Size is fool's gold

[gpap]

I am not quite sure I understand this thread. Size is NOT fool's gold. Not even close. Basketball is a big man's sport. Always has been and always will be.

Saying size is fool's gold in the NBA is like saying you don't need muscles to be a weightlifter.

Every team in the NBA that has won a title has had size and very good rebounding. No rebounding and size, then you win the bozo button in the NBA and that's it.

[prov1ml34]

I wouldn't say size is necessarily fool's gold. However, I, too, am getting tired of the constant butt kicking we get night in and night out on the boards from [insert team here].

Size isn't the end all and be all of rebounding. The greatest rebounder of all time, Dennis Rodman, was 6'6"!!! It's a blue collar aspect of the game that players need to focus on and apparently no one on this team wants to make rebounding a part of their game.

[Celtics4ever]

I'll name you three in three different generations----Kevin Love, Larry Bird and Paul Silas. No seven footers, no great athleticism, but three great rebounders!

I agree but as you can see it is no majority.  They don't do it as much as they used to do so.   The are the exception not the rule.  None of these guys were great leapers so they had to box out.

[TripleOT]

The Celtics biggest problem is that the leader of the bigs, KG, refuses or is incapable of boxing out.  When they pair him with a midget big, like a Bass, it's Open Buffet for hungry offensive rebounders against the Cs. 

Put a competent widebodied big next to KG and it's a different situation.  That guy can body someone up, and that will allow KG to not do so and not hurt the team as much.  We used to have a guy like that, and it seemed to work out pretty well. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I am not quite sure I understand this thread. Size is NOT fool's gold. Not even close. Basketball is a big man's sport. Always has been and always will be.

Saying size is fool's gold in the NBA is like saying you don't need muscles to be a weightlifter.

Every team in the NBA that has won a title has had size and very good rebounding. No rebounding and size, then you win the bozo button in the NBA and that's it.

Maybe I did a poor job explaining myself in the OP. I fully understand the value of size in the NBA and am not in any way saying you can win without it; I even mentioned in another thread recently that all the recent title winners had at least one, usually two, bigs who were really good at least on defense, if not on offense as well (Lakers: Gasol, Bynum, Odom; Celtics: KG, Perk; Mavs: Dirk, Chandler; Spurs: Duncan).

The point I was trying to get across is that rebounding is not just about size, but also involves desire and mental toughness—and Boston is lacking in all three of these things when it comes to rebounding. I was also saying that while it's understandable for Boston to struggle against Bynum and Gasol, what's its excuse against teams that DON'T have that type of size? After all, I've heard it repeated numerous times that Boston can "get away with" not having a legit center because they face the Lakers only twice a year and Howard is the only "true center" in the East. So why, then, do the Celtics struggle even against teams that don't have great bigs? Why, even when Boston has all four of its primary bigs, does it struggle on the boards? I understand the lack of offensive rebounds—Doc preaches getting back on D once the Cs put up a shot—but all five guys should be crashing the defensive boards (Paul Pierce, a forward, had 0 rebounds against the Lakers, and Rondo had 2, when we know he's capable of double-digit boards).

[blink]

I disagree with the original poster's comment.  Size in today's NBA is absolutely required to contend for a title.  Size can give you more blocks, intimidation in the paint, extra length for loose balls / double teams.  But size doesn't always = good rebounding. 

I am probably more old school on this, but rebounding is at least 50% hustle and desire.  I don't greatly disagree with Doc's  mo on not worrying about O-rebounds, but for the celtics to be a great def team they need to stop giving up so many offensive rebounds.  We need to finish these defensive efforts by securing the rebound.  We need to even up the shot attempts.  It seems so simple to me, and probably a lot of the rest of us.  Until we learn to not give up so many offensive rebounds we are going to lose a lot of games that could have been wins....ie lakers on Sunday.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I am probably more old school on this, but rebounding is at least 50% hustle and desire.  I don't greatly disagree with Doc's  mo on not worrying about O-rebounds, but for the celtics to be a great def team they need to stop giving up so many offensive rebounds.  We need to finish these defensive efforts by securing the rebound.  We need to even up the shot attempts.  It seems so simple to me, and probably a lot of the rest of us.  Until we learn to not give up so many offensive rebounds we are going to lose a lot of games that could have been wins....ie lakers on Sunday.

Exactly.