Bradley: Celtics Could 'Make A Lot Of Noise'

Don't see it?

Maybe if they let Faverini drive onto the court in a car.

worcester wrote:Don't see it?

Maybe if they let Faverini drive onto the court in a car.

Needs to be sure who he is running into.

Beat,

Questioning his "drive," are we?


KJ

Love the enthusiasm.  Not too shabby after the downer of a season last year.  What I like most is that guys like Bradley and Rondo aren't saying the right things because they're fighting for jobs.  They really expect to get better as a team.  I've written often about the difference between wanting something and expecting it.  They can be worlds apart.

Sam

Sam were pretty deep at every position, there will be times we'll be exploited down low, but we should be able to run teams to death with our talented personnel and depth. Our backcourt is speedy, can't wait to see them create havoc and run, we have runners and athletes at the 1-2-3, Green, Wallace, Turner and Young can all run. Sully should have a breakout year, throwing his weight around, he can move 4's easy. If Zeller can just hold his own and neutralize, not let opposing 5's run wild, give us 12-13 and 8 boards a game....with this dynamic backcourt, Rondo and AB blowing up and Smart attacking and manically adding his D, we can give teams trouble. This is a playoff team in the East.

wow....some seem to have high expectations for this season.

I hope your right, but I see 30-35 wins as our ceiling right now.

so what do those that think we are a playoff team see our ceiling at for this coming season?

cowens/oldschool wrote:Sam were pretty deep at every position, there will be times we'll be exploited down low, but we should be able to run teams to death with our talented personnel and depth. Our backcourt is speedy, can't wait to see them create havoc and run, we have runners and athletes at the 1-2-3,  Green, Wallace, Turner and Young can all run. Sully should have a breakout year, throwing his weight around, he can move 4's easy. If Zeller can just hold his own and neutralize, not let opposing 5's run wild, give us 12-13 and 8 boards a game....with this dynamic backcourt, Rondo and AB blowing up and Smart attacking and manically adding his D, we can give teams trouble. This is a playoff team in the East.

Cow

A big if. We have a very tough first 20 games, very tough might even go 5-15 and if we do playoffs are a stretch. Even considering the weak east. That said if we can survive the first 20 games and be at 10-10, I like our chances to grab a 7th or 8th spot.

Bring on the camp

beat

Well, as I've said several times, I'll be very happy if the Celtics (1) can jell and achieve better chemistry than they did last season, (2) can determine which player combinations are most effective, (3) can work within Brad's vision, in which I have confidence without knowing completely what it is, (4) can develop an identity moving forward, (5) compete very hard every night, (6) identify weak areas even within the context of an improving team, (7) do something about those weak areas (although it could potentially take another year to accomplish that), ( are able to mature in their best positions without having to default constantly to other positions, (9) are placed in positions to succeed by getting habituated to helping one another, and (10) play sufficiently exciting basketball to keep their fan base solidly behind them.

If they can accomplish all or most of these 10 things, I'll be happy whether or not playoffs are in the picture.  But, as the season unfolds, I'm very unlikely to use their playoff potential as my litmus test as to how they're doing.  If a minor (major?) miracle happens, I reserve the right to change that stance.

I'd prefer a running team and not a three-point team, and I hope their defense will become the engine that propels them (including offensively).  However, I've learned throughout my life to take whatever the Celtics braintrust feels gives them the greatest chance to compete.  And I'm fine with that.

Sam

Here's my take for the Celtics record this season.
I definitely leaned toward the pro-Celtics side and gave them some games that they probably won't win.

November: 3-11
December: 8-7
January: 4-12
February: 6-5
March: 7-11
April: 4-4

Total: 32-50

another thing is I don't see the east having ANY playoff teams this year with a losing record.


so I don't think 35 wins will be a "playoff" team in the so-called lowly east this coming year.


we also need another HIGH lottery pick next year. We need to get real young talent and picking high is one of the easiest ways to do that.


another top 10 draft pick along with perhaps a high level Free agent signing next year, then we could in position to move into the playoffs AND be a position to grow from there.

I don't make predictions.  But my hope is for the Celtics to have the following record in terms of effort:

Nov. 14-0
Dec. 15-0
Jan. 16-0
Feb. 11-0
Mar. 18-0
Apr. 8-0

Sam

KDP,

I think the East will be improved, but I still see a team with a losing record making the playoffs, mainly because the West is so strong and most East teams will have to overcome a losing record in 30 games against the West. Last season, only four of 15 East teams had a winning record vs. the West.

If anything, the West will be tougher. Only Utah, the Lakers, and Sacramento are lousy. Minnesota and Denver will be a level up from that, and 10 good teams will be competing for eight playoff spots.

I count New Orleans in that group, who was snakebit last year with injuries (two starters, Jrue Holiday and Ryan Anderson missing tons of games and lots of other miscellaneous injuries). Anthony Davis is turning into a beast, plus they have Anderson, Holiday, Eric Gordon, Omer Asik, and Tyreke Evans. They don't have depth, but if they can avoid the calamitous injuries, they'll be good. Even as beat up as they were last season, they were 19-11 vs. the East.

sam wrote:I don't make predictions.  But my hope is for the Celtics to have the following record in terms of effort:

Nov. 14-0
Dec. 15-0
Jan. 16-0
Feb. 11-0
Mar. 18-0
Apr. 8-0

Sam

Wasn't that supposed to be the Lakers record when they acquired Dwight and Nash?
:-)

As many games as the C's lost last season where there was a lead in the 3rd or 4th quarter, turn half of those into wins and the Celtics would be a 6-7th seed.


KJ

TJ,

Search me.  I don't really know what expectations of the Lakers' effort was when Howard and Nash went aboard.  For that matter, You'd have a far better idea than I would of what their record in terms of effort turned out to be.  I think Brad Stevens is pretty good at encouraging effort, and I like the positive attitude I'm hearing from the Celtics players.  Add in a little "homerism" and you have the reason for my statement of hope.  We'll see to what extent it can become reality.

Sam

k_j_88 wrote:As many games as the C's lost last season where there was a lead in the 3rd or 4th quarter, turn half of those into wins and the Celtics would be a 6-7th seed.


KJ

KJ,

Only 5 teams in the East had a .500 record in games decided by 10 points or less.
Boston was 9-23. Even if you gave them a .500 record, that would be 16-16.
That would give them 32 wins last year.
That's still well below being a playoff contender.
I don't know if Rondo, Bradley, Green and mostly young guys are going to all of a sudden play significantly better down the stretch of games.
Most young teams don't have good records in games decided by 10 points or less.

sam wrote:TJ,

Search me.  I don't really know what expectations of the Lakers' effort was when Howard and Nash went aboard.  For that matter, You'd have a far better idea than I would of what their record in terms of effort turned out to be.  I think Brad Stevens is pretty good at encouraging effort, and I like the positive attitude I'm hearing from the Celtics players.  Add in a little "homerism" and you have the reason for my statement of hope.  We'll see to what extent it can become reality.

Sam

Sam,

The expectations were very high for the Lakers after acquiring Dwight and Nash, some even wondered if they would challenge the Bulls 72-10 record.
MWP even tongue in cheek said the Lakers would win 73 games.
Nash had played extremely well with Phoenix the year before.
Once Nash went down with his leg injury in game two and Dwight was slow to recover from back surgery and shoulder problems, the Lakers season went down hill at a rapid pace.

tjmakz wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:As many games as the C's lost last season where there was a lead in the 3rd or 4th quarter, turn half of those into wins and the Celtics would be a 6-7th seed.


KJ

KJ,

Only 5 teams in the East had a .500 record in games decided by 10 points or less.
Boston was 9-23. Even if you gave them a .500 record, that would be 16-16.
That would give them 32 wins last year.
That's still well below being a playoff contender.
I don't know if Rondo, Bradley, Green and mostly young guys are going to all of a sudden play significantly better down the stretch of games.
Most young teams don't have good records in games decided by 10 points or less.

TJ,
I think you misread KJ. He, as well as Bobh, were alluding to quite a few games where Celtics lost by a few points and many of those games' losses could be attributed to inexperience of players and coach to keep the lead to the final buzzer.
Unfortunately, I don't have the list but it seems there were enough of those to squeeze into playoffs. Doubt thou about 6-7th seed.

AK

sinus007 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:As many games as the C's lost last season where there was a lead in the 3rd or 4th quarter, turn half of those into wins and the Celtics would be a 6-7th seed.


KJ

KJ,

Only 5 teams in the East had a .500 record in games decided by 10 points or less.
Boston was 9-23. Even if you gave them a .500 record, that would be 16-16.
That would give them 32 wins last year.
That's still well below being a playoff contender.
I don't know if Rondo, Bradley, Green and mostly young guys are going to all of a sudden play significantly better down the stretch of games.
Most young teams don't have good records in games decided by 10 points or less.

TJ,
I think you misread KJ. He, as well as Bobh, were alluding to quite a few games where Celtics lost by a few points and many of those games' losses could be attributed to inexperience of players and coach to keep the lead to the final buzzer.
Unfortunately, I don't have the list but it seems there were enough of those to squeeze into playoffs. Doubt thou about 6-7th seed.

AK

Sinus,

I am sure Boston didn't lost an extra 13 or 14 games in which they gave up the lead in the 4th quarter.
Unless we see statistics on this, it is speculation.

TJ,

How many Celtics games did you watch last year?

From my observations, the Celtics were in a lot of those games and even had the upper hand for stretches but couldn't hold it together.

Also, I am referring to more than just the 10 points or less losses. The C's were on the receiving end of some blowouts after having fairly nice leads. Your statistics don't even begin to explain the entire story.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:TJ,

How many Celtics games did you watch last year?

From my observations, the Celtics were in a lot of those games and even had the upper hand for stretches but couldn't hold it together.

Also, I am referring to more than just the 10 points or less losses. The C's were on the receiving end of some blowouts after having fairly nice leads. Your statistics don't even begin to explain the entire story.



KJ

KJ,

I probably watched the majority of 50 or more Celtics games last season.
I'm a single guy, so I have time to watch the NBA.
I haven't seen any other stats to counter my viewpoint.
If someone could find a stat about Boston's record when they had the lead in the 4th quarter, I would be interested in finding out what that was.
I am not one that thinks that a young Celtics will gain 13 games or more from last years team.
If everything goes right for the Celtics and they overachieve, can they sneak into the playoffs? Sure they can.
But you can say that for every team in the East, except for probably Orlando and Philadelphia.

I remember there were so many close games and they would lose in the last 2 minutes or 30 seconds or so, then Steve and I would call and be glad that they lost.....as we know the draft is a crapshoot, but overall I'm glad with our 2 picks.

An inability to make the necessary plays when the game is on the line is the main characteristic of a weak team.

Even a weak team is in many games and seem to come tantalizingly close to winning but in crunch time you pretty much know that their chances are really slim.

Of course, the season being so long, the superior team often plays just hard enough to win. How many times have you seen strong Celtic teams play a mediocre game against a weak opponent but get it together when the time comes?