what if horford goes down

[ETNCeltics]

Regardless, they won a title, then led in the 4th quarter to come within an eyelash of winning a 2nd. It's not really debatable that GSW without Durant would be good enough to win a title.

[LilRip]

Our frontcourt, even with Horford, is probably one of the worst rebounding frontcourts in the league. I'd like to see Ainge go after a few cheap, bruising rebounders. One non-floor spacer won't kill the offense, IMO.

Right, if you think of Cavs with Thompson or Warriors with Zaza.  However, the C's don't have LB or KD so I think DA will go after shooting at ALL positions.

You don't need LB or KD. The Warriors won 73 without KD, but with Bogut and Barnes. Bogut is not a floor spacer but sets great illegal picks to free up shooters. Granted, GSW's best lineup probably featured Iggy, in which case that'd be like when we play Horford at the 5, and then include Smart (or whoever) in the small ball lineup with IT/AB/Crowder.

If we had a hypothetical line up of IT/Bradley/Hayward/Horford/Tristan Thompson, I don't think our offense is going to grind to a halt.

Right, but who won the championship? The Cavs with LBJ.  My point is that if you don't have an ultra-elite future HOFer, you need shooting everywhere in today's NBA.

Two things:
1. GSW historically choked away a 3-1 lead. But for all intents and purposes, they were in good shape to win back to back
2. If you don't have at least a future HoF-er, you're likely not in contention anyway, regardless if a team has shooting or not.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Our frontcourt, even with Horford, is probably one of the worst rebounding frontcourts in the league. I'd like to see Ainge go after a few cheap, bruising rebounders. One non-floor spacer won't kill the offense, IMO.

Right, if you think of Cavs with Thompson or Warriors with Zaza.  However, the C's don't have LB or KD so I think DA will go after shooting at ALL positions.

You don't need LB or KD. The Warriors won 73 without KD, but with Bogut and Barnes. Bogut is not a floor spacer but sets great illegal picks to free up shooters. Granted, GSW's best lineup probably featured Iggy, in which case that'd be like when we play Horford at the 5, and then include Smart (or whoever) in the small ball lineup with IT/AB/Crowder.

If we had a hypothetical line up of IT/Bradley/Hayward/Horford/Tristan Thompson, I don't think our offense is going to grind to a halt.

Right, but who won the championship? The Cavs with LBJ.  My point is that if you don't have an ultra-elite future HOFer, you need shooting everywhere in today's NBA.

Two things:
1. GSW historically choked away a 3-1 lead. But for all intents and purposes, they were in good shape to win back to back
2. If you don't have at least a future HoF-er, you're likely not in contention anyway, regardless if a team has shooting or not.

Horford would get burned by 4's in the postseason. He does things well and can offensively play the 4 but his legs are getting a little too old.
Horford poses problems for us at both the 5 and 4.

[guava_wrench]

Regardless, they won a title, then led in the 4th quarter to come within an eyelash of winning a 2nd. It's not really debatable that GSW without Durant would be good enough to win a title.

Yeah, absurd that anyone would argue otherwise.

Take away the Green nut-punch, and GS likely is going for a threepeat.

[Tr1boy]

Say goodnight

[GreenEnvy]

Our frontcourt, even with Horford, is probably one of the worst rebounding frontcourts in the league. I'd like to see Ainge go after a few cheap, bruising rebounders. One non-floor spacer won't kill the offense, IMO.

Right, if you think of Cavs with Thompson or Warriors with Zaza.  However, the C's don't have LB or KD so I think DA will go after shooting at ALL positions.

You don't need LB or KD. The Warriors won 73 without KD, but with Bogut and Barnes. Bogut is not a floor spacer but sets great illegal picks to free up shooters. Granted, GSW's best lineup probably featured Iggy, in which case that'd be like when we play Horford at the 5, and then include Smart (or whoever) in the small ball lineup with IT/AB/Crowder.

If we had a hypothetical line up of IT/Bradley/Hayward/Horford/Tristan Thompson, I don't think our offense is going to grind to a halt.

Right, but who won the championship? The Cavs with LBJ.  My point is that if you don't have an ultra-elite future HOFer, you need shooting everywhere in today's NBA.

Two things:
1. GSW historically choked away a 3-1 lead. But for all intents and purposes, they were in good shape to win back to back
2. If you don't have at least a future HoF-er, you're likely not in contention anyway, regardless if a team has shooting or not.

OKC historically choked away a 3-1 lead, too. If you're gonna say they were in good position to go back-to-back, I'll say they were in equally bad position to even make the Finals, let alone win it.

[LilRip]

Our frontcourt, even with Horford, is probably one of the worst rebounding frontcourts in the league. I'd like to see Ainge go after a few cheap, bruising rebounders. One non-floor spacer won't kill the offense, IMO.

Right, if you think of Cavs with Thompson or Warriors with Zaza.  However, the C's don't have LB or KD so I think DA will go after shooting at ALL positions.

You don't need LB or KD. The Warriors won 73 without KD, but with Bogut and Barnes. Bogut is not a floor spacer but sets great illegal picks to free up shooters. Granted, GSW's best lineup probably featured Iggy, in which case that'd be like when we play Horford at the 5, and then include Smart (or whoever) in the small ball lineup with IT/AB/Crowder.

If we had a hypothetical line up of IT/Bradley/Hayward/Horford/Tristan Thompson, I don't think our offense is going to grind to a halt.

Right, but who won the championship? The Cavs with LBJ.  My point is that if you don't have an ultra-elite future HOFer, you need shooting everywhere in today's NBA.

Two things:
1. GSW historically choked away a 3-1 lead. But for all intents and purposes, they were in good shape to win back to back
2. If you don't have at least a future HoF-er, you're likely not in contention anyway, regardless if a team has shooting or not.

OKC historically choked away a 3-1 lead, too. If you're gonna say they were in good position to go back-to-back, I'll say they were in equally bad position to even make the Finals, let alone win it.

So you can tell me that there was ZERO CHANCE that GSW could've won vs. the Cavs? That even when they were down 3-1, you KNEW Cavs would come back precisely because GSW played a non-floor spacer in Bogut without having a KD?

Because that's the premise that's being presented: if you don't have LB or KD, you don't stand a chance if you don't have shooters everywhere.

[mmmmm]

Our frontcourt, even with Horford, is probably one of the worst rebounding frontcourts in the league. I'd like to see Ainge go after a few cheap, bruising rebounders. One non-floor spacer won't kill the offense, IMO.

Right, if you think of Cavs with Thompson or Warriors with Zaza.  However, the C's don't have LB or KD so I think DA will go after shooting at ALL positions.

You don't need LB or KD. The Warriors won 73 without KD, but with Bogut and Barnes. Bogut is not a floor spacer but sets great illegal picks to free up shooters. Granted, GSW's best lineup probably featured Iggy, in which case that'd be like when we play Horford at the 5, and then include Smart (or whoever) in the small ball lineup with IT/AB/Crowder.

If we had a hypothetical line up of IT/Bradley/Hayward/Horford/Tristan Thompson, I don't think our offense is going to grind to a halt.

Right, but who won the championship? The Cavs with LBJ.  My point is that if you don't have an ultra-elite future HOFer, you need shooting everywhere in today's NBA.

Two things:
1. GSW historically choked away a 3-1 lead. But for all intents and purposes, they were in good shape to win back to back
2. If you don't have at least a future HoF-er, you're likely not in contention anyway, regardless if a team has shooting or not.

OKC historically choked away a 3-1 lead, too. If you're gonna say they were in good position to go back-to-back, I'll say they were in equally bad position to even make the Finals, let alone win it.

So you can tell me that there was ZERO CHANCE that GSW could've won vs. the Cavs? That even when they were down 3-1, you KNEW Cavs would come back precisely because GSW played a non-floor spacer in Bogut without having a KD?

Because that's the premise that's being presented: if you don't have LB or KD, you don't stand a chance if you don't have shooters everywhere.

Yeah, the argument would seem extra dubious since the Cavs comeback sorta coincided with Bogut being lost to injury (though Draymond's suspension and Curry playing while injured were probably just as big of factors).