Why It's Unfair To Evaluate the Boston Celtics without Paul Pierce in the Lineup

The Boston Celtics are 0-3 to start the season, but playing without its most important player, Paul Pierce, it's not fair nor accurate to assess the sluggish beginning to the campaign.

Three straight losses are never a promising way for any team to begin the year, but let's consider the circumstances surrounding this group before we push the panic button.

Thus far, Boston has played New York, Miami and New Orleans.

While the latter isn't considered a postseason contender, the first two teams are expected to be among the elite this year, and neither game was a disheartening loss.

The Celtics clawed back and battled in each affair, but were beat by teams that were better on the night.

Perhaps the most alarming thing we've seen from the Celtics in the (very) early part of the season was the team's effort against the Hornets without Eric Gordon. Boston has struggled in the past on the back end of consecutive games, so while it's not completely surprising, it does draw some concern.

Despite the Celtics not having Pierce, the game against the Hornets should have been won. But that's in the past and there is no reason to dwell on it going forward as Boston is 0-3 no matter how one slices it.

Is it time to whip out the doomsday scenarios? Is the Celtics' season over because the team lost its first three games of the year?

The short answer is no.

Pierce is at the epicenter of what Boston does. He gives the team a go-to scoring option, he provides leadership on the floor and he injects an element into the game that simply can't be substituted by a combination of Sasha Pavlovic and Marquis Daniels.

Pierce's absence has a trickle down effect on the rest of the lineup. It allows opposing defenses to key in on Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, and it significantly thins out Boston's bench.

In a year where roster depth is more important than ever before, that is the largest issue facing the C's for as long as Pierce is sidelined.

Jeff Green is out for the season, and he was going to play a really important role for this team. This would have been the exactly the type of scenario where he could've stepped in, but it's all about making adjustments on the fly.

Now, that's what the Celtics will have to do following a less than desirable start.

Let's put it into perspective.

Miami started the 2010-11 season 9-8 with the first season of the "Big Three" in tact, and many were questioning whether there were enough balls to go around to satisfy everybody on the roster.

Months later, the team found itself in the championship round as the Eastern Conference representative.

There has been a lot of drama built up into the shortened 66-game season where every game means something, but the Celtics could easily go 6-3 over the next nine contests and suddenly be a .500 club.

It's way too early to count this team out, and it's nothing short of incredible how many headlines are being made out of a sluggish start.

Pierce averaged about 35 minutes per game last season, pouring in 18.9 points per game and stretching the floor with a 37.4 percent clip from downtown.

It's about far more than just replacing the minutes he plays, as the team just doesn't have a player who energizes the players around him like Pierce.

He's the unquestioned leader of the group, and it's impossible to replace the intangibles he brings to the Boston lineup.

Pierce, who has been sidelined since the preseason with a bone bruise in his heel, is aiming to return on Friday for Boston's home opener.

Only then will it be fair to judge this group, as at that moment it will be a complete team ready to play the style it planned before the season kicked off.

Expectations in Boston remain high, and the Celtics couldn't get Pierce back any sooner.