How far would the Celtics have gone with Birdman?

[johnnyrondo]

 
    Many of us on here wanted Danny to sign Birdman in the Summer. There was a workout of a bunch of big men. Supposedly both Birdman and Patrick O'Bryant looked out of shape. Danny chose POB. My feeling is that we should of beaten Orlando even without Birdman. We let gm 6 slip away and didn't go hard enough gm 7. There was/is talk that KG would have returned against the Cavs.

   We really just needed one more player after Powe went down. our depth was horrible. Great starters, but Scal is not a 6th man. Also without KG, PJ and Powe we lacked a shotblocker after Perkins. I have to believe that Birdman would of made a great 6th man and judging by the fact that Cleveland isn't necessarily better than Orlando, with Birdman do we make the Finals with or without KG?

  Also obviously Denver wouldn't be as strong without Birdman and honestly the Lakers aren't THAT impressive. Do we have a shot at the title (again with or without KG). Andersen was bummed when Danny didn't sign him and Denver took advantage of our mistake. We had the first crack though. So how far would we have gone? I'd like to make a poll with these options (can't remember how):

Option a) Still lose to Orlando
Option b) Beat Orlando, but lose to the Cavs
Option c) Lose to the Lakers in the Finals
Option d) Repeat as Champions

A little complicated, b/c one doesn't know if the story that KG would have played versus the Cavs is true.

[indeedproceed]

I think he gives us a good shot at beating Orlando in 7..but I mean we walked into the Orlando series running on fumes. he wouldn't of helped that. 

[Who]

No difference -- Andersen can't defend anyone Orlando's big men.

[wdleehi]

He may have made a difference.



It is just to bad he didn't care enough about joining the Celtics to show up in shape for a try out. 

[johnnyrondo]

I think he gives us a good shot at beating Orlando in 7..but I mean we walked into the Orlando series running on fumes. he wouldn't of helped that. 

You still think with him we have all those OT's with Chicago and/or go 7 games?

He may have made a difference.



It is just to bad he didn't care enough about joining the Celtics to show up in shape for a try out. 

POB was out of shape too. Andersen was rusty from 2 years off. Think Marbury times 2

[housecall]

I don't see 1 player making a lot of difference,especially a role player.He doesn't bring a lot to the table offensively.He is a good roaming defender and shot blocker.

[johnnyrondo]

No difference -- Andersen can't defend anyone Orlando's big men.

We needed another big. Basically anyone with an ounce of talent (or one more ounce than Mikki Moore). The fact that two huge weaknesses were rebounding and blocks, which Anderson is good at (I think I heard tonite on the broadcast that he was 2nd in the league in blocks) makes it even more likely Andersen would of been a huge addition.

IMO, we beat Chicago in less than 7.
Beat Orlando in 6
And I think we would have a good shot at both Cleveland and L.A. and would be favorites with KG

[nickagneta]

I say no further because if Birdman was here from the beginning and getting good minutes to produce then Baby would never have gotten minutes and never taken his game to the level he did. Baby would never have taken and missed all the shots he took in different game situations that would have prepared him to exceed at the PF position like he did in the playoffs.

Then we would have had two centers starting and a fat, out of shape, unable to hit a shot Baby coming off the bench as our three bigs along with Scal. Either way, it makes no difference in the Orlando series because Anderson doesn't help with the Lewis and Turkoglu match ups that killed the Celtics or the disappearance of Ray Allen.

[Who]

Andersen is the equivalent of Moore when defending a Dwight Howard or a Rashard Lewis. He is an outright defensive liability. He wouldn't help in that series.

The bigs Boston had on the court were better players than Andersen, he's a downgrade.

Would he have helped in the Chicago series or the regular season? Sure.

[johnnyrondo]

I don't see 1 player making a lot of difference,especially a role player.He doesn't bring a lot to the table offensively.He is a good roaming defender and shot blocker.

If we got swept or lost the series 4-1, I'd agree, but we lost in 7. One player, role player or not, should make the difference.

   All our players wouldn't have as burned out from the Chicago series as well. I mean we were so thin for big men that Pierce, besides not even having anyone to back him up at the 3, instead of getting any rest, he had to play the 4 sometimes.

    We beat Chicago without as much trouble and get past Orlando with Powe or Andersen.

[indeedproceed]

I think he gives us a good shot at beating Orlando in 7..but I mean we walked into the Orlando series running on fumes. he wouldn't of helped that. 

You still think with him we have all those OT's with Chicago and/or go 7 games?

I think he spells Perk and to a degree BBD, but it doesn't change Paul, Ray and Rondo playing 40 mins a game. So yeah, I don't see it being a game changer against Chicago going 7..or Orlando going 7

[nickagneta]

The only player that we could have added that would have made a difference in the Orlando series would have been Posey or a Posey like versatile 3-4 player ala Odom, Gomes, Posey, Nocioni or Hakim Warrick. But even then it doesn't mitigate the fact that a player of that caliber would have seriously impinged upon Davis' development and eventual playoff contribution.

[housecall]

I don't see 1 player making a lot of difference,especially a role player.He doesn't bring a lot to the table offensively.He is a good roaming defender and shot blocker.

If we got swept or lost the series 4-1, I'd agree, but we lost in 7. One player, role player or not, should make the difference.

   All our players wouldn't have as burned out from the Chicago series as well. I mean we were so thin for big men that Pierce, besides not even having anyone to back him up at the 3, instead of getting any rest, he had to play the 4 sometimes.

    We beat Chicago without as much trouble and get past Orlando with Powe or Andersen.

Maybe with 2-3 decent backup players depending on the positons they play would have made a difference.Our bench is what was so depleted that it cost us towards the end.

[nickagneta]

I don't see 1 player making a lot of difference,especially a role player.He doesn't bring a lot to the table offensively.He is a good roaming defender and shot blocker.

If we got swept or lost the series 4-1, I'd agree, but we lost in 7. One player, role player or not, should make the difference.

   All our players wouldn't have as burned out from the Chicago series as well. I mean we were so thin for big men that Pierce, besides not even having anyone to back him up at the 3, instead of getting any rest, he had to play the 4 sometimes.

    We beat Chicago without as much trouble and get past Orlando with Powe or Andersen.

If a big man role player is the addition then Baby never gets the PT he did so that he would be prepared to take game winning shots and to average the nearly 20PPG that he did in the Chicago series.

Theoretically adding a role player big man could have hindered us from beating even Chicago.

[indeedproceed]

Really the one player we needed most in the playoffs was wearing an armani suit.