Which rookie will have greatest impact next 3 years?

Which rookie will make the largest impact in next 3 years

  • Romeo Langford

    Votes: 15 11.0%
  • Grant Williams

    Votes: 50 36.8%
  • Carsen Edwards

    Votes: 65 47.8%
  • Tremont Waters

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tacko Fall

    Votes: 6 4.4%

  • Total voters
    136

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,160
The purpose of this thread is for people to predict which rookie will make the largest impact on the Celtics team over next 3 years. Be prepared to explain your selection. Response can include multiple factors, such as statistical impact, role, potential trade value, etc.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,700
On a three year timeline? Grant Williams. He’s going to be the third big from day one and log an awful lot of minutes as Boston searches for the post Hayward big wing. On a five year timeline? Probably Langford as I suspect that he’s destined to be the SG of the future.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,895
On a three year timeline? Grant Williams. He’s going to be the third big from day one and log an awful lot of minutes as Boston searches for the post Hayward big wing. On a five year timeline? Probably Langford as I suspect that he’s destined to be the SG of the future.
My thinking for Edwards is actually that we have four bigs ahead of Grant in Kanter, Theis, Poirier, and Time Lord, at least initially, and Brad is fine with playing small with Tatum or Hayward as the 4. Meanwhile, we didn’t really pick up a Rozier replacement - Kemba replaces Kyrie, Smart and Hayward will do some ball handling duties like last year, and Wanamaker should remain a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency player - but Terry played over 22 minutes a game, some of which while paired with Kyrie. That’s a lot of minutes for a guard that Edwards can fill. The path for Grant to get a lot of playing time early would be either Brad changing his thinking on playing two traditional bigs, or deciding Grant can play the small ball 5 like Draymond or Tucker; both possible, but I think more likely is Edward getting more run early and showing he can score.

Langford seems like more of a project and is somewhat blocked by Jaylen, so ageee his timeline is further out than either Edwards or Gwill.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,304
Melrose, MA
I went with Carsen Edwards, but this is a hard question.

If the question were 1-year impact, the answer would be Edwards for sure, as it seems like bench scorer is something he already has the tools to do.

The only other alternative would be Grant Williams, who had some of his weaknesses exposed when the Celtics tried him out at the small ball 5 yesterday. If Edwards disappoints, 1-year impact would be Williams by default, since the others will be on the Rozier/Time Lord rookie year plan.

Three-year impact is much tougher to predict. There's a chance by that point that Langford is a contributor, and we'll know by then whether Williams's fit is rotation player vs more of an impact player than that. I went with Edwards again because he has the skillset that translates most directly to NBA value.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,272
My only exposure to these guys is Summer League. I went with Carsen Edwards. With a longer time frame I'd go with Tacko. I know nothing about Romeo. My lack of appreciation for Grant Williams and Tremont Waters probably says something about my BBIQ, but I didn't think I was seeing anything special there.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,416
Kiev, Ukraine
I went with Carsen Edwards, but this is a hard question.

If the question were 1-year impact, the answer would be Edwards for sure, as it seems like bench scorer is something he already has the tools to do.

The only other alternative would be Grant Williams, who had some of his weaknesses exposed when the Celtics tried him out at the small ball 5 yesterday. If Edwards disappoints, 1-year impact would be Williams by default, since the others will be on the Rozier/Time Lord rookie year plan.

Three-year impact is much tougher to predict. There's a chance by that point that Langford is a contributor, and we'll know by then whether Williams's fit is rotation player vs more of an impact player than that. I went with Edwards again because he has the skillset that translates most directly to NBA value.
Yeah, I think we’re sleeping a bit on Langford because of recency bias. That said, Edwards’ shooting ability is really unique. You just don’t get many guys coming into the league with that kind of ability both off the dribble, catch-and-shoot, and off screens. I’d expect him to get a lot of 2nd unit minutes, since he makes Smart more playable there.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,416
Kiev, Ukraine
My only exposure to these guys is Summer League. I went with Carsen Edwards. With a longer time frame I'd go with Tacko. I know nothing about Romeo. My lack of appreciation for Grant Williams and Tremont Waters probably says something about my BBIQ, but I didn't think I was seeing anything special there.
Williams is pretty much always in the right place defensively, to a shocking degree. His BBIQ is off the charts—main question mark (a big one) is length.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,304
Melrose, MA
Yeah, I think we’re sleeping a bit on Langford because of recency bias. That said, Edwards’ shooting ability is really unique. You just don’t get many guys coming into the league with that kind of ability both off the dribble, catch-and-shoot, and off screens. I’d expect him to get a lot of 2nd unit minutes, since he makes Smart more playable there.
It's not recency bias for me. It's just that the vast majority of the minutes at the point and wing spots are going to go to Walker, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Smart, with Hayward and Tatum even getting out of position minutes at the 4.

So it will likely be a choice of which of Edwards and Langford gets any immediate time - and Edwards is older with an immediately useful NBA skill, whereas Langford may have more upside overall but is more of a project.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,448
Williams and Edwards are close for me. I don't see us getting much out of Langford this year in particular. I went Edwards over Williams cause shooters will always get their shots. Who the fuck really knows?
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
GW and Edwards are more NBA-ready than Romeo but their physical limitations cap their potential (otherwise they would’ve been lottery picks, as anyone who watched them in college knew they were ballers). Romeo is the right pick if you think he’ll be a rotation-worthy wing by year 3.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Be shocked if gets at least Terry's minutes, but he's gonna play for sure. I think that he'll get Terry's role, but he won't get Terry's minutes.
The rotation was a man too long last year, and Rozier’s role is the one you’d ditch first on a roster that has multiple guys (GH, Smart, Wanamaker, Edwards) who can handle the ball when Kemba isn’t on the floor. So I basically agree with you, except I think non-garbage minutes for Edwards will be very limited unless and until someone gets hurt, and even then he’ll lose out to Wanamaker if he has typical rookie issues with defensive rotations and shot selection.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,683
I’ll go with Langford as he may be the most NBA ready and Jaylen is due to miss time with injuries.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,843
around the way
The rotation was a man too long last year, and Rozier’s role is the one you’d ditch first on a roster that has multiple guys (GH, Smart, Wanamaker, Edwards) who can handle the ball when Kemba isn’t on the floor. So I basically agree with you, except I think non-garbage minutes for Edwards will be very limited unless and until someone gets hurt, and even then he’ll lose out to Wanamaker if he has typical rookie issues with defensive rotations and shot selection.
I expect him to beat out Wanamaker soon enough. Edwards isn't an ideal "ball handler", but the shooting that he brings is simply too good to bury on the bench imo. It won't start that way, but after a matter of weeks I expect Edwards to get TR ballhandler minutes when Kemba sits. Especially since he can coexist as shooter in a GH-as-quarterback lineup.

Of course you could be right. Maybe Brad is slow to let him jump Wanamaker.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
34,980
Tough to project Edwards’ role when there is not really a skill comp from last year’s team. I don’t expect him to ever really be the primary ballhandler in most lineups as a rookie (Kemba/Smart/Hayward).

In some ways the roster may have only felt a man too long because Rozier was not good enough at either finding his own shot or supporting the team offense. Not a good passer and not someone you’re really running off screens and such. In small lineups there is absolutely a place for a guy who can drain open looks at 40% while pitching in in other ways.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,516
Santa Monica
I'll take Edwards, and plead recency bias since I've seen him absolutely dominate in the NCAA tournament against several teams and the best defensive/Natl Championship team:). Then he walks into SL and confidently takes/hits 3s or gets to the rim at will. He stood out much like the two kids for the Pels. His muscle, energy, aggressiveness will help him at the next level. Listening to Brad talk glowingly about him on BOTH sides of the ball leads me to believe Brad will partner Edwards with Smart on the 2nd unit. CE picking up full court physical defense against the ball handler while playing off the ball with Smart on offense should lead to a rotational spot and 20mpg by midseason.

This isn't a slight against Grant who will slide nicely into that 4-spot which has lost big minutes from MaMo's departure. I'd hate to see him play the 5 and would be a waste of his talent IMO.

Langford has me slightly concerned after the Brad interview, plus the 2-3 position has Tatum, Smart, Brown and Hayward all needing major minutes. I'd guess they will be deliberate/cautious with Romeo's development.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,530
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?

For the next 3 years I voted 'Arson. In three years, I would have voted Romeo as he has the highest upside.

Part of it has to do with how one looks at "impact." 'Arson is going to put up the best numbers but GWill could have the biggest impact if his BB IQ and ability to guard holds up. I think it's going to be a learning curve for him while 'Arson will be able to score right away. Particularly in garbage time minutes.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,909
where I was last at
Projecting NBA future effectiveness off a handful of SL games, against guys who will never see NBA time, seems a tall task, but one thing is clear, Edwards is not shy about finding and taking his shots. He looks part bulldog, and tenacious but I wonder how he holds up against 6'6" guys taking theirs. Williams seems lined up to battle Semi for minutes.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Tough to project Edwards’ role when there is not really a skill comp from last year’s team. I don’t expect him to ever really be the primary ballhandler in most lineups as a rookie (Kemba/Smart/Hayward).

In some ways the roster may have only felt a man too long because Rozier was not good enough at either finding his own shot or supporting the team offense. Not a good passer and not someone you’re really running off screens and such. In small lineups there is absolutely a place for a guy who can drain open looks at 40% while pitching in in other ways.
I’m looking at the 2019-20 rotation this way:

30 minutes for Kemba
96 minutes for the bigs (Kanter/Theis/Poirier/TL/GW)
114 minutes for Tatum/Jaylen/GH/Smart/Romeo

Even if you think that wing group gets 130 minutes (because they cover some minutes at the 4), I don’t see how Edwards plays a significant role unless there are multiple injuries. If everyone’s healthy, he’s fighting with Wanamaker for the 12th spot and is mostly playing garbage minutes.

Edit: And I totally forgot about Semi. Not sure where he fits.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,416
Kiev, Ukraine
I’m looking at the 2019-20 rotation this way:

30 minutes for Kemba
96 minutes for the bigs (Kanter/Theis/Poirier/TL/GW)
114 minutes for Tatum/Jaylen/GH/Smart/Romeo

Even if you think that wing group gets 130 minutes (because they cover some minutes at the 4), I don’t see how Edwards plays a significant role unless there are multiple injuries. If everyone’s healthy, he’s fighting with Wanamaker for the 12th spot and is mostly playing garbage minutes.

Edit: And I totally forgot about Semi. Not sure where he fits.
The assumption you should probably change is 96 mins for the “bigs.” There’s approximately a 100% chance that Tatum and Hayward play significant minutes at the 4.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,613
This is really interesting in having the 3 year window,

Edwards- he can probably get buckets off the bench right now, but his ceiling is also... really good guy at getting buckets off the bench

Williams- He's very NBA ready in many ways, but I wonder how many minutes are there for him to grab the next few years, he's got solid bench guy written all over him though, and his ceiling is higher than Edwards since he can defend and pass.

Langford- he's the swingy one, long term he has the most upside of the trio, but also his role this year seems limited, of course the flip side is he could be useless this year, improve next year, take the leap in year 3, and the year 3 alone brings the most value.


Waters- Maine for a year or two then off to Europe like his predecessors

Fall- probably not an NBA player, upside is Boban-esque 5 minute stint changeup
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
The assumption you should probably change is 96 mins for the “bigs.” There’s approximately a 100% chance that Tatum and Hayward play significant minutes at the 4.
I don’t think Danny spends all his leftover money after signing Kemba on bigs if he’s not planning to get at least 80 minutes from that group. That leaves 130 minutes for the 5 wings (assuming 30 for Kemba).
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,912
Kemba 30, Edwards 10, Smart 8
Brown, 30, Smart 18,
Tatum, 33, Hayward 15
Hayward 16, GWill 20, Semi 12
Kanter, 22, RWill, 18, Theis or Poirier 8

Langford doesn't see real minutes unless there's an injury, or he can beat out Edwards. If he's better than Edwards, Smart can play more backup minutes at the point.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
This is really interesting in having the 3 year window,

Edwards- he can probably get buckets off the bench right now, but his ceiling is also... really good guy at getting buckets off the bench

Williams- He's very NBA ready in many ways, but I wonder how many minutes are there for him to grab the next few years, he's got solid bench guy written all over him though, and his ceiling is higher than Edwards since he can defend and pass.

Langford- he's the swingy one, long term he has the most upside of the trio, but also his role this year seems limited, of course the flip side is he could be useless this year, improve next year, take the leap in year 3, and the year 3 alone brings the most value.


Waters- Maine for a year or two then off to Europe like his predecessors

Fall- probably not an NBA player, upside is Boban-esque 5 minute stint changeup
The C’s provide GW an unusual opportunity to get minutes. Not hard to imagine him being better than TL and Poirier as a rookie, and better than Theis by year 2. I voted for Romeo, but his path to big minutes is less clear, particularly if the C’s re-sign Jaylen next summer.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,613
The assumption you should probably change is 96 mins for the “bigs.” There’s approximately a 100% chance that Tatum and Hayward play significant minutes at the 4.
I don’t think Danny spends all his leftover money after signing Kemba on bigs if he’s not planning to get at least 80 minutes from that group. That leaves 130 minutes for the 5 wings (assuming 30 for Kemba).
yeah, guys I would consider bigs averaged 52 minutes for the Celtics last year. Even if you count Morris as purely a big it was only 77. Danny spent the exception and a minimum on 2 bigs, not suprising considering we lost most of the big man minutes, it's not much of a monetary investment or lost opportunity. Even if both those guys played 20 minutes a night you're probably under 60 total for bigs, and I don't think they both get 20+ a night. However, I would expect Hayward to take most of Morris'' minutes.

We'll probably see "bigs" (Kanter, Theis, Williams, Williams, Poirier) play somewhere between 50 and 65 minutes would be my guess.

The C’s provide GW an unusual opportunity to get minutes. Not hard to imagine him being better than TL and Poirier as a rookie, and better than Theis by year 2. I voted for Romeo, but his path to big minutes is less clear, particularly if the C’s re-sign Jaylen next summer.
If he can play 5, if he can't he's going to be more limited so long as Brown/Tatum/Hayward are all on the roster
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Kemba 30, Edwards 10, Smart 8
Brown, 30, Smart 18,
Tatum, 33, Hayward 15
Hayward 16, GWill 20, Semi 12
Kanter, 22, RWill, 18, Theis or Poirier 8

Langford doesn't see real minutes unless there's an injury, or he can beat out Edwards. If he's better than Edwards, Smart can play more backup minutes at the point.
The C’s wouldn’t have wasted a lottery pick on Langford if they weren’t committed to developing him. If he’s not a train wreck, he’ll get 10-15 minutes a night as a rookie. GW and Edwards, on the other hand, will have to earn their minutes. GW appears to have a more straightforward path to do so.
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
2,175
Williams is pretty much always in the right place defensively, to a shocking degree. His BBIQ is off the charts—main question mark (a big one) is length.
Yes, and add to these points on GW that he boxes out well, set good screens, makes good passes, and is a threat to shoot from a number of locations. If his summer league 3 point shooting carries forward he can help the team quite a bit, often by doing so many things that don't show up in stats, but make for a better team.
 
Last edited:

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,303
New York, NY
I went with Williams. I think he's the highest floor guy, and I'm not very optimistic about Romeo's chances of being good enough to play outside of garbage time in the short term.

Edwards had a flashy summer league, but shooting performance is probably the least translatable skill between summer league and the NBA. His biggest question offensively for me was his passing, not his shooting. There are lot of "gunner" types who can get a shot off against inferior competition, but if they're not looking to pass, they're not going to help their teammates, and in time, NBA defenses will collapse on them and they won't even be able to get a good look off. That's a big part of the difference between IT2 and someone like Dion Waiters. Edwards wasn't a good college passer, and didn't do anything to change that in summer league (lower AST% than Williams for instance).

Would love to be wrong on Edwards obviously, but I'm going to go with Williams. I think he'll be in the rotation very quickly at the 4, and I expect him to start stealing minutes from Kanter at the 5 by midseason as well.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,388
This thread has severe bias already built in to play to the "Never-Strus-er" crowd.

Strus is not your father's Nader...or your younger self's Nader. Until he is even acknowledged this poll is a mockery of polls.

That said, Arson is a bucket. Its hard to see him not having the most immediate impact given his skillset.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,653
Edwards has a skill that every team needs, so I went with him, but I think it's close between him and G. Williams. I think Edwards will be more effective when he's on the floor with better three point shooters than the guys on the Summer league roster.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
431
yeah, guys I would consider bigs averaged 52 minutes for the Celtics last year. Even if you count Morris as purely a big it was only 77. Danny spent the exception and a minimum on 2 bigs, not suprising considering we lost most of the big man minutes, it's not much of a monetary investment or lost opportunity. Even if both those guys played 20 minutes a night you're probably under 60 total for bigs, and I don't think they both get 20+ a night. However, I would expect Hayward to take most of Morris'' minutes.

We'll probably see "bigs" (Kanter, Theis, Williams, Williams, Poirier) play somewhere between 50 and 65 minutes would be my guess.
This discussion certainly doesn’t belong in this thread, and it might deserve its own, but it reframes the conversation in a way that feels less anachronistic and more germane. Instead of asking “who plays the 4,” the better question might be: “what percentage of the time do the C’s play two bigs together?” Given the direction of the league, the tendencies of our coach, and the makeup of our roster, I suspect the answer is very, very small. And by “bigs,” I mean Kanter / Theis / R. Williams / Poirier.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
This discussion certainly doesn’t belong in this thread, and it might deserve its own, but it reframes the conversation in a way that feels less anachronistic and more germane. Instead of asking “who plays the 4,” the better question might be: “what percentage of the time do the C’s play two bigs together?” Given the direction of the league, the tendencies of our coach, and the makeup of our roster, I suspect the answer is very, very small. And by “bigs,” I mean Kanter / Theis / R. Williams / Poirier.
Not sure how it’s not germane — the 3-year impact of the club’s rookies will be driven in no small part by playing time. Brad’s overall strategy is a big input into any forecast of playing time.

I think Brad is going to play two bigs a lot more than you think he will, but my estimate of two-thirds of the time is, on reflection, probably a bit too high.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,416
Kiev, Ukraine
This discussion certainly doesn’t belong in this thread, and it might deserve its own, but it reframes the conversation in a way that feels less anachronistic and more germane. Instead of asking “who plays the 4,” the better question might be: “what percentage of the time do the C’s play two bigs together?” Given the direction of the league, the tendencies of our coach, and the makeup of our roster, I suspect the answer is very, very small. And by “bigs,” I mean Kanter / Theis / R. Williams / Poirier.
Yup, we discussed the question here, and for the same reason: https://www.sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/positions-or-lack-thereof-in-todays-nba.27668/

I'll just note once again that Tatum and Hayward are about as big in terms of height and weight as most teams' 4s, and I expect Brad to see things the same way in most matchups. Using them that way also opens up more minutes for Langford and Edwards (and GWill at the 5).

The answer to "why did Danny spend the remaining money on bigs if he's not going to play them tons" is that he really didn't. He spent money on Kanter, because they need a center who can execute offensively so as not to stunt guys' offensive development. Then after that VP was signed for the minimum, and Theis was signed with Early Bird rights as (ie over the cap) as salary ballast.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,203
I’m looking at the 2019-20 rotation this way:

30 minutes for Kemba
96 minutes for the bigs (Kanter/Theis/Poirier/TL/GW)
114 minutes for Tatum/Jaylen/GH/Smart/Romeo

Even if you think that wing group gets 130 minutes (because they cover some minutes at the 4), I don’t see how Edwards plays a significant role unless there are multiple injuries. If everyone’s healthy, he’s fighting with Wanamaker for the 12th spot and is mostly playing garbage minutes.

Edit: And I totally forgot about Semi. Not sure where he fits.
Holy smokes! That would mean the Celtics would play zero minutes without at least 4 out of the 5 of Kemba/Jaylen/Tatum/Hayward/Smart on the floor. I'd imahine 4 of them will be starters

yeah, guys I would consider bigs averaged 52 minutes for the Celtics last year. Even if you count Morris as purely a big it was only 77. Danny spent the exception and a minimum on 2 bigs, not suprising considering we lost most of the big man minutes, it's not much of a monetary investment or lost opportunity. Even if both those guys played 20 minutes a night you're probably under 60 total for bigs, and I don't think they both get 20+ a night. However, I would expect Hayward to take most of Morris'' minutes.

We'll probably see "bigs" (Kanter, Theis, Williams, Williams, Poirier) play somewhere between 50 and 65 minutes would be my guess.
This seems right to me.

I can't imagine Stevens playing the same amount of minutes, much less more, from his bigs this season when they're of a much lower quality from the bigs he had last year. Besides Poirier who I don't know enough about, I'd guess the only guy who plays much more than garbage time minutes with one of those bigs also on the floor with him is Grant Williams. I'd expect it would be really rare two of Kanter/Theis/Robert Williams would be on the floor together.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,304
Melrose, MA
In 2015, the Celtics drafted Terry Rozier with the 16th pick. He played 311 minutes in the regular season. Ahead of him on the depth chart were the likes of IT, Avery Bradley, Jae Crowder, Evan Turner, Marcus Smart, and even late first-round pick RJ Hunter, who got about the same playing time as Rozier (315 minutes).

That group of players is not as good as what Langford has in front of him: Walker, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,689
Somewhere
I basically assume non lottery picks are lucky to see the floor on a good team. So it comes down to who has the most likely path to contributing and that is Edwards, because you always need shooting.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,843
around the way
I don’t think Danny spends all his leftover money after signing Kemba on bigs if he’s not planning to get at least 80 minutes from that group. That leaves 130 minutes for the 5 wings (assuming 30 for Kemba).
He needs depth at big, but he's not running 96 minutes from that group. When they play small, and they will, you'll see others at 4. Some games will be 80 maybe, but some far less.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
He needs depth at big, but he's not running 96 minutes from that group. When they play small, and they will, you'll see others at 4. Some games will be 80 maybe, but some far less.
I expect every team that has the personnel to do so to play two bigs and run that small lineup off the floor. Maybe two-thirds of the time is too high an estimate, but the C’s will play two bigs a lot more often than folks here are expecting (and probably more often than Danny and Brad are planning).
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
431
Not sure how it’s not germane — the 3-year impact of the club’s rookies will be driven in no small part by playing time. Brad’s overall strategy is a big input into any forecast of playing time.
Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that the discussion of “who will play the four” is no longer germane. When Tatum was drafted, Stevens was asked whether he’d play the three or four. His answer famously was “it doesn’t matter.” When the follow up question demanded which position he would guard, Stevens responded “whoever.” Stevens believes in ballhandlers, wings, and bigs, not threes and fours. So more germane questions might be how often he will deploy two bigs (or two ballhandlers) together than who will be the traditional power forward.

I think Brad is going to play two bigs a lot more than you think he will, but my estimate of two-thirds of the time is, on reflection, probably a bit too high.
I just don’t see how 96 minutes (or even 80) of Kanter/Theis/Poirier/Williamses and 114 (or 130) of Tatum/Brown/Hayward/Smart/reserve is the most effective use of your assets. The four wings and Walker are the strength of your team and figure to get ~150 minutes, with the starting big (most likely Kanter) getting another 25. That leaves 65 minutes free with lots of competition. Smart’s flexibility is key as he could conceivably back up Walker, unless Wanamaker/Edwards commands those minutes, or the wing, if Semi/Grant/Langford don’t emerge. So opportunities abound, and the rookies have a chance to see the court right away. Both G.Williams and Edwards have the physical maturity to play immediately, and Grant in particular has the basketball IQ to have the biggest near-term impact of all within a team concept.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,516
Santa Monica
I expect every team that has the personnel to do so to play two bigs and run that small lineup off the floor. Maybe two-thirds of the time is too high an estimate, but the C’s will play two bigs a lot more often than folks here are expecting (and probably more often than Danny and Brad are planning).
I think we'll see Tatum put on 10lbs of muscle in the offseason like he did last year. Plus a healthier Gordon. So Brad will push those two at the 4/big wing/swing quite a bit.

Bucks, Pacers, 76ers, Orlando, and others will own the lane against us.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,748
Imaginationland
I think we'll see Tatum put on 10lbs of muscle in the offseason like he did last year. Plus a healthier Gordon. So Brad will push those two at the 4/big wing/swing quite a bit.

Bucks, Pacers, 76ers, Orlando, and others will own the lane against us.
I see this sentiment a lot, and I don't quite get it. Why are Tatum and Hayward more likely to play the small 4 than Brown? Is it just because he's 6'7 and both of those guys are 6'8? Brown is the best defender, has the longest wingspan and certainly looks like the strongest of the three (granted Hayward is a few pounds heavier and Tatum has more room to fill out). Beyond that, I'd rather Brown be the one expending extra effort on defense with the bigger guys considering that both Tatum and Hayward have more responsibilities on offense.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,516
Santa Monica
I see this sentiment a lot, and I don't quite get it. Why are Tatum and Hayward more likely to play the small 4 than Brown? Is it just because he's 6'7 and both of those guys are 6'8? Brown is the best defender, has the longest wingspan and certainly looks like the strongest of the three (granted Hayward is a few pounds heavier and Tatum has more room to fill out). Beyond that, I'd rather Brown be the one expending extra effort on defense with the bigger guys considering that both Tatum and Hayward have more responsibilities on offense.
yea sure, it really doesn't matter, as Brad would say all wings. Brown did a decent job on Blake Griffin at one point last season if I recall correctly.

We've pretty much agreed to use 2, 3, 4 as a shorthand, they are more defined in the "positionless thread"

Just think Tatum will eventually grow much larger.
 
Last edited:

Just a bit outside

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
3,523
Monument, CO
I chose Williams because of his defensive positioning. That is the hardest aspect for a rookie and he seems to be ahead of the curve. I could see him with the easiest path to 15 minutes a game this year with an increased role in the following couple of years.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,843
around the way
Brad will have an easy time running out minutes of JB, JT, or GH at the "4" when our opponent is running out an overglorified wing at the same position.

Lots of teams run guys at the 4 who are wings that are 6'10", masquerading as bigs. We can match up with those with smaller guys. When it's Al and Embiid on the floor, clearly we can't. There's more of the latter scenarios than many smallball types want to admit, but there's plenty of the former as well. I trust that Brad will adjust accordingly, depending on who we play. There are a lot of guys who could use minutes and a lot of games.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
I see this sentiment a lot, and I don't quite get it. Why are Tatum and Hayward more likely to play the small 4 than Brown? Is it just because he's 6'7 and both of those guys are 6'8? Brown is the best defender, has the longest wingspan and certainly looks like the strongest of the three (granted Hayward is a few pounds heavier and Tatum has more room to fill out). Beyond that, I'd rather Brown be the one expending extra effort on defense with the bigger guys considering that both Tatum and Hayward have more responsibilities on offense.
I buy Jaylen as a stretch 4 (to the extent such designations matter) more than any of the other wings. Tatum is their second-best wing defender (begins Smart); using him to guard 4s turns a valuable strength into a weakness. Hayward seems even less plausible. Smart can occasionally guard an opposing big but is obviously not a 4.

The problem is that Jaylen hasn’t played as big as you’d think from his physical size, if that makes sense. And of course, he doesn’t rebound for shit.
 

Bad Penny

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2009
65
When rest and injuries are factored in last years top 14 players all played 30+ games and the team as a whole averaged 285 minutes a game (not 240). This is approximately 57 minutes a game per position. I think G. Williams, R. Langford, and C.Edwards can find time if they are deemed worthy.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,203
I see this sentiment a lot, and I don't quite get it. Why are Tatum and Hayward more likely to play the small 4 than Brown? Is it just because he's 6'7 and both of those guys are 6'8? Brown is the best defender, has the longest wingspan and certainly looks like the strongest of the three (granted Hayward is a few pounds heavier and Tatum has more room to fill out). Beyond that, I'd rather Brown be the one expending extra effort on defense with the bigger guys considering that both Tatum and Hayward have more responsibilities on offense.
Because someone is also going to have to cover a guard when those three are on the court together. I think that guy should clearly be Jaylen. Even when Jaylen is on the court with one of them and say Kemba and Smart. I'd much rather have Jaylen on the likely quicker wing player than the likely bigger 4/small 4/other forward/whatever we're calling it.

I don't think any of the three is a great option playing a bigger guy, but think Jaylen is definitely the best option to cover the quickest guy.