Postgame: Mike Conley on the Celtics

[DarkAzcura]

I think these Celtics do punch above their weight a tad. This is arguably the least talented Celtics squad since PP was drafted.

And they do what those Jim OB teams did. Dirty up the game, play tough tough defense, and get the points where they can. Ultimately those old Jim OB teams were fool's gold and were exposed, but it was a fun ride. Still no substitute for real contention.

What about the Hawks then?

They have no business being as good as they are.

And why, pray tell, is this?

He doesn't actually believe that. He's using the other poster's logic against him a bit, I think. If it was all about having nothing but the top talent and superstars everywhere on the roster, then the Hawks shouldn't be as good as they are, but they are, because there are multiple ways to build a team other than getting two superstars together and watching them go to work...especially with modern defenses. Basically teams playing team basketball and working together isn't necessarily overachieving, and these teams aren't necessarily as talentless as people believe. It's all about mixing and matching multiple skill-sets together and having the right system and coach to put it together cohesively.

It's not about having superstars. It's about having shooters, players who draw fouls, rebounders, defenders, passers, ball-handlers, closers. Superstars kill two birds with one stone so obviously you get closer to building a contender when one player can fill multiple roles all at once, but it is definitely possible with multiple starter level players. The Hawks have it all. They have elite shooting. Elite interior defense. Good perimeter defense. Closers. Ball-handlers. Foul drawers. A coach to put it all together. There's not much more you need on a contending NBA team. They don't need a superstar, and if anything a superstar who doesn't try to fit the system may actually hurt them more than help.

[D.o.s.]

I think these Celtics do punch above their weight a tad. This is arguably the least talented Celtics squad since PP was drafted.

And they do what those Jim OB teams did. Dirty up the game, play tough tough defense, and get the points where they can. Ultimately those old Jim OB teams were fool's gold and were exposed, but it was a fun ride. Still no substitute for real contention.

What about the Hawks then?

They have no business being as good as they are.

And why, pray tell, is this?

He doesn't actually believe that. He's using the other poster's logic against him a bit, I think. If it was all about having nothing but the top talent and superstars everywhere on the roster, then the Hawks shouldn't be as good as they are, but they are, because there are multiple ways to build a team other than getting two superstars together and watching them go to work...especially with modern defenses. Basically teams playing team basketball and working together isn't necessarily overachieving, and these teams aren't necessarily as talentless as people believe. It's all about mixing and matching multiple skill-sets together and having the right system and coach to put it together cohesively.

It's not about having superstars. It's about having shooters, players who draw fouls, rebounders, defenders, passers, ball-handlers, closers. Superstars kill two birds with one stone so obviously you get closer to building a contender when one player can fill multiple roles all at once, but it is definitely possible with multiple starter level players. The Hawks have it all. They have elite shooting. Elite interior defense. Good perimeter defense. Closers. Ball-handlers. Foul drawers. A coach to put it all together. There's not much more you need on a contending NBA team. They don't need a superstar, and if anything a superstar who doesn't try to fit the system may actually hurt them more than help.

TP for that, and I'd agree with your assessment. It boggles my mind that people are still sleeping on the Hawks, despite the fact that the NBA has gone out of its way to repeatedly shower them with praise in ways that demand attention.

[Nerf DPOY]

C's to be topic on ATH momentarily. I just figured this had become the de facto national recognition thread.

[Tr1boy]

I think these Celtics do punch above their weight a tad. This is arguably the least talented Celtics squad since PP was drafted.

And they do what those Jim OB teams did. Dirty up the game, play tough tough defense, and get the points where they can. Ultimately those old Jim OB teams were fool's gold and were exposed, but it was a fun ride. Still no substitute for real contention.

What about the Hawks then?

They have no business being as good as they are.

And why, pray tell, is this?

He doesn't actually believe that. He's using the other poster's logic against him a bit, I think. If it was all about having nothing but the top talent and superstars everywhere on the roster, then the Hawks shouldn't be as good as they are, but they are, because there are multiple ways to build a team other than getting two superstars together and watching them go to work...especially with modern defenses. Basically teams playing team basketball and working together isn't necessarily overachieving, and these teams aren't necessarily as talentless as people believe. It's all about mixing and matching multiple skill-sets together and having the right system and coach to put it together cohesively.

It's not about having superstars. It's about having shooters, players who draw fouls, rebounders, defenders, passers, ball-handlers, closers. Superstars kill two birds with one stone so obviously you get closer to building a contender when one player can fill multiple roles all at once, but it is definitely possible with multiple starter level players. The Hawks have it all. They have elite shooting. Elite interior defense. Good perimeter defense. Closers. Ball-handlers. Foul drawers. A coach to put it all together. There's not much more you need on a contending NBA team. They don't need a superstar, and if anything a superstar who doesn't try to fit the system may actually hurt them more than help.

Yes sir, you got it.

[BleedGreen1989]

C's to be topic on ATH momentarily. I just figured this had become the de facto national recognition thread.

ATH?

[timpiker]

I think the Hawks success is rubbing off onto the C's.  With Stevens probably pointing it out 10 times a day they are believing that if you work your ass off and play like a team you have a shot at winning.

[Nerf DPOY]

C's to be topic on ATH momentarily. I just figured this had become the de facto national recognition thread.

ATH?

Around the Horn on ESPN 5-5:30 weeknights. The topic was something like 'Should or shouldn't they make the playoffs?' Their  collective answer was basically yes. Not particularly interesting but just mentioning it in this thread seemed appropriate to me.

[kraidstar]

c's play great defense, and that has led to their recent success. smart, crowder, and AB are all elite on that end of the floor. mix in a couple scorers and they can cause major problems.
so IMO they're not really overachieving any more than the grizzlies or bulls of recent years have overachieved.

the problem with the grizz and bulls has been that they don't have enough playmakers on offense - the bulls for instance had nate rob last year leading that team, that's not a good sign. grizz were likewise desperate, which is why they got jeff green.
sooner or later you run into another team that also plays great defense that can also score in the clutch because they have a lebron/wade etc that can make crazy shots against good defenses. can you match baskets with that team in the half court? c's right now cannot, so IMO we have a second-round ceiling that will be difficult to breach. we do have IT, who i actually have a lot of confidence in, but we need another great scorer, and hopefully an elite defensive center as well.

so for now the c's are achieving what they should - good competitive play because of great defensive ability and hustle on D, and good ball movement on offense. but i don't think many people have any illusions about their ultimate offensive shortcomings.

[crimson_stallion]

Opposing bigs productions seems down without Sully.  Hopefully, management sees this and keep the pressure on him to undoughboy or unload him.

We kept Gasol in check last night.

I have to agree...

The way Zeller and Bass have been playing together, I really don't see any significant benefit in keeping Sully.  Neither of those guys is an all star in the making, but then I don't think Sully is either.

Honestly I think Bass' production has been pretty [dang] close to Sully's level, but with far superior defence. 

Considering the fact that Sully would still have pretty decent trade value (and an expiring contract) I'd try to work a sign-and-trade this offseason and see if we can move up in the draft or add a solid piece to the team (either a solid SF or a backup who can protect the rim).

[crimson_stallion]

I think the Hawks success is rubbing off onto the C's.  With Stevens probably pointing it out 10 times a day they are believing that if you work your ass off and play like a team you have a shot at winning.

Thing is, people are talking about Atlanta as if it's the first time something like this has happened.

Look at the Spurs - they beat Miami for the title last year, and have been legit contenders year by year for ages now.  Those guys haven't had a legit superstar since about 6 years ago - their two best players (Duncan and Parker) are reduced to being borderline All-Stars at this point, and are nowhere near superstar level.

Same can be said for the infamous Pistons of a few years back - between Hamilton, Billups and Wallace that team had a bunch of borderline All-Stars but also no superstar to speak of.

A guy like Isaiah Thomas is at least as good a player production-wise as anybody on those three teams (championship Pistons, 2013-14 Spurs, today's Hawks).

I think that at the end of the day, the one huge underrated factor is defence.  The one thing that I can think of that every single championship team (who didn't have a clear superstar) has is very good team defence.  On offense you'll have good and bad nights, but Defence is the one thing that you can do at a high level every single night.  It's the one thing you have control over. 

I think the one thing we all should have learned from the Big-3 era is that when you play Grade-A defence you can compete with anybody.

Since we traded out Rondo and Green and started Smart+Bass the one thing that's improved dramatically is defence, and it's that (not firepower) that's led us on this great run lately.

As long as Boston continues to play great defence, they give themselves a fighting chance.

[clover]

I think the Hawks success is rubbing off onto the C's.  With Stevens probably pointing it out 10 times a day they are believing that if you work your ass off and play like a team you have a shot at winning.

Thing is, people are talking about Atlanta as if it's the first time something like this has happened.

Look at the Spurs - they beat Miami for the title last year, and have been legit contenders year by year for ages now.  Those guys haven't had a legit superstar since about 6 years ago - their two best players (Duncan and Parker) are reduced to being borderline All-Stars at this point, and are nowhere near superstar level.

Same can be said for the infamous Pistons of a few years back - between Hamilton, Billups and Wallace that team had a bunch of borderline All-Stars but also no superstar to speak of.

A guy like Isaiah Thomas is at least as good a player production-wise as anybody on those three teams (championship Pistons, 2013-14 Spurs, today's Hawks).

I think that at the end of the day, the one huge underrated factor is defence.  The one thing that I can think of that every single championship team (who didn't have a clear superstar) has is very good team defence.  On offense you'll have good and bad nights, but Defence is the one thing that you can do at a high level every single night.  It's the one thing you have control over. 

I think the one thing we all should have learned from the Big-3 era is that when you play Grade-A defence you can compete with anybody.

Since we traded out Rondo and Green and started Smart+Bass the one thing that's improved dramatically is defence, and it's that (not firepower) that's led us on this great run lately.

As long as Boston continues to play great defence, they give themselves a fighting chance.

I think you drastically overstate (for hyperbole?) how soon Duncan and Parker declined how much. And of course there were those Pistons 26 years ago. If it really is such a blue moon event players would be right to doubt it, but they have the experience of directly facing the 14-15 Hawks right there in their own conference.