Are we really looking at a sweep?
This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed. You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender. How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title. Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.
Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.
the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule. Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?
1979 Seatle Sonics.
For the 04 pistons, Ben Wallace was their superstar, imo, but Billups, Hamilton, and Sheed were all go-to guys, and that's the difference between them and this year's Hawks. What Cleveland has done is taken the 3s away from the Hawks, and if Atlanta isn't hitting them, they can't win, because apparently no one can take a step towards the basket and hit a midrange jumper, let alone drive it to the hoop. Most of their guys are specialists, and they're being exposed in this 'series,' if you even want to call it that. They're good players, don't get me wrong, but they're not complete, well-rounded, ones, imo.
As for the 1979 Supersonics, they had a ton of stars and go-to guys in Gus Williams, DJ, Sikma, John Johnson, with downtown Freddie Brown, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas off the bench. They were loaded. Wow.