Celtics roster still Tiny

[mr. dee]

Got to have size inside to win..look at Milwaukee last season..I know Golden State won some with smaller guys but had Durant & Curry helps..Celtics, Lakers & Pistons won with a big team in 80s & early 90s, Houston with Hakeem, Spurs with Robinson & Duncan, Shaq with Lakers, etc

Durant is 6'11" and the Warriors won with Bogut as their starting C

[nickagneta]

Let's not forget that all those pre 2015 or so listed heights for those big players included 2" of shoes. Just saying.

If Horford and/or Timelord are on the court with Tatum and Brown, that's not a tiny team. Length, wingspan and vertical leap matter.

The team was tiny at times last night because Grant was playing center for long periods with 4 guards. I don't see that being a regular thing.

[Celtics4ever]

Grant at C is not the best use of his skills.  He struggles at the position.   I like fast and mobile Grant much better than last year, but a Center he is not.

I hope it is not the norm.   I think Al plays last night we would have won.

[knuckleballer]

I agree the team is short and that’s frustrating,  I hope Parker or Hernangomez can take minutes away from Grant.

As others have pointed out, which frustrates me, Timelord is not undersized despite being 6’8”.  With his long arms and weird shoulders, he has the length of a 7 footer.  He has a standing reach at least as high as Ayton. We do need Horford to step up and to a lesser degree, Herno or Parker.

[liam]

I agree the team is short and that’s frustrating,  I hope Parker or Hernangomez can take minutes away from Grant.

As others have pointed out, which frustrates me, Timelord is not undersized despite being 6’8”.  With his long arms and weird shoulders, he has the length of a 7 footer.  He has a standing reach at least as high as Ayton. We do need Horford to step up and to a lesser degree, Herno or Parker.

Parker or Hernangomez have to play before they can impact a game.

[tenn_smoothie]

 We have no size. The story remains the same.  How are we supposed to win a chip if we don't acquire players over 6'8" that can actually effect the game in the paint.

 Horford will help but he's 35 years old. I would give up a Lot for Ayton if the Suns won't pay him. I'm so tired of this small ball crap.  Grant Williams as our 6'5" second big? Just awful. 

 Take a look at the guys that played last night.

Brown 6'6" 46 minutes
Smart 6'2" 46 minutes
Tatum 6'8" 45 minutes
Timelord 6'8" 45 minutes
Denis 6'1" 32 minutes
Grant 6'5" 31 minutes
Nesmith 6'5" 11 minutes
Romeo 6'4" 23 minutes
Prichard  6'1" 11 minutes

 We aren't winning anything with an NBA team with this vertically challenged team.. and Horford and J Rich aren't the solution. Big ball wins rings. Big talented players.

Thank You. I guess the aversion to size that the Danny-Brad combo had is going to continue.

Enough about how the game has changed. You still need size to be a real contender - even Golden State needed Bogut.

[Hoopvortex]

Smart 6'2" 46 minutes
Grant 6'5" 31 minutes
Timelord 6'8" 45 minutes
Romeo 6'4" 23 minutes

Smart is actually listed at 6'4", TL at 6'9", Romeo at 6'5", and Grant at 6'6". Naturally I assume that you will want to get those numbers accurate even though they support your argument less well.

Your point is a good one, though your conclusion is extreme.

I'd go along with you that height, and especially length, is an advantage in today's game. So is weight; but when the rules of NΒΑ basketball were changed a generation ago they elevated speed and skill to an importance that they hadn't had before, and the priority of speed has only increased over the last decade at least. Length is an advantage, and even weight is an advantage, if the player is quick.

Gone are the days of 'energy guys' and rebounding or shot-blocking specialists. You can't put guys on the floor that the defense doesn't have to guard; if you have to guard everyone the defense has to cover a lot of ground, and for that the modern NBA team needs speed.

You say that "We aren't winning anything with an NBA team with this vertically challenged team". While I can't go along with that extreme statement (there's more than one way to get there), I would agree that length is a good substitute for speed in most game circumstances. Even "speed" is more than one thing; it also includes anticipation on the defensive end, or - on the offensive end - the fine motor skills to fake an opponent. So as my ninth-grade coach used to say, it's better to be quick than fast.

I've been on here a few times urging people to pay attention to Toronto - as I'm sure you already are, since they're amazingly long. Now I realize that you're talking about height here, but I've seen you elsewhere talk about wingspan so I assume that that's in your thinking. I'm recalling you proposed trading Grant for Boucher for example.

The Raptors have the extreme version of length in the history of the NBA; not awesome height, but they've got a rotation's worth of 6'7, 6'8, 6'9" guys with 7'2" or greater wingspans. Looking forward to a Banton/Barnes/OG/Siakam/Birch lineup taking the floor. Only OG in that group is as short as 6'7".

But note something weird about the Toronto roster: they don't have anyone as tall as 6'10". Yes, a pro basketball team whose tallest player is 6'9".

The biggest problem with 7-footers in today's game is movement. It just takes time to get big thighs moving, to build up momentum to close out a shooter. Height is different from length because a lot of height means slower, usually, and especially because it means slower acceleration.

A while ago posters on here were lamenting the demise of the bigs battling in the low post that was one of the hallmarks of the game when they were first watching it. I recall one of them calling modern basketball a 'bad product' or words to that effect; I found it tragic, in a way, that anyone would be a fan of a team that played a game they didn't even like. But the rules that once made playing that way logical are just not coming back.

The wide-open game of today was re-engineered to showcase the skills and athleticism that is on display every night during the season; and the game has dramatically grown its fan base because of it.

NBA basketball is, more than ever, a game of movement, of speed and fine motor skills. Size, including weight, height, and length, are still advantages, all other things being equal - IF the player has speed and skills.

[KG Living Legend]

Smart 6'2" 46 minutes
Grant 6'5" 31 minutes
Timelord 6'8" 45 minutes
Romeo 6'4" 23 minutes

Smart is actually listed at 6'4", TL at 6'9", Romeo at 6'5", and Grant at 6'6". Naturally I assume that you will want to get those numbers accurate even though they support your argument less well.

Your point is a good one, though your conclusion is extreme.

I'd go along with you that height, and especially length, is an advantage in today's game. So is weight; but when the rules of NΒΑ basketball were changed a generation ago they elevated speed and skill to an importance that they hadn't had before, and the priority of speed has only increased over the last decade at least. Length is an advantage, and even weight is an advantage, if the player is quick.

Gone are the days of 'energy guys' and rebounding or shot-blocking specialists. You can't put guys on the floor that the defense doesn't have to guard; if you have to guard everyone the defense has to cover a lot of ground, and for that the modern NBA team needs speed.

You say that "We aren't winning anything with an NBA team with this vertically challenged team". While I can't go along with that extreme statement (there's more than one way to get there), I would agree that length is a good substitute for speed in most game circumstances. Even "speed" is more than one thing; it also includes anticipation on the defensive end, or - on the offensive end - the fine motor skills to fake an opponent. So as my ninth-grade coach used to say, it's better to be quick than fast.

I've been on here a few times urging people to pay attention to Toronto - as I'm sure you already are, since they're amazingly long. Now I realize that you're talking about height here, but I've seen you elsewhere talk about wingspan so I assume that that's in your thinking. I'm recalling you proposed trading Grant for Boucher for example.

The Raptors have the extreme version of length in the history of the NBA; not awesome height, but they've got a rotation's worth of 6'7, 6'8, 6'9" guys with 7'2" or greater wingspans. Looking forward to a Banton/Barnes/OG/Siakam/Birch lineup taking the floor. Only OG in that group is as short as 6'7".

But note something weird about the Toronto roster: they don't have anyone as tall as 6'10". Yes, a pro basketball team whose tallest player is 6'9".

The biggest problem with 7-footers in today's game is movement. It just takes time to get big thighs moving, to build up momentum to close out a shooter. Height is different from length because a lot of height means slower, usually, and especially because it means slower acceleration.

A while ago posters on here were lamenting the demise of the bigs battling in the low post that was one of the hallmarks of the game when they were first watching it. I recall one of them calling modern basketball a 'bad product' or words to that effect; I found it tragic, in a way, that anyone would be a fan of a team that played a game they didn't even like. But the rules that once made playing that way logical are just not coming back.

The wide-open game of today was re-engineered to showcase the skills and athleticism that is on display every night during the season; and the game has dramatically grown its fan base because of it.

NBA basketball is, more than ever, a game of movement, of speed and fine motor skills. Size, including weight, height, and length, are still advantages, all other things being equal - IF the player has speed and skills.

 All the heights listed are shoes off height. For instance  Jaylen was 6'5.25"  at the combine. Jaylen does look bigger.

 And your correct I'm well aware of wingspan and the increased ability to get off the floor quickly with TL. And he certainly plays bigger than his height.

 The main point is if we even had one player such as Rudy Gobert,  Ayton, Embiid,  That would drastically improve our presence around the rim, and make us legit contenders.

[slamtheking]

Smart 6'2" 46 minutes
Grant 6'5" 31 minutes
Timelord 6'8" 45 minutes
Romeo 6'4" 23 minutes

Smart is actually listed at 6'4", TL at 6'9", Romeo at 6'5", and Grant at 6'6". Naturally I assume that you will want to get those numbers accurate even though they support your argument less well.

Your point is a good one, though your conclusion is extreme.

I'd go along with you that height, and especially length, is an advantage in today's game. So is weight; but when the rules of NΒΑ basketball were changed a generation ago they elevated speed and skill to an importance that they hadn't had before, and the priority of speed has only increased over the last decade at least. Length is an advantage, and even weight is an advantage, if the player is quick.

Gone are the days of 'energy guys' and rebounding or shot-blocking specialists. You can't put guys on the floor that the defense doesn't have to guard; if you have to guard everyone the defense has to cover a lot of ground, and for that the modern NBA team needs speed.

You say that "We aren't winning anything with an NBA team with this vertically challenged team". While I can't go along with that extreme statement (there's more than one way to get there), I would agree that length is a good substitute for speed in most game circumstances. Even "speed" is more than one thing; it also includes anticipation on the defensive end, or - on the offensive end - the fine motor skills to fake an opponent. So as my ninth-grade coach used to say, it's better to be quick than fast.

I've been on here a few times urging people to pay attention to Toronto - as I'm sure you already are, since they're amazingly long. Now I realize that you're talking about height here, but I've seen you elsewhere talk about wingspan so I assume that that's in your thinking. I'm recalling you proposed trading Grant for Boucher for example.

The Raptors have the extreme version of length in the history of the NBA; not awesome height, but they've got a rotation's worth of 6'7, 6'8, 6'9" guys with 7'2" or greater wingspans. Looking forward to a Banton/Barnes/OG/Siakam/Birch lineup taking the floor. Only OG in that group is as short as 6'7".

But note something weird about the Toronto roster: they don't have anyone as tall as 6'10". Yes, a pro basketball team whose tallest player is 6'9".

The biggest problem with 7-footers in today's game is movement. It just takes time to get big thighs moving, to build up momentum to close out a shooter. Height is different from length because a lot of height means slower, usually, and especially because it means slower acceleration.

A while ago posters on here were lamenting the demise of the bigs battling in the low post that was one of the hallmarks of the game when they were first watching it. I recall one of them calling modern basketball a 'bad product' or words to that effect; I found it tragic, in a way, that anyone would be a fan of a team that played a game they didn't even like. But the rules that once made playing that way logical are just not coming back.

The wide-open game of today was re-engineered to showcase the skills and athleticism that is on display every night during the season; and the game has dramatically grown its fan base because of it.

NBA basketball is, more than ever, a game of movement, of speed and fine motor skills. Size, including weight, height, and length, are still advantages, all other things being equal - IF the player has speed and skills.

 All the heights listed are shoes off height. For instance  Jaylen was 6'5.25"  at the combine. Jaylen does look bigger.

 And your correct I'm well aware of wingspan and the increased ability to get off the floor quickly with TL. And he certainly plays bigger than his height.

 The main point is if we even had one player such as Rudy Gobert,  Ayton, Embiid,  That would drastically improve our presence around the rim, and make us legit contenders.

if your core point is we need to add height to the roster, we already have it.  Ime didn't play them.  We had height last year after the trades were made and that didn't help us either.

if your point is we add an all-star center that'll make us better, well duh.  so would adding an all-star PG.

what we need is better players at any position.  that can happen with our youth continuing to improve over last season, trades for better players so we're not waiting on development and/or more cohesive play (leading to improved team play) from the players seeing court time. 

you're not getting a top center in the league by trading the pieces we currently have (Tatum and Brown are off the table - the point is to add to them, not swap them out) or through free agency with our current cap situation.  only option at this point is finding a golden nugget in the draft like we did with Timelord.

one other point, for all the hype Gobert gets as a defender, his offense is mediocre at best and in the playoffs other teams gameplan for him by taking his man out of the paint so there's no rim protection.  only real bigs in the league good enough to play switching D and still be useful on offense are Embiid, KAT and AD.

[jbpats]

Yes, to me this was a glaring weakness against a much larger Knicks team. It's clear we are going to struggle against teams with a lot of size.

[nickagneta]

Yes, to me this was a glaring weakness against a much larger Knicks team. It's clear we are going to struggle against teams with a lot of size.

Did we struggle against the Knicks?

Our best player played like dog poop. We were missing Al Horford. And yet it took two overtimes and missed wide open layups by Brown and Schroder in the 2nd OT for the Knicks to beat us by 4 points.

For all the b!tching about height, if Horford is there and Tatum plays even close to an average Tatum game, Boston wins fairly easily, IMHO. Lack of height against a bigger team or not.

[slamtheking]

Yes, to me this was a glaring weakness against a much larger Knicks team. It's clear we are going to struggle against teams with a lot of size.

Did we struggle against the Knicks?

Our best player played like dog poop. We were missing Al Horford. And yet it took two overtimes and missed wide open layups by Brown and Schroder in the 2nd OT for the Knicks to beat us by 4 points.

For all the b!tching about height, if Horford is there and Tatum plays even close to an average Tatum game, Boston wins fairly easily, IMHO. Lack of height against a bigger team or not.

agreed.   Randle was a handful for the C's because we couldn't use Al to cover him and Timelord wasn't used on him until late.  also, having Richardson would have allowed Jaylen to cover Randle a bit to help in that regard.

Height with the Knicks wasn't as much of an issue as Tatum bricking away all night.

[Hoopvortex]

Smart 6'2" 46 minutes
Grant 6'5" 31 minutes
Timelord 6'8" 45 minutes
Romeo 6'4" 23 minutes

Smart is actually listed at 6'4", TL at 6'9", Romeo at 6'5", and Grant at 6'6". Naturally I assume that you will want to get those numbers accurate even though they support your argument less well.

Your point is a good one, though your conclusion is extreme.

I'd go along with you that height, and especially length, is an advantage in today's game. So is weight; but when the rules of NΒΑ basketball were changed a generation ago they elevated speed and skill to an importance that they hadn't had before, and the priority of speed has only increased over the last decade at least. Length is an advantage, and even weight is an advantage, if the player is quick.

Gone are the days of 'energy guys' and rebounding or shot-blocking specialists. You can't put guys on the floor that the defense doesn't have to guard; if you have to guard everyone the defense has to cover a lot of ground, and for that the modern NBA team needs speed.

You say that "We aren't winning anything with an NBA team with this vertically challenged team". While I can't go along with that extreme statement (there's more than one way to get there), I would agree that length is a good substitute for speed in most game circumstances. Even "speed" is more than one thing; it also includes anticipation on the defensive end, or - on the offensive end - the fine motor skills to fake an opponent. So as my ninth-grade coach used to say, it's better to be quick than fast.

I've been on here a few times urging people to pay attention to Toronto - as I'm sure you already are, since they're amazingly long. Now I realize that you're talking about height here, but I've seen you elsewhere talk about wingspan so I assume that that's in your thinking. I'm recalling you proposed trading Grant for Boucher for example.

The Raptors have the extreme version of length in the history of the NBA; not awesome height, but they've got a rotation's worth of 6'7, 6'8, 6'9" guys with 7'2" or greater wingspans. Looking forward to a Banton/Barnes/OG/Siakam/Birch lineup taking the floor. Only OG in that group is as short as 6'7".

But note something weird about the Toronto roster: they don't have anyone as tall as 6'10". Yes, a pro basketball team whose tallest player is 6'9".

The biggest problem with 7-footers in today's game is movement. It just takes time to get big thighs moving, to build up momentum to close out a shooter. Height is different from length because a lot of height means slower, usually, and especially because it means slower acceleration.

A while ago posters on here were lamenting the demise of the bigs battling in the low post that was one of the hallmarks of the game when they were first watching it. I recall one of them calling modern basketball a 'bad product' or words to that effect; I found it tragic, in a way, that anyone would be a fan of a team that played a game they didn't even like. But the rules that once made playing that way logical are just not coming back.

The wide-open game of today was re-engineered to showcase the skills and athleticism that is on display every night during the season; and the game has dramatically grown its fan base because of it.

NBA basketball is, more than ever, a game of movement, of speed and fine motor skills. Size, including weight, height, and length, are still advantages, all other things being equal - IF the player has speed and skills.

 All the heights listed are shoes off height. For instance  Jaylen was 6'5.25"  at the combine. Jaylen does look bigger.

I’m using the official measurements from the Celtics website. Let’s go with that. Of course, at the Combine a lot of players are still growing.

[gouki88]

Smart 6'2" 46 minutes
Grant 6'5" 31 minutes
Timelord 6'8" 45 minutes
Romeo 6'4" 23 minutes

Smart is actually listed at 6'4", TL at 6'9", Romeo at 6'5", and Grant at 6'6". Naturally I assume that you will want to get those numbers accurate even though they support your argument less well.

Your point is a good one, though your conclusion is extreme.

I'd go along with you that height, and especially length, is an advantage in today's game. So is weight; but when the rules of NΒΑ basketball were changed a generation ago they elevated speed and skill to an importance that they hadn't had before, and the priority of speed has only increased over the last decade at least. Length is an advantage, and even weight is an advantage, if the player is quick.

Gone are the days of 'energy guys' and rebounding or shot-blocking specialists. You can't put guys on the floor that the defense doesn't have to guard; if you have to guard everyone the defense has to cover a lot of ground, and for that the modern NBA team needs speed.

You say that "We aren't winning anything with an NBA team with this vertically challenged team". While I can't go along with that extreme statement (there's more than one way to get there), I would agree that length is a good substitute for speed in most game circumstances. Even "speed" is more than one thing; it also includes anticipation on the defensive end, or - on the offensive end - the fine motor skills to fake an opponent. So as my ninth-grade coach used to say, it's better to be quick than fast.

I've been on here a few times urging people to pay attention to Toronto - as I'm sure you already are, since they're amazingly long. Now I realize that you're talking about height here, but I've seen you elsewhere talk about wingspan so I assume that that's in your thinking. I'm recalling you proposed trading Grant for Boucher for example.

The Raptors have the extreme version of length in the history of the NBA; not awesome height, but they've got a rotation's worth of 6'7, 6'8, 6'9" guys with 7'2" or greater wingspans. Looking forward to a Banton/Barnes/OG/Siakam/Birch lineup taking the floor. Only OG in that group is as short as 6'7".

But note something weird about the Toronto roster: they don't have anyone as tall as 6'10". Yes, a pro basketball team whose tallest player is 6'9".

The biggest problem with 7-footers in today's game is movement. It just takes time to get big thighs moving, to build up momentum to close out a shooter. Height is different from length because a lot of height means slower, usually, and especially because it means slower acceleration.

A while ago posters on here were lamenting the demise of the bigs battling in the low post that was one of the hallmarks of the game when they were first watching it. I recall one of them calling modern basketball a 'bad product' or words to that effect; I found it tragic, in a way, that anyone would be a fan of a team that played a game they didn't even like. But the rules that once made playing that way logical are just not coming back.

The wide-open game of today was re-engineered to showcase the skills and athleticism that is on display every night during the season; and the game has dramatically grown its fan base because of it.

NBA basketball is, more than ever, a game of movement, of speed and fine motor skills. Size, including weight, height, and length, are still advantages, all other things being equal - IF the player has speed and skills.

 All the heights listed are shoes off height. For instance  Jaylen was 6'5.25"  at the combine. Jaylen does look bigger.

 And your correct I'm well aware of wingspan and the increased ability to get off the floor quickly with TL. And he certainly plays bigger than his height.

 The main point is if we even had one player such as Rudy Gobert,  Ayton, Embiid,  That would drastically improve our presence around the rim, and make us legit contenders.

Do they play without their shoes?

[SHAQATTACK]

Not only tiny ,

But worse ….too many guys can ‘t shoot as good as my grandma ,  so if Brown or Tatum are cold  then the well goes dry.