Romeo Langford - Pick #14

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
It's almost like young players who aren't superstars need time and games to develop.

Being a positive contributor at a young age with fewer than a season of games is rare enough that anyone who does it is a potential All-Star and is jealously guarded by his drafting team.

Yes, that's also an argument for having more vets on a contending team. But if you want to have any young guys in the pipeline, you generally have to deal with significantly negative contributions on one or both ends early on.

The posters here who are positive on young guys generally think in terms of flashes of stuff they show that they can build on. If you go just by advanced or traditional stats, you'd give up on most guys who become rotation players eventually.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
It's almost like young players who aren't superstars need time and games to develop.

Being a positive contributor at a young age with fewer than a season of games is rare enough that anyone who does it is a potential All-Star and is jealously guarded by his drafting team.

Yes, that's also an argument for having more vets on a contending team. But if you want to have any young guys in the pipeline, you generally have to deal with significantly negative contributions on one or both ends early on.

The posters here who are positive on young guys generally think in terms of flashes of stuff they show that they can build on. If you go just by advanced or traditional stats, you'd give up on most guys who become rotation players eventually.
You can be a young guy that needs time to develop and not be completely horrible. It's a matter of degrees.

Certainly no one expects Romeo to be a leave average NBA player or major contributor. The issue isn't that he isn't a positive contributor, the issue is that he doesn't belong on the floor.

We should be able to admit it's concerning that he is SOOOO bad.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Only game I thought he was terrible was the Nets. The rest I thought he was fine within his role, he just shot terribly, which I'm going to give at least a bit of a pass to a guy coming off months off with a wrist issue then COVID, Tatum a much better more established shooter was a mess coming off COVID, even without the issues Langford had.

He probably is never going to be a good offensive player, but 11 games coming off months away, with a very limited role, and a constantly rotating cast of teammates and no practice doesn't tell us much.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Only game I thought he was terrible was the Nets. The rest I thought he was fine within his role, he just shot terribly, which I'm going to give at least a bit of a pass to a guy coming off months off with a wrist issue then COVID, Tatum a much better more established shooter was a mess coming off COVID, even without the issues Langford had.

He probably is never going to be a good offensive player, but 11 games coming off months away, with a very limited role, and a constantly rotating cast of teammates and no practice doesn't tell us much.
But he was just as bad in his first 32 games too. We are at 43 games of putrid NBA basketball.

Honestly I dont want to bury the guy, he is young and has had injury issues. But typically young raw players that aren't good show some flashes of being useful.

Romeo has only sucked. That's usually a problem.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
Because there is a difference between playing passive and being terrible. NBA players with low usage rates don't automatically play horrendously. Romeo has been horrendous.

I agree it's been a small sample, he is young, he has battled injuries, and he has defensive potential. But let's call a spade a spade.

In 43 career games he's shooting 32% from the field, 21% from 3, has a 41% TS%, doesn't rebound, and doesn't get assists. PER police can come for me, but last year his was 5.4 and this year 3.2. These are not the numbers of an NBA player, regardless of role.

Being a defensive specialist that is asked not to do much on offense doesn't mean they want him to miss every shot and be terrible every time the ball touches his hands.
You shoulda seen this board for Avery Bradley's first season!
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
You shoulda seen this board for Avery Bradley's first season!
Good optimistic comp actually.

Year 1 for Avery was just as bad as Romeo. Year 2 for Avery was way better.

Due to injuries and COVID, if we can just chalk this up to a lost year, perhaps Romeo can get back on track.

Certainly hasn't happened yet.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
Good optimistic comp actually.

Year 1 for Avery was just as bad as Romeo. Year 2 for Avery was way better.

Due to injuries and COVID, if we can just chalk this up to a lost year, perhaps Romeo can get back on track.

Certainly hasn't happened yet.
I was also just re-reading a thread from 2013 for old time's sake talking about Avery and you seemed pretty down on him then too. I think you are overreacting to what he's shown so far. Last year was fine, this year he's coming off an injury during the strangest season ever with no practice. I think most on this board, myself included, have been underrating how unusual this year is for the whole league.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
What are Brad and ET gonna say, he sucks? Right now, he's a lousy NBA basketball player who has had a string of bad luck with injuries, so there is still a chance. Almost every part of his game is well below NBA standards. He's defense is average...although people can quibble. He's the Celtics equivalent of Blake Swihart. Hopefully RL doesn't go the way of Blake.
You don't have to switch sports. We've had the same discussion for (as noted below) Avery Bradley, TL, JB, and James Young.

Young players get better - hopefully. Let's hope RL does. But we don't hear Brad and ET talking up Carsen Edwards. And more importantly, the fact that Brad was willing to have Romeo play initiator even for a couple of minutes says something to me.

I was also just re-reading a thread from 2013 for old time's sake talking about Avery and you seemed pretty down on him then too. I think you are overreacting to what he's shown so far. Last year was fine, this year he's coming off an injury during the strangest season ever with no practice. I think most on this board, myself included, have been underrating how unusual this year is for the whole league.
That's dedication!
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Why is there a difference?

RL is a guy who is used to having the ball in his hands a lot and now he barely touches the ball. (Usg% of 5.9 v PHO and 8.2 v BRK, for example). He is also playing against much better and much older opponents. I'm sure he is trying to figure out what he can and can't do. Which leads to missedshots and TOs.

However, Brad and Evan Turner see this guy every day and wouldn't be talking about him as a primary ballhandler (and, according to ET, a potential triple-double machine) if they didn't like what they have seen.
And he's not a shooter (so the role he gets in the Celtics' system isn't good for him), and he's missed a lot of time due to injuries, and he hasn't had the benefit of a normal NBA offseason, and his confidence is shot. Also, he mostly flashes defensively but it is clear that he has a long way to go there, as well. A lot of his good plays are based on his ability to recover from being slightly out of position or getting beat outright.

I get ot that some folks want to write him off as incapable of improvement, but I think there is plenty of reason to expect better from him going forward.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Good optimistic comp actually.

Year 1 for Avery was just as bad as Romeo. Year 2 for Avery was way better.

Due to injuries and COVID, if we can just chalk this up to a lost year, perhaps Romeo can get back on track.

Certainly hasn't happened yet.
Are you willing to make a prediction for him going forward, either in terms of minutes per game next year, value of his 2nd contract (or whether he'll get one), etc?

"Young guy without many games has been bad on offense but I hope he gets better".....most posters here know how to read box scores on bbref.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Right now, Langford is getting developmental minutes because they are available and Stevens and the coaching staff have confidence in him taking advantage of those minutes. It's far better that those minutes go to Langford than Semi, who is a known entity, or Grant, whose upside is more limited. It gives him time to learn the game in what would otherwise be a lost season for him. Next season will be critical for him; that will be the point where it will start to get late early if he struggles.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I get ot that some folks want to write him off as incapable of improvement, but I think there is plenty of reason to expect better from him going forward.
I don't read it as any folks are writing him off as incapable of improvement. Some of us are just pointing out that he is currently terrible
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
I don't read it as any folks are writing him off as incapable of improvement. Some of us are just pointing out that he is currently terrible
This is pretty normal for 21 year-olds who haven't played many games. It's not really interesting to note that he's "terrible" without predicting what he'll become (for better or worse) on the basis of what you've seen.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
This is pretty normal for 21 year-olds who haven't played many games. It's not really interesting to note that he's "terrible" without predicting what he'll become (for better or worse) on the basis of what you've seen.
Yeah I don't get it. Sure RL hasn't put up any numbers and he wasn't good in what I saw in the BRK game. But he doesn't touch the ball - he's legitmately in the bottom 15% of all NBA players inn USG% - and I don't undderstand what people think he's going to do without touching the ball.

And as you put it, if people can't see that RL is more likely than not going to have a "long NBA career," I guess I must be watching something different. BTW, that quote is from Brad (https://www.celticslife.com/2020/12/evaluating-romeo-langfords-potential.html), who has a pretty good record of evaluating and developing talent.

And finally, if RL can even be as solid NBA starter, that would do wonders for the Cs salary structure in the future.

So yes, he has not been great. But I'm still rooting for him and as you suggest, I think the odds are with me.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Yeah I don't get it. Sure RL hasn't put up any numbers and he wasn't good in what I saw in the BRK game. But he doesn't touch the ball - he's legitmately in the bottom 15% of all NBA players inn USG% - and I don't undderstand what people think he's going to do without touching the ball.

And as you put it, if people can't see that RL is more likely than not going to have a "long NBA career," I guess I must be watching something different. BTW, that quote is from Brad (https://www.celticslife.com/2020/12/evaluating-romeo-langfords-potential.html), who has a pretty good record of evaluating and developing talent.

And finally, if RL can even be as solid NBA starter, that would do wonders for the Cs salary structure in the future.

So yes, he has not been great. But I'm still rooting for him and as you suggest, I think the odds are with me.
Hmmm, in my case it's not really a question of rooting. It's more that 21 year-olds who show what he has defensively tend to stick in the league. I'm pretty comfortable predicting that his 2nd contract will be over $10M per just because of his position and that ability.

I'm not really sure re his offense. He has a good enough handle that there should be something there, but because he's on a good team, that's the skill that they really can't afford to spend developmental time on. He's actually someone who probably could use G-league time as a primary ball-handler, but that's been off the table, so the concerns there are real imo.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I'm pretty comfortable predicting that his 2nd contract will be over $10M per just because of his position and that ability.
This seems like a super bold prediction. He needs to improve quite a bit on offense and stay healthy for me to even imagine anyone tossing this type of contract his way.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
I was also just re-reading a thread from 2013 for old time's sake talking about Avery and you seemed pretty down on him then too. I think you are overreacting to what he's shown so far. Last year was fine, this year he's coming off an injury during the strangest season ever with no practice. I think most on this board, myself included, have been underrating how unusual this year is for the whole league.
I certainly remember it was distressing to watch Avery before he learned how to dribble. Avery also made a huge jump to respectability in year 2.

I don't think Romeo was "fine" last year, he was very bad. It doesn't entirely sink his future, but these are all important data points (HRB has brought this up before).

Romeo probably still has more upside than someone like Grant given his age, athleticism, injuries/limited reps.

But to watch what he's putting out there and be anything other than concerned I think is overly optimistic. There is a reason Romeo had no value on the trade market, less than Nesmith according to reports. GMs watch these games.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
This is not an NBA player, it's not close, and it's not getting any better. At least in 21 minutes against the Bulls he was active and paying attention a bit. The other 5 games are just bizarre.

Last 6 games;
19 min, 0 points, 0-2 FG, 2 reb, 0 ast, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 2 TO

32 min, 2 points, 1-4 FG, 1 reb, 0 ast, 0 steals, 1 blocks, 0 TO

21 min, 2 points, 1-5 FG, 5 reb, 3 ast, 2 steals, 0 blocks, 2 TO

9 min, 0 points, 0-1 FG, 0 reb, 1 ast, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 0 TO

17 min, 2 points, 1-3 FG, 3 reb, 2 ast, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 0 TO

9 min, 0 points, 0-0 FG, 1 reb, 0 asst, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 0 TO
Notable thing about the Bulls game. It is the one time all season that Brad chose to put the ball in his hands. Not for all of his minutes but for a few in the second quarter.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/20/sports/romeo-langfords-cameo-point-guard-may-have-been-glimpse-celtics-future/

So in the second quarter, coach Brad Stevens sent out second-year wing Romeo Langford to run the offense. The move was due partly to the lack of available bodies, but also because Stevens envisions Langford potentially thriving in this role someday.

“I don’t know if that’s in his wheelhouse yet,” Stevens said, “but he has to get to that point where it is, with his size and his ability to pass the ball.”
And the Phoenix game, where he was in his usual role as an offensive afterthought, he played 32 minutes in a game in which the Celtics defeated the #2 team in the West.

He has a long way to go, but "not an NBA player" is obviously not accurate.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Are you willing to make a prediction for him going forward, either in terms of minutes per game next year, value of his 2nd contract (or whether he'll get one), etc?

"Young guy without many games has been bad on offense but I hope he gets better".....most posters here know how to read box scores on bbref.
I put these percentile future expectations out there on Grant early January.

90th NBA starter
75th valuable NBA bench player (6-8th man)
50th fringe minutes (9-11th man)
25th end of bench/fringe roster spot
10th looking for passport

Probably was overly optimistic on him in retrospect. The new data points we have seen since then only have been negative. End of bench/looking for passport would definitely be higher than only 25th percentile. That's looking like a fairly likely outcome now.


I'd probably say something similar to those numbers for Romeo right now, though he is even harder to predict. I agree with everyone wanting to leave the crack open he could still turn the corner since he is young plus the last 2 years have been so weird in general. But his value around the league is very low for a reason, NBA GMs don't expect NBA starter or valuable bench player.
 
Last edited:

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
He has a long way to go, but "not an NBA player" is obviously not accurate.
On offense he isn't an NBA player right now. He is as bad as it gets, much much worse than many G-leaguers.

He is playing because of his defense, youth/need for reps, and lack of other decent options.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,156
I don’t recall him having as many issues with turnovers even in his rookie season. It’s one thing not to contribute offensively, it’s an entirely different thing to throw possessions away.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
This seems like a super bold prediction. He needs to improve quite a bit on offense and stay healthy for me to even imagine anyone tossing this type of contract his way.
Meh, it's basically just a projection that he becomes mediocre/a bit below average on offense. His defense is really projectable, and young guys with the level of D I'd expect from him in 2.5 years always get paid, at least somewhat.

This takes me back to the Jaylen Brown extension conversation, when a lot of people had sticker shock at his getting $27M per. That wasn't the Celtics thinking he's a star--that's what big wings with a proven baseline and upside cost.

Obviously Romeo isn't anywhere remotely near those levels on offense (although I'd be VERY surprised if he isn't a better defender than Jaylen in a year), but the same principle applies. It's more a statement about positional value and projections that will be made about Langford than me being over the moon on him.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
I put these percentile future expectations out there on Grant early January.

90th NBA starter
75th valuable NBA bench player (6-8th man)
50th fringe minutes (9-11th man)
25th end of bench/fringe roster spot
10th looking for passport

Probably was overly optimistic on him in retrospect. The new data points we have seen since then only have been negative. End of bench/looking for passport would definitely be higher than only 25th percentile. That's looking like a fairly likely outcome now.


I'd probably say something similar to those numbers for Romeo right now, though he is even harder to predict. I agree with everyone wanting to leave the crack open he could still turn the corner since he is young plus the last 2 years have been so weird in general. But his value around the league is very low for a reason, NBA GMs don't expect NBA starter or valuable bench player.
Cool, it helps the discussion to have those numbers out there.

I'd go with:
80th: NBA starter
50th: valuable NBA bench player
30th: fringe minutes
10th: end of the bench
1-2: looking for passport

Most of the bad outcomes in his case would be a result of injuries imo.

I think the fundamental difference of opinion here is where we'd put his likely defensive outcome. I think he'll be really, really good on that end, and it's hard for guys of that level on D to not be rotation players, even if they're horrific on offense.

If Semi had Romeo's physical tools and could play D like Romeo likely will in a year or so, he would be a moderately sought-after UFA next year, instead of the min or close to it guy that he will be This despite the fact that he cannot do anything except take open 3s.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Not unreasonable, though I would say more than a 10% chance Romeo is end of the bench or out of the league in a few years. And I would put his midrange 50th projection closer to fringe minutes than valuable bench player.

Of course would love to be low on Romeo right now, no doubt recency bias could be a factor.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Not unreasonable, though I would say more than a 10% chance Romeo is end of the bench or out of the league in a few years. And I would put his midrange 50th projection closer to fringe minutes than valuable bench player.

Of course would love to be low on Romeo right now, no doubt recency bias could be a factor.
I'm not sure what you call the kind of bias when too many no-offense bench players play together, but that might be it :)

You can give a no-offense guy who does other things a lot of run if he plays mostly with 4 good/decent offensive players. I think Romeo is the highest priority low/no-offense guy the next couple years, ahead of the Grant/Semi types because he's much better defensively, which in turn gives him more reps to improve.

But it's entirely possible that Nesmith comes back after the summer having learned to not brutally rush his footwork on every 3 and jumps him in that part of the rotation, or a 3&D vet is brought in. That's when the worse outcomes start coming into play.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,867
The discussion here is relying far too much on a comically small sample size of shooting. For god's sake, he's taken all of 100 field goal attempts in his NBA career. He hits one or two more three pointers, and he's over 35 from three for the year. He hits 7 more shots over the last two years, we're looking at respectable percentages. He's literally one good game away from elevating his percentages.

He's playing good defense and flashing great. The Avery Bradley comparisons are killing me, though: Langford was a way better ball handler and finisher than Avery was in college. He hasn't shown those skills much - I don't know if that's coaching, diffidence, or deference.

I think he turns out to be a very good player. He needs very badly to shoot well, but as we've discussed so many times on this board, that's actually one of the easier NBA skills to learn. That would open up his whole game. I think he's flashed a better looking three pointer this season, but time will tell.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
The discussion here is relying far too much on a comically small sample size of shooting. For god's sake, he's taken all of 100 field goal attempts in his NBA career. He hits one or two more three pointers, and he's over 35 from three for the year. He hits 7 more shots over the last two years, we're looking at respectable percentages. He's literally one good game away from elevating his percentages.

He's playing good defense and flashing great. The Avery Bradley comparisons are killing me, though: Langford was a way better ball handler and finisher than Avery was in college. He hasn't shown those skills much - I don't know if that's coaching, diffidence, or deference.

I think he turns out to be a very good player. He needs very badly to shoot well, but as we've discussed so many times on this board, that's actually one of the easier NBA skills to learn. That would open up his whole game. I think he's flashed a better looking three pointer this season, but time will tell.
For me the AB comparison only works in the sense that people on this board were losing their collective minds over how bad and out of place Avery Bradly looked for his first season / season and a half ish. There was a lot of certainty that he'd never amount to anything based on how impressively bad he was.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
I think he turns out to be a very good player. He needs very badly to shoot well, but as we've discussed so many times on this board, that's actually one of the easier NBA skills to learn. That would open up his whole game. I think he's flashed a better looking three pointer this season, but time will tell.
I think Danny really wishes you were the GM of one of the other teams at the trade deadline.

100 shot attempts isn't a lot, but for someone who came into the league with shooting concerns, it's not a good start.

Agree time will tell, but for a 14th overall pick, you can't really have a worse start to your first 2 years in the league.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Agree time will tell, but for a 14th overall pick, you can't really have a worse start to your first 2 years in the league.
You really can--you can suck despite no injuries and with more playing time, and you can be waaayyyy worse on defense than Langford has been. Many such cases.

I'm fine saying Romeo has been very bad offensively, but the defensive flashes he's shown were both unexpected and fairly high-end. Ignoring that end of the floor from a performance and potential perspective leads to poor analysis.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,867
I think Danny really wishes you were the GM of one of the other teams at the trade deadline.

100 shot attempts isn't a lot, but for someone who came into the league with shooting concerns, it's not a good start.

Agree time will tell, but for a 14th overall pick, you can't really have a worse start to your first 2 years in the league.
1) You have no idea what Danny thinks. Judging by the fact that Romeo is getting major minutes, including 31 against a very good Phoenix team... I'd guess Danny and Brad like him.

2) Of course it's not a good start. Who said it was a good start? Are you going to address anyones actual arguments?

3) You absolutely can have a worse start. You can be James Young. You can be any number of mid-rounders who never show anything on the floor. He's playing good to great defense. As Smart has shown, you can learn offense on the job if you can stay on the floor.

EDIT: Let me temper my point and say I can absolutely see several scenarios in which Romeo flops. I just think those scenarios mostly involve catastrophic injuries or his defense falling apart. But if it's real, the defense will take him very far.
 
Last edited:

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
Agree time will tell, but for a 14th overall pick, you can't really have a worse start to your first 2 years in the league.
Not to pile on, but having one average NBA skill already puts him ahead of lots of guys drafted 14th or higher. Have you looked at how bad some NBA draft picks are?
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,963
Boston, MA
The discussion here is relying far too much on a comically small sample size of shooting. For god's sake, he's taken all of 100 field goal attempts in his NBA career. He hits one or two more three pointers, and he's over 35 from three for the year. He hits 7 more shots over the last two years, we're looking at respectable percentages. He's literally one good game away from elevating his percentages.

He's playing good defense and flashing great. The Avery Bradley comparisons are killing me, though: Langford was a way better ball handler and finisher than Avery was in college. He hasn't shown those skills much - I don't know if that's coaching, diffidence, or deference.
Yes, it's a small sample size, but your suggestion that if he had hit one or two more 3 pointers, it would "elevate his percentages" is uninspiring. One can flip your enthusiasm on its head and say "if he had just missed 1 or 2 more 3 pointers or missed 7 more shots" he's be even more god awful. We all know that Romeo's report card is incomplete. I think some of us are just saying, to date, he's not a very good NBA basketball player and he projects to be a not very good NBA basketball player unless he shows marked improvement in a number of areas, which is certainly still possible.

I also disagree that RL looks like a potentially great defender. I think he has promise, that's it. IMO, Avery Bradley was the far superior fundamental defensive player from the second he joined the league and certainly in year 2. I also think he was more athletic than RL. I grant you that AB was a shitty shooter. Because RL is longer and has been sidelined by injury for 3 years, he deserves the looks that everyone is calling for, but I think folks are working themselves into a frenzy of enthusiasm for something that has not yet been shown to be justified.

As of this writing, I would evaluate RL this way (admittedly, there are other metrics one may use):

1. Shooting. Terrible.
2. Passing. Below average
3. Ball handling. Lousy
4. Defense. Decent to promising
5. Competitiveness. Decent to promising
6. Durability. Terrible

Again, I'd be thrilled to be very wrong.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Romeo D has been solid so you could have a worst start, that was overly harsh of me.

I sorta always thought that was a perceived strength, but yeah, he has at least met expectations there.

As far as offense and injuries, you can’t have much of a worse start.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Romeo D has been solid so you could have a worst start, that was overly harsh of me.

I sorta always thought that was a perceived strength, but yeah, he has at least met expectations there.

As far as offense and injuries, you can’t have much of a worse start.
Na, not to pick on you, but his defense was seen as mediocre coming out of college. What he showed so far has been a large surprise.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
I missed the game today, no Romeo til garbage time? I guess that Nets game was too much for Brad to stomach.

My general feeling is not to bury Romeo, he has been solid on D, is young, and has some legit excuses for not being good on offense yet.

However, just because young guys are almost always bad on offense, the degree matters. Being below average or even very bad is better than being horrific.

We should be willing to acknowledge that up until this point in his career, Romeo on offense has been horrific. As bad as it gets, even for a young player.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
But he was just as bad in his first 32 games too. We are at 43 games of putrid NBA basketball.

Honestly I dont want to bury the guy, he is young and has had injury issues. But typically young raw players that aren't good show some flashes of being useful.

Romeo has only sucked. That's usually a problem.
Romeo had a pretty promising rookie year. Rookies are almost always bad. He couldn't shoot the 3, but other than that it was not a bad year at all for a rookie. His defense was good, his FTr was very strong.

The guy I like to comp him to for rookies is Jimmy Butler. You'd have expected Jimmy to be more advanced given ages... but they had pretty similar rookie years in many ways. Now, I don't think Romeo will become Jimmy Butler, but the point is, the type of rookie year he had is not a cause for concern at all, if anything it was a cause for optimism given the defense and the ability to get to the line. Early in his return he's not had the same ability to get to the line and the shooting has been just as bad, which if it continues will be concerning.

I would take every single player that was drafted ahead of him in that 2019 draft class.
Not that it matters, but I'd take him over Culver, and honestly probably Cam Reddish too.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
A promising rookie year? Romeo Langford?

If we use “generic 14th overall pick” as a midpoint expectation, he seemed worse than that to me.

I hope he figures it out, I really do.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
A promising rookie year? Romeo Langford?

If we use “generic 14th overall pick” as a midpoint expectation, he seemed worse than that to me.

I hope he figures it out, I really do.
As a rookie, on a talented Celtic team he got a small amount of run in the playoffs (albeit weird bubble covid playoffs). I can't say I was expecting playoff minutes out of a rookie in his spot. I guess that tells me 2 things: he was good enough at at least one skill that Stevens values (defense), and he played well enough that it happened more than once.

Injuries aside, being trusted with minutes in the playoffs is as decent an indicator that he had a promising rookie year as anything else being thrown at the wall. YMMV of course.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
A promising rookie year? Romeo Langford?

If we use “generic 14th overall pick” as a midpoint expectation, he seemed worse than that to me.

I hope he figures it out, I really do.
I think he was better than the average 14th pick. He was good on defense, that alone puts him ahead of most, and he was good at getting to the line. He was terrible at shooting 3s, but that alone doesn't set him apart much.

looking at 14-16 picks...
2019- he was much better than DOumbouya, Okeke didn't play.
2018- MPJ didn't play, Brown was similar but I think Romeo was better, Smith was worse and didn't get any minutes
2017- Bam was better, Jackson was worse, Patton got 4 minutes (which I'd argue is worse)
2016- Valentine was worse, Henangomez was better, Yabu didn't play

I think you just have a very warped perception of what a pick in that stretch right outside the lottery usually does as a rookie.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I think you just have a very warped perception of what a pick in that stretch right outside the lottery usually does as a rookie.
I think we all realize that a typical 14th pick is terrible his rookie year and has an outside chance of contributing in his 2-4 years. The quibble is that some in here are already announcing he is going to get over MLE contract offer once off his rookie deal is over because he has shown some semblance of above average defense in limited minutes.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
What players drafted after Romeo would people want?

I guess people could make an argument for Thybulle & Clarke

from the above article:
Those of us who were paying attention to Langford’s play in the bubble might feel that the Indiana native is at least as much of a prospect based on his excellent defense in those games, but recency bias seems to rule the day in this market.

recency bias
gets GMs fired