<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> What comments and comparisons? I think you are reading more into my posts than is warranted. I have clearly indicated that I am just looking at those things measured by traditional stats. I have not said that AJ is as good as Garnett, nor have I said that Wally is as good as Ray Allen. I did say, though, that statistically, Wally's offense was near the top of all SFs when healthy, as measured by efficiency, as reported by the site hoopstats.com.</div></p> He got 20ppg because a lof of the Celtics players were injured, including Pierce, Tony Allen, etc. So being the veteran that he is and also knowing that the Celts had so many young guys in the team, the offense fell to Wally and it was his job to produce and therefore get 20ppg. Other than that he's not a top SF, he's not even top 30. I'm sure you know that.</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Incidentally, if I remember correctly, if you go back a few months, you'll find that the general consensus was that the Celtics overpaid for Ray Allen. Once they acquired Garnett, though, there was a sudden revision of opinion.</div></p> No it wasn't. Everyone, meaning the analysts, the Celts fans, and other teams fans, said that just by getting Allen and teaming him with Pierce, it won't get you to the promise land. It was simple as that. Not that they overpaid for him, because they didn't. You have to remember that he's one of the top shooters in the league. Lets say top 5. (I could argue that he's top 3, but we'll leave it at that)</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p> </div></p> Explain to me how having three allstars (or two superstars) in your team makes you an above-average team? I don't understand it. (I'm sure others don't either)</p> The Celtics with only Paul Pierce were already somewhere in between average and above-average team. Remember, they won the divison on 05 (if I'm correct).</p> </p> </p> </p>
I will define "average" as between 38-43 wins, and "above average" as between 44-50 wins. You refer to a mythical Celtics team "with only Paul Pierce." There was no such team! The Celtics had 13 or 14 other players! Look, this is just my opinion, but while they have three terrific players, I personally believe that you need great players and depth to wn 50 or 55 or60 games. [You also need time to gel, which they haven't had yet.] If the Celtics are to win fifty something games, they will need to get contributions from more than three players. Maybe it'll happen, I don't know. I need to seee it first before I believe, though. The games aren't won on paper. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p> </div></p> </p> I never said they were going to dominate the division. My opinion is that they will take some time to gel and overcome their poor coaching. I won't be surprised if the Raptors win the division again, but the Celtics will do their damage in the playoffs and that is all that is really important.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Incidentally, if I remember correctly, if you go back a few months, you'll find that the general consensus was that the Celtics overpaid for Ray Allen. Once they acquired Garnett, though, there was a sudden revision of opinion.</div></p> I think this had more to do with the direction of the team than what they actually gave up. That move had basically decided the fate of a team that was kind of stuck in between rebuilding and trying to contend now. The end result was a team that gave up one of their most coveted assets to contend for one of the last playoff spots. I don't think anyone believed they had enough left to deal for another superstar (basically, most of us forgot about McHale) and so it was generally looked upon as a questionable/stupid trade. If they had reversed positions though (KG was traded for first) I doubt the move would have been as heavily criticized. I do agree with you on your general position though. The Atlantic title is hardly a guarantee for the Celtics, even if I think they're the favourites. Having watched the Raptors struggle for the first couple of months last season, I can tell you that it often takes a while to build great chemistry after such a significant turnaround (having a terrible coach doesn't help at all).</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> In order to keep my high opinion of you Dumpy, I'm going to pretend I never read this thread</p> </div></p> Why? You think that the other teams in the division are going to forfeit or something? You think the Celtics are going to win 60 games playing three on five? Clearly, their ultimate fate will be decided by the other 12 players on the club. They have three tremendous players (although one is a bit injury prone) and a supporting cast that is below average. The Lakers were more than Kobe and Shaq; the Spurs more than Duncan and Robinson; the Heat more than Wade and Shaq. Those teams all had supplemental parts that carried daggers in their waist. Do the Celtics? Maybe. Maybe not. To wit: Show me the money.</p> p.s., how about that Bobby Jones?</p> </div></p> Which of the trio is "a bit injury prone" like you stated? Ray Allen has played in 790 out of a possible 870 games throughout his career, (90.8%). If you're referring to Ray Allen because of last season, calling him injury prone is ridiculous. He could have continued to play, but it was to the point where it was best to just rest the ankle and look forward to the following season, considering the fact that Seattle was going nowhere. He got minor surgery this past summer, removing bone spurs, which Al Jefferson also had two summers ago and came back to break out. Before last season, Pierce missed a total of 19 games from 1998-2006, and very well could have suited up for an extra 15 games or so had this team been competitive. Calling him injury prone is a joke, he's one of the NBA's real iron men. Kevin Garnett has missed 25 games in 12 years.</p> Also, you knock on our supporting cast... look at LeBron's.</p> As for a basis of discussion (the Celtics in general), I think that we'll be fine. We could use another center, and a solid veteran backup wouldn't hurt, but I think we're a deeper team than a lot of people think. Do we have three guys coming off the bench that are bonafide starters on other teams? No, not necessarily, but we have a group of veterans that fill roles. James Posey is one of the better defensive players in the entire league, can knock down the perimeter jumper, works very hard, and has championship experience. Eddie House is a dynamite shooter, and will help this team offensively off the bench. Spacing is everything. Tony Allen, if he can continue to build on what he has done in recently, is going to make a big impact as well. I'm not expecting anything more than sporadic flashes to begin the season, but if he can return to form (or pretty close to it) by playoff time, that's a HUGE boost for this team. A healthy Tony Allen is a terrific 6th man. Brian Scalabrine brings the hustle, the basketball IQ, the spacing, the shooting, the defense, and the positive attitude. Scot Pollard, if and when healthy, is a solid option to bang around for 10-12 minutes a night. Leon Powe and Glen Davis may be young, but they can play.</p> Everybody on this roster is unselfish, willing to sacrafice for the betterment of the team, and has a positive attitude. Obviously, you can't expect a team that has been together for a little over a month to have San Antonio-like chemistry, but it is coming along much quicker than I expected. It will continue to build. Another thing is that this team plays defense. That's something I haven't been able to say about a Celtics team since 2003, and with the new attitude to go along with defensive guru Tom Thibodeau on the sidelines, things will come together. Already, you can tell that this team is drastically improved defensively from last year. Kevin Garnett alone changes everything, but the team defense has been excellent.</p> Nothing is guaranteed, but this team will NOT go easily, and they will not go quietly. All we can do is sit back and enjoy the show. Time will tell, but there's no reason why this shouldn't work.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p> </div></p> </p> I never said they were going to dominate the division. My opinion is that they will take some time to gel and overcome their poor coaching. I won't be surprised if the Raptors win the division again, but the Celtics will do their damage in the playoffs and that is all that is really important.</p> </div></p> </p> yes, that is my position also. I am solely considering the regular season in considering them "above average."</p>
