Talking about "Bigs"

This term gets tossed around a lot , along with the assertion that the Celtics need them. I`m looking for a clarification of what is meant by a " big." Roy Hibbert is a big by any standard. So is Mozgov. I doubt that any of us is pining after either of them. Eric Fernsten and Henry Finkel were 7 footers, of marginal use in their days and less so today. On the other hand, some of the best rebounders in NBA history would be considered undersized if your definition of a "big" is a guy 6`10 and above. Russ:6`9; Rodman: 6`8 or 9;Unseld:6`7; Barkley:6`6 on tippytoes; Cowens 6`8 or 9. The Celtics need rebounders for sure . They could certainly use a shotblocker. If that`s what you guys are saying, I`m with you. the traditional "big " is of little use in today`s NBA. We had two 7 footers last year, neither of whom outrebounded Avery Bradley. Let`s hope Ainge goes out and gets us a rebounder. If he`s tall, all the better. Boxing out, a bit of a lost art , would help.

Rosalie

I do not think the 7 footers are going away. However the way centers are being used now makes the traditional 7 footer as primarily a post player obsolete.

But there will be a revolution of 7 footers that will have both wing skills post skills

dboss

Of course seven footers aren`t going away (although KO did.). My point is that rebounders come in all sizes. Rosalie`s description of Sullinger is apt. If only he could have stayed in something resembling shape, or, more literally, a shape other than ovoid.

"Bigs" is a fairly new and somewhat confusing term (at least to me) in the NBA.

I understand the league has moved to shorter player/faster model of play, and that the old 7 foot, lane clogging, slow down the court, shoot from no further away from the hoop than five feet guys are no longer going to be found.  

But, playing BIG is more important than just standing big.  I am not going to speak about any other team than the Cs because about the only time I see other teams is when the Cs play them, but the Cs, for the last couple of years, have just not played BIG.

I could see if the entire roster was 5'9 like Thomas, but when I watch our games I rarely see opponents who are very much taller than our guys.  An inch or two across the board should not be the reason why we often get out rebounded by 12, 15 or more in any game.  However, we get out rebounded far too many times at the ends of games especially in games we lose.

Last season Avery Bradley should have brought to the attention of every Cs fan, coach and administrator that you need not be especially tall to add to your rebounding total when he set a goal to get more rebounds and then almost doubled his career average without getting probably an eighth of an inch taller.

If every guy on the roster could "decide" to do what Bradley did last season in the rebounding department and just add two more rebounds to their career averages we would not be ranked in the bottom 1/4th of the league in any rebounding categories.  Sheeze, more wins would result as well.

I remember standing and listening to one of the best rebounders in Cs history at a clinic for high school coaches in the 1970s. Paul Silas more than emphatically stated that rebounding is far more about paying attention, getting into position and then just not letting another guy take a ball away from you than it is about being tall or jumping high.

Silas was perhaps 6'6 and claimed on that day that he never lost a rebound to a taller guy or to a guy who could jump higher than he could if he was in position and stayed determined to get that rebound.

At maybe 6'6 this claim seems hard to back up, but his conviction was so positive that it was also difficult to doubt him then and even now.

There has to be someone on the coaching staff who can coach the skills that Bradley brought back to fall practices last season and Silas carried with him throughout his long career.  

Do we have a "rebounding coach"?  If not, lets get one!

RosalieTCeltics wrote:Silas was a great example.  He was one hell of a ballplayer.  That ball was his,  if he was anywhere near the rebound. Same with Cowens, but some of this is just part of their personality.  

We do not have a big man coach, we did in Clifford Ray years ago. KG was doing it for Doc last year. Robert Parish, at one point, would have made a great big man coach. Actually, I think Kevin McHale  was more than just a coach for KG, he helped him alot over the years they were together.

The subject has come up over the years, with all those coaches sitting on the bench with Stevens, one should be a big man coach. (maybe Walter works with alot of the players, I don't know.)

KO's game is the exact opposite of Silas and Cowens, can a 7 footer not be considered a big? in this case I think so.

jrleftfoot wrote:This term gets tossed around a lot , along with the assertion that the Celtics need them. I`m looking for a clarification of what is meant by a " big." Roy Hibbert is a big by any standard. So is Mozgov. I doubt that any of us is pining after either of them. Eric Fernsten and Henry Finkel were 7 footers, of marginal use in their days and less so today. On the other hand, some of the best rebounders in NBA history would be considered undersized if your definition of a "big" is a guy 6`10 and above. Russ:6`9; Rodman: 6`8 or 9;Unseld:6`7; Barkley:6`6 on tippytoes; Cowens 6`8 or 9. The Celtics need rebounders for sure . They could certainly use a shotblocker. If that`s what you guys are saying, I`m with you. the traditional "big " is of little use in today`s NBA. We had two 7 footers last year, neither of whom outrebounded Avery Bradley. Let`s hope Ainge goes out and gets us a rebounder. If he`s tall, all the better. Boxing out, a bit of a lost art , would help.

Russell looks like a legit 6'10" to me

RosalieTCeltics wrote:Silas was a great example.  He was one hell of a ballplayer.  That ball was his,  if he was anywhere near the rebound. Same with Cowens, but some of this is just part of their personality.  

We do not have a big man coach, we did in Clifford Ray years ago. KG was doing it for Doc last year. Robert Parish, at one point, would have made a great big man coach. Actually, I think Kevin McHale  was more than just a coach for KG, he helped him alot over the years they were together.

The subject has come up over the years, with all those coaches sitting on the bench with Stevens, one should be a big man coach. (maybe Walter works with alot of the players, I don't know.)

Rosalie,

I think Waltah is our big man coach.


bob


.

jrleftfoot wrote:This term gets tossed around a lot , along with the assertion that the Celtics need them. I`m looking for a clarification of what is meant by a " big." Roy Hibbert is a big by any standard. So is Mozgov. I doubt that any of us is pining after either of them. Eric Fernsten and Henry Finkel were 7 footers, of marginal use in their days and less so today. On the other hand, some of the best rebounders in NBA history would be considered undersized if your definition of a "big" is a guy 6`10 and above. Russ:6`9; Rodman: 6`8 or 9;Unseld:6`7; Barkley:6`6 on tippytoes; Cowens 6`8 or 9. The Celtics need rebounders for sure . They could certainly use a shotblocker. If that`s what you guys are saying, I`m with you. the traditional "big " is of little use in today`s NBA. We had two 7 footers last year, neither of whom outrebounded Avery Bradley. Let`s hope Ainge goes out and gets us a rebounder. If he`s tall, all the better. Boxing out, a bit of a lost art , would help.

JR,

One cautionary note on the players mentioned.  There was a time, and I don't know exactly when things changed, that NBA players were measured in their bare feet.  I know that Russell was, Big Wes and Cowens probably were too.  Barkley, Rodman and onwards probably not.  So, if you put a young, barefoot 6'9" - 6'9 1/2" Bill Russell in today's air-cushioned sneakers and measured him he'd probably be 6'10 1/2 - 6'11", and they might even round up to 7'  just to make fans think he's taller.  There is no honesty or integrity in the biological statistics provided by the NBA anymore, it's all marketing.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:This term gets tossed around a lot , along with the assertion that the Celtics need them. I`m looking for a clarification of what is meant by a " big." Roy Hibbert is a big by any standard. So is Mozgov. I doubt that any of us is pining after either of them. Eric Fernsten and Henry Finkel were 7 footers, of marginal use in their days and less so today. On the other hand, some of the best rebounders in NBA history would be considered undersized if your definition of a "big" is a guy 6`10 and above. Russ:6`9; Rodman: 6`8 or 9;Unseld:6`7; Barkley:6`6 on tippytoes; Cowens 6`8 or 9. The Celtics need rebounders for sure . They could certainly use a shotblocker. If that`s what you guys are saying, I`m with you. the traditional "big " is of little use in today`s NBA. We had two 7 footers last year, neither of whom outrebounded Avery Bradley. Let`s hope Ainge goes out and gets us a rebounder. If he`s tall, all the better. Boxing out, a bit of a lost art , would help.

JR,

One cautionary note on the players mentioned.  There was a time, and I don't know exactly when things changed, that NBA players were measured in their bare feet.  I know that Russell was, Big Wes and Cowens probably were too.  Barkley, Rodman and onwards probably not.  So, if you put a young, barefoot 6'9" - 6'9 1/2" Bill Russell in today's air-cushioned sneakers and measured him he'd probably be 6'10 1/2 - 6'11", and they might even round up to 7'  just to make fans think he's taller.  There is no honesty or integrity in the biological statistics provided by the NBA anymore, it's all marketing.


bob


.

exactly!! LIKE

OK, I thought there was a nice long post here last year about why Bradley was getting so many rebounds last year.

as I recall, it is a game plan now being used around the NBA. The "bigs" block out and let the wings and guards grab the rebounds, is the jest of it. It is much more in depth of course, but being in depth in not in my wheelhouse.

Just another reason why those big men of old have been phased out now. It IS part of the game plan both on defense and in rebounding .

this year we will have a lineup of 3 guys  between 6-4 and 6-9 along with Horford and Thomas.

I think our rebounding will be better without any additions even.

RosalieTCeltics wrote:I think Jaylen will be a strong rebounder this year which should help make up for the loss of Bradley's rebounding. The rest remains to be seen.  

By the way, barefoot or in sneakers, Russell would still 'kick their ass"
As he said when he received the award last week!!!!

Easy to say - but it would be a lot harder to do. Stone age basketball vs the 21st century.


swish

If you want to call shooting the 3 pointer small ball - that's fine - but there's nothing smaller, weight and height wise, about the size of the modern center, center forward compared to the bigs that played prior to the days of frequent 3 point usage.

swish

RosalieTCeltics wrote:You can argue with Russell and Tommy Heinsohn about that. I am sure their thoughts would be different than yours.

And, I agree with Russ, his heart alone would beat them, never mind his size.  Never going to change my mind about that, and there is someone no longer here who would back me up. We talked about it often.

"Everyone has their own opinion

"

How true - And we've both offered our opinion on this subject many times.

swish

wideclyde wrote:"Bigs" is a fairly new and somewhat confusing term (at least to me) in the NBA.

I understand the league has moved to shorter player/faster model of play, and that the old 7 foot, lane clogging, slow down the court, shoot from no further away from the hoop than five feet guys are no longer going to be found.  

But, playing BIG is more important than just standing big.  I am not going to speak about any other team than the Cs because about the only time I see other teams is when the Cs play them, but the Cs, for the last couple of years, have just not played BIG.

I could see if the entire roster was 5'9 like Thomas, but when I watch our games I rarely see opponents who are very much taller than our guys.  An inch or two across the board should not be the reason why we often get out rebounded by 12, 15 or more in any game.  However, we get out rebounded far too many times at the ends of games especially in games we lose.

Last season Avery Bradley should have brought to the attention of every Cs fan, coach and administrator that you need not be especially tall to add to your rebounding total when he set a goal to get more rebounds and then almost doubled his career average without getting probably an eighth of an inch taller.

If every guy on the roster could "decide" to do what Bradley did last season in the rebounding department and just add two more rebounds to their career averages we would not be ranked in the bottom 1/4th of the league in any rebounding categories.  Sheeze, more wins would result as well.

I remember standing and listening to one of the best rebounders in Cs history at a clinic for high school coaches in the 1970s.  Paul Silas more than  emphatically stated that rebounding is far more about paying attention, getting into position and then just not letting another guy take a ball away from you than it is about being tall or jumping high.

Silas was perhaps 6'6 and claimed on that day that he never lost a rebound to a taller guy or to a guy who could jump higher than he could if he was in position and stayed determined to get that rebound.

At maybe 6'6 this claim seems hard to back up, but his conviction was so positive that it was also difficult to doubt him then and even now.

There has to be someone on the coaching staff who can coach the skills that Bradley brought back to fall practices last season and Silas carried with him throughout his long career.  

Do we have a "rebounding coach"?  If not, lets get one!

Really good analysis. I liked it when Clifford Ray was coaching the centers, even though he couldn`t teach Perk not to bring the ball down to his waist.  Silas probably had a rebound snatched from him on occasion, but he knew how to use his elbows. You could swing them around in his day.

Timely topic.

I'd most closely go with Rosalie's description of a big.

To me a big is someone who can play the C/F slot, but there seem to be height and wingspan numbers, along with weight, that allow for better defense at the rim and rebounding needed at those spots.  6'8" seems to be a minimum, but I'd rather see 6"10" with a good wingspan.

If you're looking for low-post play, scoring from the block, defense in the paint, and the ability to block shots, there's no way around the need for size.

The modern big may need to be able to shoot and defend out to the perimeter, but I think there's still a demand for old-school size and skills.

swish is correct that the game has changed, players are bigger , stronger , faster , etc., but having watched the Celtics through several eras , the idea that William F. Russell would be anything less than a dominant player today is baffling to me. He could run the court with any of today`s bigs, was a wonderful outlet passer, had a great feel for the direction of the rebound, would still come out of nowhere to block shots,was as competetive as anybody in the history of sport, and his quickness , speed , instincts and ability to adjust to his opponents strengths and weaknesses are perfectly compatible with today`s game. He had  every bit of David Robinson`s athletic ability and then some. Does anybody doubt that Robinson could help a team today? Rudy Gobert is better? Give me a break. Russ would have to work on his 3 point shooting, though.

NYCelt wrote:Timely topic.

I'd most closely go with Rosalie's description of a big.

To me a big is someone who can play the C/F slot, but there seem to be height and wingspan numbers, along with weight, that allow for better defense at the rim and rebounding needed at those spots.  6'8" seems to be a minimum, but I'd rather see 6"10" with a good wingspan.

If you're looking for low-post play, scoring from the block, defense in the paint, and the ability to block shots, there's no way around the need for size.

The modern big may need to be able to shoot and defend out to the perimeter, but I think there's still a demand for old-school size and skills.

NYCelt

A world war #1 song sort of sums it up for the modern center center-forward. "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm - after they've seen Paree."

I live across the street from a town outdoor recreational facility - and get to see many kids, each with there own basketball, heading to the courts - mostly young, under 15 year olds, imitating their favorite nba player - firing long jumpers and all the ambidextrous ball handling that goes with the modern game - and you know what? - some of them grow up to be BIGS - and many of these BIGS are now armed with these courtwide skills, so try to convince them that they are going to be restricted to playing within a few feet of the basket. No going back now as the game has changed and it sure isn't the game that I grew up with - as the versatility and skill level of the players continue to expand.

swish

Swish,

I'm trying to picture you singing that one...

I wouldn't suggest that bigs need to be restricted to just yesterday's set of skills.  But in addition to backing out and shooting from the local McDonald's, I think a team still needs bigs who have those low-post, banging and boarding skills.

You're certainly right, the game has changed, but someone still has to rebound the ball and defend the paint.

Regards

jrleftfoot wrote:swish is correct that the game has changed, players are bigger , stronger , faster , etc., but having watched the Celtics through several eras , the idea that William F. Russell would be anything less than a dominant player today is baffling to me. He could run the court with any of today`s bigs, was a wonderful outlet passer, had a great feel for the direction of the rebound, would still come out of nowhere to block shots,was as competetive as anybody in the history of sport, and his quickness , speed , instincts and ability to adjust to his opponents strengths and weaknesses are perfectly compatible with today`s game. He had  every bit of David Robinson`s athletic ability and then some. Does anybody doubt that Robinson could help a team today? Rudy Gobert is better? Give me a break. Russ would have to work on his 3 point shooting, though.

jrleftfoot,

Have you ever taken the time to seriously examine the level of the competition 55 or 60 years ago - Their race, their weight, their height, their basketball skill level?

swish

NYCelt wrote:Swish,

I'm trying to picture you singing that one...

I wouldn't suggest that bigs need to be restricted to just yesterday's set of skills.  But in addition to backing out and shooting from the local McDonald's, I think a team still needs bigs who have those low-post, banging and boarding skills.

You're certainly right, the game has changed, but someone still has to rebound the ball and defend the paint.

Regards

Sang that song all the time that I was typing. Just about every team has their big body (bigger than ever ) at the center position, but with the arrival of the 3 point shot the emphasis has now shifted to the skill level of the out side shooters - who in numerous cases include bigs that in the past would have been lurking in the paint. I suspect that rebounding is now playing 2nd fiddle to a high level of shooting effiency.

swish