The 4 spot is a glaring gap right now. But in this 3-ball era, with a lot of teams going for perimeter play, does it make sense to play Tatum at the 4? Can he get the lions share of his minutes there and thrive?
I assume the standard starting lineup would be Smart-Fournier-Brown-Tatum-Horford. Or if we can get a more natural playmaker, it’s Fournier off the bench (assuming we resign him). Then only when facing bigger lineups (like the Bucks, Pelicans, etc) do we slide Tatum to the 3 and go with Horford at the 4, with either Timelord or TT at the 5.
This has been debated and there is a wide variance in opinion. In my opinion, I feel you are asking the wrong question. Tatum is a wing or SF, that is his natural position. He is not a PF or big and cannot play the role of a big. The question is how far can the Celtics go if their principal core line up is built around playing with only 1 big, 3 wings, and a PG. I know this may be nit picking but just because a team decides to play with only one big on the floor, it does not mean that one of the wings is a PF.
What I don't like about our current roster is that our only realistic or viable line up is to play with one big. We are forced to play with one big because we don't have anyone on the entire roster who can play PF at a starter's level. To me, that is the limitation. It is one thing to go with a one big line up because you like the match up or whatever. It is another thing when you are forced to because you don't have a PF.
Our 1 big line up will be a really good line up but there will be times when it is not the right line up. Teams will throw big line ups at us and try to wear down Tatum (if he is covering the PF) and try to get fouls. As it stands, it will be our weakness. Teams will exploit it. We will become too reliant on the 3. Some nights that will work out, other nights not so much. Even a decent swing (Marcus Morris or Jae Crowder type) would help a lot.
