Which would you prefer . . . .

[PhoSita]

How would you prefer that the Celtics be built:

a) A team full of super-athletes with long arms and height who can't shoot and struggle in general to score.

b) A team full of players without superlative physical gifts or size but great skill (passing, shooting, finishing) and feel for the game who are not naturally good defenders.

Obviously, a great team requires both types of players, generally speaking, or players that are a mix of the two.  But if you can only choose one, which do you choose?

[LarBrd33]

Defense wins titles.  Our team was pretty weak offensively during the KG era. 

Steve Nash suns are a great example of offense/no defense. 

Doubt anyone will pick option 2, because there's really few examples of no-defense teams winning titles.

If you were to say Option A or Option B will both lead to championships, I'd probably go with Option B.  More fun to watch offense than defense.

[PhoSita]

Defense wins titles.  Our team was pretty weak offensively during the KG era. 

Steve Nash suns are a great example of offense/no defense. 

Doubt anyone will pick option 2, because there's really few examples of no-defense teams winning titles.

If you were to say Option A or Option B will both lead to championships, I'd probably go with Option B.  More fun to watch offense than defense.

See, I figured that a lot of people would mention the "defense wins championships" thing, but how many teams win championships without having players who can make shots?

Players without great physical gifts can become passable at defense, but the uber-athletes without a lot of skill tend to have shorter careers and rarely turn into great offensive players outside of 5-10 feet from the basket.

I think it'd be much easier to build a very competitive team -- though perhaps not an uber-elite one -- with well-rounded, highly skilled players who can space the floor as opposed to players on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Particularly in today's league.


Also, a word about Steve Nash's Suns teams -- at their height those teams were actually around the middle of the pack or better in defensive efficiency.  I think it is possible that one those teams could have won a title, it just didn't work out that way for them.  Those were really good teams.

[freshinthehouse]

Neither team has a chance at winning, so I will forgo the first two options and select the prize behind door #3.

[PhoSita]

Neither team has a chance at winning, so I will forgo the first two options and select the prize behind door #3.

The entire point of the question is to force you to pick an imperfect option.

[freshinthehouse]

I'd choose whichever gives the funniest interviews.  If we don't have a shot of winning it all, I may as well be entertained during the post-game.

[BigAlTheFuture]

Neither would win us a championship but option B would be easier to watch. Just imagine a team full of Tony Allen's and Avery Bradley's.... Ugly basketball.

[PhoSita]

Neither would win us a championship but option B would be easier to watch. Just imagine a team full of Tony Allen's and Avery Bradley's.... Ugly basketball.

yeah.

I just feel, generally, that if your team lacks size or athleticism but your guys have a really high skill level and there's tons of floor spacing, you can work with that.  You can game-plan with that.

But lots of athleticism won't help on offense when nobody can effectively run the pick and roll or make entry passes, and the big men don't have any touch around the basket.


So what is my point here, anyway?  Obviously the Celtics aren't going to target one type of player.  Well, there you go -- that's my point.  I feel that a lot of people get overly enamored with physical gifts and defensive potential, undervaluing players who stand out by way of their shooting, passing, and overall skill and feel for the game. 

I often see "Euroleague style player" thrown around as an epithet.  Yet, you need players like that to win in this league -- now more than ever since the three point shot has taken on increased prominence in the game.


A team filled with unskilled athletes could try to run a lot and get out in transition, but there's a limit to how effective that can be.  Teams can gameplan for that and shut it down.  If you don't believe me, check out the Sixers this season.  Fastest pace in the league by far, and they've got a ton of athletes, but their team is awful.

[LooseCannon]

So what is my point here, anyway?  Obviously the Celtics aren't going to target one type of player.  Well, there you go -- that's my point.  I feel that a lot of people get overly enamored with physical gifts and defensive potential, undervaluing players who stand out by way of their shooting, passing, and overall skill and feel for the game. 

I think some people overvalue those physical gifts as being necessary to defense.  They underestimate Avery Bradley's defensive prowess because he doesn't have ideal height.  They scoff at the idea of trading for Omer Asik because he doesn't have the athleticism of someone like DeAndre Jordan.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

I am a big fan of good footwork, ball movement, post moves and generally the  choreography of well set out half court basketball, so I opt for option B

[BleedGreen1989]

Likely highly-skilled offensive players.

I think with a smart coach and a good system you can "construct" a solid defense. This seasons Celtics are a perfect example. No defensive anchor but Ron Adams and Brad Stevens managed to get this defense around a top-10 level.

If your guys just can't score, then I think it's more difficult to construct an offense.

[SCeltic34]

For me, nothing is more enjoyable than watching a stifling defense.  Likewise, there's nothing more frustrating than an inability to get key defensive stops when you need them.  Playing consistent defense is probably the most difficult thing to do in basketball.  Effort, focus, energy, anticipation.  That's what defense is about.  If you don't play D, you're going to get lit up.  NBA players are too good.

Back when KG was healthy our defense was straight beast.  Loved watching teams having to settle for long jumpers possession after possession, or having the shot clock run out on them.  Beats watching flashy dunks or behind the back passes, in my opinion.  Gimme option A.

[Celtics4ever]

3 Players A
2 Players B

It could work.

[Kc2135]

Just so everyone knows , he doesn't need superstars to get his assists. He has been done pretty good the last few games, and only getting better. All Irving does is score better, but people fail to mention he shoots a worse percentage. Rondo has picked up his scoring lately as well. Don't get me started on steals and rebounds. Nobody takes that in to account when comparing him to the other PGs.

[pearljammer10]

Neither would win us a championship but option B would be easier to watch. Just imagine a team full of Tony Allen's and Avery Bradley's.... Ugly basketball.

Exactly.