Author Topic: Here's the thing about wing depth  (Read 3865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2017, 10:24:49 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
The most successful small lineups have a SF that can rebound and defend like a PF.   None of the Celtics (and the guys they talk about adding) have that type of skill.



They still need a rebounding banger (with experience) to give them 20 or so minutes a game.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2017, 11:15:24 AM »

Offline Evantime34

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11942
  • Tommy Points: 764
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
The most successful small lineups have a SF that can rebound and defend like a PF.   None of the Celtics (and the guys they talk about adding) have that type of skill.



They still need a rebounding banger (with experience) to give them 20 or so minutes a game.
I suspect the Celtics will add a banger when they trade Bradley or Crowder to create cap space to sign Hayward. The fact that no one besides Crowder has the beef to play small ball 4 might mean Bradley is gone. If Bradley is gone I think Jaylen could see a lot of minutes at the 2 which clears up the log jam.

I'm not worried about the log jam George and Hayward would create, since in order to sign Hayward and renegotiate and extend George (the only way to ensure he stays imo) then we are probably trading Bradley Crowder and smart to create space.

Tp to the op for pointing out something that a lot of people don't immediately grasp.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2017, 11:30:30 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
The most successful small lineups have a SF that can rebound and defend like a PF.   None of the Celtics (and the guys they talk about adding) have that type of skill.



They still need a rebounding banger (with experience) to give them 20 or so minutes a game.

I'm not sure I agree with this part.  The most successful small-ball lineups in the league are in Golden St and Cleveland, featuring Durant or LeBron in that role.  George is not on their level, but he is most certainly capable of matching up with either one of them quite fine.

I suspect Tatum will eventually be really good in that role as well, although probably not right away.

I do see the value in adding a cheap vet to take on that role for short minutes throughout the season, but I wouldn't spend a whole lot there.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2017, 11:37:21 AM »

Offline dreamgreen

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3558
  • Tommy Points: 182
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."

I'm with you bro, keep preaching!!

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2017, 12:23:02 PM »

Offline KGBirdBias

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1649
  • Tommy Points: 125
I think the Celtics are trying to have PG, Hayward, Tatum and Brown all on the team. This will allow them to switch defensively and play with the Warriors. Tatum could even play point-forward at times.

I think they see KD, Klay, Livingston and Iggy all playing together, defending pick and rolls.

It all goes back to fundamentals...passing, dribbling and shooting.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2017, 02:59:43 PM »

Offline oldtype

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
  • Tommy Points: 143
Good point.

It's also worth noting that all of this "wing logjam" talk assumes that Smart, Bradley, Crowder, Rozier, Tatum, and Brown will all be on the team if we sign GH and/or PG.

In reality, anywhere from 1~4 of those guys will be gone if we sign one or both.  The minutes will be there


Great words from a great man

Here's another perspective on wing depth
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2017, 12:00:55 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
I think that you've raised crucial questions that touch on the way the game is being played today and in particular how the Celtics are playing today. I'm going to agree some and disagree some, but there's no question of giving a TP for this thread - good work, PhoSita. 

It's not like having too many guards or too many bigs.

We'd better sort out our terms here.

Traditionally, "wings" has meant both 2's and 3's - i.e., shooting GUARDS and small forwards.  But for a long time now those two positions are typically interchangeable on the court, hence the more common use of the term "wing".

So that would include Avery Bradley.

Brad Stevens claims to scheme for four positions, not the traditional five: Ballhandlers, Wings, Swings, and Bigs. We ought to give more than lip service to this claim. Notice that there is no mention of "guards" or "forwards". So there are pitfalls in applying the old 1-5 labels to Boston's lineups, since the coach says he's using a different scheme.

Avery is clearly not a Ballhandler.

Danny Ainge, for one, is still using those old labels, saying recently that he thinks Tatum could "eventually play the 4". The old habits die hard, though sometimes the new habits die off first.



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.

First off, you will struggle to find an example of a "3/4" playing at the 5 for the Celtics. And in fact it's extremely rare in the NBA. Draymond Green comes to mind, perhaps - certainly he has some wing-type skills, and he's famously been the biggest player in the Warriors' vaunted "Lineup of Death". There are plenty of examples of 4's playing 5, of course - Blake Griffin, as an example.

What you do see in Brad Stevens' lineups is predominantly the use of two bigs, two wings, and a ballhandler; or two bigs, one wing, and two ballhandlers - with occasional "small lineups" in which the 6'6" Crowder is the second biggest player.  Brad has said that he likes using two bigs at least partly because their "backcourt" is small (old-style 1-5 thinking creeping in?!).

The small lineups had mixed success in the regular season (though better in the playoffs, perhaps saving the Chicago series) - Brad has said that the sample size is small.  That cuts both ways, of course: while it tells you that he's interested in the potential, it also tells you that he hasn't used it a whole lot.

Enter Jayson Tatum. At his height and length, he has the potential to be a prototypical Swing. Crowder's role as a Swing is, in my opinion, best as a backup, due to his height and length. You need a backup, of course.


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.

I love your provocative point here, love that you see a role for Crowder, who is the perfect complementary player. You NEED complementary players, especially guys who can shoot and spread the floor like Jae. According to Zach Lowe's recent article on the Butler trade, the sticking point for Boston was Chicago's insistence on including Crowder in the deal.

And what about Avery Bradley? Or are you trading him away in this scenario? What about Marcus Smart, who is a Ballhandler, but frequently plays with Isaiah, another Ballhandler, thus taking some of the "SG" minutes?

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.

Relevant also that Brad Stevens has been a disciple of Gregg Popovich and modern sport science in managing the regular season minutes of his starters. And for what it's worth, Boston had very good health going into the playoffs this year.


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.

I agree.  But I'm skeptical that either of those players is coming to Boston; and I don't think that that would be so terrible, either. Getting both looks like a really disproportionate allocation of salary.

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

Full stop.

Never is a long time, but your point is well taken.


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."

Shot creators of any kind have been one of the Celtics' greatest needs. As Brown and Tatum mature, this need will be addressed.  It appears that Brown is ready to step into a bigger role in this area already - something that will be very clear before Christmas.

The other big need, in my view, is defensive rebounding. I'd advocate signing Blake Griffin to immediately address both those needs.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 12:11:08 PM by ThePaintedArea »

Re: Here's another perspective on wing depth
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2017, 12:07:54 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
Bigs, not wings, are what the Celtics are short of.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2017, 12:13:43 PM »

Offline CelticGuardian

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 836
  • Tommy Points: 43
  • Blood. Sweat. & Tears.
don't forget Marcus Smart... we all know he's going to be the back up PG, SG, SF, PF, C... a food vendor calls in sick you know who Brad is going with

Re: Here's another perspective on wing depth
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2017, 12:18:18 PM »

Offline CelticGuardian

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 836
  • Tommy Points: 43
  • Blood. Sweat. & Tears.
Bigs, not wings, are what the Celtics are short of.

What are bigs? positionless basketball bruh! Also, I'm betting TPs we're resigning KO.

Re: Here's another perspective on wing depth
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2017, 01:02:03 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
Bigs, not wings, are what the Celtics are short of.

What are bigs? positionless basketball bruh! Also, I'm betting TPs we're resigning KO.

I'm betting that you're right about Olynyk.  It's all a question of the money, but as long as they find the right price, he's tailor-made for this team.

Re: Here's the thing about wing depth
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2017, 02:10:16 PM »

Offline jacigar

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 94
  • Tommy Points: 9
My way of looking at this is this.(1)Ball handlers (pg): Thomas -Rozier-Jackson. (2) Small Wings(g): Bradley-Smart-Allen .(3)Med Wing (g/f)(sf) :Brown-Crowder-Bird-Nader. (4)Large Wings (F)(pf) Tatum-Semi-Mickey-Yubo. 5(Bigs) (f/c)(c):Harford-Olynx_Zizic possibles=
Hayward =Med wing 3,George= Med wing 3 , Griffin 5 =Big , Noel 5 =Big, Vucevic 5 =Big  (2018 r1 2 bigs )