Build the C's: deep or top heavy?

[LilRip]

I realize this is more of an offseason question but as the playoffs are now underway, which team would you be more comfy seeing out there for the C's? A top heavy one or a deep team? This is a question more about team construction and less about "let's trade player XYZ for A".

The deep team is probably close to how it's constructed. A lot of high end role players who are just terrific at what they're supposed to do, and one or two standouts like IT and Horford. But you have your Marcus Smarts, Crowders, Bradleys, etc. to round out the roster.

The other option is to go top heavy. To relate it to this team, something along the lines of IT, Horford, and two of either PG13/Blake/Butler/Hayward. Of course, doing this would leave you with people like James Young, Mickey, and some 2nd rounders and vet min guys to round out the roster. Or if we build from within, it'd be something like having IT and Horford at the max/near max and then extending Brown and Fultz to the max/near max as well (assuming they bloom into all-star type talent ala PG and Butler, etc).

[CelticsElite]

Stevens has displayed an elite popovich-esque way of coaching a deep young team. That's what you roll with

[mr. dee]

Depth, no questions asked. Warriors won with depth. Spurs won with depth. Mavs won with depth. 2008 Celtics were not only top-heavy, but also have depth. Top-heavy teams would only be a good option if you have a Lebron or Durant on your team.

[Roy H.]

Depth, no questions asked. Warriors won with depth. Spurs won with depth. Mavs won with depth. 2008 Celtics were not only top-heavy, but also have depth. Top-heavy teams would only be a good option if you have a Lebron or Durant on your team.

The Dubs and Spurs had solid role players, but they were carried by their stars, like almost every title team.

Depth is nice, but to hang a banner we need elite players.

[mr. dee]

Depth, no questions asked. Warriors won with depth. Spurs won with depth. Mavs won with depth. 2008 Celtics were not only top-heavy, but also have depth. Top-heavy teams would only be a good option if you have a Lebron or Durant on your team.

The Dubs and Spurs had solid role players, but they were carried by their stars, like almost every title team.

Depth is nice, but to hang a banner we need elite players.

Duncan was no longer an MVP-Caliber player during their 2014 championship run. Kawhi was just reaching his peak at that time. Dubs got exposed in the finals after Draymond and Bogut went out.

Stars are nice to have. But if we're gonna be just another version of the current Pacers or the Pelicans, then I'd rather be the Hawks or the Grizzlies of the world.

You're not gonna win any title without depth, unless your player is a transcendent talent like Shaq, Jordan or Lebron. Even their teams have enough depth to win it all.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Top Heavy 100%...cause, all the other players will come jumping on your bandwagon.

We've had deep---and not gotten very far.

[LilRip]

Top Heavy 100%...cause, all the other players will come jumping on your bandwagon.

We've had deep---and not gotten very far.

I'm sorta leaning towards this as well. I mean, the 08 Celtics and last year's Cavs were top heavy.

But then again, the Dubs the other year and the Kawhi-led Spurs were deep. Hmm...

[Csfan1984]

Well it all depends for me but I look at teams as

Top heavy seem to come in two types
Two top 10 players.
(Shaq&Kobe/ Jordan&Pippen)
or
Three players in at least the 7-20 range.
(KG, PP& Ray/ Curry, Klay&Green)


Depth is like 04-05 finals teams
A top ten player, a top 30, a top 40 and multiple specialist.
(Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, ect)
or
5 starters that are top 10 at their position
(Billups, Rip, Prince, Wallaces)


Closest thing we can say the C's are to is the Pistons. If they add Griffin it would be a very good club.

At their positions I'd rank them
IT top 5
AB top 10
Crowder top 10
Griffin top 5
Horford top 10

So depth team is realistic. While long term If Brown and Fultz become elite they can try for a big three model.