Question about the Boston Celtics

[HurricaneDij39]

Vegas has Boston projected to have the second-best record in the NBA this season, behind of course the Golden State Warriors.

Looking at this roster, though, I see a dicey frontcourt situation. Al Horford is going to be asked to carry quite a burden this season, and with him being on the wrong side of 30, I'm not sure that's such a good thing. Given the lack of depth in this area, does this mean Gordon Hayward is going to play a significant amount of PF this season??? In addition, the Celtics will bring back only four players from last season's roster, which should make for quite a chemistry adjustment.

My question to @tlance and others is - What makes this Boston roster better than that of the Washington Wizards?

Given tlance's tendency to repetitvely hate on his "alleged" favorite team, plus his widely-known hatred of Kyrie Irving, something is bound to give here...

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Well I don't know much about the defense of either team, but I have to admit that Washington looks better on paper any for two reasons:

Starting line up for Boston has good scorings but the total rebounds 29 for Washington to 19 for Boston. I am not sure how Boston can prevail without better rebounding skills.

My second reason would be Washington's bench - namely they have on that on paper has an average of 37 to 15 for Boston. Boston has to draft picks in the line up for the bench and Washington simply looks better to me.

 

[wildturkey]

Washington's bench is still terrible. Gortat is getting old. They're still gonna be largely driven by their starting 5, mostly Wall and Beal. Unless Oubre finally makes a leap (he's shown little signs so far), I could easily see them taking a step backwards this coming season.

Boston's got more talent on their roster no question. They're younger so they'll have some chemistry issues early but they've gotten better. The Wizards did not. They stayed the same

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I also think that if I had a preference - Wall and Beal looks better than Irving and Hayword - but those two combos look pretty close. I just like John Wall better

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Washington's bench is still terrible. Gortat is getting old. They're still gonna be largely driven by their starting 5, mostly Wall and Beal. Unless Oubre finally makes a leap (he's shown little signs so far), I could easily see them taking a step backwards this coming season.

Boston's got more talent on their roster no question. They're younger so they'll have some chemistry issues early but they've gotten better. The Wizards did not. They stayed the same

Those two draft picks that Boston got is the big question mark that will tell the tale - How quickly they develop and what they produce. If the bench for Washington can still produce in spite of the age, they should be okay, but Boston looks like they have developed more than Washington to me

 

[tlance]

Vegas has Boston projected to have the second-best record in the NBA this season, behind of course the Golden State Warriors.

Looking at this roster, though, I see a dicey frontcourt situation. Al Horford is going to be asked to carry quite a burden this season, and with him being on the wrong side of 30, I'm not sure that's such a good thing. Given the lack of depth in this area, does this mean Gordon Hayward is going to play a significant amount of PF this season??? In addition, the Celtics will bring back only four players from last season's roster, which should make for quite a chemistry adjustment.

My question to @tlance and others is - What makes this Boston roster better than that of the Washington Wizards?

Given tlance's tendency to repetitvely hate on his "alleged" favorite team, plus his widely-known hatred of Kyrie Irving, something is bound to give here...

LOL.

And you don't get why people don't like you? You start a thread to specifically call me out with a sarcastic BS question. Then, when you I put you in your place you will go crying to anyone who will listen that I am some kind of bully. The irony is that while I do wreck some of your basketball theories, I don't get personal like some others on here. You don't learn.

But, to answer your question, the Celtics were marginally better than the Wizards last year. They added Tatum, Marcus Morris and Hayward while losing Avery Bradley. They clearly improved prior to making this trade.

I do not think Kyrie is an upgrade over a healthy IT. He is a better player, but IT has intangibles that kyrie lacks. I do still think that Boston improved their team significantly more than Washington did because of the other moves they made.

What has Washington done to improve? The Wizards still have a punchers chance in series against Boston, but the Celtics are the better team and not just because they got Kyrie. And to be fair, they absolutely should be better. The Wizards should not be able to compete with the Celtics over the next couple years given the advantage of all those long term assets. The only way they do is if Ainge completely squanders them.

See how easy that was?

 

[tlance]

I also think that if I had a preference - Wall and Beal looks better than Irving and Hayword - but those two combos look pretty close. I just like John Wall better

Yes. I take Wall and Beal too. I think Kyrie and Hayward are both clearly better than Beal, but Wall is the best player on either side by a decent margin.

The problem is, like you said, it is close. There is no way to argue that the Celtics don't have A LOT more than Washington does after the top 2 from each team.

The Wizards had a better chance against Boston last year than they will this year. There is also a very strong possibility the two teams won't meet. I think Boston or Washington are each almost as likely to get the 1 said as Cleveland is. But, once they get to the playoffs, there is a pretty clear hierarchy and Washington is 3rd.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Yes. I take Wall and Beal too. I think Kyrie and Hayward are both clearly better than Beal, but Wall is the best player on either side by a decent margin.

The problem is, like you said, it is close. There is no way to argue that the Celtics don't have A LOT more than Washington does after the top 2 from each team.

The Wizards had a better chance against Boston last year than they will this year. There is also a very strong possibility the two teams won't meet. I think Boston or Washington are each almost as likely to get the 1 said as Cleveland is. But, once they get to the playoffs, there is a pretty clear hierarchy and Washington is 3rd.

I think Wizards best hope is the aging bench maintains their tempo and continues to perform. If they do that and Boston's bench takes time to develop the bench, then Boston could be in trouble - but I still like Boston's future short of the Wizards getting some draft picks and making some changes

 

[tlance]

I think Wizards best hope is the aging bench maintains their tempo and continues to perform. If they do that and Boston's bench takes time to develop the bench, then Boston could be in trouble - but I still like Boston's future short of the Wizards getting some draft picks and making some changes

That is just it though. The Wizards bench hasn't performed. They were awful last year and may have gotten worse.

Also, realistically I am not sure what changes the Wizards can make. They don't have cap space to sign any high impact players. Their best hope is a trade for a disgruntled star, but that ship may have sailed already. I fear that Otto Porter's trade value may have peaked. Players can really quickly go from being quality young assets to being overpaid once they get off that rookie contract.

 

[Gman]

Looking at this roster, though, I see a dicey frontcourt situation. Al Horford is going to be asked to carry quite a burden this season, and with him being on the wrong side of 30, I'm not sure that's such a good thing. Given the lack of depth in this area, does this mean Gordon Hayward is going to play a significant amount of PF this season???

I have little doubt that the C's will bring in a body or two to log some front court minutes.

Whoever they bring in is unlikely to be anymore than a JAG bench player... still, it will help guys like Horford and Hayward avoid getting worn down.

 

[bksballer89]

I currently hate Boston bench

 

[Gman]

I currently hate Boston bench

Tough to argue with you, the Boston bench as currently constituted is:

decent to good options:

- Jaylen Brown or Marcus Smart (whoever isn't starting)
- Terry Rozier
- Aron Baynes

unproven to crappy options:

- Jayson Tatum
- Shane Larkin
- Daniel Theis
- Guerschon Yabusele
- Semi Ojeleye

^ This is a roster that's building for the future... the C's will be a very good team this year, but they aren't competing for a championship in the present as currently constituted.

 

[Blotch]

Vegas has Boston projected to have the second-best record in the NBA this season, behind of course the Golden State Warriors.

Looking at this roster, though, I see a dicey frontcourt situation. Al Horford is going to be asked to carry quite a burden this season, and with him being on the wrong side of 30, I'm not sure that's such a good thing. Given the lack of depth in this area, does this mean Gordon Hayward is going to play a significant amount of PF this season??? In addition, the Celtics will bring back only four players from last season's roster, which should make for quite a chemistry adjustment.

My question to @tlance and others is - What makes this Boston roster better than that of the Washington Wizards?

Given tlance's tendency to repetitvely hate on his "alleged" favorite team, plus his widely-known hatred of Kyrie Irving, something is bound to give here...

It's a superstar driven league and the Celtics have 2 and Washington has 1.

 

[Blotch]

I currently hate Boston bench

It's loaded with guys you have never seen play. How can you hate it?

 

[Blotch]

I also think that if I had a preference - Wall and Beal looks better than Irving and Hayword - but those two combos look pretty close. I just like John Wall better

Lol

 

[Blotch]

Yes. I take Wall and Beal too. I think Kyrie and Hayward are both clearly better than Beal, but Wall is the best player on either side by a decent margin.

The problem is, like you said, it is close. There is no way to argue that the Celtics don't have A LOT more than Washington does after the top 2 from each team.

The Wizards had a better chance against Boston last year than they will this year. There is also a very strong possibility the two teams won't meet. I think Boston or Washington are each almost as likely to get the 1 said as Cleveland is. But, once they get to the playoffs, there is a pretty clear hierarchy and Washington is 3rd.

Wall is better than Irving?

 

[Gman]

It's loaded with guys you have never seen play. How can you hate it?

I think the inexperience and unknown is part of what @bksballer89 is referring to... for next season, the C's bench is certainly worse than last season.

Which isn't to say there isn't potential there for the future.

 

[Heatles84]

Wall is better than Irving?

Yes

 

[Black Adam]

Wall is better than Irving?

i'd say yes, ESPECIALLY on defense...

 

[trojanfan12]

Wall is better than Irving?

Yes