Who is the 3rd best Celtic of all time?

[BigHands]

<snip>

Hey look, is there anyone out there on my side?

<snip>

I agree with "Your Man in Urbana"....Cowens was awesome.

His combination of speed and toughness was unmatched in his era.

When Bid Red was a rookie the Celtics were trying to decide if someone his size could play center in a league that was populated with folks like Wilt Chamberlain, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Walt Belamy, Kareem Jabbar, Bob Lanier, and Nate Thurman.

So Auerbach and Heinsohn brought in Bill Russell to work against Cowens to get his opinion. Russell worked out against Cowens and told both Auerbach and Heinsohn...."don't worry, no one is going to intimidate this kid"

And no ever did...MVP his 3rd year in the league and made a habit of running his opponent into the ground...he even out rebounded Kareem most years.

1973 Time magazine article on Cowens

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 22,00.html

[Jammer]

The thing that I remember is the All-Star Games:

Cowens faced:

Abdul Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain in 1972 (Cowens 2nd Season),
Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond in 1973,
Abdul Jabbar, Nate Thurmond and Bob Lanier in 1974,
Abdul Jabbar in 1975
Abdul Jabbar in 1976
Bill Walton, Artis Gilmore and Bob Lanier in 1978

Cowens Stats in All-Star Games

1972 - 32 Minutes, 14 points, 20 rebounds (Lost by 2)
1973- 30 minutes, 15 pts., 13 rebounds (Won by 20) - MVP
1974 - 26 minutes, 11 pts., 12 rebounds
1975 - 15 minutes, 6 points, 6 rebounds (Won by 6)
1976 - 23 minutes, 16 points, 16 rebounds (Won by 14)
1977 - Injured, Skipped Game
1978 - 28 minutes, 14 points, 14 rebounds (Won by 8 )

Cowens was a career 50% shooter from the field in All-Star Games (33-66)

What Cowens managed those first 8 seasons in Boston was amazing, from a defensive perspective.

I think that people who never saw him play, with his leaping ability, and ability to cover ground as a help defender, can't appreciate his superiority.

McHale on steroids might have come close, but Kevin just didn't bring it every night like Dave did.

There were two seasons after Lenny Bias died, though, where McHale elevated his game. Shame about Lenny.

[wigglestrue]

"But the early to mid 70s was closer to a golden age."

Dude, no.

The NBA overall was significantly weakened by the ABA.

[sully00]

I am not trying to take anything away from Cowens but the guy was great for 6 years and we are comparing him to a player who was great for 13. 20/7/5 over 16 years at the guard postion. The other thing that I kind of hold against Cowens is that he had the chance Havlicek did. To be a part of another run with Bird and he chose to go drive a cab or whatever the hell he did and then made that random comeback with the Bucks.

I can buy that Cowens was more valuable to those two title teams in the 70's but you are not going to convince me that he was a greater Celtic than Havlicek or Cousy for that matter and frankly Tommy deserves more love than he is getting when you factor in the coaching career.

[wigglestrue]

I can buy that Cowens was more valuable to those two title teams in the 70's but you are not going to convince me that he was a greater Celtic than Havlicek or Cousy for that matter and frankly Tommy deserves more love than he is getting when you factor in the coaching career.

We're only talking about players. But if you bring other elements into it like coaching and managing, then Red Auerbach is probably the #1 Celtic of all time, right? And you're right, Tommy's significance would be magnified, too.

[elrod enchilada]

Wigglestrue--

You are correct the ABA existed in the ealry-mid 1970s and it had several tremendous players. Had they played in the NBA at the time, the league would have been mind-boggling. But since I suspect you were not a fan from 1971-76, or your memory had faded with the years, let me draw a few facts to your attention.

1. The late 60s and early 70s was a period when basketball vaulted into prominence. One cause and/or consequence was a signficant increase in the number of talented players, especially African-American players. There was enough talent to accommodate the expansion in the humber of teams.

2. When the ABA merged with the NBA it brought over four teams, so there was not a huge increase in the average player level in the league as a whole. It is not like there was a quantum leap in the caliber of play after the merger. Indeed, after Walton went down the league was in a two year slump until Magic and Bird came aboard.

3. If you had actually seen the top NBA teams of the early-mid 70s play -- the Cs, the Knicks, the Lakers, the Bucks, the Bullets, the Warriors -- you would be less quick to throw that era and the two championships the Cs won into the remainder bin. Those teams won all the titles from 70-76 (actually 69-76) and there was not a sub-par champion in the group.

[wigglestrue]

Dude, who threw that era in the "remainder bin"? Not me.

In the late 60's, the ABA hadn't even affected the NBA really. You are stranded on an opinion island here, elrod, if you think the NBA in the early-mid 70's wasn't weakened to a significant degree by the ABA. To what degree? Hard to say. Nothing drastic, but something. Again, where did I say "quantum leap" or "huge increase"? Is this just like where I supposedly had "no love" for Cowens? Please actually respond to what I'm writing, not to what you wish I were writing to make it easier on you to rebut.

[elrod enchilada]

Wigglestrue--

Do me a favor. When you have a spare moment, do a little research on the 70 Knicks, 71 Bucks, 72 Lakers, 73 Knicks and the 74 and 76 Cs. Then toss in the Bulls and the Bullets and the Warriors, who won a couple of titles and were 50 win teams numerous times.

If you truly think these teams were not of the same caliber at the teams that played and made the conference finals a decade earlier, that they were not even as good as the Cs teams of 68 or 69, fair enough. We just understand the game differently.

But if you do look at those teams closely I think you will understand where I am coming from.

[wigglestrue]

Wigglestrue--

Do me a favor. When you have a spare moment, do a little research on the 70 Knicks, 71 Bucks, 72 Lakers, 73 Knicks and the 74 and 76 Cs. Then toss in the Bulls and the Bullets and the Warriors, who won a couple of titles and were 50 win teams numerous times.

If you truly think these teams were not of the same caliber at the teams that played and made the conference finals a decade earlier, that they were not even as good as the Cs teams of 68 or 69, fair enough. We just understand the game differently.

But if you do look at those teams closely I think you will understand where I am coming from.

Dude, I'm talking about the league as a whole, not the single best teams from each year. You are changing the subject. League-wide, the caliber of NBA talent was weakened to a significant degree when the ABA was at its height. You wanna debate the degree? Fine. But you cannot question the general premise. It's a fact. Just like it's a fact that Havlicek and Cousy were greater players than Cowens. No matter how many clever points you make about things that we are or are not talking about, in response to things I did or did not say, you cannot alter reality. No one can. NBA talent overall was weakened TO SOME EXTENT during the ABA's golden age: FACT. John Havlicek and Bob Cousy were greater players than Dave Cowens: FACT.

[captain_cheapseats]

Hey look, is there anyone out there on my side? If this board thinks the two NBA titles the Cs won in the 70s are chopped liver, they were "cheapies" that any old franchise could get, that Dave Cowens was OK but not a rare and special talent the likes of which we see only once in a generation, that the 1974 and 1976 NBA titles should be tossed back in the water, they pale by comparison to the "real" titles in the 60s and the 80s, I will stop now. I am getting lonely.

I think you are correct in saying that if you down play longevity, Cowens is clearly ahead of Hondo. In fact, I think if you just consider a 3-4 year span, a good argument could be made that he was better than Bird as well. But while I agree with the logic of what you're saying, I place a much heavier emphasis on cumulative stats than you do, and hence give Hondo the edge.

As for the 70's teams, I agree 100%. Like I wrote earlier:

IMO those teams are easily the most underrated of all-time, in large part because Hondo was injured during the '73 playoffs costing them a shot at winning 3 chips instead of 2. But anyway, I'd put the 1974 team right up there with any of the other teams typically mentioned in the discussion of all-time greatest teams.