Where Would The Celtics Be...

SpiderMunn · Post #1 » by **SpiderMunn** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:26 am

Where would the celtics be if they had Al Jefferson instead of KG ?

Pats19andO · Post #2 » by **Pats19andO** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:27 am

2nd seed behind Detroit
Wouldnt look nearly as good as a team
Al doesnt command a double team like Kg
We would have a much deeper bench though...

Post #3 » by **FNQ** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:31 am

Pats19andO wrote:2nd seed behind Detroit
Wouldnt look nearly as good as a team
Al doesnt command a double team like Kg
We would have a much deeper bench though...

Oh I'm sure even Boston fans are angry with how clueless you make them look

Without KG they are middle of the road Eastern team (5th-10th seed)... KG is light years ahead of Jefferson... KG is the reason Boston is great. Taking him off is taking off the most important cog. Now if you take Allen off... you'd probably have a 2nd seeded team. Take Pierce, maybe a 4th-6th seed...

hermes · Post #4 » by **hermes** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:36 am

are you just switching kg and jefferson?

3-5 seed

bballcool34 · Post #5 » by **bballcool34** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:40 am

Without Garnett, the Celts would probably be a 4-8 seed, most likely 5th or 6th imo. Very subjective question- hard to give a definite answer.

j-ragg · Post #6 » by **j-ragg** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:40 am

Who cares?

RealTalkof916 · Post #7 » by **RealTalkof916** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:41 am

Probably a #2 or #3 seed.

They'd definitely be on top of the Atlantic, but they wouldn't be nearly as dominant defensively.

ChampionRed · Post #8 » by **ChampionRed** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:44 am

Pats19andO wrote:2nd seed behind Detroit
Wouldnt look nearly as good as a team
Al doesnt command a double team like Kg
We would have a much deeper bench though...

Maybe 4-5th.

MagicFan3 · Post #9 » by **MagicFan3** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:47 am

Definitely not in the top 3, even in the East. Jefferson isn't even that great this season, and he's playing on the worst team in the league. KG is easily the best of the big three in Boston. If you undo the KG trade, all they would have added is Allen. That's a good team, but teams would adjust and just guard the perimeter, at which point they would be screwed.

gmurray8 · Post #10 » by **gmurray8** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:51 am

The better question is:

Where would the Celtics be with:

Yi Jianlin
Wally Szcerbiak
Delonte West

instead of:

Ray Allen

BigHands · Post #11 » by **BigHands** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:55 am

I am a Celtic fan and they would be hurting bad without KG.

Jefferson is good...maybe great someday.....but the Celtic defense is built on KG's skill and fire. They would be lost without him.

I have been watching the Celtics for 47 years and I can tell you that KG running the floor is a dramatically underrated aspect of his game.

Big men that run the floor play havoc with the opponent unless they have a big man that can and will keep up.

Russell, Cowens, and Parish were all the best running big men of their day and when KG is motoring the Celtic's are a real handful.

KG's numbers will be down this year but his effect on the team has been almost Russell-like.

If the Celtics did not have Ray Allen they would not have KG.

MagicFan3 · Post #12 » by **MagicFan3** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:57 am

gmurray8 wrote:The better question is:

Where would the Celtics be with:

Yi Jianlin
Wally Szcerbiak
Delonte West

instead of:

Ray Allen

That would be a more interesting argument. They would probably still be 2nd or 3rd.

PopAGat · Post #13 » by **PopAGat** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:00 am

They would be no where near the top team they are now. It would change everything. KG's level of basketball is way higher then Jefferson's. The go to guy on the Celtics right now is Garnett. However if you switch them then the go to guy would probably be Pierce. With Jefferson replacing KG, I think they would be 8th possibly..out of the playoff race.

MagicFan3 · Post #14 » by **MagicFan3** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:02 am

PopAGat wrote:They would be no where near the top team they are now. It would change everything. KG's level of basketball is way higher then Jefferson's. The go to guy on the Celtics right now is Garnett. However if you switch them then the go to guy would probably be Pierce. With Jefferson replacing KG, I think they would be 8th possibly..out of the playoff race.

Exactly, and this brings them back to every other Celtics team since the late 90's.

Joyeuse · Post #15 » by **Joyeuse** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:03 am

The Celtics would still be a decent team without the Garnett trade. They would probably still be leading their division at this point, say 20-12, which would make them fourth seed at this point. Their offense would be brilliant, but their defense would be mediocre to poor.

gmurray8 wrote:The better question is:

Where would the Celtics be with:

Yi Jianlin
Wally Szcerbiak
Delonte West

instead of:

Ray Allen

Garnett only consented to a trade after Ray Allen joined the Celtics, so... mediocre team that would struggle to make the playoffs, most likely.

Joyeuse · Post #16 » by **Joyeuse** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:04 am

PopAGat wrote:They would be no where near the top team they are now. It would change everything. KG's level of basketball is way higher then Jefferson's. The go to guy on the Celtics right now is Garnett. However if you switch them then the go to guy would probably be Pierce. With Jefferson replacing KG, I think they would be 8th possibly..out of the playoff race.

Paul Pierce is still the go to guy on the Celtics on offense. KG is huge on offense, but his contributions are much greater on defense.

kandiking · Post #17 » by **kandiking** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:05 am

MagicFan3 wrote: Jefferson isn't even that great this season, and he's playing on the worst team in the league.

21 and 12 with no center and playing with the worst group of guards in recent memory while being constantly double and triple (at one point i saw quadruple) teamed?

MagicFan3 · Post #18 » by **MagicFan3** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:10 am

kandiking wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

21 and 12 with no center and playing with the worst group of guards in recent memory while being constantly double and triple (at one point i saw quadruple) teamed?

He is their number one (and only) option, so he better be averaging 20 points.

JordansBulls · Post #19 » by **JordansBulls** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 6:29 am

They would have had a ton of depth and still a big 3 of Pierce, Ray and Al. They would be good enough to win the east but not the title.

kandiking · Post #20 » by **kandiking** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 6:35 am

MagicFan3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He is their number one (and only) option, so he better be averaging 20 points.

yeah, he's the #1 option, but that's not the point. but you could also argue that his numbers would be better if he had a better point guard. look at the jazz, there's plenty of options on that team, but carlos boozer averages almost 25 a night.