Brown and Tatum are natural SFs, but forced to play other "positions" since we play positionless basketball. Not sure if that was part of the consideration for this sub-par article.
I don't think it was in the original article, but it's very relevant to the recent discussion. Last year our starting "PF" was our backup "C" and our starting "SG" was our backup "SF"
If the C's were fully healthy they could have a rotation like;
Smart 32, White 16
Brown 16, Brogdon 32
Tatum 32, Brown 16
G. Williams 24, Gallanari 24
GWIII 24, Horford 24
With Pritchard, Kornet, Houser, Thomas, Davison, Kabengele, Vonleh, and Caboclo
It's position-less but Pritchard isn't going to replace GWII.
I think the 9 person rotation that Grogan shows is spot on. This is exactly what I expect to see, plus or minus a few minutes here and there. The point is that this rotation 1-9 is rock solid. If you consider Pritchard as the 10th, that is very solid too and he is guard insurance, not even needed in the regular rotation.
No team is going to have a better 5th guard than Pritchard.
I think you'll see Pritchard in the rotation. Grouping players into a big category, like "guards", tends to obscure their differences, and thus their value in playing a complementary role in a rotation. Even a more modern term like "ballhandlers" isn't specific enough for a player like Pritchard; Ime seldom used him as the lone ballhandler (especially after the all-star break), preferring to pair him mostly with Derrick White, or less often with Marcus. Simply put, what brother Payton brings is unique, uniquely valuable, and perfectly complementary to the other players on the roster, and with a range of different lineups.
He moved up to about 19 minutes/game after the all-star break last season because he got intense with his defense and was recognized for it; but the fact that he shot .473 from 3 and .620 from 2 in a big sample size in that span can't have hurt. Those are
spectacular numbers. Like most NBA players, better numbers followed from consistent minutes; but we would have to say both that Ime found a role for him to excel in and that he took full advantage.
He's a conservative but willing and effective playmaker, taking good care of the ball and making good choices at a high tempo (TOV% under 10, AST% over 20). He pushes it up the floor faster than anyone on the roster, except Davison.
In short: he doesn't "slot" behind anyone. He will wind up in all sorts of lineups as a secondary ballhandler. That hardly seems debatable; the more interesting question is if he could appear in 3-ballhandler units, for instance with White and Brogdon.
In the bigs, we have 4 solid bigs and Kornet right now.
I'm pretty sure that you're including Grant and Gallo with the bigs, but again I think your terminology is too broad, and in particular doesn't account for Grant's uniqueness.
But it's Gallinari who fits less well with the bigs on the roster. He's a swing or even a wing. Best to call him a swing, since he doesn't have the feet to guard wings.
He does not do the things that are most needed from bigs in today's game: he's a weak paint- and rim-protector, a poor defensive rebounder, and a nearly non-existent offensive rebounder. He's a scorer - part 2 of Brad revising the roster to get more scoring off the bench. But you will
never see him as the lone big, the way you will routinely see Al or Rob.
As for Grant, his paint-protection brings him closer to a big than Gallo's; but his rebounding is similarly weak. He is not a weak-side shotblocker, but he's got enough anticipation to get blocks on drivers and on his own man, despite his unimpressive length. Great lower body, which he uses effectively at guarding bigs. Excellent team defender, talks and knows the scouting report better than anyone, sees the play developing and rotates correctly.
On offense he might as well be a "shooting guard".
Probably best to call him a swing, since his game is more wing than anything, even though he can guard bigs.
I don't know if the Celtics see Kornet as an actual viable 3rd center...
...Vonleh as a PF/C and Kornet as a C/PF.
If by "viable" you mean "rotation", the answer is no. But given the potential fragility of Al and Rob, I believe that Boston needs a third big - exactly, in other words, what they got in Daniel Theis at the deadline last year. Luke plays an important role; but unfortunately he is not a third big on this team.
Daniel is paid a lot for a third big, but getting him was an outstanding pickup that made a real difference for the stretch run. Perhaps they'll do something similar this year - I think it's likely.
As for Kornet, he's a fourth or fifth big, the proverbial "break glass in case of fire" player.
If we carry 5-6 guards and 5-6 bigs, that would mean we would need 3 SFs to give us 14 or 15 total. Right now we have Tatum and Hauser. Not sure that Bruno Caboclo is the right guy for that slot but maybe. To me, this slot is the most in question and the biggest need.
Smart White Pritchard
Brown Brogdon Thomas(?)
Tatum Vet (?) Hauser
Gallinari Grant Vonleh(?)
RWill Horford Kornet(?)
I can live with that if we actually do find that vet SF.
In my view we will not likely see anything like that. There is always a place for a talented player, but by the same token you've got to pay for talent.
Instead you'll see lots of two-ballhandler and two-big lineups with one wing, as we did routinely last year. I must say I find your idea that Jaylen is a SG and not a SF puzzling; he's a prototypical modern wing. He was often on the floor with two ballhandlers last year - and there will be even more of that this year with Brogdon on board.
These old designations have gotten antiquated and are worse than useless. But the real problem is that fans think you need to fill slots, that you need a "true point guard" and so on.
Topic: The last three roster spots will be determined in training camp (Read 21439 times)