cleveland

[Eric Albert]

>lots of positives to go with the heartbreaking loss. 

Yeah, I thought so, too.  But it was still a heartbreaking loss.
So, what's up?

Ryen Russillo (I think), before or during a Celtics game on Fox
Sports, said that the current Celtics team isn't as strong as
back when it was Paul and Antoine.  I don't think he said
which year of Paul and Antoine, but pick whichever you think
was the best.  Who thinks this is true?

Not me.  So I was very surprised to hear this -- Russillo's
not an idiot about basketball.

Am I missing something?  I don't tend to assume that the
current team is the best team, and we've seen some weak
teams over the past decade and a half.  But I actually feel
positive about almost all the players on this team, and think
they match up well compared to all the recent teams.

It's important to know which is true.  If the current talent
isn't very good, then of course we're going to lose most of
our games, and we should be hanging Danny Ainge in effigy.

If (as I feel) the talent is a clear step up, then we're
underperforming, and should be going after Doc Rivers.

It's also possible that everyone involved is incompetent, but
that still leaves my primary question: Do you think the
current Celtics team is noticeably stronger, overall, than
the others of the past, say, ten years?

-- Eric