PDA

View Full Version : What would Boston's Record be for the year had KG missed the entire season?



JordansBulls
04-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Let's say KG didn't play any game this year. What would Boston's record had been? They were 62-20 overall and 18-7 in games that KG missed this year.

Would they still had been a top 3 team in the east with the lineup they have now?

PG Rondo
SG R.Allen
SF Pierce
PF Glen Davis
C Perkins


How many wins?


Note: An 18-7 record if it was the same over the course of the season ~ equal to 59 wins. That would mean IMO that Rondo improves and becomes an allstar over the course of the season due to needing more production since KG wouldn't be around.

what54!?
04-27-2009, 12:40 PM
They would still be a top 3 team but probably the third seed. I still think they win at least 50 games

bostncelts34
04-27-2009, 12:44 PM
probabaly still win 55 games.

as you stated, Rondo would improve alot more, as your seeing in the playoffs with an increased role due to KG's absence. They were 18-7 without KG.

Now, obviously they would lose a few more games. BUT, Davis and Rondo would be so much more experienced if they played this WHOLE season without garnett. I believe the team in general, would have been more "prepared" if they knew they didn't have kevin from the get go, instead of this " Oh he might be back if they make the ecf's" crap.

albertc86
04-27-2009, 12:46 PM
They would still be a top 3 team but probably the third seed. I still think they win at least 50 games

All I know is, Pierce's game is declining. The "Truth" pre-KG and Allen would be dropping 30+ on this Bulls team every night.

bostncelts34
04-27-2009, 01:00 PM
All I know is, Pierce's game is declining. The "Truth" pre-KG and Allen would be dropping 30+ on this Bulls team every night.

i disagree.

Pierce isn't scoring 30+ a game on the bulls because our offense is running smoother with rondo handling the ball and running the offense.Before KG got hurt, a lot of the offense ran through KG in the post and Paul. Doc even took Pierce out of the game yesterday because he didn't like the isolation plays he was doing. Its not Pierce's game declining, its the style of our offense has changed without KG.

I will say tho PIERCE HIT SOME GOD DAMN FREE THROWS. THANK YOU.

pd7631
04-27-2009, 01:06 PM
52-30

IndyRealist
04-27-2009, 01:33 PM
49 wins

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/the-bottom-10-and-one-big-reason-why-the-celtics-are-having-problems/

Becks2307
04-27-2009, 01:40 PM
i disagree.

Pierce isn't scoring 30+ a game on the bulls because our offense is running smoother with rondo handling the ball and running the offense.Before KG got hurt, a lot of the offense ran through KG in the post and Paul. Doc even took Pierce out of the game yesterday because he didn't like the isolation plays he was doing. Its not Pierce's game declining, its the style of our offense has changed without KG.

I will say tho PIERCE HIT SOME GOD DAMN FREE THROWS. THANK YOU.


Honestly Paul Pierce a couple of years ago would have murdered john salmons on offense

69centers
04-27-2009, 01:46 PM
54-28

gauth25
04-27-2009, 01:55 PM
They'd win 50 games for sure I think.

Afridi786
04-27-2009, 02:36 PM
Honestly Paul Pierce a couple of years ago would have murdered john salmons on offense

That's sad because Salmons is playing injured.

superkegger
04-27-2009, 02:40 PM
I think they'd still be around 55 wins. Plus, if KG goes down in the begining of the year, I can guarantee you they make a move to bring someone else in, other than Mikki ****ing Moore. They'd have worked their *** off to get Gooden, or Miller or something. So with that in mind, I definitely think they still would have won 55 or so games.

carter15
04-27-2009, 03:59 PM
i think theyd be 4th or 5th seed behing atlanta atleast with around 45 wins.
i mean just look at the trouble there having with chicago...so i dont think theyd get to 50

Chronz
04-27-2009, 04:02 PM
Its amazing JB, I was wondering the same thing yesterday, I was going to make a similar thread about it. The C's without KG remind me ALOT of the Nets with their Big3. Rondo and Kidd are both great rebounding playmakers who cant shoot so must have the ball at all times. Pierce and VC are both dynamic scorers/shooters. RJ and Ray Ray are completely different but both are decent 3rd bananas. They both liked to play a shooting 4 who cant rebound, both had a dominant post defender at the 5. The C's bench is awful but slightly better than old school Nets.





i disagree.

Pierce isn't scoring 30+ a game on the bulls because our offense is running smoother with rondo handling the ball and running the offense.Before KG got hurt, a lot of the offense ran through KG in the post and Paul. Doc even took Pierce out of the game yesterday because he didn't like the isolation plays he was doing. Its not Pierce's game declining, its the style of our offense has changed without KG. The team wins 46-50 games depending on whether Pierce has any more juice left in him or if hes declining, Im thinking the latter.

I will say tho PIERCE HIT SOME GOD DAMN FREE THROWS. THANK YOU.

Sorry bro Pierce is definitely declining, there used to be a time when Iso's for Pierce wouldnt get the coach mad because it used to be an efficient play. Old Pierce would be tearing it up right now, hes had a pretty piss poor series thus far. Hes played great D on Salmon when theyve been matched up but at some point the team needs your offense.

EX-TREME
04-27-2009, 04:32 PM
52 wins

JordansBulls
04-27-2009, 04:35 PM
Its amazing JB, I was wondering the same thing yesterday, I was going to make a similar thread about it. The C's without KG remind me ALOT of the Nets with their Big3. Rondo and Kidd are both great rebounding playmakers who cant shoot so must have the ball at all times. Pierce and VC are both dynamic scorers/shooters. RJ and Ray Ray are completely different but both are decent 3rd bananas. They both liked to play a shooting 4 who cant rebound, both had a dominant post defender at the 5. The C's bench is awful but slightly better than old school Nets.

.


I brought it up because I wanted to see if they would still be considered better than the Magic without KG around. I know they would still be considered better than the Bulls.

nd4T.O.
04-27-2009, 04:51 PM
id say 50-32....I agree tho if KG went down they would trade for someone better than ****ing Mikki Moore

op12
04-27-2009, 05:28 PM
I think they'd still be around 55 wins. Plus, if KG goes down in the begining of the year, I can guarantee you they make a move to bring someone else in, other than Mikki ****ing Moore. They'd have worked their *** off to get Gooden, or Miller or something. So with that in mind, I definitely think they still would have won 55 or so games.

agreed. probably would have made a bigger, better move and baby and powe would have gained some solid experience. also like others said, rondo would have stepped up. probably be in the 3 seed without kg. still solid, but a 2nd tier championship competitor behind la and clev.

op12
04-27-2009, 05:29 PM
I brought it up because I wanted to see if they would still be considered better than the Magic without KG around. I know they would still be considered better than the Bulls.

i think they are still better than the magic, but probably would have still been fighting them for the #2 and less likely to get it without kg. but i think they can beat the magic, if they even play, in a series.

Kabowdos
04-27-2009, 05:47 PM
50 to 55 games. A team does not revolve around one player. Heck even when the Bulls lost Jordan they still won 55 games without him!!

Kabowdos
04-27-2009, 05:49 PM
I brought it up because I wanted to see if they would still be considered better than the Magic without KG around. I know they would still be considered better than the Bulls.

Bulls are playing really well right now. They are playing better than they did during the season.

Hawkeye15
04-27-2009, 07:10 PM
loaded question. Without KG the whole year, Pierce and Allen's old butts would have had far more responsibility, they may have broken down a bit too. I would guess 49-33

JordansBulls
04-27-2009, 07:19 PM
So what about the Bulls? How good would they have been with this lineup all year instead of after the trading deadline.

Big E
04-27-2009, 07:32 PM
KG is way more valuble than people give him credit for. He is just behind LeBron and a little above Dwight Howard as most valuble player in the east.

Hawkeye15
04-27-2009, 08:11 PM
So what about the Bulls? How good would they have been with this lineup all year instead of after the trading deadline.

mm, bout the same probably. Not for the playoffs, but they would have ended up aroun 35-40 wins. But they are better off in the playoffs with what they traded for, plus Gordon and Rose have turned it up big time

Nirvanaskurdt
04-27-2009, 08:28 PM
45-37....... :shrug:

Nirvanaskurdt
04-27-2009, 08:29 PM
So what about the Bulls? How good would they have been with this lineup all year instead of after the trading deadline.

I think they would have been the 4 or 5 seed. :)

tsb77
04-27-2009, 08:38 PM
I think the C's would win around 50 games and get the 3rd seed.

Sly Guy
04-27-2009, 08:47 PM
1-81.

Hawkeye15
04-27-2009, 09:05 PM
1-81.

ha, awesome

GodsSon
04-27-2009, 09:05 PM
i highly doubt they win 50 games...45 wins

Lakersfan2483
04-27-2009, 09:10 PM
[QUOTE=JordansBulls;9259111]Let's say KG didn't play any game this year. What would Boston's record had been? They were 62-20 overall and 18-7 in games that KG missed this year.

Would they still had been a top 3 team in the east with the lineup they have now?

PG Rondo
SG R.Allen
SF Pierce
PF Glen Davis
C Perkins


How many wins?


Note: An 18-7 record if it was the same over the course of the season ~ equal to 59 wins. That would mean IMO that Rondo improves and becomes an allstar over the course of the season due to needing more production since KG wouldn't be around.[/QUOTE

Without KG for an entire season, they would be a 50 win team. Boston's bench is not as strong as it was last season and losing KG for an entire year would be a huge blow especially on defense.

D-Leethal
04-27-2009, 09:11 PM
48-34

Lakersfan2483
04-27-2009, 09:12 PM
So what about the Bulls? How good would they have been with this lineup all year instead of after the trading deadline.

42 wins.

JordansBulls
04-28-2009, 08:41 AM
42 wins.

We were 41-41 all year and this before the trade.