Are you talking about how Okafor's defense sinks the Celtics into the lottery and gives them another draft pick to use as an asset?
LOL
Or how Okafor's development under Stevens might turn him into an anchor of the Celtics for 15 years?
I kid somewhat, but I see Okafor improving the Celtics in the same way that Greg Monroe improved the Bucks.
Nah, less.
Much less.
Greg Monroe is, and always has been, a better player than Okafor. The only areas where Okafor might have Monroe beat are post scoring and blocks. Outside of that, Monroe is better than Okafor at absolutely everything.
And yet the Bucks got worse when they got him (and the Pistons got better after they lost him)?
And the Sixers are better without okafor on the floor?
I'm slowly starting to reconsider my stance on this.
I don't think it's that simple to be honest.
The Pistons improvement is not something I believe can be attributed to Monroe making the team worst.
The Pistons made a lot of changes. They added a quality coach in Van Gundy. They had a horrible mix in the front court with Drummond/Smith/Monroe - Monroe and Drummond were forced to share the paint, and Smith was forced to chuck jumpers on the perimeter, it was never gong to work. They replaced Josh Smith with Tobias Harris (who was a much better fit at SF), and replaced Greg Monroe with Marcus Morris(a much better fit next to Drummond). They replaced the inefficient and defensively terrible Jennings with a far superior Reggie Jackson. Caldwell Pope and Drummond both made big improvements. There was a LOT that changed in Detroit which all combined to make them improve so much.
As for the Bucks, Monroe was arguably their best player this year and he I don't think you can blame him for their decline. HE was, again, a poor fit. Playing Monroe and Parker meant you had zero rim protection and poor floor spacing (Parker has shot horribly from three since he entered the league) while combining Monroe with Henson meant absolutely no floor stretching at all. Giannis and Carter-Wiliams both shot horrible from outside, which meant Middleton was pretty much the Buck's only legit three point threat.
In both cases Monroe was a poor fit, and that kinda outlines one of the issues with Monroe - he's a tough guy to fit around because he needs to have a cerain type of situation in order for your team to really excel. You need to have him alongside a big man who is mobile and defensively versatile, and can also stretch the floor.
Boston fits that description better then Detroit or Milwaukee (because Olynyk and Jerebko would probably fit well with Monroe) but it's still not optimal. Optimal would be to have him playing alongside somebody like Serge Ibaka, Brendon Ingram (if he can bulk up), Thadeous Young, Draymond Green, etc.
Okafor is going to suffer from that same problem, only it'll be worse because Monroe actually isn't a terrible defensive player like Okafor is (just a very average one), and actually has a moderately capable of midrange jumper. He's also a very good rebounder (which Okafor is not) so he does at the very least take care of business in that regard. He's also a much better passer then Okafor, which would make him an easier fit in just about any system.
I think Okafor will improve his jumper and his passing ability (as he seems to have shown some flashes of both) so he can probably get to Greg Monroe's level on those areas in time.
What I question is whether he's ever going to get to Greg Monroe's level as a defender or as a rebounder, because Monroe was always passable defensive player and a very good rebounder - even as a 20 year old rookie. Okafor's defence right now statistically ranks bottom 3 in the NBA at his position, and his rebounding is quite a bit below average for a center. Rebounding is a talent that usually translates very well from the college game (e.g. Randle, Sully) so his poor rebounding numbers admittedly do concern me a lot.
Topic: Trading for Okafor would give us a great trade chip for years to come.... (Read 5718 times)