How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from portcallen99. Show portcallen99's posts

    How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Season to date, various team stats for the top 5.

     

    Wins (win %):

    1. SanAnt 22 (.880)

    2. Boston 21 (.840)

    3. Dallas 21 (.808)

    4. Lakers 20 (.741)

    5. Miami 20 (.714)

     

    Opponents avg W/L % in team’s wins: 

    1. Dallas .494

    2. Boston .454

    3. SanAnt .453

    4. Miami .395

    5. Lakers .350

     

    Comment: Lakers' wins are against the weakest teams; Dallas is winning vs overall tougher teams

     

    Wins vs +.500 teams:

    1. Boston 9

    1. Dallas 9

    3. SanAnt 8

    4. Miami 5

    5. Lakers 1

     

    Comment: Boston/Dallas playing toughest schedule; Lakers exposed as the team with the cupcake schedule

     

    Wins vs -.500 teams:

    1. Lakers 19

    2. Miami 15

    3. SanAnt 14

    4. Dallas 12

    4. Boston 12

     

    Comment: Lakers are in first in their division because of their extremely weak schedule

     

    # of sets of back-to-backs, with W/L:

    1. Boston 7, 11-3

    2. Miami 6, 8-4

    3. Lakers 5, 8-2

    4. SanAnt 4, 7-1

    4. Dallas 4, 7-1

     

    Comment: Back-to-back games are a strain and a blight on any team’s schedule. Boston has inexplicably been given the worst schedule to date yet have posted a remarkable record in BBs.

     

    Total # Home/Away games:

    1. Dallas 17/9

    2. Miami 15/13

    3. SanAnt 15/10

    4. Lakers 12/15

    5. Boston 12/13

     

    Comment: Dallas has greatly benefited from the home court advantage. Lakers have the most away games, but their away opponents are the easiest.

     

    What do you think? Other comments welcome.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    I think both the Celtics and the Spurs are going to come down to earth a bit.  Spurs' schedule will get tougher, while the Celts' injuries will start to play a more prominent role in the coming weeks.

    That's the deal with the C's, though.  They need to get off to a crazy good start to sustain the injuries.  They've done this now for four seasons in a row.

    The Heat's stretch right now is no fluke.  They are beginning to play at a very, very high level. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from basketbert. Show basketbert's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    No 11-game winning streak can be a fluke.
    I'm happy we played the heat twice while they were still figuring things out. I think we match up well with them when healthy, but clearly right now we're not.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from portcallen99. Show portcallen99's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]I think both the Celtics and the Spurs are going to come down to earth a bit ... The Heat's stretch right now is no fluke. 
    Posted by soups[/QUOTE]
    You could be right. Here's the scoop on next 10 games:

    Boston:
    3 games vs +.500 teams
    6 home
    2 back-to-backs

    San Antonio:
    7 games vs +.500 teams
    6 home
    2 back-to-backs

    Miami:
    3 games vs +.500 teams
    4 home
    3 back-to-backs

    Celts would appear to have the easiest stretch to help maintain their pace. San Antonio plays much tougher teams (7 out 10 vs +.500 teams) and I look for them to lose several of these games. Miami has the fewest home games and three back-to-back sets so they may hit a wall with the extra travel.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mem17. Show mem17's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Good research. Thanks for the work you did. It was loaded with good information.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dboss. Show dboss's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Considering that Boston has been winning with a 4th string center, it is clear that they are the class of the NBA.

    As far as them coming down to earth, they are pretty much where they were 07-08 at 22-3.  To have a 21-4 record with 4-5 top rotations players missing due to injury is pretty formidable.

    Rondo will not be out too long and Shaqand JON should be healthy and ready to play within nthe next two weeks.  West and Perkins should be ready in the next 6 weeks (Early February)

    Boston has. 

    The Celtics are simply the best team in the NBA all things considered.  I look for them to continue on a torrid pace through the end oif the year.

    dboss
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]Season to date, various team stats for the top 5.   Wins (win %): 1. SanAnt 22 (.880) 2. Boston 21 (.840) 3. Dallas 21 (.808) 4. Lakers 20 (.741) 5. Miami 20 (.714)   Opponents avg W/L % in team’s wins:   1. Dallas .494 2. Boston .454 3. SanAnt .453 4. Miami .395 5. Lakers .350   Comment: Lakers' wins are against the weakest teams; Dallas is winning vs overall tougher teams   Wins vs +.500 teams: 1. Boston 9 1. Dallas 9 3. SanAnt 8 4. Miami 5 5. Lakers 1   Comment: Boston/Dallas playing toughest schedule; Lakers exposed as the team with the cupcake schedule   Wins vs -.500 teams: 1. Lakers 19 2. Miami 15 3. SanAnt 14 4. Dallas 12 4. Boston 12   Comment: Lakers are in first in their division because of their extremely weak schedule   # of sets of back-to-backs, with W/L: 1. Boston 7, 11-3 2. Miami 6, 8-4 3. Lakers 5, 8-2 4. SanAnt 4, 7-1 4. Dallas 4, 7-1   Comment: Back-to-back games are a strain and a blight on any team’s schedule. Boston has inexplicably been given the worst schedule to date yet have posted a remarkable record in BBs.   Total # Home/Away games: 1. Dallas 17/9 2. Miami 15/13 3. SanAnt 15/10 4. Lakers 12/15 5. Boston 12/13   Comment: Dallas has greatly benefited from the home court advantage. Lakers have the most away games, but their away opponents are the easiest.   What do you think? Other comments welcome.
    Posted by portcallen99[/QUOTE]

    The Lakers have not played one minute with their starting center - please don't respond ditto for the Cs because the guy that has been starting all year for the Cs is better than their starting center.

    Miami has played every single game without one of the premier 3point shooters in the league which is one of the pieces that they are missing more than anything else.

    The Spurs will come back to earth as soon as Manu goes down for an extended period of time - which he inevitably will and does each and every year.

    I don't look at the +/- 500 stats, etc.  I generally look at what I would call quality wins.  I think they have only played a few quality teams - what I would call the contenders / pretenders - the beat and lost to OKC, they barely beat the Knicks (who the Heat destroyed last night), they lost to Dallas, they beat the Heat twice, and the Hawks twice.  Not sure if they have played any other teams that anyone would consider contenders / pretenders.

    The Cs have played 3 overtime games and have beaten the Knicks twice by a total of 6 points - so they are about 10 total points away from being 16 and 9.

    Let's see how they deal with Utah, the Spurs, Lakers, etc.  I have a feeling that Orlando has stopped listening to their coach and that despite Howard adding a lot of offensive options, their defense is horrendous - so I am not sure they are a contender anymore.  I thought the Bulls may be ready to take the next step and then they lost what I would consider or the 3rd of 4th best center in the conference for the next 2 or 3 months.

    Given all of this, I would say that the Spurs and Cs are the two best teams as of now.  When the Lakers work Bynum in, they may join those two.  That leaves Dallas, Utah, and Miami as IMO the next tier.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from datruthpp34. Show datruthpp34's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]I think both the Celtics and the Spurs are going to come down to earth a bit.  Spurs' schedule will get tougher, while the Celts' injuries will start to play a more prominent role in the coming weeks. That's the deal with the C's, though.  They need to get off to a crazy good start to sustain the injuries.  They've done this now for four seasons in a row. The Heat's stretch right now is no fluke.  They are beginning to play at a very, very high level. 
    Posted by soups[/QUOTE]
    Yeah I agreed about the heat but once again they haven't play against true challenge like the boston celtics,.even lakers is going to have a hard time beating the heat cuz no1 can guard mebron and wade as the same time but the boston celtics will have no problem with those 2 with Pierce and allen guarding them.,Bosh is going to score less than 9 points because he has a phobia with Garnett.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from portcallen99. Show portcallen99's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]The Lakers have not played one minute with their starting center - please don't respond ditto for the Cs because the guy that has been starting all year for the Cs is better than their starting center.
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]
    Please explain: why do you think Erdon and JON (who have taken turns as the C's starting center) are better than Perkins? And Shaq may be better than Perk but he can only go 15-20 minutes.

    Context (schedule, back-to-backs, etc.) are nearly as important as who has the healthiest/best players.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams? : Please explain: why do you think Erdon and JON (who have taken turns as the C's starting center) are better than Perkins? And Shaq may be better than Perk but he can only go 15-20 minutes. Context (schedule, back-to-backs, etc.) are nearly as important as who has the healthiest/best players.
    Posted by portcallen99[/QUOTE]

    Shaq is clearly better than Perk and Erden is a rookie.  Shaq has averaged 22 mins per game while I believe last year Perk averaged about 26.  There are some that would like you to believe that Perk averages about 38 mins but he simply does not.  From my perspective at this point not only is Shaq better but Baby is as well.  With some more experience and muscle I don't think there is any doubt that Semih will be better.

    Perk is a journeyman center who only in Boston playing with 3 hall of famers is some sort of God in the middle.  Give me Noah, either Lopez, either Gasol, Howard, Horford, Chandler, Jason Thompson, Kaman, Kaman's replacement Jordan, Bynum, Shaq, Hibbert, Gasol, Varejao, Nene, Ibaka, Biedrins, Okafor, and even Al Jefferson and OBTW I have not even thought about looking up any stats or anything like that.... these are simply just better players. I would also add McGee and Blatche as much better all around players but you may consider them as 4s as opposed to 5s.

    What is funny is how people love to go on and on about how Perk is a great matchup against Howard, etc.

    But nobody ever says what would happen if your center was actually a threat at both ends of the court instead of just one end....... so if you can actually run your offense through Bogut or Lopez it is a bad thing because they might not be able to stop Howard.... nobody can stop Howard and Perk gets called for about one tenth of the actual fouls he actually commits and then pisses his pants when gets called for a foul (which he obviously committed).

    This gets to the point that amazes me to no end..... people love to put qualifiers on players " so and so is a defensive specialist"... "so and so is a pass first point guard"... when what they really mean is that they have an incomplete player and that there are many other players at the same position that are overall better players but somehow with the existing players the team is better off as opposed to having players that are actually players...... Bruce Bowen is a "defensive specialist" small forward and of course nobody would want LeBron James because he is the 3rd best player in the game but somehow the Spurs are better off with Bowen........  Rondo can't score / shoot and he is a "pass first" point guard and it would really not be too good to have "insert name" because he can do everything Rondo does and more but "would not be a good fit for the Cs"...... lmfao......  as if somehow Pierce, Allen, and Garnett would not love to have someone that can shoot and finish.... ditto for Perk.... Pierce, Allen, and KG would really hate to have Brook Lopez who can shoot, shoot freebies, play defense, pass, etc.

    The other night agains the Knicks the national announcers said "I would not even guard Rondo".... "Rondo needs to learn to move better without the ball because he would be open for uncontested jumpers"...... um if you had done your prep work you would realize that there is no such thing as a contested Rondo jumper - he is the joke of the league and as a result of having 4 hall of famers to pass the ball to he averages 14 assists per game...... I will take an average shooter who does not create an automatic double team against the best players of my team and 8 assists per game... um like Paul, Williams, Felton, Nelson, Jennings, Rose, Davis, Evans, Udrih, and so on and so forth.....


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from portcallen99. Show portcallen99's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Adding to my post at the top of this thread:

    Given the fact that athletic performance is adversely affected by travel (especially travel outside the normal time zone) due to jet lag, dehydration, lack of sleep, etc., which teams to date have had the greatest burden?

    Away games in same time zone followed by next closest time zones (4 zones):

    Boston 10 – 2 – 1 – 0 (13)

    Miami 6 – 3 – 2 – 2 (13)

    SanAnt 3 – 6 – 1 (10)

    Dallas 3 – 5 – 1 (9)

    Lakers 2 – 4 – 4 – 5 (15)

    Boston, Miami and the Lakers are in the bookend time zones. Their travel stress would seem to be greater than teams in the middle two time zones (San Antonio and Dallas) because of the cross-country travel thru 3 zones. It appears that the Lakers have had the worst time zone travel to date, while the Celts have had the most favorable.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams? : Shaq is clearly better than Perk and Erden is a rookie.  Shaq has averaged 22 mins per game while I believe last year Perk averaged about 26.  There are some that would like you to believe that Perk averages about 38 mins but he simply does not.  From my perspective at this point not only is Shaq better but Baby is as well.  With some more experience and muscle I don't think there is any doubt that Semih will be better. Perk is a journeyman center who only in Boston playing with 3 hall of famers is some sort of God in the middle.  Give me Noah, either Lopez, either Gasol, Howard, Horford, Chandler, Jason Thompson, Kaman, Kaman's replacement Jordan, Bynum, Shaq, Hibbert, Gasol, Varejao, Nene, Ibaka, Biedrins, Okafor, and even Al Jefferson and OBTW I have not even thought about looking up any stats or anything like that.... these are simply just better players. I would also add McGee and Blatche as much better all around players but you may consider them as 4s as opposed to 5s. What is funny is how people love to go on and on about how Perk is a great matchup against Howard, etc. But nobody ever says what would happen if your center was actually a threat at both ends of the court instead of just one end....... so if you can actually run your offense through Bogut or Lopez it is a bad thing because they might not be able to stop Howard.... nobody can stop Howard and Perk gets called for about one tenth of the actual fouls he actually commits and then pisses his pants when gets called for a foul (which he obviously committed). This gets to the point that amazes me to no end..... people love to put qualifiers on players " so and so is a defensive specialist"... "so and so is a pass first point guard"... when what they really mean is that they have an incomplete player and that there are many other players at the same position that are overall better players but somehow with the existing players the team is better off as opposed to having players that are actually players...... Bruce Bowen is a "defensive specialist" small forward and of course nobody would want LeBron James because he is the 3rd best player in the game but somehow the Spurs are better off with Bowen........  Rondo can't score / shoot and he is a "pass first" point guard and it would really not be too good to have "insert name" because he can do everything Rondo does and more but "would not be a good fit for the Cs"...... lmfao......  as if somehow Pierce, Allen, and Garnett would not love to have someone that can shoot and finish.... ditto for Perk.... Pierce, Allen, and KG would really hate to have Brook Lopez who can shoot, shoot freebies, play defense, pass, etc. The other night agains the Knicks the national announcers said "I would not even guard Rondo".... "Rondo needs to learn to move better without the ball because he would be open for uncontested jumpers"...... um if you had done your prep work you would realize that there is no such thing as a contested Rondo jumper - he is the joke of the league and as a result of having 4 hall of famers to pass the ball to he averages 14 assists per game...... I will take an average shooter who does not create an automatic double team against the best players of my team and 8 assists per game... um like Paul, Williams, Felton, Nelson, Jennings, Rose, Davis, Evans, Udrih, and so on and so forth.....
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    Have to agree with you in general regarding Perk. Hes definitely not in a class with Shaq and his game has gone downhill the past 2 years imo.

    Perks game has alot to be desired.. he does match up well against Howard (usually) though who can say Howard didnt hurt us in the playoffs (ok, lets give the refs alot of that credit letting him clobber our guys with no calls)

    Sometimes people get carried away with "defensive specialist" mainly cause theres not much else you can point to Perk and say. Im hopeful gets gets back healthy and gives us a good 10 mins off the bench. I pray Doc doesnt cave and start the guy over Shaq. that would be a disgrace.

    About ROndo, dont get carried away. True hes left alone to shoot because hes not very good at it, esp FTs. But many of those 14 assists per game are creating easy shots for our guys.. lots of layups and open looks. He deserves the credit cause not many PGs ever have consistently had assis numbers like Rondo... but more importantly, his assists are leading to easy buckets... thats very important and over looked
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams? : Have to agree with you in general regarding Perk. Hes definitely not in a class with Shaq and his game has gone downhill the past 2 years imo. Perks game has alot to be desired.. he does match up well against Howard (usually) though who can say Howard didnt hurt us in the playoffs (ok, lets give the refs alot of that credit letting him clobber our guys with no calls) Sometimes people get carried away with "defensive specialist" mainly cause theres not much else you can point to Perk and say. Im hopeful gets gets back healthy and gives us a good 10 mins off the bench. I pray Doc doesnt cave and start the guy over Shaq. that would be a disgrace. About ROndo, dont get carried away. True hes left alone to shoot because hes not very good at it, esp FTs. But many of those 14 assists per game are creating easy shots for our guys.. lots of layups and open looks. He deserves the credit cause not many PGs ever have consistently had assis numbers like Rondo... but more importantly, his assists are leading to easy buckets... thats very important and over looked
    Posted by Karllost[/QUOTE]

    There is a direct relationship between being able to shoot and the number of assists.  If you can shoot sometimes you don't pass and if you can shoot you don't cause double teams on your best players or allow the opponent sag into the lane.  The national guys on tv against the Knicks said "Rondo needs to learn to move without the ball better because they are leaving him wide open".... um he is wide open for a reason - either he forgot to apply deodorant or he is the worst shooter in the league - or both. 

    There are at least a half dozen times each game where he is standing there by himself looking around for someone to pass it to.  There is nobody within 15 feet of him but he still forces a pass to someone and it often results in an assist - imagine if he could just make an uncontested 15 footer - oh wait - one fewer assist each time he does that....  for me it goes something like this - 5 assists per game because of who he plays with, 5 assists per game because he is a great passer, and 4 assists per game because he very simply cannot do what I consider one of the most fundamental skills of any player his size.  Raymond Felton is averaging 8.5 assists for the Knicks and obtw he can shoot and he does and he averages 18 points per game - imagine if he just kept pounding the ball into the floor waiting for someone to get open - maybe then he would average 10 points per game (by not shooting as much) and average 14 assists per game because he passes more to his teammates......

    How often does Rondo get to within 5 feet of the rim and pass up layups to kick it out to someone 20 feet away from the rim who obtw happens to be one of the greatest shooters in history?

    The amount by which Rondo is overrated cannot be overstated.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from walton. Show walton's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]Season to date, various team stats for the top 5.   Wins (win %): 1. SanAnt 22 (.880) 2. Boston 21 (.840) 3. Dallas 21 (.808) 4. Lakers 20 (.741) 5. Miami 20 (.714)   Opponents avg W/L % in team’s wins:   1. Dallas .494 2. Boston .454 3. SanAnt .453 4. Miami .395 5. Lakers .350   Comment: Lakers' wins are against the weakest teams; Dallas is winning vs overall tougher teams   Wins vs +.500 teams: 1. Boston 9 1. Dallas 9 3. SanAnt 8 4. Miami 5 5. Lakers 1   Comment: Boston/Dallas playing toughest schedule; Lakers exposed as the team with the cupcake schedule   Wins vs -.500 teams: 1. Lakers 19 2. Miami 15 3. SanAnt 14 4. Dallas 12 4. Boston 12   Comment: Lakers are in first in their division because of their extremely weak schedule   # of sets of back-to-backs, with W/L: 1. Boston 7, 11-3 2. Miami 6, 8-4 3. Lakers 5, 8-2 4. SanAnt 4, 7-1 4. Dallas 4, 7-1   Comment: Back-to-back games are a strain and a blight on any team’s schedule. Boston has inexplicably been given the worst schedule to date yet have posted a remarkable record in BBs.   Total # Home/Away games: 1. Dallas 17/9 2. Miami 15/13 3. SanAnt 15/10 4. Lakers 12/15 5. Boston 12/13   Comment: Dallas has greatly benefited from the home court advantage. Lakers have the most away games, but their away opponents are the easiest.   What do you think? Other comments welcome.
    Posted by portcallen99[/QUOTE]
     
    How do the Celtics compare? They compare very, very well. The Celtics are as good as anybody.................and I don't even neccessarily like the Celtics. The Celtics are very good. It'll all come down to health. I think if the Celtics are healthy for the play-offs {and that is a big if..........Shaq gets dinged up alot and who knows how Perkins will be} they are as good a pick as anyone to win and I'd pick them to win IF healthy.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mac1980. Show mac1980's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    "Rondo is the engine that stirs that drink."

    - Sir Charles Barkley
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Love how "the dudder" hijacked yet another thread to lay into Rondo again. 
    Dudder = troll = ignore. Not sure why I took you off ignore but I'm putting you back on. You are NOT a fan of this team. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from lovetruth007. Show lovetruth007's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Numbers are interesting but don't mean very much though. Cs can beat any team when healthy and focused. They can lose to any team if otherwise. They surprised us by a 3-1 record on the road against Thunders, Dallas, Miami and Memphis. They also impressed us by another road sweep in Philly, Charlotte, and New York, all without Shaq.

    They need to play every game for a win despite injuries. I only take one loss, the one in Dallas by 2 points, or maybe the other one in Toronto by one point. Losses to Cleveland on the road and to Thunders at home are the bad ones.

    Go Cs.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenkillme. Show greenkillme's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams? : Shaq is clearly better than Perk and Erden is a rookie.  Shaq has averaged 22 mins per game while I believe last year Perk averaged about 26.  There are some that would like you to believe that Perk averages about 38 mins but he simply does not.  From my perspective at this point not only is Shaq better but Baby is as well.  With some more experience and muscle I don't think there is any doubt that Semih will be better. Perk is a journeyman center who only in Boston playing with 3 hall of famers is some sort of God in the middle.  Give me Noah, either Lopez, either Gasol, Howard, Horford, Chandler, Jason Thompson, Kaman, Kaman's replacement Jordan, Bynum, Shaq, Hibbert, Gasol, Varejao, Nene, Ibaka, Biedrins, Okafor, and even Al Jefferson and OBTW I have not even thought about looking up any stats or anything like that.... these are simply just better players. I would also add McGee and Blatche as much better all around players but you may consider them as 4s as opposed to 5s. What is funny is how people love to go on and on about how Perk is a great matchup against Howard, etc. But nobody ever says what would happen if your center was actually a threat at both ends of the court instead of just one end....... so if you can actually run your offense through Bogut or Lopez it is a bad thing because they might not be able to stop Howard.... nobody can stop Howard and Perk gets called for about one tenth of the actual fouls he actually commits and then pisses his pants when gets called for a foul (which he obviously committed). This gets to the point that amazes me to no end..... people love to put qualifiers on players " so and so is a defensive specialist"... "so and so is a pass first point guard"... when what they really mean is that they have an incomplete player and that there are many other players at the same position that are overall better players but somehow with the existing players the team is better off as opposed to having players that are actually players...... Bruce Bowen is a "defensive specialist" small forward and of course nobody would want LeBron James because he is the 3rd best player in the game but somehow the Spurs are better off with Bowen........  Rondo can't score / shoot and he is a "pass first" point guard and it would really not be too good to have "insert name" because he can do everything Rondo does and more but "would not be a good fit for the Cs"...... lmfao......  as if somehow Pierce, Allen, and Garnett would not love to have someone that can shoot and finish.... ditto for Perk.... Pierce, Allen, and KG would really hate to have Brook Lopez who can shoot, shoot freebies, play defense, pass, etc. The other night agains the Knicks the national announcers said "I would not even guard Rondo".... "Rondo needs to learn to move better without the ball because he would be open for uncontested jumpers"...... um if you had done your prep work you would realize that there is no such thing as a contested Rondo jumper - he is the joke of the league and as a result of having 4 hall of famers to pass the ball to he averages 14 assists per game...... I will take an average shooter who does not create an automatic double team against the best players of my team and 8 assists per game... um like Paul, Williams, Felton, Nelson, Jennings, Rose, Davis, Evans, Udrih, and so on and so forth.....
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    Rondo and Perk are your perrenial whipping boys. What else do you have to talk about?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Anyone catch the non-call on Kirk Heinrich last night?  Sad.  LeBron and Bosch both fouled him at the hoop to basically end the game.

    More Lakers trolls?  Don't you have a third-place franchise to go support?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schleprechaun. Show Schleprechaun's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    Rondo has about 45% FT this year and 65% for the year, no yeah, Dudder is right, he is way overrated and could never be great like a Russell or Chamberlain (different position, I know) but career FT % for both are about 51%.

     THey must have been horribly overrated.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]Anyone catch the non-call on Kirk Heinrich last night?  Sad.  LeBron and Bosch both fouled him at the hoop to basically end the game. More Lakers trolls?  Don't you have a third-place franchise to go support?
    Posted by soups[/QUOTE]

    I did.  Right before that they called the foul for Wade at the other end.  Both players took it hard to the basket  and initiated contact with Wade getting the chance to make 2 foul shots and Kirk didn't.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]The Heat's stretch right now is no fluke.  They are beginning to play at a very, very high level. 
    Posted by soups[/QUOTE]

    Yes, the East will be decided between Boston and Miami.  Right now I see Boston as the better team but the teams are too different and I worry about the Miami speed offestting the Boston size in a 7-games series.  Just a little tweak to the roster and I will sit back and start sipping a beer.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Icon11. Show Icon11's posts

    Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?

    In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: How do Celtics compare to the other top teams? : Shaq is clearly better than Perk and Erden is a rookie.  Shaq has averaged 22 mins per game while I believe last year Perk averaged about 26.  There are some that would like you to believe that Perk averages about 38 mins but he simply does not.  From my perspective at this point not only is Shaq better but Baby is as well.  With some more experience and muscle I don't think there is any doubt that Semih will be better. Perk is a journeyman center who only in Boston playing with 3 hall of famers is some sort of God in the middle.  Give me Noah, either Lopez, either Gasol, Howard, Horford, Chandler, Jason Thompson, Kaman, Kaman's replacement Jordan, Bynum, Shaq, Hibbert, Gasol, Varejao, Nene, Ibaka, Biedrins, Okafor, and even Al Jefferson and OBTW I have not even thought about looking up any stats or anything like that.... these are simply just better players. I would also add McGee and Blatche as much better all around players but you may consider them as 4s as opposed to 5s. What is funny is how people love to go on and on about how Perk is a great matchup against Howard, etc. But nobody ever says what would happen if your center was actually a threat at both ends of the court instead of just one end....... so if you can actually run your offense through Bogut or Lopez it is a bad thing because they might not be able to stop Howard.... nobody can stop Howard and Perk gets called for about one tenth of the actual fouls he actually commits and then pisses his pants when gets called for a foul (which he obviously committed). This gets to the point that amazes me to no end..... people love to put qualifiers on players " so and so is a defensive specialist"... "so and so is a pass first point guard"... when what they really mean is that they have an incomplete player and that there are many other players at the same position that are overall better players but somehow with the existing players the team is better off as opposed to having players that are actually players...... Bruce Bowen is a "defensive specialist" small forward and of course nobody would want LeBron James because he is the 3rd best player in the game but somehow the Spurs are better off with Bowen........  Rondo can't score / shoot and he is a "pass first" point guard and it would really not be too good to have "insert name" because he can do everything Rondo does and more but "would not be a good fit for the Cs"...... lmfao......  as if somehow Pierce, Allen, and Garnett would not love to have someone that can shoot and finish.... ditto for Perk.... Pierce, Allen, and KG would really hate to have Brook Lopez who can shoot, shoot freebies, play defense, pass, etc. The other night agains the Knicks the national announcers said "I would not even guard Rondo".... "Rondo needs to learn to move better without the ball because he would be open for uncontested jumpers"...... um if you had done your prep work you would realize that there is no such thing as a contested Rondo jumper - he is the joke of the league and as a result of having 4 hall of famers to pass the ball to he averages 14 assists per game...... I will take an average shooter who does not create an automatic double team against the best players of my team and 8 assists per game... um like Paul, Williams, Felton, Nelson, Jennings, Rose, Davis, Evans, Udrih, and so on and so forth.....
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    Wow.  You write the same thing in pretty much every single post you write.  This thread had nothing to do with Rondo and the question you answered was not about Rondo.  Yet you end up writing the exact same rant that you write over and over.  Maybe some meds would stop this circular thought pattern?

     

Share