Author Topic: Here's the thing about wing depth  (Read 3869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Here's the thing about wing depth
« on: June 24, 2017, 11:59:41 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
It's not like having too many guards or too many bigs.

Not in today's league.


Look -- SG, SF, PF.  That's three positions on the floor.  In small ball lineups, you can add the C position as well.

That's at least 144 minutes between those 3 spots, plus whatever minutes you want to allocate for super small lineups where a 3/4 plays at the 5.


Let's say you have 5 guys who all could play 20+ mpg.  For example -- Hayward, George, Crowder, Brown, and Tatum.


You could play them 32, 32, 28, 28, and 24 minutes per game.

32 or 28 might be a little bit on the low side for some of those guys, but at least during the regular season that's not a bad thing.


So, I don't really understand this preoccupation with the "logjam" the Celts might have on the wing.  Especially if they don't sign Hayward or  trade for George.


YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH VERSATILE, TALENTED WING PLAYERS IN TODAY'S NBA.

Full stop.

That maxim is right up there with "don't overpay for pure centers" and "the most important kind of player in the NBA to have is an elite pick and roll shot creator."
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2017, 12:19:14 AM »

Offline ChillyWilly

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1373
  • Tommy Points: 619
It's not like having too many guards or too many bigs.

Not in today's league.


Look -- SG, SF, PF.  That's three positions on the floor.  In small ball lineups, you can add the C position as well.

That's at least 144 minutes between those 3 spots, plus whatever minutes you want to allocate for super small lineups where a 3/4 plays at the 5.


Let's say you have 5 guys who all could play 20+ mpg.  For example -- Hayward, George, Crowder, Brown, and Tatum.


You could play them 32, 32, 28, 28, and 24 minutes per game.

32 or 28 might be a little bit on the low side for some of those guys, but at least during the regular season that's not a bad thing.


So, I don't really understand this preoccupation with the "logjam" the Celts might have on the wing.  Especially if they don't sign Hayward or  trade for George.


YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH VERSATILE, TALENTED WING PLAYERS IN TODAY'S NBA.

Full stop.

That maxim is right up there with "don't overpay for pure centers" and "the most important kind of player in the NBA to have is an elite pick and roll shot creator."

TP - Nothing to add he summed it up perfectly. Full Stop.
ok fine

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2017, 12:23:34 AM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789
Agree 100%. 

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2017, 12:27:49 AM »

Offline max215

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
  • Tommy Points: 624
Very good point. This is not the logjam at guard we've dealt with in the past. It's close to impossible (especially in Brad's extremely positionless system) to have too many wings.
Isaiah, you were lightning in a bottle.

DKC Clippers

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2017, 12:39:54 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
It's not like having too many guards or too many bigs.

Not in today's league.


Look -- SG, SF, PF.  That's three positions on the floor.  In small ball lineups, you can add the C position as well.

That's at least 144 minutes between those 3 spots, plus whatever minutes you want to allocate for super small lineups where a 3/4 plays at the 5.


Let's say you have 5 guys who all could play 20+ mpg.  For example -- Hayward, George, Crowder, Brown, and Tatum.


You could play them 32, 32, 28, 28, and 24 minutes per game.

32 or 28 might be a little bit on the low side for some of those guys, but at least during the regular season that's not a bad thing.


So, I don't really understand this preoccupation with the "logjam" the Celts might have on the wing.  Especially if they don't sign Hayward or  trade for George.


YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH VERSATILE, TALENTED WING PLAYERS IN TODAY'S NBA.

Full stop.

That maxim is right up there with "don't overpay for pure centers" and "the most important kind of player in the NBA to have is an elite pick and roll shot creator."

Ya the problem is there aren't very many minutes available at the 2. We have Smart, Rozier, Bradley and Thomas at the guard positions. That means you are in fact trying to divide out more like 96 minutes between those five guys. And that's without considering that you are going to have to occasionally play two big lineups which cut into available minutes further. At some point it is possible too have too many players and not enough minutes, especially if you have a 19 and 20 year old who you would like to get some playing time to develop.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2017, 12:57:28 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
It's not like having too many guards or too many bigs.

Not in today's league.


Look -- SG, SF, PF.  That's three positions on the floor.  In small ball lineups, you can add the C position as well.

That's at least 144 minutes between those 3 spots, plus whatever minutes you want to allocate for super small lineups where a 3/4 plays at the 5.


Let's say you have 5 guys who all could play 20+ mpg.  For example -- Hayward, George, Crowder, Brown, and Tatum.


You could play them 32, 32, 28, 28, and 24 minutes per game.

32 or 28 might be a little bit on the low side for some of those guys, but at least during the regular season that's not a bad thing.


So, I don't really understand this preoccupation with the "logjam" the Celts might have on the wing.  Especially if they don't sign Hayward or  trade for George.


YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH VERSATILE, TALENTED WING PLAYERS IN TODAY'S NBA.

Full stop.

That maxim is right up there with "don't overpay for pure centers" and "the most important kind of player in the NBA to have is an elite pick and roll shot creator."

Ya the problem is there aren't very many minutes available at the 2. We have Smart, Rozier, Bradley and Thomas at the guard positions. That means you are in fact trying to divide out more like 96 minutes between those five guys. And that's without considering that you are going to have to occasionally play two big lineups which cut into available minutes further. At some point it is possible too have too many players and not enough minutes, especially if you have a 19 and 20 year old who you would like to get some playing time to develop.

Smart, Rozier, Bradley...

Two of those guys are free agents next summer, and im fine with giving more minutes to the wings I mentioned and less minutes to guards who can't shoot.

An easy way to fix this teams size and rebounding problem is play the guards fewer minutes and play more wing heavy lineups.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2017, 01:05:28 AM »

Offline inverselock

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 437
  • Tommy Points: 44
Spot on.  We looked pretty good at times during the playoffs with IT/AL and 3 big wings.   That's with Green and Rookie Brown.   Would look great if we upgrade there.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2017, 01:16:18 AM »

Offline playdream

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1665
  • Tommy Points: 88
Perfectly said.
AB and JC is gone and the versatile guy like smart and TR(rebound) will stay

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2017, 01:19:11 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
It's not like having too many guards or too many bigs.

Not in today's league.


Look -- SG, SF, PF.  That's three positions on the floor.  In small ball lineups, you can add the C position as well.

That's at least 144 minutes between those 3 spots, plus whatever minutes you want to allocate for super small lineups where a 3/4 plays at the 5.


Let's say you have 5 guys who all could play 20+ mpg.  For example -- Hayward, George, Crowder, Brown, and Tatum.


You could play them 32, 32, 28, 28, and 24 minutes per game.

32 or 28 might be a little bit on the low side for some of those guys, but at least during the regular season that's not a bad thing.


So, I don't really understand this preoccupation with the "logjam" the Celts might have on the wing.  Especially if they don't sign Hayward or  trade for George.


YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH VERSATILE, TALENTED WING PLAYERS IN TODAY'S NBA.

Full stop.

That maxim is right up there with "don't overpay for pure centers" and "the most important kind of player in the NBA to have is an elite pick and roll shot creator."

Ya the problem is there aren't very many minutes available at the 2. We have Smart, Rozier, Bradley and Thomas at the guard positions. That means you are in fact trying to divide out more like 96 minutes between those five guys. And that's without considering that you are going to have to occasionally play two big lineups which cut into available minutes further. At some point it is possible too have too many players and not enough minutes, especially if you have a 19 and 20 year old who you would like to get some playing time to develop.

Smart, Rozier, Bradley...

Two of those guys are free agents next summer, and im fine with giving more minutes to the wings I mentioned and less minutes to guards who can't shoot.

An easy way to fix this teams size and rebounding problem is play the guards fewer minutes and play more wing heavy lineups.

Ya they are free agents next summer, but as it stands they are on the roster right now. Smart, Bradley and Isaiah all played 30+ minutes last season. Unless Bradley or Smart is traded there aren't a lot of minutes available at the 2 at least for next season. Moving Forward you're right, minutes will open up. But for next season someone has to eave to resolved the glut.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2017, 01:25:45 AM »

Online knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
Excellent points.  TP

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2017, 01:45:48 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
What I really love is that Jaylen will probably swing from 3 to 2 and Tatum from 3 to 4 (mostly 4 in the future, I hope!).  If we're lucky enough to add Hayward, he can easily swing 2 to 4, and Crowder is very reliable from 3 to 4.  That's a versatile and cost-controlled group for the modern NBA.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 01:55:40 AM by tarheelsxxiii »
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2017, 03:24:02 AM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
I think that:

1) Most people are assuming Hayward (or even George) is being added when referring to the logjam.

2) You can't play small ball as your regular lineup, especially during the regular season due to the wear and tear. They still need a plan for a traditional lineup and right now Horford is the only big confirmed to be on the roster. I think that is what people are concerned about, primarily.


Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2017, 09:29:39 AM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1401
  • Tommy Points: 140
I think that:

1) Most people are assuming Hayward (or even George) is being added when referring to the logjam.

2) You can't play small ball as your regular lineup, especially during the regular season due to the wear and tear. They still need a plan for a traditional lineup and right now Horford is the only big confirmed to be on the roster. I think that is what people are concerned about, primarily.

The Z boys Zeller and Zizic (Baby Zeller) are both on the roster this year.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2017, 09:45:16 AM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8913
  • Tommy Points: 1212
I think that:

1) Most people are assuming Hayward (or even George) is being added when referring to the logjam.

2) You can't play small ball as your regular lineup, especially during the regular season due to the wear and tear. They still need a plan for a traditional lineup and right now Horford is the only big confirmed to be on the roster. I think that is what people are concerned about, primarily.

The Z boys Zeller and Zizic (Baby Zeller) are both on the roster this year.

Zeller will be have his nonguaranteed salary declined. No way Danny keeps him, especially since he needs to decide on him before most big name FAs will have decided.
I'm bitter.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2017, 09:53:17 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
I think that:

1) Most people are assuming Hayward (or even George) is being added when referring to the logjam.

2) You can't play small ball as your regular lineup, especially during the regular season due to the wear and tear. They still need a plan for a traditional lineup and right now Horford is the only big confirmed to be on the roster. I think that is what people are concerned about, primarily.

The Z boys Zeller and Zizic (Baby Zeller) are both on the roster this year.

There is very little chance Zeller is on the roster going forward.  The only way he comes back is on a minimum contract, and the chances are, we could probably just bring back Amir at the minimum thus making Zeller irrelevant.

I have to believe there is a good chance Zizic gets a good deal of playing time this season, though.  He's been playing against grown men for a few years now, so I suspect he'll be ready for the rigors of NBA basketball much better than most rookie bigs.  I honestly would not be surprised to see Zizic start alongside Horford, in a 15-20 mpg role this season.

But as for the premise of this thread, I agree, wing depth today is more important than ever, I can easily see there being enough minutes for a quartet of George/Hayward/Tatum/Brown if that is where we end up at after the summer.  That would be about as good as it gets.

Start: Thomas - Hayward - George - Horford - Zizic

Fill in around that with either Rozier or Smart (whichever is kept) + Brown and Tatum + some vet signings to buoy the young guys.