Jump to content

2007-08 Celtics


DDR

Recommended Posts

Eventually the novelty of these three playing on the same team will wear off, the effort will go down a notch, and so too will the defense they've been playing. They should be a terrible defensive team, somehow they've played out of their minds on that end -- best in the League, so far. Won't last.

In a 7 game series, the Spurs or Mavericks would beat the Celtics in five.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I'm getting real sick of people (be it "experts" on ESPN, fans, etc.) jumping to say this season's Celtics are the best team in the league, the best in the conference, the team to beat and the best Boston Celtics team ever.

Where is the evidence? Yeah, they're 7-0, but look at their opponents. Washington, Toronto, Denver, Atlanta, Indiana and New Jersey twice! The only "threat" in that batch is New Jersey and Denver, and their latest win came without Vince Carter playing. Have they been impressive? Sure, but the competition hasn't exactly been tough. Yet I'm supposed to believe this team is supposed to be the best ever? How many rings between the big 3? Hell, forget rings... how many trips to the Finals? Zero. How many conference finals appearances? TWO. And let's not forget that the Celtics are one injury away to either KG, Pierce or Allen from being a bottom playoff team at best. Yet I'm supposed to believe that they matchup with the likes of Bird, Parrish, McHale, DJ and the like?

Call me a hater, call me a jealous Knicks fan, call me whatever you wish, but I'm sick and :censored:ing tired of this garbage. Hell, we won't even get to see how the Boston Celtics stack up against the real, proven elite teams in the league until December 8 against Chicago, and even then that game is thrown in with a bunch of other garbage games. The majority of the Celtics opponents for the immediate future are Miami, Orlando, Golden State, Los Angeles Lakers, Charlotte, Cleveland, New York, Sacramento and Milwaukee. Are any of those teams, even when healthy, really equal competition to where you can accurately gauge how good this Celtics TEAM (I'm talking to you Rajon Rondo, Brian Scalabrine, James Posey, Eddie House) can be?

Here's when judgement is allowed... Dec. 8 Chicago; Dec. 19 Detroit; Jan. 2 Houston; Jan. 31 Dallas; Feb. 10 San Antonio; Feb. 22 Phoenix. When they routinely beat teams with proven playoff experience, then I'll give them props for being the class of the league. Until then, they're not a team... the Boston Celtics are three all stars who have no Finals experience, who over their careers have struggled to make it out of the first or second round with a relatively unproven coach with a bunch of third-tier role players thrown into starting roles in a weak conference. And what happens if Kobe Bryant, by some miracle, gets a trade to go through to Chicago? Call me crazy, but I'll take a team of Kobe, Hinrich, Nocioni, Ben Wallace and coached by Scott Skiles over the Celtics ANY DAY. That team, even without Kobe, like the Pistons, play defense and can score with the best of them. And that's the East alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I'm getting real sick of people (be it "experts" on ESPN, fans, etc.) jumping to say this season's Celtics are the best team in the league, the best in the conference, the team to beat and the best Boston Celtics team ever.

Where is the evidence? Yeah, they're 7-0, but look at their opponents. Washington, Toronto, Denver, Atlanta, Indiana and New Jersey twice! The only "threat" in that batch is New Jersey and Denver, and their latest win came without Vince Carter playing. Have they been impressive? Sure, but the competition hasn't exactly been tough. Yet I'm supposed to believe this team is supposed to be the best ever? How many rings between the big 3? Hell, forget rings... how many trips to the Finals? Zero. How many conference finals appearances? TWO. And let's not forget that the Celtics are one injury away to either KG, Pierce or Allen from being a bottom playoff team at best. Yet I'm supposed to believe that they matchup with the likes of Bird, Parrish, McHale, DJ and the like?

Call me a hater, call me a jealous Knicks fan, call me whatever you wish, but I'm sick and :censored:ing tired of this garbage. Hell, we won't even get to see how the Boston Celtics stack up against the real, proven elite teams in the league until December 8 against Chicago, and even then that game is thrown in with a bunch of other garbage games. The majority of the Celtics opponents for the immediate future are Miami, Orlando, Golden State, Los Angeles Lakers, Charlotte, Cleveland, New York, Sacramento and Milwaukee. Are any of those teams, even when healthy, really equal competition to where you can accurately gauge how good this Celtics TEAM (I'm talking to you Rajon Rondo, Brian Scalabrine, James Posey, Eddie House) can be?

Here's when judgement is allowed... Dec. 8 Chicago; Dec. 19 Detroit; Jan. 2 Houston; Jan. 31 Dallas; Feb. 10 San Antonio; Feb. 22 Phoenix. When they routinely beat teams with proven playoff experience, then I'll give them props for being the class of the league. Until then, they're not a team... the Boston Celtics are three all stars who have no Finals experience, who over their careers have struggled to make it out of the first or second round with a relatively unproven coach with a bunch of third-tier role players thrown into starting roles in a weak conference. And what happens if Kobe Bryant, by some miracle, gets a trade to go through to Chicago? Call me crazy, but I'll take a team of Kobe, Hinrich, Nocioni, Ben Wallace and coached by Scott Skiles over the Celtics ANY DAY. That team, even without Kobe, like the Pistons, play defense and can score with the best of them. And that's the East alone.

Maybe some of that isn't the Celtics' or the analysts' faults, but more the multitude of crappy teams in the NBA today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's early. But, there's no denying that if they're able to keep up the pace they're on now, you'd have to put them in the conversation. I mean, if you extrapolate their record thru the first seven games over a whole season, you're looking at a historically great team. One that you could argue is the best ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't they saying the same thing about the 2003-04 Lakers team that arguably had more talent on paper?

I bet both teams will meet a similar end in the playoffs-getting bounced by the Pistons. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 95/96 Bulls team was amazing... I went to see them on January 18th and just had to keep the lineup card that lists them as 32-3.

And the difference between that team and this Celtics squad? I'm not trying to knock Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, or Paul Pierce, but IMO none of them possess the hyper-competitive alpha dog mentality that Michael Jordan had to keep the team focused every given night.

(That, and that Bulls team had more talent and depth than this Celtics team.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's early. But, there's no denying that if they're able to keep up the pace they're on now, you'd have to put them in the conversation. I mean, if you extrapolate their record thru the first seven games over a whole season, you're looking at a historically great team. One that you could argue is the best ever.

That's the same argument people used last season when the Mavericks went on those multiple double-digit win streaks (which is INFINITELY more impressive given their situation in the Western Conference than going 7-0 against teams no better than Denver or New Jersey)... and look what happened there. They not only failed to reach 70, but they got bounced out of the first round by Golden State. Dealing in "what if" and "could be" scenarios are for fools. The Celtics COULD go 82-0, hold the first seed in the conference, get matched up against Orlando, let's say, and get knocked out in 6 because Dwight Howard goes on a rampage and nobody stops Rashard Lewis. Would you then consider the Celtics to be among the best ever? I'd have a hard time buying into that - which is why last year's Mavericks are not in that conversation.

If Stephon Marbury weren't a moron; if Eddy Curry was capable of retaining previously learned information and played defense; if Jamal Crawford had an average basketball IQ; and if Nate Robinson were a foot taller, the Knicks would be the class of the Atlantic Division and would be back to being a perennial playoff contender. But they're just talent on paper that show sporadic bursts of individual greatness and haven't amounted to anything. People need to stop dealing in "If's," look at the team for what they are and judge them as they make strides against proven competitors. Sweeping season series' against Atlanta and Charlotte is not intimidating in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's early. But, there's no denying that if they're able to keep up the pace they're on now, you'd have to put them in the conversation. I mean, if you extrapolate their record thru the first seven games over a whole season, you're looking at a historically great team. One that you could argue is the best ever.

That's the same argument people used last season when the Mavericks went on those multiple double-digit win streaks (which is INFINITELY more impressive given their situation in the Western Conference than going 7-0 against teams no better than Denver or New Jersey)... and look what happened there. They not only failed to reach 70, but they got bounced out of the first round by Golden State. Dealing in "what if" and "could be" scenarios are for fools. The Celtics COULD go 82-0, hold the first seed in the conference, get matched up against Orlando, let's say, and get knocked out in 6 because Dwight Howard goes on a rampage and nobody stops Rashard Lewis. Would you then consider the Celtics to be among the best ever? I'd have a hard time buying into that - which is why last year's Mavericks are not in that conversation.

If Stephon Marbury weren't a moron; if Eddy Curry was capable of retaining previously learned information and played defense; if Jamal Crawford had an average basketball IQ; and if Nate Robinson were a foot taller, the Knicks would be the class of the Atlantic Division and would be back to being a perennial playoff contender. But they're just talent on paper that show sporadic bursts of individual greatness and haven't amounted to anything. People need to stop dealing in "If's," look at the team for what they are and judge them as they make strides against proven competitors. Sweeping season series' against Atlanta and Charlotte is not intimidating in the least.

Wow. How thick do I need to lay on the sarcasm before you pick up on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(That, and that Bulls team had more talent and depth than this Celtics team.)

Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, Jud Buechler, Dickey Simpkens > Kendrick Perikins, Rajon Rondo, Eddie House, Brian Scalabrine, James Posey

Jordan, Pippen, Rodman: 8 NBA Titles between them prior to the 95-06 season and a plethora of deep playoff runs.

KG, Pierce, Ray Allen: Zero NBA finals appearances between them, two conference finals appearances.

Game over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna agree with Starchild here. 7 games against not that much talent (though once again people are sleeping on this year's Hawks. They ain't the best, but you betta WATCH OUT NOW!), and they won't even be tested until the new year. So of course, they're going to get off to a nice start, the schedule made it that way for them. But they're going to wear down, I'm betting that Ray Allen's gonna get injured mid-season, and people are going to realize, "Hey...the Big 3 is OLD." and due to familiarity, teams with a running offense are going to pick them apart. And then the Pistons are still the Pistons. If they don't run into a team that runs in the playoffs, they're going to lose, because they can't keep up with a running team late in the year. And then, there's no guarantee that even if they get to the Finals, that they're going to beat whoever comes out of the western conference. San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, and maybe Houston if they can get out of the 1st round would take the Celtics to the woodshed in the Finals.

Once again, this is basically ESPN hyping up a certain team and everybody else buying into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not the best team ever. They aren't even the best team this year... that honor should go to either San Antonio, Dallas or Phoenix. Heck, I'm not sold yet on the Celtics being the best team in their DIVISION... I mean really other than the Big 3 (you know one of them will be injured for a period of time), who do they have that scares you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this thread had to be a joke. I figured there was no way ESPN was actually going to the inevitable "best ever" hype seven games into an NBA season. They have no shame. They are officially the biggest idiots in broadcasting.

I can't believe anyone is actually debating this. Call me when they reach 68 wins and we'll talk...about the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.