How good are the Celts without Ray

Moderators: Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285

User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 62,963
And1: 20,007
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: EOL 6/23
   

 

Post#21 » by FNQ » Sun Jan 6, 2008 8:58 pm

They might drop down to #2 if they don't have Ray... I'd doubt it though.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,868
And1: 19,561
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: How good are the Celts without Ray 

Post#22 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Jan 6, 2008 9:27 pm

narsox10 wrote:Of the big three it is generally seen that Garnett and Pierce are better in this stage of their careers. But how good are the Celts if they didn't have him. He was basically a no show, actually hurting the team against Memphis, and the Celts still won convincingly. And the games he missed the Celts cruised along just fine. Personally I feel during the regular season he will not be appreciated as much as when playoffs come. I think that when the Celts are blowing teams away his game is overlooked, but in close games his shooting is going to come up huge, like in the Toronto game at the end.


Without Allen, Garnett refuses to come to a team as crappy as Boston, and Pierce spends the year pouting as they continue to tank hoping to get a superstar in the draft, at which point they'd trade Pierce for dirt. :wink:
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!

Return to The General Board