Are the '17-'18 Celtics Too Young?

With having the best record in the Eastern conference and winning two playoff series last season along with hopes of improving again this season, I have been wondering if the Cs roster is going to be too young and inexperienced.

The roster as it is currently composed is made up of veterans: Thomas, Hayward, Horford, Crowder, Morris, Baynes (fairly limited minutes in five seasons) and to a somewhat lesser extent Smart, Larkin, and Rozier.  The next most NBA experienced guy is Brown and he is only about to begin his second season. Olejeye, and Tatum are right out of NCAA play.  Yabusele, Zizic, Theis and Nader are not fresh out of college ball, but they are fresh out of lesser leagues featuring less than the level of play in the NBA.  Even Hayward, Crowder, Morris have only played a few NBA seasons while Smart, Larkin and Rozier have three or fewer seasons.  Both of the two guys on the "two way" contracts are also both just out of college ball although I doubt that they will have any kind of significant roles this year.

And, although not to be considered for this year, we have three possible first round picks next season.

I am not too worried about age (only one guy over 30-Horford), but it seems to me that many/most/all NBA championship contenders seem to have far more ""veteran" players on their rosters.  Certainly, Red Auerbach used to make sure that his rosters were pretty darn full of NBA experienced vets who were not "learning" their ABCs on the job.  Most of you can go back and name dozens of such guys who played with the Bill Russell championship gangs and then even a few more who played during Larry Bird's great run in the middle 80s.

The roster looks more talented than last season, but am I over thinking or over reacting?  At least something to think about?

If nothing else, Stevens and his great teaching staff will be highly challenged this year with such a very inexperienced roster.

Clyde,

Excellent post topic.

Returning starters, we have IT and Smart and Horford and Jae.  Replacement starter is Hayward, although I know that might make us a really small starting team.

Rozier is a year older, as is Brown.  Baynes is a veteran, but is facing perhaps an even bigger learning curve than Hayward.

So, aside from some learning curve and chemistry issues with Hayward we have 6 returning players who played starter and/or solid rotation minutes + Hayward + Baynes.  That's 8 players.  You won't go far with a bench that short but we only have to get to the trade deadline.  NOT because I'm expecting anybody to be gone (although you never, ever know with Danny) but because that's almost 4 months of playing together, which will produce solid dividends with Hayward and Baynes.  4 months of experience for Tatum, which would bring us up to 9.  4 months of experience for Zizic, which would bring us up to 10.  4 months of experience for Theis, who is already a 25 year old veteran of another league and just needs to get used to our speed and style, and that gets us to 11. Now we're talking.

I'm not a big fan of super-young teams, for all the reasons you point out, young teams don't win championships but our bench has quality.  Rozier, Brown and, I believe, Tatum are quality subs.  Two #3 picks coming off the bench?  Who else has that luxury? If one of the first 8 goes down then Tatum or Zizic has to step up but then there's time for Semi or


bob


.

I think this seasons team is definitely young, but not too young for the goal of pushing the Cavs to the brink or possibly eliminating them. Nobody expects Boston to provide the Warriors with much of a challenge if they got past Cleve, so age-wise this roster is fine for the current goals.

The bigger challenge will be integrating/sorting out all the talent 8-12 on the roster and those related to all the new faces.

There will be a lot of tough decisions on minutes to be made by Brad between finding the appropriate amounts for kids who WILL be getting time in Brown, Tatum and Rozier vs. the vets at their positions Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Hayward and Morris who will want to play a lot but might have what they deserved cut down for both rest and to help the younger guys gain experience. Then there is the Zizic/Baynes, Ojeleye/Yabusele and maybe even Theis/Nader head to heads between 6 guys with only 2-3 roles to fill between them.

Only Horford seems like a guy in a role Brad would typic want to give 34-36 minutes to every night based on the less talented other bigs available, but he is the oldest guy on the roster.

Roster continuity and comfort level/familiarity among the guys on this team as well as the struggle to carve out roles and minutes between kids/vets and the back of the rotation will be much more of challenge to the success of this team than youth in my opinion. But such challenges will hopefully sort themselves out by 2018 while any issues with youth will likely not be major obstacles until May.

I think we will end up viewing this whole period from rebuild to hopefully banner 18 as three trilogies.

The 1st trilogy is over and done with.

It was the overachiever return to the playoffs (after a very brief absence) crew of 2015-17. In year 1 many fans would have rather they got a draft pick in the 8-12 range than be swept by Cleveland and get pick 16. By year 3 they were a smoke and mirrors #1 seed most fans did not really think could beat the Cavs.

The borderline playoff team in 2014-15 had this 10 man rotation: IT, Bradley, Crowder, Sully, Bass, Smart, Turner, Olynyk, Jerebko and Zeller. They had two guys with legit ties to Rivers and the Big 3's last legit title run of 2012 in Bradley/Bass.

The following year they had 1st/2nd rd talent and returned 9 of those 10 players, only replacing Bass with Amir and expanding their rotation to include a little Rozier and less Zeller. Last year, Horford and Brown replaced Sully and Turner, but 9 of those 11 returned for a run on a team with 2nd Rd/ECF talent. Now they still have ECF talent, maybe NBA Finals talent when considering the weak east they play in, but there is not 10-18% of their a rotation to replace, there is a 50% turnover, making it that much harder for these guys to get comfortable despite more talent.

Trilogy #1 was 3 years only meant to bridge the time between lotto club and solid playoff team and not really contend. It had IT, Bradley, Crowder, Olynyk, Smart, Zeller and Jerebko along for the whole ride. It is fairly easy to swap out guys like Bass and Sully for Amir and Horford or sprinkle in playing time for guys like Rozier over Pressey or Gerald over Luigi when you have such continuity among the rest of the core rotation. The hardest swap as far as what affected their immediate success was probably Turner for Brown, despite nobody in their right minds wanting to have the former over the latter moving forward.

This offseason the C's got rid of the last guy to play under Rivers in Bradley. AB even played with Ray on a legit contender in '12 and his loss will hurt the most as many here have expressed this past month.

The second trilogy will be taking a team that can be the 1 seed in the east but not quite ready to dethrone a superstar led Cavs club to one that knocks off Cleve (or another east foe in 2018 if LBJ leaves) and returns to the Finals and slowly builds themselves into a team that can beat Golden State as the Warriors age and have trouble paying for a deep bench.

Most of this current roster should be here for the whole 3 year run. Similar to the previous 3 years where 9 of the 11 rotation guys or so came back each year and a core crew of 6-7 were here for the whole run. Someone like Crowder or Morris will have to go (like Turner did) with a much needed big added (like Horford was) and one major impact kid from the 2018-19 lotto arriving as well (like Brown this past year).

If this 2nd trilogy goes like this: competitive ECF game 6-7 loss to LeBron in '18 followed by taking one from GS in '19 and then a competitive 6-7 game series with them in 2020, I think everyone will think it met expectations. I'm assuming the Warriors stay dominant for 3 straight years, but injuries and the much better group of second tier teams in the west (all with talent levels equal to this current C's team)could always mix things up.

Trilogy #3 should come 2021-23 and hopefully feature banner #18 (or more). It will be when the current crew of vets in their prime are just exiting it but still contributing. Hayward and Smart should still be in their prime and Brown, Tatum and that star pulled from the '18 or '19 lotto will all be coming into their prime as all-star talents ready to carry the load on STACKED teams competing for titles year after year turning the 2020's into at least the 1970's and 1980's again or (if one were to really dream), the 1960's.

The players that provide for the character of this team are young vets. Tatum and Brown are really the only rotation players that aren't established yet. Compared to last year, we're really just missing the energy/grit provided by Jonas. That's the one element we sacrificed to develop guys like Semi and Yabusele.

Whatever you lost with Jonus in terms of "grit", you gain back many times over with Morris and Baynes.

mrkleen09 wrote:Whatever you lost with Jonus in terms of "grit", you gain back many times over with Morris and Baynes.  

Mostly true!

Don't get too far ahead on your hopes and predictions when your relying heavily on the expectations of youthful 19-22 year olds.

swish

Let's forget the veteran savvy argument and all for just a moment.

At some point it could very well happen; some well coached team loaded with 19-25 year olds is going to run the rest of the league into the ground.  I would wager it happens, and sooner rather than later.  With the early fundamental training young players get now, and quickly build on, absolutely.

NYCelt wrote:Let's forget the veteran savvy argument and all for just a moment.

At some point it could very well happen; some well coached team loaded with 19-25 year olds is going to run the rest of the league into the ground.  I would wager it happens, and sooner rather than later.  With the early fundamental training young players get now, and quickly build on, absolutely.

It's not just about veteran savvy - it's about veteran savvy WITH elite talent.

swish

No

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Let's forget the veteran savvy argument and all for just a moment.

At some point it could very well happen; some well coached team loaded with 19-25 year olds is going to run the rest of the league into the ground.  I would wager it happens, and sooner rather than later.  With the early fundamental training young players get now, and quickly build on, absolutely.

It's not just about veteran savvy - it's about veteran savvy WITH elite talent.

 swish

Swish,

Should have known you'd call me on that!

OK, let me expand and refine my earlier statement.  I think many of these young players, 19 - 22 years of age, have had such incredible training and competitive play already, that, combined with just a few vets, they could make up a sizable part, perhaps even half, of a championship team in the near future.  I believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league.

That middle one, above, is also a heckuva run-on sentence.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Let's forget the veteran savvy argument and all for just a moment.

At some point it could very well happen; some well coached team loaded with 19-25 year olds is going to run the rest of the league into the ground.  I would wager it happens, and sooner rather than later.  With the early fundamental training young players get now, and quickly build on, absolutely.

It's not just about veteran savvy - it's about veteran savvy WITH elite talent.

 swish

Swish,

Should have known you'd call me on that!

OK, let me expand and refine my earlier statement.  I think many of these young players, 19 - 22 years of age, have had such incredible training and competitive play already, that, combined with just a few vets, they could make up a sizable part, perhaps even half, of a championship team in the near future.  I believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league.

That middle one, above, is also a heckuva run-on sentence.

Regards

NYCelt

Always a fascinating game when attempting to predict the future for a bunch of 18-19 year old rookies. I love the Celts having high draft picks - but I am quite leery of their ability to act as elite players in their early years. Based on your below statement I did some checking on how picks 1-4 have done. since the 2001 draft in regards to making the nba all star roster by age 23.

" believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league."

Total of 68 picks - 15 made all star by age 23
at age 20,,,,, #1 pick = 3 ( out of 17 picks )
#2 pick = 0
#3 pick = 0
#4 pick = 0
at age 21,,,, #1 pick = 0 ( out of 17 picks )
#2 pick = 3
#3 pick = 1
#4 pick = 1
at age 22,,,, #1 pick = 1 ( out of 17 picks )
#2 pick = 0
#3 pick = 1
#4 pick = 2
at age 23,,,, #1 pick = 1 ( out of 17 picks )
#2 pick = 0
#3 pick = 2
#4 pick = 0

You know me and back up numbers to help validate an opinion - just a few numbers to crunch in regards to youth and those developing years.

swish

Swish,

OK, can't argue with your numbers.

How about I stand by my original statement and put it a different way?  

I THINK that young players games are advancing faster than ever before.  Be it that they're considered elite, or not, I BELIEVE that we will see a team with a high number of very young players win a championship relatively soon.

Better?  

Regards

NYCelt wrote:Swish,

OK, can't argue with your numbers.

How about I stand by my original statement and put it a different way?  

I THINK that young players games are advancing faster than ever before.  Be it that they're considered elite, or not, I BELIEVE that we will see a team with a high number of very young players win a championship relatively soon.

Better?  

Regards

NYCelt

The talent level coming into the NBA at the tender age of 19 is fantastic - and I agree that it is just a matter of time when a team top heavy in talented youth will blend in with a cast of seasoned veterans to win it all. It's far from impossible - difficult, but possible indeed.

swish

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Let's forget the veteran savvy argument and all for just a moment.

At some point it could very well happen; some well coached team loaded with 19-25 year olds is going to run the rest of the league into the ground.  I would wager it happens, and sooner rather than later.  With the early fundamental training young players get now, and quickly build on, absolutely.

It's not just about veteran savvy - it's about veteran savvy WITH elite talent.

 swish

Swish,

Should have known you'd call me on that!

OK, let me expand and refine my earlier statement.  I think many of these young players, 19 - 22 years of age, have had such incredible training and competitive play already, that, combined with just a few vets, they could make up a sizable part, perhaps even half, of a championship team in the near future.  I believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league.

That middle one, above, is also a heckuva run-on sentence.

Regards

 NYCelt

Always a fascinating game when attempting to predict the future for a bunch of 18-19 year old rookies. I love the Celts having high draft picks - but I am quite leery of  their ability to act as elite players in their early years. Based on your below statement I did some checking on how picks 1-4 have done. since the 2001 draft in regards to making the nba all star roster by age 23.

     " believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league."

      Total of 68 picks - 15 made all star by age 23
      at age 20,,,,, #1 pick = 3 ( out of 17 picks )
                          #2 pick = 0
                          #3 pick = 0
                          #4 pick = 0
      at age 21,,,, #1 pick = 0 ( out of 17 picks )
                         #2 pick = 3
                         #3 pick = 1
                         #4 pick = 1
      at age 22,,,, #1 pick = 1 ( out of 17 picks )
                         #2 pick = 0
                         #3 pick = 1
                         #4 pick = 2
      at age 23,,,, #1 pick = 1 ( out of 17 picks )
                         #2 pick = 0
                         #3 pick = 2
                         #4 pick = 0

    You know me and back up numbers to help validate an opinion - just a few numbers to crunch in regards to youth and those developing years.

    swish

Not sure I have the argument down correctly, but are we saying the great draft picks are so unlikely to become all-stars that it is false to currently say at least a couple of them will turn into players good enough in 2021-23 to help the Celtics win at least one title in what I dubbed the 'Third Trilogy'?

I said that the current core of vets will just be exiting their prime around 2020 the same time that Golden State's guys are. It will be up to players ages 24-27 (Brown), 22-25 (Tatum) and most likely 21-24 (2018 Brooklyn pick and 2018 or 19 LA/Sac pick) to be so much better than the youth movement that Golden State will have going for them as their expensive stars enter their 30's that this will be what allows the C's to finally knock them off.

But based on numbers I should not think those 4 picks will do that? I'm assuming the two we still have coming are in the top 10 and of the 4 total the C's will produce at least one all-star and two more very good rotation players/borderline starters. Not reasonable? That's what the C's will need to be contenders year in and year out into the 2020's by simply keeping their current roster and making draft picks and typical non-firework trades.

BleedGreen wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Let's forget the veteran savvy argument and all for just a moment.

At some point it could very well happen; some well coached team loaded with 19-25 year olds is going to run the rest of the league into the ground.  I would wager it happens, and sooner rather than later.  With the early fundamental training young players get now, and quickly build on, absolutely.

It's not just about veteran savvy - it's about veteran savvy WITH elite talent.

 swish

Swish,

Should have known you'd call me on that!

OK, let me expand and refine my earlier statement.  I think many of these young players, 19 - 22 years of age, have had such incredible training and competitive play already, that, combined with just a few vets, they could make up a sizable part, perhaps even half, of a championship team in the near future.  I believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league.

That middle one, above, is also a heckuva run-on sentence.

Regards

 NYCelt

Always a fascinating game when attempting to predict the future for a bunch of 18-19 year old rookies. I love the Celts having high draft picks - but I am quite leery of  their ability to act as elite players in their early years. Based on your below statement I did some checking on how picks 1-4 have done. since the 2001 draft in regards to making the nba all star roster by age 23.

     " believe many of these youngsters could even step up to a level considered elite within their first couple of years in the league."

      Total of 68 picks - 15 made all star by age 23
      at age 20,,,,, #1 pick = 3 ( out of 17 picks )
                          #2 pick = 0
                          #3 pick = 0
                          #4 pick = 0
      at age 21,,,, #1 pick = 0 ( out of 17 picks )
                         #2 pick = 3
                         #3 pick = 1
                         #4 pick = 1
      at age 22,,,, #1 pick = 1 ( out of 17 picks )
                         #2 pick = 0
                         #3 pick = 1
                         #4 pick = 2
      at age 23,,,, #1 pick = 1 ( out of 17 picks )
                         #2 pick = 0
                         #3 pick = 2
                         #4 pick = 0

    You know me and back up numbers to help validate an opinion - just a few numbers to crunch in regards to youth and those developing years.

    swish

Not sure I have the argument down correctly, but are we saying the great draft picks are so unlikely to become all-stars that it is false to currently say at least a couple of them will turn into players good enough in 2021-23 to help the Celtics win at least one title in what I dubbed the 'Third Trilogy'?

I said that the current core of vets will just be exiting their prime around 2020 the same time that Golden State's guys are. It will be up to players ages 24-27 (Brown), 22-25 (Tatum) and most likely 21-24 (2018 Brooklyn pick and 2018 or 19 LA/Sac pick) to be so much better than the youth movement that Golden State will have going for them as their expensive stars enter their 30's that this will be what allows the C's to finally knock them off.

But based on numbers I should not think those 4 picks will do that? I'm assuming the two we still have coming are in the top 10 and of the 4 total the C's will produce at least one all-star and two more very good rotation players/borderline starters. Not reasonable? That's what the C's will need to be contenders year in and year out into the 2020's by simply keeping their current roster and making draft picks and typical non-firework trades.

Bleed Green

I would hope that the Celts are good enough over the next several years to be annual contenders - but, for me at least, trying to predict the relatively distant future when there are so many unknown factors involved, is to me a game of ifs, maybe's, hopes and prayers. The out look for the Celtics is quite hopeful - should the IF'S favor them. And one of the biggest ifs, is waiting to see just how good our draft picks turn out to be. Then add the difficulty of predicting how the other league contenders will fare as they deal with their own bag of ifs. Four years down the road - I'll think about that in 2020.

swish

swish wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:

Not sure I have the argument down correctly, but are we saying the great draft picks are so unlikely to become all-stars that it is false to currently say at least a couple of them will turn into players good enough in 2021-23 to help the Celtics win at least one title in what I dubbed the 'Third Trilogy'?

I said that the current core of vets will just be exiting their prime around 2020 the same time that Golden State's guys are. It will be up to players ages 24-27 (Brown), 22-25 (Tatum) and most likely 21-24 (2018 Brooklyn pick and 2018 or 19 LA/Sac pick) to be so much better than the youth movement that Golden State will have going for them as their expensive stars enter their 30's that this will be what allows the C's to finally knock them off.

But based on numbers I should not think those 4 picks will do that? I'm assuming the two we still have coming are in the top 10 and of the 4 total the C's will produce at least one all-star and two more very good rotation players/borderline starters. Not reasonable? That's what the C's will need to be contenders year in and year out into the 2020's by simply keeping their current roster and making draft picks and typical non-firework trades.

 Bleed Green

 I would hope that the Celts are good enough over the next several years to be annual contenders - but, for me at least, trying to predict the relatively distant future when there are so many unknown factors involved, is to me a game of ifs, maybe's, hopes and prayers. The out look for the Celtics is quite hopeful - should the IF'S favor them. And one of the biggest ifs, is waiting to see just how good our draft picks turn out to be. Then add the difficulty of predicting how the other league contenders will fare as they deal with their own bag of ifs. Four years down the road - I'll think about that in 2020.

  swish

I guess when you reach a certain age looking one season ahead instead of 3-4 becomes the more practical thing to do, no offense.

Personally I expect (not hope) for the C's to be annual contenders for the next several years and assuming at least one all-star and two borderline starters/very good contributors to come from four top 10 picks should be more a reality based expectation than a hope and a prayer. Those 4 picks include two guys taken 3rd overall and one we already know has special talent, character and drive after his rookie year in Jaylen Brown.

While any logical person knows you don't count your chickens until they come to roost, I will not let anyone dampen my excitement about 2019-23 by constantly reminding me that the C's are not contenders yet and that the future draft picks and current 19-21 year old's could all be busts. That negative glass half empty line of thinking is not in my vernacular. Again, no offense to the pessimists and 'one season at a time' Bill Belichick crowd.

BleedGreen wrote:

swish wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:

Not sure I have the argument down correctly, but are we saying the great draft picks are so unlikely to become all-stars that it is false to currently say at least a couple of them will turn into players good enough in 2021-23 to help the Celtics win at least one title in what I dubbed the 'Third Trilogy'?

I said that the current core of vets will just be exiting their prime around 2020 the same time that Golden State's guys are. It will be up to players ages 24-27 (Brown), 22-25 (Tatum) and most likely 21-24 (2018 Brooklyn pick and 2018 or 19 LA/Sac pick) to be so much better than the youth movement that Golden State will have going for them as their expensive stars enter their 30's that this will be what allows the C's to finally knock them off.

But based on numbers I should not think those 4 picks will do that? I'm assuming the two we still have coming are in the top 10 and of the 4 total the C's will produce at least one all-star and two more very good rotation players/borderline starters. Not reasonable? That's what the C's will need to be contenders year in and year out into the 2020's by simply keeping their current roster and making draft picks and typical non-firework trades.

 Bleed Green

 I would hope that the Celts are good enough over the next several years to be annual contenders - but, for me at least, trying to predict the relatively distant future when there are so many unknown factors involved, is to me a game of ifs, maybe's, hopes and prayers. The out look for the Celtics is quite hopeful - should the IF'S favor them. And one of the biggest ifs, is waiting to see just how good our draft picks turn out to be. Then add the difficulty of predicting how the other league contenders will fare as they deal with their own bag of ifs. Four years down the road - I'll think about that in 2020.

  swish

I guess when you reach a certain age looking one season ahead instead of 3-4 becomes the more practical thing to do, no offense.

Personally I expect (not hope) for the C's to be annual contenders for the next several years and assuming at least one all-star and two borderline starters/very good contributors to come from four top 10 picks should be more a reality based expectation than a hope and a prayer. Those 4 picks include two guys taken 3rd overall and one we already know has special talent, character and drive after his rookie year in Jaylen Brown.

While any logical person knows you don't count your chickens until they come to roost, I will not let anyone dampen my excitement about 2019-23 by constantly reminding me that the C's are not contenders yet and that the future draft picks and current 19-21 year old's could all be busts. That negative glass half empty line of thinking is not in my vernacular. Again, no offense to the pessimists and 'one season at a time' Bill Belichick crowd.

Bleed Green

your below statement.

"I guess when you reach a certain age looking one season ahead instead of 3-4 becomes the more practical thing to do, no offense."

Over the years I have developed a more realistic approach to matters that involve the future - hey it works for me, and I suspect that your a person who views the future with optimism - and that works for you. Great - we're both satisfied about the way we approach the game.

swish

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Swish,

OK, can't argue with your numbers.

How about I stand by my original statement and put it a different way?  

I THINK that young players games are advancing faster than ever before.  Be it that they're considered elite, or not, I BELIEVE that we will see a team with a high number of very young players win a championship relatively soon.

Better?  

Regards

    NYCelt

 The talent level coming into the NBA at the tender age of 19 is fantastic - and I agree that it is just a matter of time when a team top heavy in talented youth will blend in with a cast of seasoned veterans to win it all. It's far from impossible - difficult, but possible indeed.

  swish

it already happened in 79-80 and 80-81, it just hasn't happened in awhile....heck it happened in 57 didn't it?

cowens/oldschool wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Swish,

OK, can't argue with your numbers.

How about I stand by my original statement and put it a different way?  

I THINK that young players games are advancing faster than ever before.  Be it that they're considered elite, or not, I BELIEVE that we will see a team with a high number of very young players win a championship relatively soon.

Better?  

Regards

    NYCelt

 The talent level coming into the NBA at the tender age of 19 is fantastic - and I agree that it is just a matter of time when a team top heavy in talented youth will blend in with a cast of seasoned veterans to win it all. It's far from impossible - difficult, but possible indeed.

  swish

it already happened in 79-80 and 80-81, it just hasn't happened in awhile....heck it happened in 57 didn't it?

All the players on the 3 Celtic teams that you mentioned were 4 year college vets - all were 23 or older during there Ist season with the exception of Heinsohn who was 22 - no 19 year old rookies with only 1 year of ball against non high school players. For most it takes a while to grow into to the nba game - especially the mental aspect.

swish

cowens/oldschool wrote:

swish wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Swish,

OK, can't argue with your numbers.

How about I stand by my original statement and put it a different way?  

I THINK that young players games are advancing faster than ever before.  Be it that they're considered elite, or not, I BELIEVE that we will see a team with a high number of very young players win a championship relatively soon.

Better?  

Regards

    NYCelt

 The talent level coming into the NBA at the tender age of 19 is fantastic - and I agree that it is just a matter of time when a team top heavy in talented youth will blend in with a cast of seasoned veterans to win it all. It's far from impossible - difficult, but possible indeed.

  swish

it already happened in 79-80 and 80-81, it just hasn't happened in awhile....heck it happened in 57 didn't it?

So true, and to a lesser extent (b/c of Kareem and David Robinson) with the '80 & '82 Lakers and '99 Spurs.

The 1979 Sonics are the best example I can think of.

Their 3 best players were Dennis Johnson (age 24) Gus Williams (25) and Jake Sikma (23). Brown, Tatum and a player drafted top 5 in 2018 would be those ages in 2022 supported by guys in their early 30's like IT, Hayward and Horford who would be similar ages to 3 of the Sonics next 4 best players in John Johnson (31), Fred Brown (30) and Paul Silas (35). The only other major rotation guy that Sonics team had was a 23 year old Lonnie Shelton who would potentially be another 2018-19 lotto pick in this C's scenario or even Yabu or Zizic.

Kobe was only 22-24 for the Laker 3-peat and Jaylen Brown will be those ages in the 2019-21 playoffs supported by a collection of very good to all-star level vets in their primes and a 32-34 year old Horford. Instead of the way LA built it with a superstar Batman in Shaq, young Robin in Kobe and several average to good vets in the Horford and up age range like Horry, Rice, Fox, Harper and Grant around them.

swish wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:

swish wrote:

 Bleed Green

 I would hope that the Celts are good enough over the next several years to be annual contenders - but, for me at least, trying to predict the relatively distant future when there are so many unknown factors involved, is to me a game of ifs, maybe's, hopes and prayers. The out look for the Celtics is quite hopeful - should the IF'S favor them. And one of the biggest ifs, is waiting to see just how good our draft picks turn out to be. Then add the difficulty of predicting how the other league contenders will fare as they deal with their own bag of ifs. Four years down the road - I'll think about that in 2020.

  swish

I guess when you reach a certain age looking one season ahead instead of 3-4 becomes the more practical thing to do, no offense.

Personally I expect (not hope) for the C's to be annual contenders for the next several years and assuming at least one all-star and two borderline starters/very good contributors to come from four top 10 picks should be more a reality based expectation than a hope and a prayer. Those 4 picks include two guys taken 3rd overall and one we already know has special talent, character and drive after his rookie year in Jaylen Brown.

While any logical person knows you don't count your chickens until they come to roost, I will not let anyone dampen my excitement about 2019-23 by constantly reminding me that the C's are not contenders yet and that the future draft picks and current 19-21 year old's could all be busts. That negative glass half empty line of thinking is not in my vernacular. Again, no offense to the pessimists and 'one season at a time' Bill Belichick crowd.

  Bleed Green

  your below statement.

           "I guess when you reach a certain age looking one season ahead instead of 3-4 becomes the more practical thing to do, no offense."

 Over the years I have developed a more realistic approach to matters that involve the future - hey it works for me, and I suspect that your a person who views the future with optimism - and that works for you. Great - we're both satisfied about the way we approach the game.

   swish

My looking 3-4 years into the future approach is always realistic. Saying right now that they will be title contenders for those years is the realistic outlook. Expecting more good than bad from Brown, Tatum and 2 likely top 7 picks and almost certain lotto picks in 2018-19 is also realistic.

Whether your 3-4 years outlook is positive or negative is up to the team's year by year situation. I had a negative 3-4 year outlook from 2010-2013 but a positive one from 2014-present while always looking a few years into the future. To be negative and pessimistic right now about the 3-5 years future is absurd. The team signed back to back top of their class free agents who are borderline all-stars, developed an all-star stolen from the Suns basically for free and are just starting to reap the benefits of the Nets heist with Brown, Tatum and 2 future lotto picks still on the way.

No Celtic fan needs to be reminded, "hey the core group of guys in their prime hasn't won anything yet and these 19-20 year olds are all still unproven and could be busts." Sure, we all know this. But to make such pessimism part of your approach to the most anticipates season since maybe 2010-11 sounds like a miserable mindset to me.