Why did we give up on tatum at the 4?
I reckon this change is more a result of the complete lack of depth at SG - SF - PF than a desire to play Tatum at SF next two old fashioned big men.
The team just does not have enough quality depth at the wing / swing positions for CBS to feel comfortable with Tatum at PF. I think CBS should get over it and just play Nesmith even if Nesmith is not completely ready for the minutes.
Regardless, I reckon it is only a matter of time until we see Tatum back at PF and small ball back in our midst. It would be nice if Ainge could help CBS out and get him the team some wing depth. Make his life a bit easier. Use that TPE or trade one of those bigs.
I think most people are missing the point. We played last year with a one big unit not because we wanted to play small ball but because our big depth was so bad. It came down to having Hayward on the court with Tatum playing out of position or having Enes Kanter or Rob Williams play. The difference in talent (or more specifically, the lack of any big talent) forced us to do that.
Now with Hayward gone, Walker injured, and Thompson signed on, the variables in the equation have changed. Now the trade off is start Teague or Pritchard and play Tatum out of position (or someone) or put Theis out there as a PF. Teague is no Gordon Hayward. When Walker is back, the trade off will be Smart or Theis but for now, it definitely makes more sense to play Theis over Teague.
The Celtics have a problem or weakness. They don't have an actual starting level PF. I think Theis can adjust and do "OK" but that is not a great solution. Starting Teague or Pritchard is not a solution either though. I say stick with Theis as the lesser of two evils, keep Teague and Pritchard playing off the bench as they have been playing (and doing well) and ride this out until we can make a trade or otherwise pick up someone who can play PF for us.
Don't try to fix a problem with your power forward by adding a back up PG to the starting line up. That is not a solution.
TP for a different take. In general I support this approach. Play your best players at their best positions and then fill in the rest of the positions. If that means a better player goes to the bench, so be it.
Applying this to the current no-Walker-Celtics, with traditional positons: Brown (SG) and Tatum (SF) automatic starters, best PG is Smart (or Teague, if you think Smart can't play point guard), at center probably Thompson best man, and then the last spot at PF it would be either Ojeleye/G-Will/Theis, and then Theis is the best player. That makes Smart/Brown/Tatum/Theis/Thompson a logical starting line-up.
But the eye-test says it's not working yet. Going more 'modern' with more fluidity between positions and classify this into guards (1 or 2), wings (1 to 3) and bigs (1 or 2). Brown + Tatum as wings, Smart as a guard are the 3 automatic starters. At least one big, need a rim protector/rebounder, so that would probably be Theis or Robert Williams. The last starter needs to be a ball handler/shooter and that would be Teague. So the starting line-up would become: Teague/Smart/Brown/Tatum/Theis. The next guys of the bench Thompson, Pritchard, R.Williams, Nesmith, Ojeleye and G.Williams. Still creates some problems with allocating minutes to the guard and wing postions.
Just going with my instinct, I say start:
Pritchard/Smart/Brown/Tatum/R.Williams and first guys of the bench Teague/Nesmith/Thompson. Situational minutes: Ojeleye and Theis. In that case I think we have the best balance in shooting, scoring, playmaking, defense, rebounding and experience in both the starting line-up as the sequential bench units.