Ball.
However, the Celts need help up front.
Jackson is a total package, and can do everything,
and contributed to some late heroics for Kansas.

Some perspective on Fultz for what its worth.............

In the WCAC Championship game in 2016, St John's College HS defeated Dematha 71-57 for their 1st WCAC Championship since 2000.

Fultz had 12 points for Dematha
Anthony Cowan, now point guard for Maryland, had 21 points for St Johns
Jeff Dowtin had and efficient 13 points for St Johns on 3-4 FGs, 1-2 on 3 pointers and 4-5 FTs

And Jeff had a nice Jersey on holding the Trophy

I love Tatum. Think he is being underrated/.

College draft picks aren't season changing additions anymore like past decades except for a few like Anthony Davis or Cousins. They're too young and inexperienced to be able to know how good they'll be vs NBA competition. Hopefully Danny trades these pics for a real player.

Lonzo Ball or Tatum would both be fine. Jackson would also be a solid pick if the Celtcs feel his shooting can improve.

Dark horse for me is Dennis Smith.

He is the only prospect the Celtics have had visit twice so they clearly have some interest. His second visit ended right before the rumours of the trade broke.

Personally I have long felt he is ne of the best PG prospects we have seen in years and I thnk he is close to Ball and Fultz in terms of prospectdom. If the Celtics trade back again I bet it is so they can take Smith. But don't be surprised if they take him at 3..

EGram wrote:Lonzo Ball or Tatum would both be fine. Jackson would also be a solid pick if the Celtcs feel his shooting can improve.

Dark horse for me is Dennis Smith.

He is the only prospect the Celtics have had visit twice so they clearly have some interest. His second visit ended right before the rumours of the trade broke.

Personally I have long felt he is ne of the best PG prospects we have seen in years and I thnk he is close to Ball and Fultz in terms of prospectdom. If the Celtics trade back again I bet it is so they can take Smith. But don't be surprised if they take him at 3..

I saw Smith play in HS in Summer AAU play. He was amazing. I would take Smith over Fultz. I also saw Ball and Tatum in AAU. I saw Ball play with his 2 younger brothers. Ball was good but I liked Smith better.
But to me Tatum is the guy. Wonderful soft, shooting touch. In today's NBA the shooting accuracy is so highly valued. Tatum's 10 to 15 foot jumper reminds me some of Larry Bird.
But I would be happy with Smith or Tatum.
Much talk in Boston papers is that Ainge has decided to stay with Thomas now that he passed on the consensus #1 pick Fultz, but wouldn't it be interesting if he surprised the basketball world and he took Smith?

Interesting signing with just days until the draft...

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/bos ... yptr=yahoo

ramster wrote:Interesting signing with just days until the draft...

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/bos ... yptr=yahoo

No terms in there, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's like the "two-year deal" Munford signed a couple years ago with Memphis. Meaning, it's not guaranteed, and the second year is a team option.

I'm oddly OK with the trade, but I do think it could come back to bite the Celtics if 1) Fultz is a perennial all-star and the player they pick now is clearly worse or 2) they whiff completely on the pick at #3. The consensus on this draft seems to be that its a good, deep draft, with up to 10 all-stars in it, but the top guys (Fultz, Ball, Jackson and Tatum) probably aren't franchise talents like some of the past five years (Davis, KAT). I'm fine with trading down if that's the case, but it figures the Celtics win the lottery in the year there isn't a clear-cut franchise guy.

I'm not into trading for George, especially since he's on record now of wanting to go into free agency. Butler is slightly more appealing to me, but man, the guys on that Bulls team fucking hated each other, it seemed like. That would give me some pause in trading for him, so if he is available - and the Bulls keep insisting he's not, despite all the trade rumors - I'd hope the Celtics would do their best possible intel on what the locker room problems were there.

The pipe dream trade I wish the Celtics would make is for Davis. He's pretty much exactly what they need in terms of a guy who can block shots at the rim and rebound, but still be enough of an offensive threat to space the floor. If New Orleans isn't stupid enough to trade him, then I'd prefer to see them go after a mid-tier guy. In hindsight, I think Dallas stole Noel at the trade deadline, and he would have looked good as a Celtic. Given the glut of centers some teams have, you'd think the Celtics could land one for one of their lower future first-round picks.

This guy wrote a rather long write up of what he sees a the tier 1 and 2 prospects of the draft. https://capstrategist.com/2017/06/20/20 ... s-1-and-2/ Has Fultz, Smith, followed by Ball at 1-3. With Jackson and Tatum at 6-7.

I thought it was interesting seeing how well prospects shot at NBA 3 point range in college. Smith was easily the best among this class and actually had better numbers in this area then Steph Curry and Damian Lilard did as Freshmen.

I personally would be surprised if we took Jackson at 3 but who knows?

Tatum was hurt too. So his ability coming off that injury wasn't all the way up to where it could have been in his freshman season.

Rumor of the day is, the Knicks are looking to trade Porzingas.
He's 7'3" 21 years old, with incredible upside.
He can shoot from anywhere, rebound, and block shots.
He's far better than anyone in this years draft.
He's just what the Celtics need.

People always fall in love with attributes and measurables of players. Those things more often than not don't turn into wins.

Winning the game is a talent. Takes focus and really intelligence to always remember what you're playing for. Lots of guys do things off the charts. Not that many turn that stuff into wins.

I think KAT is showing the early career fire that means his team will take steps forward. A Davis seems less focused on translating everything into wins.

Porzingis is awesome but his lateral movement is among the worst. He cant defend at all.

At 21 years old, he's still learning.
Funny, the NBA is going nuts today over the possibility
of his being traded.
If he was a flawed are you say, I highly doubt
that would be the case.
This kid could wind up like Dirk, and be an all time great.

I'm a Knick fan. Just reporting what I have seen. As a Knick fan I would prefer the Knicks sell high on Porzingis.

I get the Dirk comp because he IS So Tall and shoots very well.

But I also saw Dirk play for Germany against the USA and Dirk was dribbling all over the court and dominating. Playing like a huge American guard really. Porzingis I don't think is a 1 to 1 comparison to Dirk. More like young Porzingis compares to a 30+ Dirk.

I've seen Porzingas handle the ball pretty well.
Again,l who on the Celtics comes within miles of his talent?
Again, he's only 21.
He's fed up with all the Knicks drama. He's from Latvia, so
the Boston climate isn't a deterrent for him, as it seems to
be for many NBA players.

I want Tatum at 3. Would love to see a Porzingis trade but I think it's a long shot.

STC wrote:I want Tatum at 3. Would love to see a Porzingis trade but I think it's a long shot.

I'd also love a Porzingis trade, but I doubt even the Knicks are stupid enough to trade him now. If it was earlier in Jackson's tenure, then maybe, but I think his support is eroding and Dolan isn't going to let him do obviously stupid moves to cripple the franchise long-term for short-term job security. (But hey, it's the Knicks, so anything is probably in play!)

I too was ok with the trade, but I think it's one of those deals where it's going to be TBD on who the winner and loser is.
It seems like everyone thinks the C's are moving the #3 pick, at least from an article I read last night about how Josh Jackson's camp doesn't appear to want to waste a time with a Celtics workout because his agent/management team think the C's are moving the pick.
If that is true, there are certain guys I would be happy to move it for, and certain guys I would not.
I think it also depends on what sort of roster talent they are forced to give up.
If Jimmy Butler is #3 2017, Lakers 2018, Terry Rozier and Jae Crowder, and then you also go bring in Gordon Hayward, you could run a smaller lineup of IT-Bradley-Butler-Hayward-Horford, with Smart, Brown, and Olynyk (if retained) off the bench.
I don't think that lineup is necessarily winning a Championship, but you couple that with next years Brooklyn pick (which presumably would be 6'10 Porter or 7'0 Ayton or Bamba), and the further development of Yabousele and Zizic, and I think that it could be something.
If you compared the C's simply to Golden St, I think that starting 5 would be worse at 1-4 (but not drastically at any position), but also much better at the 5, and much more future upside with the draft picks.
That is a vision I could buy.
I think when you rely on draft and develop, it requires much more precision.
Would GS have been GS if Curry, Thompson, or Green didn't turn into an all-star but was simply a bust or fringe rotation piece?
I still believe in drafting young guys (especially at the top of the draft), but definitely am not afraid of moving some of those pieces.

RJ reports last night said Chicago offered Celtics Butler for the #3 pick straight up we turned them down.

If we could get Butler for the Lakers/kings pick + Crowder, or another draft pick (non Brooklyn) + trade Crowder and sign Blake Griffin (I don't think Hayward makes much sense with Butler on the team). Well, that would be pretty ideal for both the short term and long term imo.

All the reports now saying Nicks asking so much for Porzingis it seems they don't really want to trade him. For now at least.

My personal choice at #3 would be Smith, I'll write more about why in a few days if we still have the pick.

I think the problem with that Bulls offer is that by taking on Butler and getting rid of no contracts, it would significantly restrict them in free agency.

I hadn't heard that rumor so I appreciate you mentioning it. I think getting Butler for just #3 is a steal, which is why I think Ainge is also thinking about that free agent target and not wanting to restrict the cap space.

When I first heard the rumors about Griffin, I was excited, but have since reevaluated and determined that he is someone I do not want. Those injury concerns + I'm thinking he is or may be approaching his peak. His size and stature would certainly help, but if he can't stay on the court, what good does he do? He's basically been trending down since 2014.

I also think Hayward could come to Boston and play the "4" in a Steven's system. He was 6'8, 226 last season, and is hoping to continue to add muscle this year. If he can keep developing his body, there is no reason he couldn't battle down low. Heck, last postseason, the Celtics went small often down the stretch with a combination of guys like Smart, Brown, etc. I would say Hayward is an improvement in those end of game scenarios.

Free agency is out of control right now. I'm mentally prepared for the Celtics to do nothing and take the 3rd overall pick. I wanna trust Danny, but hes unpredictable!

I want no part of Griffin because of his injury history, unless it's some ridiculous deal that he won't sign. Like, one or two years. Some team is going to give him a max deal though, whether its the Clippers or someone else.

If Butler really is available for just the #3, I'd do it, but I'd also probably wait until after free agency. Then, you could still sign Heyward or whoever, then acquire Butler. You can't do the opposite. If the Bulls are willing to do that deal now, before the season even starts, then I think it'll be available before or after the draft.