Heinsohn: Horford is not a great player

[Casperian]

Horford isn't a superstar. He isn't a top ten player in the league talent.

But he is a great player.

He was and never will be a #1 offensive option but he is a very good to great 2nd offensive option and a phenomenal third option. He is also when of the better team defenders in the league, a plus rebounder, a great locker room guy and a born leader. He is a complete and great two way player and that is something this team sorely lacks.

Agreed. He's not great at any one thing in particular, but he's very, very good at a lot of things, and a first class locker room presence to boot. People love Crowder's "intangibles", they will love his, too.

[Rosco917]

Horford is a very solid, and consistent PF/C. He rebounds well, scores well, defends the rim, and provides very good defense. He's better than any big man the Celtics currently have on the roster, by a wide margin.

IMO he isn't a max player unless he's being signed as a final piece to a championship team. He isn't the type of player you would build around. For this current Celtic roster, he isn't a max player.


Is he Dave Cowens, or Bill Russell in Tommy's eyes?...no.

[Moranis]

Horford is a A-/B+ type player.  That is a good player but probably not a great player.  That said, Horford would be the best player on the Celtics, just like he is on the Hawks, and if you can improve with that type of player you do it.

I think Millsap is Atlanta's best player and it's not even close. Personally I would say Teague is better than Horford as well.

I think he is the third best player on a team that's not really much better than we are. In my opinion that would make Horford a bit overrated. Yes he would be our best big, but he wouldn't make us that much better. Just a slight improvement, not worth the money he would be asking. Not even factoring in his age.

He has always been the third wheel to. In 08, when they fought us to game 7, he was their third best player behind iso Joe and Josh Smith. Between those years and the last 2 seasons he was their best player, and it took them nowhere.

Sure, he is a very good player, and behind Millsap the best big of these series, but he is not a true star player.

Very good, but not great. In my opinion.

I can see Millsap, but not Teague.  Horford is Atlanta's best defender.  He is the guy that drives the team and its success.  If you look at the advanced metrics, Millsap and Horford are pretty close in pretty much everything.  Millsap a better rebounder, but Horford is a more efficient scorer and slightly better passer.  Either way I believe both of them are in the same A-/B+ category.  I put Teague in the B+/B range clearly behind those two.

[Moranis]

Horford is a A-/B+ type player.  That is a good player but probably not a great player.  That said, Horford would be the best player on the Celtics, just like he is on the Hawks, and if you can improve with that type of player you do it.

I think that is a stretch - I know his defense isn't as good, but I believe IT is a far superior offensive player and has the ability to take over a game.

Also, I am not so sure I don't take pre-injury Crowder and pre-injury Bradley over Horford, too. If not, Horford doesn't win out by much and he has considerably more mileage on his body.

The defensive gap is much much larger than the offensive gap.  You are really underrating Horford's offensive game.  I mean he shot 34.4% from three on over 3 attempts a game.  Horford has a higher TS% in fact.  Both Thomas and Horford have an ORTG of 113.  Thomas has a much higher USG% and is obviously a better player to have in the open court, but Horford is a pretty solid all around offensive player and there is no comparison at all defensively. 

[LooseCannon]

He has always been the third wheel to. In 08, when they fought us to game 7, he was their third best player behind iso Joe and Josh Smith. Between those years and the last 2 seasons he was their best player, and it took them nowhere.

Horford was the best player on those teams, ahead of Johnson and Smith, ssuming we are talking about real basketball and not fantasy basketball.

[spikelovetheCelts]

Heinsohn Defines great differently. To me great you have to be in the top 100 players ever and Horford is not there.

[passesofftodj]

Horford is good but I don't think he is the difference maker a lot on here think he is.   He is also too old to invest max in unless you are getting a young true #1 star like an AD.

He's more of a difference maker than Rasheed Wallace circa 2004.

I really wish people would stop citing that Pistons team as a shining example of team building strategy.  Yes they were fun to watch and had 5 very good starters, but that is the ONE time in modern NBA history a team won that was built like that.  I don't think the current Hawks are the model the Celts should be striving for.

Horford is good, there could be many worse signings, but bringing him in does NOT make the Celtics a championship team.  I would MUCH rather sign Harrison Barnes.  You would have to bring in Horford, another rebounding big, a true #1 star a la KD, and a 3 pt shooter along with keeping everyone good they currently have.  Even then they might not beat Golden State or the Spurs the first couple years and by then Horford will be in serious decline.

[tankcity!]

I agree with Tommy. Horford looks like he lost a step. Good thing he added the three to his game. I still wouldn't offer him max money though unless it gets you Durant.

[LooseCannon]

Horford is good but I don't think he is the difference maker a lot on here think he is.   He is also too old to invest max in unless you are getting a young true #1 star like an AD.

He's more of a difference maker than Rasheed Wallace circa 2004.

I really wish people would stop citing that Pistons team as a shining example of team building strategy.  Yes they were fun to watch and had 5 very good starters, but that is the ONE time in modern NBA history a team won that was built like that.  I don't think the current Hawks are the model the Celts should be striving for.

Horford is good, there could be many worse signings, but bringing him in does NOT make the Celtics a championship team.  I would MUCH rather sign Harrison Barnes.  You would have to bring in Horford, another rebounding big, a true #1 star a la KD, and a 3 pt shooter along with keeping everyone good they currently have.  Even then they might not beat Golden State or the Spurs the first couple years and by then Horford will be in serious decline.

I think the Celtics are close enough that bringing everyone back and adding Zaza Pachulia and a three-point shooting bench wing who isn't a defensive liability might be enough to make them a legitimate contender.

[Moranis]

Horford is good but I don't think he is the difference maker a lot on here think he is.   He is also too old to invest max in unless you are getting a young true #1 star like an AD.

He's more of a difference maker than Rasheed Wallace circa 2004.

I really wish people would stop citing that Pistons team as a shining example of team building strategy.  Yes they were fun to watch and had 5 very good starters, but that is the ONE time in modern NBA history a team won that was built like that.  I don't think the current Hawks are the model the Celts should be striving for.

Horford is good, there could be many worse signings, but bringing him in does NOT make the Celtics a championship team.  I would MUCH rather sign Harrison Barnes.  You would have to bring in Horford, another rebounding big, a true #1 star a la KD, and a 3 pt shooter along with keeping everyone good they currently have.  Even then they might not beat Golden State or the Spurs the first couple years and by then Horford will be in serious decline.

I think the Celtics are close enough that bringing everyone back and adding Zaza Pachulia and a three-point shooting bench wing who isn't a defensive liability might be enough to make them a legitimate contender.

now that is funny

[passesofftodj]

Horford is good but I don't think he is the difference maker a lot on here think he is.   He is also too old to invest max in unless you are getting a young true #1 star like an AD.

He's more of a difference maker than Rasheed Wallace circa 2004.

I really wish people would stop citing that Pistons team as a shining example of team building strategy.  Yes they were fun to watch and had 5 very good starters, but that is the ONE time in modern NBA history a team won that was built like that.  I don't think the current Hawks are the model the Celts should be striving for.

Horford is good, there could be many worse signings, but bringing him in does NOT make the Celtics a championship team.  I would MUCH rather sign Harrison Barnes.  You would have to bring in Horford, another rebounding big, a true #1 star a la KD, and a 3 pt shooter along with keeping everyone good they currently have.  Even then they might not beat Golden State or the Spurs the first couple years and by then Horford will be in serious decline.

I think the Celtics are close enough that bringing everyone back and adding Zaza Pachulia and a three-point shooting bench wing who isn't a defensive liability might be enough to make them a legitimate contender.

Zaza played with Kyle Korver, Teague and Horford in Atlanta and that team won titles....well in their dreams I guess. 

Take off the green goggles, they are blinding your judgement.  These Celtics haven't even won a SINGLE playoff game yet.

[SHAQATTACK]

Tommy is right right ....excellent player......but not great.

Agreed ..probably not a good idea to provoke him ti play better when C's are down with injuries .

Great .....is Kobe , MJ, Shaq, Pierce, Russell, Bird , West , Stockon .....Horford doesn't belong with this group of greats.   He is in another group below

[Roy H.]

He's looked pretty great in this series so far.  Way better than any of our bigs.

[Ogaju]

why would Tommy even call out an opposing player like that?

[Denis998]

why would Tommy even call out an opposing player like that?

because he is old and has no chill