KG = McHale?

[carlherrera]

I apologize for getting off topic here but hey, the original title was KG=McHale.
Reading this thread made me feel nostalgia for how underappreciated KG really is. I'm so glad he finally won a title so some people can no longer say that he's not a "winner". I mean, how could people have questioned this guy in the past? That was just complete nonsense. It's not his fault he played in a small market with crappy teammates... Some times it's unfair that you get recognized by things that are totally out of your control. KG handled it with complete grace and I'm just glad he finally won a title.
Apologize again for going off topic but this guy changed the game of basketball. He's a one in a generation type of player. He deserves all the love we can give him. I hope we don't start trashing him as he gets older and is no longer simply the best player on the planet...

[zerophase]

a young kg, yes. kg now is a step slower so on defense, while a great defender probably wouldn't be able to do it with enough efficiency.

[jackson_34]

Just going back to the first sentence of the OP's post:

Ainge said earlier in the summer that if they lost Posey they would still be a great team. They would just be a different team, a team that played "bigger".

If truly Ainge feels this way, and I am not disputing that he did because I remember him saying something about wanting to play bigger when discussing the "small ball" lineup of Posey at the 4, why is it the only "big" addition to this club in the offseason was a soft seven footer?

This is one of the reasons I had a problem with Ainge's offseason moves. He acknowledged in public that the team plays better and was most effective when they played a with a more conventionally sized lineup but then he goes out and replaces Posey and PJ Brown with a soft seven footer and rookies. Seems counterproductive and a bit strange to me.
As for the Powe/KG/Perkins lineup, I think we would see it against a team like Los Angeles some. Roughing up their front line worked in the Finals and they are big at all three frontcourt positions. Putting Powe or KG on Odom isn't that big of a stretch.

I think that lineup would be used more as a counter to certain lineups but I doubt it would be a lineup initiated by Doc with any specific offensive intentions behind it.

I'm sure ainge had every intention of retaining Posey this season. The C's just lost out to a team who was willing to overpay for Pose. While the loss of Posey may seem conterproductive, there weren't many if any FA's out there who would have changed this.

We still haven't lost PJ yet and if we have, it won't be to another team it will be to retirment. So I'm content that Ainge brought in O'Bryant, a first-round seven footer entering his third season who got stuck playing nellie ball (a system he was doomed to fail in), with next to no minutes. We are paying pratically nothing for him anyway.

While we may not be as productive as last year, I do think ainge did a solid job with what was to offer.        

[ScoobyDoo]

I would rather have KG at the four and at the four only. I guess my point was that if we don't sign another SF, and TA and Walker and Scal arent' really cutting it, as a coach and in the right match up, I might try KG over there at the three and see what it does. It might be worth the experiment.

Even though he's a step slower, he's got that length that he can back off of guys a bit and still bother them on the wing.

[Buckets McGee]

KG's jumper is more water than McHale's ever was

[johnnymost]

I take McHale over KG. No one could guard him in the low post. KG doesn't have as much of a low post game. And McHale's defense was good enough. BUT, the problem is, in order for McHale to be effective, he had to have Parish. McHale with Perkins wouldn't work as well.

[jambr380]

I take McHale over KG. No one could guard him in the low post. KG doesn't have as much of a low post game. And McHale's defense was good enough. BUT, the problem is, in order for McHale to be effective, he had to have Parish. McHale with Perkins wouldn't work as well.

So KG doesn't have the post moves that McHale has so you take him over KG? I was definitely a fan of McHale, but he doesn't have anywhere near the skill set or athletic ability that KG has. Over his career, you can honestly call KG one of the best players ever and not sound that crazy. I don't think you can take McHale- someone who was always the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team- and say the same thing.

While I agree that McHale probably is the best post player I have seen, that is really where it ends when saying KM is better than KG at anything.

[Finkelskyhook]

The only thing Garnett and McHale have in common is that they're both finesse players.

[Redz]

The only thing Garnett and McHale have in common is that they're both finesse players.

Same first names?

[nickagneta]

The only thing Garnett and McHale have in common is that they're both finesse players.

Same first names?

They both like Minnesota?

[Redz]

The only thing Garnett and McHale have in common is that they're both finesse players.

Same first names?

They both like Minnesota?

They both look fabulous in ugly sweaters

[Sweet17]

I doubt Doc does this. I think this idea comes up alot. It's the "bigger is better" fallacy that gets posted on the boards - all over the internet. The idea being that the larger players you can play - the more likely you are to win. It's not just Celtic fans but fans everywhere who want to use various athletic PF as SF or various good handling 2's as a 1.

It's generally a bad idea though as your team ends up lacking quickness and importantly ball handling.. One of the hidden reasons the C's were so dominating is that they fielded three excellent ball handlers on the court at the same time in Pierce, Ray Allen and Rondo. Sure those guys turn the ball over some (Paul and Ray) but they are doing MORE difficult things with the ball on a regular basis.

The only time I play KG as SF is when we want to match him up against a guy that's too tall for our SF.

Pete