|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 15, 2005 2:15:48 GMT -5
Since none of us can clearly demonstrate the power to look into the future, lets assume that the lineup we currently have is the lineup we go into the season with.
How many games can this team win with the current roster?
|
|
|
|
Post by VI_CelticsFan on Aug 15, 2005 6:26:35 GMT -5
I'm thinking 36-40 wins. We needs some more vets if we want to win next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddietours on Aug 15, 2005 8:01:37 GMT -5
47wins we can sneakup on teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by bleedgreen on Aug 15, 2005 14:27:33 GMT -5
Why are folks STILL believing that we can only win if we have more VETS ! If we were to analyze the games we lost last year, we WOULD conclude that the "VETS", caused us to lose most of those games:
1. Mark Blount and Co. could not outrebound the opponents!
2. Most of the "Bad" shot selections were by the VETS (Paul, Antoine, Gary, Ricky).
3. The ünit that consisted of the "VETS" lost or could not hold most leads that we had in games.
4. The least energized unit, was the "VETS".
5. Who ran the ball the least; the "VETS" - did not obey the coach !!!!!
These young guns CAN play ! If they get consistent PT, I believe that they can win about 47 games. And that is not just trying to be optomistic - that will be a fact !
|
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Aug 15, 2005 15:30:30 GMT -5
I think vets might be a little more valuable in the playoffs than in the regular season. i think being a winning team just barely is a reasonable goal. Also some of young guys are going to become vets soon enough. by the end of the season perk and banks will have been in the league 3 years. there's a big difference between that and a rook
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 15, 2005 16:36:36 GMT -5
I like the young kids and also agree that the "vets" caused us some problems last year. But we can't underestimate the value of "vets". The only ones we have this year are Raef, Pierce, Blount, and Ricky. I don't consider Scalabrine a vet yet. I don't think we need a lot more vets. Just one at PG is all I think we need because basically, the PG position can get dicey when young players start turning the ball over, which will happen. As much as I like Delonte, he will have some growing pains.
But yeah, Bleeding, I agree that we can do damage in games with the young guys running the show. They should make this season a lot more fun with the energy they provide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic17 on Aug 15, 2005 17:05:27 GMT -5
I'm with Eddie and bleedgreen. 46-48 range.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 15, 2005 17:34:12 GMT -5
I'd argue that we'd win that many, but I'd love for that to happen ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by meltinjohn on Aug 15, 2005 23:06:19 GMT -5
It would be funny if this celtics team minus Walker and GP could win just as many games. Nothings impossible. Maybe after all, Danny won't go after a veteran pg or a veteran pf even. Who knows. I think besides the Walker move, this will be it for trades. Bare in mind, you keep adding new guys, you can't get a regular team chemistry going.
|
|
|
|
Post by BCHISTORIAN on Aug 16, 2005 1:21:16 GMT -5
i think 45 wins is reachable. will we reach it - i don't know. i think chemistry's better than last year because we only lost gp as a regular roatation player. aw was here for a couple of moths only. youngsters have developed...
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 16, 2005 1:34:18 GMT -5
I think the energy level by itself could make us a surprise team. We could have 3 new starters this year in Jefferson, Allen, and Delonte, and all three guys are good at playing the team ball and providing a lot of energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mev17 on Aug 16, 2005 2:01:27 GMT -5
I think the returning players will be more used to playing with eachother and for Doc. I say 46-50 games.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 16, 2005 2:25:33 GMT -5
Delonte mentioned that the winning attitude the young guys had in the summer league games felt different (and I think he means in a better way) than the winning attitude the parent team had as we headed into the playoffs last year. The reason may be the chemistry the young guys have with each other. They feel a strong bond with one another, as if they are in some kind of brotherly pact because they're all grouped together as the future generation of the Celtics franchise.
This commeraderie should carry over into this season because the 9 of them over power the 4 veterans left on the team (Pierce, Ricky, Raef, Blount).
The young guys have shown that when they are allowed to play loosely and roam, they can be very effective in pushing and moving the ball. I hope Doc allows them to play a more free flowing offense because a lot of the young guys seem to thrive when playing with freedom and letting their natural instincts take over (Jefferson and Allen in particular, but Delonte is also an instinctive player and Banks does better when he's able to create for himself).
|
|
|
|
Post by BCHISTORIAN on Aug 16, 2005 2:40:05 GMT -5
also, let's hope that doc's substitution patterns are more logical...
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Aug 16, 2005 3:10:59 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know if he can be logical with the substitutions. You got to remember that there are a lot of young players involved and they won't always be playing consisntently. He needs to get developmental time for the kids and how he splits it up will be a chaotic effort for him. Its one thing to try and get 1 or 2 players some meaningful playing time. Its a whole other thing to try and get 9 young players playing time--though some may go to the NBDL.
|
|
