What The Celtics Really Need Is A Proven Scorer

I'm all set with the roster we have. This guy says we need a 20 ppg scorer, but IT4's 19 ppg doesn't count because he's small.

What this team needed last year wasn't another big scorer, it was somebody who could drive into the lane at will and kick it out to open men. And we got that in Rozier and IT4.

I hate this kind of whining and lazy boy armchair
GM-ing. Because casual fans read it and stop being optimistic, even realistic, about our team.

For instance, the Celtics shot incredibly well in the clutch, aka late fourth quarter, after Rondo left.

And yet this journalist undoubtedly has no appreciation or respect for that group clutch shooting performance, and would rather another PP type to take all those shots.

When in reality, a PP type would end up taking all those clutch shots, and missing a whole lot of them, because everybody knows who would be taking the last shot.

I much prefer the clutch-shots-by-committee approach that worked so well last year, because the other team can't prepare for just one star, and can't cheat off of other players, not knowing who is prepared to take the last shot.

And Bullspit doesn't even say "Celtics need scorer", instead he says, "Celtics need PROVEN scorer".

What he means is somebody he doesn't have to think independently about before writing articles about how great the player is.

It still hasn't occurred to him that Smart's ankle really slowed him down last year, and that Smart can be a big scorer. And it would never occur to him that somebody like RJ Hunter could step up and put a whole lot of points on the board as a third scoring option, or that Rozier, with his ability to get into the lane at will, might be ready to both put up points and get a whole lot of open shots for his teammates.

Nope, Celtics need "proven" scorer, so Bullpett doesn't have to think, or praise anybody who might make him look bad later.

He doesn't even care if that "proven scorer" can play defense or not, or cost us half the roster to get, or be proven but over the hill.

I am neither a fan of Mr. Bulpett nor a critic, but I disagree with his thought of the Celtics needing a wing type scorer more than a defensive and rebounding center.

The spread out offense that Stevens likes is nice, but when games slow down (even prior to the playoffs) a big man who can really clog the lane and get defensive rebounds on a very regular basis is more important than a wing shooter/scorer, in my opinion. Far too often in the last 3 years have the Celtics lost games when the other team gains possession after possession by gathering their offensive rebounds.

With that said, my second 'need' for the Cs is the wing scorer type of guy. DeRosan could be this guy.

Both of said positions need to be filled with better players to get up past 50 wins (next year's goal) and to the conference finals (my goal for the team) in the following season.

First, I believe Bulpett is a "proven" basketball writer of great ability.  A good analyst AND a good writer.  I particularly liked his turn of phrase when he wrote: "The Celtics, on the other hand, have in place a number of good complementary players who would look even better in the reflected glow of a star."


I don't believe Bulpett is denying, in any way, the need for a defensive/rebounding stud whom he refers to as "Mr. X" (which I've done myself when I tire of the term "rim protector" (which I do easily).  He's being realistic enough to recognize that, for one reason or another, a player of this description has eluded the Celtics; but that doesn't make the quest any less appropriate.


I believe I can justifiably lay claim to being one of the board's foremost advocates of the need for the defensive/rebounding/intimidation abilities of "Mr. X."  So much so that, at various points, I've been sanguine about suggesting names like D'Andre Jordan and Omer Asik, who are not exactly offensive luminaries.  But I would never have mentioned names such as those without also recognizing that the offense last season was even more suspect than the defense in my book (although that "race" could have gone either way).  Particularly the offense of the starters, who seldom outscored their opposing counterparts.


Bulpett correctly mentions Isaiah Thomas as an accomplished scorer.  But he also points to factors (height, greatly reduced contributions when Isaiah became the focus of a defense) that moderate his ability to be THE scorer.  Isaiah is best equipped to be the straw that breaks the opponent's back as the counterpoint to a more consistent scorer who draws a lot of defensive attention.


So, in effect, Bulpett is agreeing that dependence on one scorer such as Paul Pierce down the stretch is a fool's errand—especially if that scorer is 5' 9" and sports some defensive warts.  He's saying, in effect, that the Celtics need an ADDITIONAL lights-out scorer, and hopefully one whose contributions will be so consistent that he becomes a defensive magnet who has the ability to surmount that handicap.  In other words, Bulpett wants another player who can reliably contribute 20+ ppg AND take some of the pressure off Isaiah (and teammates) so that efficient scoring will be more pervasive for not only Isaiah but for other teammates as well.


I don't happen to agree that Kevin Love could potentially be that player just because he scores a lot.  I think of Love's scoring totals as being accumulated throughout the game without his being particularly able to rise to another scoring level in the clutch. In essence, Bulpett's looking for another scorer as dynamic as Isaiah but with the added ability to ramp it up down the stretch while being less susceptible to defensive focus and while making teammates better scorers via the threat he represents to defenders.


I'd love to see Demar DeRozan with the Celtics.  Visions of him as a 6' 7" SG paired with Isaiah at the "1" down the stretch would make me a very happy puppy.  Talk about "dynamic!"  Include Crowder at SF (for his disruptive/defensive ability and his prowess in taking the ball strong to the hoop) and the multi-faceted Amir Johnson, and let David Lee be an effective placeholder at the center position for up to a year while the search for Mr. X continues for however long it takes.


I'm deliberately emphasizing the stretch runs of games because I believe Brad has proven that he has a knack for strategies that can keep a decent, but not outstanding, very competitive throughout most of a given game.  When I think of "effectiveness" on a ball club, my mind immediately goes to the five (whatever the mix of starters and bench players) who will be FINISHING the games.  I bet that, if Steve Bulpett were to be asked, he'd agree.


I think that to claim Bulpett mentions a PROVEN scorer primarily because he's using the word as some means of equivocation is an incredible analytical stretch.  I might believe that type of thing about A. Sherrod Blakely; but, with the retirement of Bob Ryan and the only occasional Celtics contributions of Jackie MacMullan, Steve Bulpett may currently be the top Celtics beat writer.  That's a major reason why he's in demand as a guest on Boston sports shows that require spontaneous thinking, analytical ability and candor....while A. Sherrod Blakely is not.  When he talks about "proven," I think he's referring to the risk of relying on untested talent (such as most rookies) to fill an essential role.  In fact, the need for PROVEN talent has been one of my main reasons for trusting trades and free agency rather than the crap shoot known as the draft to provide immediate help in key roles.


Sam