Big Three Era a Failure?

[Celtic]

Championships are ridiculously hard to win, when a team wins one it is an unquestionable success. I am also one of the people who believes that if KG didn't get hurt and the refs hadn't gone whistle crazy in 2010, the Celtics would have threepeated. They just got unlucky after having one of the most fun, interesting and memorable seasons I can remember watching in any sport.

[makaveli]

Who ever said it's a failure, never played a game in the NBA obviously or they are stupid "analysts" or hater fans

[Boris Badenov]

It resulted in a championship.  Hence -- not a failure.

If KG hadn't injured his knee in '09, they likely would have gone to the Finals that year, and probably won it all.  In '10, they came very close.  If Perk hadn't injured his knee then, perhaps they could have won then, too.


So could it have resulted in a better run?  Sure.  But they won a championship, and you can't complain about that.

That's pretty much word for word what I would have said.  If KG never gets injured, I genuinely think we'd have won three rings.

Lots of comments like this in the thread, about injuries.

It's worth pointing out that we only had the ability to assemble this team because of KG's and Ray's advanced age (and lower trade value). All of the Big Three had significant risk of decline or injury during the 3-4 year window.

So up front, the chance that we would build the team and have 3-4 injury-free years to contend were virtually zero. It was much likely to be the case that we'd have 1-2 injury-free years and 1-2 injury-plagued years - which is in fact what happened.

I think this makes the team even more of a success, given the risks up front.

[Jon]

Everyone else said most of what I would've, but to reiterate again: considering that teams like the Knicks and Sixers haven't won titles in 40 and 30 years respectively, winning one title in this span is certainly nothing to snub our noses at. 

[Neurotic Guy]

Here's something I learned from my daughters that I never thought I'd use, not being of the texting generation -- OMG!

Absolutely, postively, unquestionably NOT a failure.  In fact, anyone who thought we should win "multiple championships" should have had their head examined.    Winning 1 and going to game 7 with a chance to win another is phenomenal.  I am exceedingly grateful and would never entertain the notion that this era was a failure.

The Wickes/Rowe era was a failure.   

[xmuscularghandix]

I don't know if it's a failure but it's definitely a disappointment.

They should definitely have more than just 1 ring and a loss in the finals. This team was DOMINANT in 2007-08 and has drastically underperformed every season since then.

Don't get me wrong, they've given us great moments... but i expected more from this group.

[CelticsFanNC]

  After suffering through 20 years of mediocrity that one title and the subsequent years as a contender makes this question kind of silly IMO

[Onslaught]

It was in no way a failure.


But I'm not sure I agree with people who think we would've won in 09 if KG hadn't got hurt. I really think LA was a better team that year with us having a weaker bench then we had in 08.
I do think if Perk hadn't got hurt we'd probably got two out of it however. I even think if we'd taken care of Orlando in 4 then even with Perk hurt we could've won. The guys wouldn't have
been as worn out.

[LooseCannon]

This question is based on the false dichotomy that it can only be a huge success or an abject failure.  This sort of binary thinking requires the nuance-free simplification that media outlets such as ESPN love to craft narratives around.

[GreenFaith1819]

Not a failure.

To me, it was a success.

The whupping that we put on LA back in 07-08 was priceless.

We could've perhaps won it again in 08-09, if it wasn't for KG's injury. Even with that injury, it allowed us to see the potential in Rajon Rondo. We all remember him nearly averaging a triple-double in that CHI series, right?

That miraculous run in 09-10 is embedded in my memory, too. Even though it didn't end the way we wanted, we gave LA all it could handle, with Perk going down and KG still recovering from the injury the year before.

During this period, we gave PJ Brown his first ring, made Tony Allen into a leader in MEM, made Perk into a leader in OKC, and even Glen and Nate are productive for their teams.

Perk even took KG's number.

We've made Thibs a great coach and contender in CHI, and even Lawrence Frank has DET playing well as of late.

To top it off, the Big Three's influence has produced a top 5 PG in Rajon Rondo. The effect that they've had on him won't be seen really until they've moved on. We are even seeing flashes of it now.

That's why I'm hoping we can make one more run with this group. I'm a bit too sentimental, but that's me.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

With this team we should have won another....ever consider that the COACH may be the failure here......like when the team "waited" to win the playoffs AT HOME..as if they could choose....then philly jackson and kobe...and metta went hacker on the C's...toook out RAY, Rondo, and perk......of course the league didn't see it.......so phil could send them out,...and doc just stood there..like henry winkler in the waterboy...!

[Tai]

Lakers = 2 Championships
Boston = 1 Championship

That is the only means which by this era should be measured. Anytime you fall to your rival it must objectively be classified a failure, especially when it was wholly within your power for things to go the other way. If you think this era was a success, then you must also believe the 16-0 Pats season was a success. All the stats and accolades and historical significance are nice but rings speak for themselves.

I don't get this argument. It'd be one thing to say the Lakers beat us in an NBA Final in 2010, so we're 1-1. In 2009, we were injured when they won, so you connect that to the C's so much as to claim that's why this era was a failure?

Like someone else said, maybe a disappointment. I also don't know what 16-0 has to do with this; you're comparing one year for the Pats to an era for the C's in which they won a ring, anyways. Sounds like a copout, if you ask me.

[Tai]

This question is based on the false dichotomy that it can only be a huge success or an abject failure.  This sort of binary thinking requires the nuance-free simplification that media outlets such as ESPN love to craft narratives around.

TP.

[Big_Dave31]

Failure?  Surely not...We got what we wanted, banner 17.

I was a little disappointed we didn't win more, but, the 2007/2008 championship was one of the greatest thing I went through as a sports fan.

Another thing to think about is how we finish this off, meaning, how Danny Ainge positions us for the next few years, if we get the players we need to make us contenders post big 3 era, then, that has got to count as Danny went for win now, but, also with an eye for the future too.

[Roy H.]

Lakers = 2 Championships
Boston = 1 Championship

That is the only means which by this era should be measured. Anytime you fall to your rival it must objectively be classified a failure, especially when it was wholly within your power for things to go the other way. If you think this era was a success, then you must also believe the 16-0 Pats season was a success. All the stats and accolades and historical significance are nice but rings speak for themselves.

Yes, rings speak for themselves.  We won a championship in the past four years.  That's something that only LA and Dallas can also say.  By any measure, that's a success.  When you consider that we had the second worst record in the NBA in 2007, it's nothing short of a miraculous result.