Whether or not we win a title all comes down to JT and JB right?

[Moranis]

And yet in the history of the game the vast majority of titles have been won by teams with one of the 25 best players in the sports history. And almost all of those players have won multiple championships.  That isn't a coincidence, it isn't a fluke, and it isn't really all that subjective (until the last few players in an all time list).  Basketball, more than any other sport, is driven by the mega stars.  It is why teams will tank for years for the chance to get one of those players.  It is why year after year the NBA champion has one of those players.  It quite simply matters.

Of course - to be considered one of the best, once you’ve hung up your sneakers, it really helps to win a title or two (or eleven). But how many of those top 25 players had a HOF-ready resume at the point in their NBA career where Tatum now finds himself?

And from the ESPN list, quite a few of them (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Pippen) couldn’t hack it as “the guy” on a championship-winning team, so from that criteria our top 25-30 is actually considerably narrower, no?

Obviously no one in their right mind is going to put rings above all else (if Tatum can get to the same level as Chuck in his prime I suspect we’ll all be very happy, but we’d all be quite disappointed if he wound up at Robert Horry’s level), but I think we have to keep in mind that resumes are best evaluated when the dust settles, not before.

Sure, don't disagree, of course as you pointed out, almost all those guys had won a MVP before they broke through with a title.  Tatum doesn't yet have a MVP so he isn't yet at that level of player.  We all hope this can be the year and Tatum wins the MVP and leads Boston to a title, and frankly it will almost certainly require Tatum to be at that level because that is what it takes.

Ultimately, people may disagree with my phrasing, but at the end of the day almost every title in the entire history of the sport has been won by a team with one of the truly special players the league has had (and the vast majority of those said player was in his prime).  Not just a great HOF level player, but the best of the best among that limited group.  It isn't a coincidence, it isn't random, it's quite simply a prerequisite almost every year.

Can we move on from the idea that people are challenging your assertion that the best players win championships? You keep trying to make that point, and no one disagrees. It is quite an obvious statement. It's almost like saying the least talented teams will win the least amount of games.

The point where you annoy Celtics fans is when you state that Tatum isn't that guy. How do you know? He's super young. No one knows what the future may hold. Celtics fans on Celtics Strong probably overrate Tatum's abilities, and underrate players on other teams. This is not earth shattering news.

Just make your statement- you don't think Tatum is capable of winning a championship. You can use as many data points as you want- this is an opinion, and everyone here can share their opinion.

I never said Tatum isn't that guy, I've said he hasn't been that guy. No where near the same thing.  In fact I've consistently said, including in the post you responded to, that I hope he becomes that guy this year.  I mean if you are going to respond at least read what you are responding to and don't project things I've never said onto me.  It isn't helpful.

Ok, to summarize. You believe that:

-Top 5 players win 95% of the championships
-Jayson Tatum hasn't been a top 5 player yet. The lack of a Celtics championship proves this.

I agree with both of those sentences. I have read many of your posts, and those two lines seem to represent your perspective. Did I miss anything?

I also think the perceived latitude towards Joel Embiid and Luka Doncic can be seen as a slight to Tatum. Embiid is injury prone, and Doncic is out of shape and only plays 1/2 the court. I disagree that either are better than Tatum, as I think actual results matter. That being said, you can have a preference and no one can fault you.

I don't think the lack of a title proves Tatum is not a top 5 player.  Only 1 (sometimes 2) of those guys can win any year, but that is otherwise correct. New season, still has to play out, but going into the season, Tatum is not a top 5 player in my view.  He is close enough that some elevation in his play and he could get there. He does have to raise his game though.  He can't fade down the stretch and then disappear in the biggest moments like he has the last couple.  Especially since websites like the Ringer only have Tatum as a top 10, Brown as a top 25, and no other Celtic in the top 60. That is a general dearth of top end talent that teams typically need to win.  That is why I say Boston has overachieved the last couple of years in particular.  The team has great depth 4-8, bit is weaker 1-3 than most of the other top teams.  And time and time again it is the top 3 that yield playoff series wins.

[celticsclay]

And yet in the history of the game the vast majority of titles have been won by teams with one of the 25 best players in the sports history. And almost all of those players have won multiple championships.  That isn't a coincidence, it isn't a fluke, and it isn't really all that subjective (until the last few players in an all time list).  Basketball, more than any other sport, is driven by the mega stars.  It is why teams will tank for years for the chance to get one of those players.  It is why year after year the NBA champion has one of those players.  It quite simply matters.

Of course - to be considered one of the best, once you’ve hung up your sneakers, it really helps to win a title or two (or eleven). But how many of those top 25 players had a HOF-ready resume at the point in their NBA career where Tatum now finds himself?

And from the ESPN list, quite a few of them (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Pippen) couldn’t hack it as “the guy” on a championship-winning team, so from that criteria our top 25-30 is actually considerably narrower, no?

Obviously no one in their right mind is going to put rings above all else (if Tatum can get to the same level as Chuck in his prime I suspect we’ll all be very happy, but we’d all be quite disappointed if he wound up at Robert Horry’s level), but I think we have to keep in mind that resumes are best evaluated when the dust settles, not before.

Sure, don't disagree, of course as you pointed out, almost all those guys had won a MVP before they broke through with a title.  Tatum doesn't yet have a MVP so he isn't yet at that level of player.  We all hope this can be the year and Tatum wins the MVP and leads Boston to a title, and frankly it will almost certainly require Tatum to be at that level because that is what it takes.

Ultimately, people may disagree with my phrasing, but at the end of the day almost every title in the entire history of the sport has been won by a team with one of the truly special players the league has had (and the vast majority of those said player was in his prime).  Not just a great HOF level player, but the best of the best among that limited group.  It isn't a coincidence, it isn't random, it's quite simply a prerequisite almost every year.

Can we move on from the idea that people are challenging your assertion that the best players win championships? You keep trying to make that point, and no one disagrees. It is quite an obvious statement. It's almost like saying the least talented teams will win the least amount of games.

The point where you annoy Celtics fans is when you state that Tatum isn't that guy. How do you know? He's super young. No one knows what the future may hold. Celtics fans on Celtics Strong probably overrate Tatum's abilities, and underrate players on other teams. This is not earth shattering news.

Just make your statement- you don't think Tatum is capable of winning a championship. You can use as many data points as you want- this is an opinion, and everyone here can share their opinion.

I never said Tatum isn't that guy, I've said he hasn't been that guy. No where near the same thing.  In fact I've consistently said, including in the post you responded to, that I hope he becomes that guy this year.  I mean if you are going to respond at least read what you are responding to and don't project things I've never said onto me.  It isn't helpful.

Ok, to summarize. You believe that:

-Top 5 players win 95% of the championships
-Jayson Tatum hasn't been a top 5 player yet. The lack of a Celtics championship proves this.

I agree with both of those sentences. I have read many of your posts, and those two lines seem to represent your perspective. Did I miss anything?

I also think the perceived latitude towards Joel Embiid and Luka Doncic can be seen as a slight to Tatum. Embiid is injury prone, and Doncic is out of shape and only plays 1/2 the court. I disagree that either are better than Tatum, as I think actual results matter. That being said, you can have a preference and no one can fault you.

I don't think the lack of a title proves Tatum is not a top 5 player.  Only 1 (sometimes 2) of those guys can win any year, but that is otherwise correct. New season, still has to play out, but going into the season, Tatum is not a top 5 player in my view.  He is close enough that some elevation in his play and he could get there. He does have to raise his game though.  He can't fade down the stretch and then disappear in the biggest moments like he has the last couple.  Especially since websites like the Ringer only have Tatum as a top 10, Brown as a top 25, and no other Celtic in the top 60. That is a general dearth of top end talent that teams typically need to win.  That is why I say Boston has overachieved the last couple of years in particular.  The team has great depth 4-8, bit is weaker 1-3 than most of the other top teams.  And time and time again it is the top 3 that yield playoff series wins.

For what’s worth mo used kind of Interesting phrasing here to say top of 10. The ringer has Tatum as number 6 so he right there (behind Embid)

Also kind of did the arbitrary cutoff at 60 because porzingas is 61 (and he should definitely be a few slots higher above guys like Fred van fleet)

I suspect there is a good chance Tatum will be top 5 in the next ringer update as he is currently behind two older players in durant and curry that are ranked a bit too high and do for a bit of regression at age 35.

[green_bballers13]

And yet in the history of the game the vast majority of titles have been won by teams with one of the 25 best players in the sports history. And almost all of those players have won multiple championships.  That isn't a coincidence, it isn't a fluke, and it isn't really all that subjective (until the last few players in an all time list).  Basketball, more than any other sport, is driven by the mega stars.  It is why teams will tank for years for the chance to get one of those players.  It is why year after year the NBA champion has one of those players.  It quite simply matters.

Of course - to be considered one of the best, once you’ve hung up your sneakers, it really helps to win a title or two (or eleven). But how many of those top 25 players had a HOF-ready resume at the point in their NBA career where Tatum now finds himself?

And from the ESPN list, quite a few of them (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Pippen) couldn’t hack it as “the guy” on a championship-winning team, so from that criteria our top 25-30 is actually considerably narrower, no?

Obviously no one in their right mind is going to put rings above all else (if Tatum can get to the same level as Chuck in his prime I suspect we’ll all be very happy, but we’d all be quite disappointed if he wound up at Robert Horry’s level), but I think we have to keep in mind that resumes are best evaluated when the dust settles, not before.

Sure, don't disagree, of course as you pointed out, almost all those guys had won a MVP before they broke through with a title.  Tatum doesn't yet have a MVP so he isn't yet at that level of player.  We all hope this can be the year and Tatum wins the MVP and leads Boston to a title, and frankly it will almost certainly require Tatum to be at that level because that is what it takes.

Ultimately, people may disagree with my phrasing, but at the end of the day almost every title in the entire history of the sport has been won by a team with one of the truly special players the league has had (and the vast majority of those said player was in his prime).  Not just a great HOF level player, but the best of the best among that limited group.  It isn't a coincidence, it isn't random, it's quite simply a prerequisite almost every year.

Can we move on from the idea that people are challenging your assertion that the best players win championships? You keep trying to make that point, and no one disagrees. It is quite an obvious statement. It's almost like saying the least talented teams will win the least amount of games.

The point where you annoy Celtics fans is when you state that Tatum isn't that guy. How do you know? He's super young. No one knows what the future may hold. Celtics fans on Celtics Strong probably overrate Tatum's abilities, and underrate players on other teams. This is not earth shattering news.

Just make your statement- you don't think Tatum is capable of winning a championship. You can use as many data points as you want- this is an opinion, and everyone here can share their opinion.

I never said Tatum isn't that guy, I've said he hasn't been that guy. No where near the same thing.  In fact I've consistently said, including in the post you responded to, that I hope he becomes that guy this year.  I mean if you are going to respond at least read what you are responding to and don't project things I've never said onto me.  It isn't helpful.

Ok, to summarize. You believe that:

-Top 5 players win 95% of the championships
-Jayson Tatum hasn't been a top 5 player yet. The lack of a Celtics championship proves this.

I agree with both of those sentences. I have read many of your posts, and those two lines seem to represent your perspective. Did I miss anything?

I also think the perceived latitude towards Joel Embiid and Luka Doncic can be seen as a slight to Tatum. Embiid is injury prone, and Doncic is out of shape and only plays 1/2 the court. I disagree that either are better than Tatum, as I think actual results matter. That being said, you can have a preference and no one can fault you.

I don't think the lack of a title proves Tatum is not a top 5 player.  Only 1 (sometimes 2) of those guys can win any year, but that is otherwise correct. New season, still has to play out, but going into the season, Tatum is not a top 5 player in my view.  He is close enough that some elevation in his play and he could get there. He does have to raise his game though.  He can't fade down the stretch and then disappear in the biggest moments like he has the last couple.  Especially since websites like the Ringer only have Tatum as a top 10, Brown as a top 25, and no other Celtic in the top 60. That is a general dearth of top end talent that teams typically need to win.  That is why I say Boston has overachieved the last couple of years in particular.  The team has great depth 4-8, bit is weaker 1-3 than most of the other top teams.  And time and time again it is the top 3 that yield playoff series wins.

I don't know how many other teams have better top end talent.

Denver? Maybe. Jokic is a beast. Murray was great in the playoffs, but is injury prone and can't be relied upon. Same story with MPJ.

Phoenix? Booker is a stud, as is KD. KD has begun the demise, and I wouldn't be surprised if he continues to miss even more games. I don't remember the last time Beal played in a meaningful game.

Atlanta? Pass on Trae Young. I like Okungwu and Murray is pretty good.

LA Lakers? Lebron is a beast. AD is also unreliable. I think the rest of that squad is meh.

Sacramento? I like their young core. Once they hit the conference finals, I will consider them.

Memphis? Ja is awesome, but he can't be relied upon to play D or make great decisions off the court. JJJ is injury prone but talented.

Philly? Embiid is a stud, yet can be relied upon to be healthy in the playoffs. Maxey is a promising young player, even if he doesn't play great D.

Cleveland? Mitchell, Garland, and Mobley present a nice opportunity for the future. I think they are one of the most talented young teams. They might still be years away from competing for a title.

OKC? They have one absolute stud in SGA. Giddey is also very good. Still, we have no idea what Holmgren, Poku, will bring.

GS? Curry and a bunch of old guys. I'm curious to see if Kuminga and Moody take their game to the next level. I do like Wiggins.

Minnesota? I love Antman, and can't stand Towns. Gobert and Towns are a weird fit.

LAC? Absolute trainwreck with PG13 and Kawhi. Might be the most painful fan experience in the league.

I'm sure I'm missing someone. Right now, I think the Celtics top 3 can hang with any of those teams mentioned.

[cman88]

And yet in the history of the game the vast majority of titles have been won by teams with one of the 25 best players in the sports history. And almost all of those players have won multiple championships.  That isn't a coincidence, it isn't a fluke, and it isn't really all that subjective (until the last few players in an all time list).  Basketball, more than any other sport, is driven by the mega stars.  It is why teams will tank for years for the chance to get one of those players.  It is why year after year the NBA champion has one of those players.  It quite simply matters.

Of course - to be considered one of the best, once you’ve hung up your sneakers, it really helps to win a title or two (or eleven). But how many of those top 25 players had a HOF-ready resume at the point in their NBA career where Tatum now finds himself?

And from the ESPN list, quite a few of them (Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Pippen) couldn’t hack it as “the guy” on a championship-winning team, so from that criteria our top 25-30 is actually considerably narrower, no?

Obviously no one in their right mind is going to put rings above all else (if Tatum can get to the same level as Chuck in his prime I suspect we’ll all be very happy, but we’d all be quite disappointed if he wound up at Robert Horry’s level), but I think we have to keep in mind that resumes are best evaluated when the dust settles, not before.

Sure, don't disagree, of course as you pointed out, almost all those guys had won a MVP before they broke through with a title.  Tatum doesn't yet have a MVP so he isn't yet at that level of player.  We all hope this can be the year and Tatum wins the MVP and leads Boston to a title, and frankly it will almost certainly require Tatum to be at that level because that is what it takes.

Ultimately, people may disagree with my phrasing, but at the end of the day almost every title in the entire history of the sport has been won by a team with one of the truly special players the league has had (and the vast majority of those said player was in his prime).  Not just a great HOF level player, but the best of the best among that limited group.  It isn't a coincidence, it isn't random, it's quite simply a prerequisite almost every year.

Can we move on from the idea that people are challenging your assertion that the best players win championships? You keep trying to make that point, and no one disagrees. It is quite an obvious statement. It's almost like saying the least talented teams will win the least amount of games.

The point where you annoy Celtics fans is when you state that Tatum isn't that guy. How do you know? He's super young. No one knows what the future may hold. Celtics fans on Celtics Strong probably overrate Tatum's abilities, and underrate players on other teams. This is not earth shattering news.

Just make your statement- you don't think Tatum is capable of winning a championship. You can use as many data points as you want- this is an opinion, and everyone here can share their opinion.

I never said Tatum isn't that guy, I've said he hasn't been that guy. No where near the same thing.  In fact I've consistently said, including in the post you responded to, that I hope he becomes that guy this year.  I mean if you are going to respond at least read what you are responding to and don't project things I've never said onto me.  It isn't helpful.

Ok, to summarize. You believe that:

-Top 5 players win 95% of the championships
-Jayson Tatum hasn't been a top 5 player yet. The lack of a Celtics championship proves this.

I agree with both of those sentences. I have read many of your posts, and those two lines seem to represent your perspective. Did I miss anything?

I also think the perceived latitude towards Joel Embiid and Luka Doncic can be seen as a slight to Tatum. Embiid is injury prone, and Doncic is out of shape and only plays 1/2 the court. I disagree that either are better than Tatum, as I think actual results matter. That being said, you can have a preference and no one can fault you.

I don't think the lack of a title proves Tatum is not a top 5 player.  Only 1 (sometimes 2) of those guys can win any year, but that is otherwise correct. New season, still has to play out, but going into the season, Tatum is not a top 5 player in my view.  He is close enough that some elevation in his play and he could get there. He does have to raise his game though.  He can't fade down the stretch and then disappear in the biggest moments like he has the last couple.  Especially since websites like the Ringer only have Tatum as a top 10, Brown as a top 25, and no other Celtic in the top 60. That is a general dearth of top end talent that teams typically need to win.  That is why I say Boston has overachieved the last couple of years in particular.  The team has great depth 4-8, bit is weaker 1-3 than most of the other top teams.  And time and time again it is the top 3 that yield playoff series wins.

I don't know how many other teams have better top end talent.

Denver? Maybe. Jokic is a beast. Murray was great in the playoffs, but is injury prone and can't be relied upon. Same story with MPJ.

Phoenix? Booker is a stud, as is KD. KD has begun the demise, and I wouldn't be surprised if he continues to miss even more games. I don't remember the last time Beal played in a meaningful game.

Atlanta? Pass on Trae Young. I like Okungwu and Murray is pretty good.

LA Lakers? Lebron is a beast. AD is also unreliable. I think the rest of that squad is meh.

Sacramento? I like their young core. Once they hit the conference finals, I will consider them.

Memphis? Ja is awesome, but he can't be relied upon to play D or make great decisions off the court. JJJ is injury prone but talented.

Philly? Embiid is a stud, yet can be relied upon to be healthy in the playoffs. Maxey is a promising young player, even if he doesn't play great D.

Cleveland? Mitchell, Garland, and Mobley present a nice opportunity for the future. I think they are one of the most talented young teams. They might still be years away from competing for a title.

OKC? They have one absolute stud in SGA. Giddey is also very good. Still, we have no idea what Holmgren, Poku, will bring.

GS? Curry and a bunch of old guys. I'm curious to see if Kuminga and Moody take their game to the next level. I do like Wiggins.

Minnesota? I love Antman, and can't stand Towns. Gobert and Towns are a weird fit.

LAC? Absolute trainwreck with PG13 and Kawhi. Might be the most painful fan experience in the league.

I'm sure I'm missing someone. Right now, I think the Celtics top 3 can hang with any of those teams mentioned.

Even look at Milwaukee...besides Giannis you have Jrue holiday who is old and Middleton who is not the same player he used to be.

Don't buy into Moranis trap. This idea that Tatum/brown/KP is a mediocre top 3 and we are overachieving despite great odds is a really poor contrarian take. And I doubt anyone would agree with that. There's a reason a lot of media has Celtics as a top 3 team in the NBA

We overachieved in a sense that guys Tatum/browns age generally didn't win championships at the ages they were at the last 2 years. But there's no way we overachieved when it comes to the roster being championship ready.

We just blew it...a team like Miami overachieved. And it was evident against Denver they were wildly unmatched. Celtics just played listless poor basketball

[timpiker]

Instead of debating if Tatum is a Top 5 or not, maybe the better question is - Which player would you rather have than Tatum?  Jokic?  Butler?  Davis?  Harden?  Luca?  Giannis?

Me?  None.  I prefer Tatum over any other player in the NBA, 

[Donoghus]

Instead of debating if Tatum is a Top 5 or not, maybe the better question is - Which player would you rather have than Tatum?  Jokic?  Butler?  Davis?  Harden?  Luca?  Giannis?

Me?  None.  I prefer Tatum over any other player in the NBA,

I'd take Jokic over him. Possibly Giannis.  No one else from that group, though.

[Donoghus]

Also, the idea that the Celtics overachieved last year is a joke. 

They underachieved.  They should've been in the Finals.  I have doubts that they would've beaten Denver but they should've been there instead of losing to an inferior 8 seed in the conference finals. I don't think any competent person walked away from this past season thinking that the Celtics played over their heads.   

[Celtics4ever]

LA Lakers? Lebron is a beast. AD is also unreliable. I think the rest of that squad is meh.

I think you meant was a beast

[cman88]

Also, the idea that the Celtics overachieved last year is a joke. 

They underachieved.  They should've been in the Finals.  I have doubts that they would've beaten Denver but they should've been there instead of losing to an inferior 8 seed in the conference finals. I don't think any competent person walked away from this past season thinking that the Celtics played over their heads.

Yeah, i'm not sure why or how moranis is still holding onto this notion that we somehow overachieved by losing to an 8th seed with homecourt advantage.....

i'm not sure we would've beaten Denver either as they were playing like an actual "team" but the idea we should be proud to have made it to 7 games against a team that needed 2 play in games while we had the 2nd best record in the entire NBA is a joke.

[Kernewek]

Also, the idea that the Celtics overachieved last year is a joke. 

They underachieved.  They should've been in the Finals.  I have doubts that they would've beaten Denver but they should've been there instead of losing to an inferior 8 seed in the conference finals. I don't think any competent person walked away from this past season thinking that the Celtics played over their heads.

Underachieved based on talent, overachieved based on the hot start and the post-ASG collapse.

[Vermont Green]

Instead of debating if Tatum is a Top 5 or not, maybe the better question is - Which player would you rather have than Tatum?  Jokic?  Butler?  Davis?  Harden?  Luca?  Giannis?

Me?  None.  I prefer Tatum over any other player in the NBA,

I'd take Jokic over him. Possibly Giannis.  No one else from that group, though.

You have to break this up into two lists.  One is a list of players who "could" play better than Tatum if they stay healthy, or in their prime were better than Tatum, but probably won't play better due to injury or other factors.  That list includes Embiid, Durant, LeBron, Davis, Leonard and maybe even now Giannis.  Tatum has already outplayed some of these guys in a recent playoff series, but these are all players on the decline, steep decline in some cases, and have recent histories of missing big chunks of seasons.  And no recent history of holding up for a long playoff run.  No one would trade Tatum for any of these players, except maybe Giannis.

Then there are the players that have the proven durability and potentially could actually end up playing better than Tatum.  Jokic for sure is likely.  Then a bunch of "maybes"; Doncic, Curry, Booker, Butler...  I don't think you can go much farther than that down the list.  Other than Jokic, there is not any player here that is clearly better than Tatum.  Depending on how things go, they might be.  I am not saying I expect Tatum to be 2nd best, a couple of other players will have good seasons too, but I don't know how you can say this player or that player is clearly or certainly going to have a better season than Tatum, or that you would rather have them than Tatum.

Tatum will most likely end up in the top 5 in MVP voting again and will most likely be first team All-NBA also.  I can't see how that isn't good enough to lead the Celtics to a title, but many other things need to go right as well, just like any team.  Jokic probably won't win a title if Murray doesn't stay healthy for example.

[celticsclay]

It is very humorous to me how mo has gotten a non insignificant amount of the board agitated by sticking to his guns and saying silly things about Tatum. In the last rankings for CBS Tatum was 4. For the ringer (despite the cute phrasing of top ten) he is 6. ESPN had him 7 before last season but he is certainly passing Lebron and almost definitely passing Doncic who had a very underwhelming season. Even if we get sucked into this completely arbitrary top 5 player theory Moranis has created Tatum has a very good chance of being a top 5 player in all of them by the time the season starts. Now of course mo clearly thinks these rankings are valid cause he keeps citing them while they support his position(ish). Surely he will admit Tatum is top 5 when all the same rankings have him there a month from now?

[celticsclay]

Instead of debating if Tatum is a Top 5 or not, maybe the better question is - Which player would you rather have than Tatum?  Jokic?  Butler?  Davis?  Harden?  Luca?  Giannis?

Me?  None.  I prefer Tatum over any other player in the NBA,

I'd take Jokic over him. Possibly Giannis.  No one else from that group, though.

Same

[cman88]

Also, the idea that the Celtics overachieved last year is a joke. 

They underachieved.  They should've been in the Finals.  I have doubts that they would've beaten Denver but they should've been there instead of losing to an inferior 8 seed in the conference finals. I don't think any competent person walked away from this past season thinking that the Celtics played over their heads.

Underachieved based on talent, overachieved based on the hot start and the post-ASG collapse.

I could agree with this. But thats not where moranis is going. his whole point is that the celtics talent is NOT there. but their PLAY is what has somehow gotten them to the ECF.

But then it comes back to the original poster and my argument. the team has a championship roster. but their mentality is what is handicapping them. If they can "play the right way" along with their talent we can win the whole thing.

And likely thats why Brad keeps tinkering. Hoping the right mix and age gets them over the hump.

[Moranis]

Also, the idea that the Celtics overachieved last year is a joke. 

They underachieved.  They should've been in the Finals.  I have doubts that they would've beaten Denver but they should've been there instead of losing to an inferior 8 seed in the conference finals. I don't think any competent person walked away from this past season thinking that the Celtics played over their heads.

Underachieved based on talent, overachieved based on the hot start and the post-ASG collapse.

I could agree with this. But thats not where moranis is going. his whole point is that the celtics talent is NOT there. but their PLAY is what has somehow gotten them to the ECF.

But then it comes back to the original poster and my argument. the team has a championship roster. but their mentality is what is handicapping them. If they can "play the right way" along with their talent we can win the whole thing.

And likely thats why Brad keeps tinkering. Hoping the right mix and age gets them over the hump.

This is mostly correct, I don't think Boston has had the talent of a franchise that should have 5 conference finals appearances in the last seven seasons.  That level of sustained winning is very rare.  The only other time I recall it happening without a true all time great was the Reggie Miller Pacers.  A team that pretty clearly overachieved its talent but also played in a weak era (which certainly helped that level of success).  All the other times that level of sustained winning has happened the team was led by one of the true all timers.  That is what I mean when I say the team has overachieved.  It has won more than its talent would typically dictate it should. 

This year's team, does have the best player its had since KG got hurt in 2009.  Time will tell if Tatum elevates his game enough to be good enough to lead Boston to the promised land.  I think he can, but he actually has to do it because where he has been previously has simply not good enough