Tatum: “Hayward is one of the best players in the league”

[LilRip]

Gotta be some empty PR. Hayward’s not even in the top 3 of his own team!

Hayward arguably the best player on the team if healthy.  But that’s the catch of course.  Will he be healthy.

Say what you will about JT and JB (tbh I think their time is now and they’re really taking on a bigger role on the court) but Kemba is undoubtedly our best player.

[droopdog7]

Gotta be some empty PR. Hayward’s not even in the top 3 of his own team!

Hayward arguably the best player on the team if healthy.  But that’s the catch of course.  Will he be healthy.

Say what you will about JT and JB (tbh I think their time is now and they’re really taking on a bigger role on the court) but Kemba is undoubtedly our best player.

Yeah, I think prime Hayward is better than kemba too.  Of course, how close to prime Hayward do we have is the question.

[SHAQATTACK]

Anybody but Le Blow Hard

[coco]

I know one thing; all elite teams want the Cs to trade Hayward for mediocre big man.

...and incredibly; some Cs fan agree.

As constituted; Cs are the dark horse to win it all.  Heck, I wouldn’t want to face a team with 4 legitimate 20+ ppg and a defensive stud (Smart)

[GreenFaith1819]

I know one thing; all elite teams want the Cs to trade Hayward for mediocre big man.

...and incredibly; some Cs fan agree.

As constituted; Cs are the dark horse to win it all.  Heck, I wouldn’t want to face a team with 4 legitimate 20+ ppg and a defensive stud (Smart)

I know - right??

Then whomever we trade him to Gordon Hayward would THEN cut loose....Full Utah Mode.

I'd rather keep him in GREEN - at the ready.

As it stands NOW we have FOUR potent weapons - and they seem to actually LOVE playing together. That is GOLDEN and the Celtic Way.

I know I've harped on how much I want a Better Big than what we have now. But IF we're trading GH or JB or JT it had BETTER be a home run.



I'm done panicking.

I'd rather we manage with Kanter / Theis / Williams or even Taco than lose one of those four for less than they are worth.

[GreenCoffeeBean]

wrong thread

[Mahk E Mahk]

One thing that the stats don’t capture is Gordon’s unselfishness. He doesn’t jack up 20 shots to get 30 ppg like Jayson does, because that’s not the role they have him playing on this team. His skill set allows him to be effective without necessarily scoring the basketball. As Jayson is more of a volume scorer and his (and Jaylens) ability to set others up, while getting better, is not really at Gordon’s level, I’m expecting Gordon’s scoring to take a back seat to the two Jays as they continue to blossom offensively. And obviously he can slot into that scorers role if either of our young guys have one of their poor shooting nights.

I’m very happy with the role Gordon’s playing right now, it’s an unselfish one. Of course the usual haters will moan about how we have a max player being paid the most scoring the least of our top 4 but I couldn’t be bothered less. There’s not that many NBA players of Gordon’s ability who are willing to step back from the limelight and let others take on bigger roles that suit those teammates better, because they want to win rather than “get theirs” every night. We’re lucky to have a player of Gordon’s ability and unselfishness. That’s the Celtic way.

was going to post something very similar to this but you said it well. tp.

[Somebody]

I "Still" think that we're only getting the PG-13 rated version of Gordon Hayward, even with his first 10 games this season.

The "Utah" Gordon Hayward?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LinS8LS8TVE

Clearly rated "R".

The Utah Gordon Hayward chased down blocks.....gave Greek Freak facials.....clearly had more "Bounce" to the Ounce.......

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the BOS version of Hayward. As Roy alluded to - he has more weapons here in BOS and will probably rarely have his FULL repertoire on display.

But I still think we're only seeing about 85 percent of what he was in Utah. Dude had / has "Boing".

Yeah and that's fine, having 5 players who're solidly in the top 50 is amazing. Really happy with what we've got and I think we have a shot at winning banner 18 (I've been pushing the banner 18 bandwagon for few weeks iirc lol).

Agreed. Such is BOS's way.

I remember reading up on Bill Russell's BOS teams beating the questionably more talented LAL (Wilt) teams.

Having a LOT of VERY GOOD players trumps having 1 or 2 great ones in some cases....I love BOS's Giant Slayer mentality over the years.

Russell was a better player than Wilt for most of his career though ('67 and '68 were exceptions, Wilt was better when he was in the midst of his two year apex while Russell was declining) - Russell's career was an onslaught of MVP calibre seasons with 4-6 ATG years thrown in between. But yeah other than Russell's advantage over any centre in the league for most of his career, Boston often played with an underwhelming supporting cast compared to teams like the Sixers and Lakers.

Russell's supporting cast over the years.

HOFer Bob Cousy
HOFer Frank Ramsey
HOFer Bill Sharman
HOFer Sam Jones
HOFer KC Jones
HOFer Tom Heinsohn
HOFer John Havlicek
HOFer Clyde Lovelette
HOFer Tom "Satch" Sanders
HOFer Don Nelson

Underwhelming? Not sure I would use that word.

Without getting into how Russell dragged a few of those guys into the Hall (go check the player profiles of Sanders, KC and Nelson, they were no world beaters as individuals) as well as the fact that Lovelette was a 9 MPG backup centre when he played with Russell, it was normal to have multiple All-Star teammates back then. Russell played with six different All-Stars totaling 27 selections in 13 years, while West played with eight different players totaling 22 selections in 14 years and Wilt played with 10 different players totaling 24 selections in 14 years.

Russell's teams were powered by his otherworldly defence while he depended on his teammates to spearhead...an average to below average offence. His supporting casts were certainly inferior and underwhelming compared to the loaded '67 and '68 Sixers and the 60s Lakers. Here's a really informative article on how he was the main reason for Boston's success during the decade despite the famous names of his teammates (which they owe to him):
https://backpicks.com/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/

Okay, first off, you need to go to more places to get info on older players because quite honestly, backpicks sucks at it. Second, I got through 75% of that article with hardly a mention regarding those other players and no mention regarding how good they were as compared to the other players of their era.

Sorry to say Somebody, but the rest of the Celtics that Russell played with were playing at the very highest levels of basketball for that era and were not underwhelming. You just are way way off base, to just out right wrong calling that group underwhelming. As to the number of great players Russell played with, well, there was almost no movement of Boston's great players and most stuck in Boston their entire careers, limiting the amount of great players that Russell would play with.

You mean go to places where numbers that actually tell how much a player really moved the needle as well as concepts on how to use the eye test to evaluate players are thrown out of the window in favour of eloquently written bards and flashy highlight clips to sing the praises of Celtics legends in an irrational manner? Not sure which one "sucks at it". Secondly, almost the whole impact evaluation section tells you about Russell's impact and subsequently how his teams weren't that loaded: the team fell apart when he was out but were comically dominant when he was anchoring the Celtic defence, and the Celtic supporting cast, viewed as a squad of offensive stars, spearheaded an average offence at best during Russell's career.

It's not like I'm calling the Celtics teams around Russell bad, they were well balanced and quite deep for their time, but they were only playing at the highest levels of basketball in that era due to Russell and lagged behind some of their competitors (West had prime Baylor early on in his career as a sidekick, Wilt had some loaded squads featuring Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker in '67 and '68, then jumped to the Lakers and became West's sidekick after that!). It fails to impress me when people mostly view it as some offensive juggernaut at the time even though there were a number of supporting casts that were a better fit for that title, is that not the very definition of underwhelming? Or am I just outright wrong because what I'm saying doesn't fit with the narrative that the Celtics supporting cast were a squad of offensive stars due to their impressive raw scoring numbers that weren't all that impactful and were inflated by Russell pushing the pace with his outlet passes? Again the supporting casts were good (I certainly don't believe that one single player can lead a bad team to a decade of title success), but they were certainly underwhelming when the general perception of those supporting casts was that they were some sort of world beating collection of offensive talent that made the league quiver in fear.

[gouki88]

I know one thing; all elite teams want the Cs to trade Hayward for mediocre big man.

...and incredibly; some Cs fan agree.

As constituted; Cs are the dark horse to win it all.  Heck, I wouldn’t want to face a team with 4 legitimate 20+ ppg and a defensive stud (Smart)

Couldn't agree more. Some of the Hayward trade ideas are borderline lunacy.

Our team makeup with 4 great scorers (all with different strengths too!), a 6MOTY & DPOY candidate, and some good to great role players is a nightmare. Plus, for all his errors last year Brad has been great this year.

Kemba's ball-handling, off ball movement and ability to score from all 3 levels - especially in the clutch, Hayward's passing, shooting and general IQ, Brown's combination of athleticism + ball-handling with really good efficiency and Tatum's shot-making from anywhere is a deadly 4-man group.