Brown has never shown the ability to lead the Celtics as the #1. That doesn't mean he couldn't do it, but in the few games when Tatum has been out, Boston has not been good.
Data point: last night.
beat me to it.
this constant bashing of Brown is aging like week old fish in the sun
How is stating facts bashing Brown? Last year, Boston was 2-4 without Tatum and 2-3 in those games when Brown played. The year before 2-7 without Tatum, Brown missed just 1, so 2-6 with Brown and without Tatum. So Tatum doesn't miss many games, but the last 2 full seasons in games Tatum has missed and Brown has played, Boston is 4-9, or you know, not very good. And that includes losses to teams like the tanking Thunder. And it wasn't any better the 19-20 season either, 2-4 without Tatum, 1-3 in the games with Brown. 1-2 the year before that and Tatum's rookie year, Tatum missed just 2 games, Boston won them both, but Brown only played in 1.
That just isn't the case when the inverse happens, i.e. Brown misses games but Tatum plays. Boston isn't quite as good as they are with both of them, but they are still a good team without Brown.
Facts are what they are, and the facts show that Brown just doesn't move the needle for Boston where winning is concerned. Now maybe if the team truly missed Tatum for an extended time, Brown could overcome some of that, but I just don't think it is his game. He just isn't that sort of player. He is best suited as a #2 type player, and I just don't think he is a great fit next to Tatum overall. Great player, but not as great next to Tatum as he would be next to a different great player.
Out of curiosity, who do you see as a better fit for Brown?
I've never been shy that I think finding a long term PF would be most optimal. Someone that can play outside and not clog up the lane offensively (Rob and Brown do that enough for Tatum as is). Then replace Brown with a shooter (preferably a solid defending one). I know these guys are on different teams and I do think Brown has more value then they do collectively, but if for example we acquired John Collins and Buddy Hield for Brown, I think Boston would be better even though those 2 guys aren't as good as Brown.
I think Tatum functions at his best with a non dominant ball handling PG, a shooter at SG, him at SF, a shooter at PF, and a C that can score at the rim. So for the current team, I think Smart, Brogdon, Tatum, Horford, and Rob may actually be the most optimal lineup the team has. That to me maximizes Tatum the best. Obviously Rob isn't out there so I'd probably do Horford and Grant along with Tatum, Smart, and Brogdon. If White continues to shoot as well as he has, I could see him swapping in for Smart. Clearly, Brown is Boston's 2nd best player, I just don't think he is a good fit with Tatum, and I believe their numbers reflect that. They are both at their best at SF. They both operate better with the ball and in the same places on the floor. That is why I don't see them meshing very well, and why Tatum has historically played better when Brown doesn't play at all. Brown isn't a good enough passer, ball handler, or creator to do what Tatum does, which is why the team collapses without Tatum, and because his game is so similar to Tatum, the team doesn't fully maximize his skill set or get the most out of his talent. It reminds of an old Clyde Drexler quote, where he asked about Jordan something like "what can he do that I can't" and the response was something along the lines of "Nothing. Jordan just does everything better." Brown is Drexler, Tatum is Jordan, and just like I don't think Clyde and MJ would have worked as well as their talent would yield, I feel the same about Tatum and Brown.