Boston still the best team in the East, according to Scottie

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5461971

 

We love you Pippen.

 

Boston is getting up there in age so I don't know.

 

Yeah, that's what they said last year.

 

Let them say it Thrilla, we'll be laughing in June.

 

The Lakers are the oldest team in the league. Celtics are #2.

Which two teams played in the finals last year?

 

Yeah ESPN had that few weeks ago, LA is oldest team.

 

5 star post.

 

Going into the postseason next year, Allen will be nearing 36, Garnett will be 35, and Pierce will be nearing 34. Let's also factor in they have been showing signs of breaking down. So even though I wasn't one of the people saying the Celtics were "too old" last year, every year the "getting too old" argument holds that much more weight. Like Miami, Shape, every team has questions surrounding them. This team's question is whether everyone can stay healthy this season.

Of course Rondo's development has to be considered, especially if he adds range on his jumper (or any semblance of a jumper) to his arsenal, but I doubt that comes overnight. Another question is whether Rondo can progress more than the Celtics' big three regresses.

Also, the East got significantly better. Chicago improved greatly, Milwaukee improved greatly, Miami improved greatly, New York improved greatly, and teams like Atlanta and Orlando, even though they made no moves, will get better just because everyone is together another year and chemistry will increase.

So there's a lot more competition in the East for Boston, so for Scottie to make such a statement is premature.

 

I think Boston is a great team still. Excellent front court depth, experience is there of course. I like their roster and their solid core. I'll save my predictions for some other time though. : P

 

Indeed, every team does get a year older, but the big difference is that 28 teams are not as old as the Celtics. And there's a big difference between knowing how to win games and being capable of winning games. If Garnett, 35, is hampered by another knee injury, or if Pierce has another serious injury it's not going to matter if they know how to win games.

We'll also have to see about Shaq. He's turning 39 next season and has had issues staying healthy so I disagree about how big of an impact he will have next season. I also lost respect for JO's game after that horrendous first round performance.

The playoffs won't be nearly as easy as they were last year. If the Celtics aren't one of the top 4 seeds next year I have serious doubts that they will return to the Finals.

 

Saying that a team is "too old" is just too lazy an argument for me to respond to.

 

^ Plus it was used last year, and proof that two oldest teams in the league made it to final says otherwise.

 

It's actually not a lazy argument. You are just too lazy to respond. Your best players are in their mid 30s and have shown signs of being less effective as well as being prone to injury. Why is that not a legitimate argument?

 

That same old team, with weaker bench was few minutes away from winning championship.

 

A team being "too old" and a team being the "one of oldest" is actually very different. But my point is that the past isn't necessarily an indication of the future since every year players get older.