If we got Howard, which historic C's player would you be to help us win a title?

[2short]

Larry or Hondo and the question isn't even close. IMHO.

agreed
I do think that paul and hondo will have similar later career  years and either guy would look good with that team. 

Now the nba will be in shock if bird is back, people don't rebound / box out like that anymore.  Imagine if the young ones got to see him or cowens for that matter.
I can see it now "they play too hard" 

[Celtics4ever]

Larry. 

1) He would spread the floor with his jumper
2) His passes made everyone on the floor better
3) He would perfectly compliment Howard or Rondo

He would be like Hido on steroids and gamma radiation!

[Roy H.]

Without question, Larry.  His blend of passing, rebounding, and shooting would be perfect next to Howard, and you can play him at the 3 or the 4.

I think if we still had KG, I'd pick Bird over Cowens/Russell, to re-create another 80s frontline, however, I think that a present day team needs a one-on-one defender more than a zone defender like Bird.

I'm running on a few assumptions and that's that Rondo can be the Playmaker, Howard the Banger, Cowens the ultimate Jack-of-All-Things, and Pierce, the Sixth Man extraordinaire.

Teams don't need elite defenders at every position, though.  Between Howard, Pierce, and Rondo, this team would be elite defensively, no matter who else you threw out there for teammates.  Larry was a very good defender in his own right, especially, as you note, at team defense.  He wouldn't hurt the team on that side of the ball.

At the other end of the court, there's no other player in Celtics history that can give you the same combination of prolific scoring, efficiency, passing, and offensive rebounding.  Pierce (who is already on the team) and Havlicek perhaps are close, but they're still a step below Larry.  He would instantly make the team into a top-3 offensive club, just by his presence alone.

If I was going with a big, I agree with the remarks above about McHale.  He's a better scorer and defender in my mind than Cowens, whereas Cowens was the better rebounder.

[Celtics4ever]

Howard could get the boards and McHale could do the nifty low post scoring.   Larry was not as bad as a defender as people make him.   He was an excellent team defender.  McHale and Howard would be a formidible duo in terms of shot blocking anyone would made it past Larry.

[TitleMaster]

Howard and Cowens on the court together equals 25-30 boards per game.

In other words, our re-occurring weakness (albeit, much of it was Perk's absence), which setup our problems, during the 2010 Game 7 final, is completely eliminated.

Now, here's the difference, you can keep both Howard and Cowens in the final minutes of the game w/o a scoring liability, anywhere in & around the paint.

I think this combo completely takes out every PF/C combo out there in the league today.

[wdleehi]

Bird.

Would give the Celtics two of the top three players in the NBA at two different positions. 


Just imagine the passing out there with Rondo, KG and Bird. 


Imagine the rebounding with Howard, KG and Bird. 

[Celtics4ever]

I like Perk and all but to mention in the same breath as Cowens as a rebounder is folly.   I bet Cowens averaged double the rebounds of Perk.  While, it's true it is a definite weakness of ours guys today do not box out like back in the day.   Part of it is the possessions I know and the shooting but Dave could really board and so could Russ.   Heck , Larry averaged 10 boards a game that is 2 more than the best years of Perk.

[ScoobyDoo]

Assuming KG was retired and we could pick him as an option, Larry or KG. I don't count Russell because I consider him a center...

Howard with Bird or KG would both be devastating for different reasons.

If I had to choose between KG or Larry - I have to take Larry, here's why:

1. We could find a decent PF to go along Howard - they'd be lining up to come in.

2. What you can't replace with Larry is that he was one of the most clutch players of all time offensively. Combine that with his passing, rebounding, leadership that is as good or better than KG's...

I take Larry

Howard
Throw a solid all around PF next Howard - Horace Grant Type
Larry
Pierce in his prime can play off guard
Rondo

Forget about it

   

[BballTim]

I like Perk and all but to mention in the same breath as Cowens as a rebounder is folly.   I bet Cowens averaged double the rebounds of Perk.  While, it's true it is a definite weakness of ours guys today do not box out like back in the day.   Part of it is the possessions I know and the shooting but Dave could really board and so could Russ.   Heck , Larry averaged 10 boards a game that is 2 more than the best years of Perk.

  Cowens had a Reb% of 17.1, Perk's is 16.5. There were a lot more shots when Cowens played but the each got roughly the same percent of rebounds available.

[Roy H.]

I like Perk and all but to mention in the same breath as Cowens as a rebounder is folly.   I bet Cowens averaged double the rebounds of Perk.  While, it's true it is a definite weakness of ours guys today do not box out like back in the day.   Part of it is the possessions I know and the shooting but Dave could really board and so could Russ.   Heck , Larry averaged 10 boards a game that is 2 more than the best years of Perk.

  Cowens had a Reb% of 17.1, Perk's is 16.5. There were a lot more shots when Cowens played but the each got roughly the same percent of rebounds available.

... and for perspective, Larry had a 14.5 TRB%, which isn't all that far off from Cowens.  Cowens has an edge, sure, but it's nowhere near enough to trump Larry's edge in scoring, passing, and shooting / efficiency.

[TitleMaster]

I guess the question would be whether or not a very good PF is really someone who comes 'cheap' today? Players like Boozer, I believe, get $14M per year.

Realize, although Larry's the man, he'll be joining a team with a pretty fluid offense but may have some holes in the 4 spot or on the wings, in terms of mainly defense. If the assumption here is a type of -flat tax- on the ancient Celtic, then the savings by bringing in a top tier PF, like Cowens, could then be applied on getting perimeter shooters or defensive stoppers on the wings like the next James Posey or Bruce Bowen.

[nickagneta]

Hondo would be the perfect defensive wing that could also score that the C's would need if Howard, Rondo, and Pierce was still a part of this team. Hondo could be  a Tony Allen on steroids defensively (guarding the LeBrons and Wades and Kobes of the NBA) with the offensive ability of a Danny Granger or better.

Maybe a PF with elite skills would be better, but a Havlicek in his prime with Pierce, Rondo and Howard, with his once in a lifetime defensive skills combined with his offense abilities in today's NBA of wing dominant play, would be unbelievably dominant.

[2short]

I think the question should be reworked .   How about if we got howard but no longer had allen or garnett what historic celtic player would you add to the team of:
howard, rondo, pierce, green, west and the rookies
However the historic player cannot be one of the top ten c's ever.  Obviously Bird is one of the top 5 greatest players ever so any team he's on of course he makes it better.  So no russ, bird,hondo, cowens, cous etc.
Now what historic player would make that team better?
I'm thinking on it myself.

[2short]

Someone smart enough needs to post top ten celts per our fun contest from awhile back.
Off the top of my head w/ 5 minutes of coffee I'm leaning towards  Paul Silas or Bill Walton

[Roy H.]

I guess the question would be whether or not a very good PF is really someone who comes 'cheap' today? Players like Boozer, I believe, get $14M per year.

Realize, although Larry's the man, he'll be joining a team with a pretty fluid offense but may have some holes in the 4 spot or on the wings, in terms of mainly defense. If the assumption here is a type of -flat tax- on the ancient Celtic, then the savings by bringing in a top tier PF, like Cowens, could then be applied on getting perimeter shooters or defensive stoppers on the wings like the next James Posey or Bruce Bowen.

I know it's heresy to say it, but I think you might be overrating defense, at least as compared to elite offense. 

The Celtics were the #18 offense in the NBA last year.  If I was going to plug a hole on the team that had Howard, Rondo, and an aging Pierce, it would be on offense, not D.  We lost in 2010 because we couldn't consistently score, and we probably lost last year for the same reason.

Our defense would be fine.  Last season, the Magic were the #3 defense, despite starting poor defenders like Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkuglu, Ryan Anderson, and Jason Richardson, with Gilbert Arenas seeing heavy minutes.  Think about that.  Dwight Howard + 4 bad defenders = excellent defense.  Replace Nelson with Rondo, Hedo with Bird, and Jason Richardson with Pierce, and you have an even better defense.

With Cowens at PF, we'd have a better defense, but perhaps an even worse offense; Cowens was never a terribly efficient player.  As we saw last year, great defense + mediocre-to-bad offense just isn't good enough to win in today's NBA.