Are the 2008 - 2012 Celtics underrated? (Warriors Comparison)

[SamuraiSWISH]

Re watching the 2008, and 2010 Finals ...

That 2008 Celtic team is massively underrated now it seems. They were flat out dominant all season. 67 wins. And besides 2 seven game series hiccups due to a seeming on/off switch of focus. The Finals weren't near as competitive as they should've been.

And they managed to be even better the next season after winning a ring with improved Rondo. Before KG had his career altering injury.

2010 cruised during the regular season but looked amazing in the playoffs, and Finals.

To be honest, while the 2015 and 2016 Warriors are probably better teams overall due to their offensive capabilities. Those Celtics teams felt better built for playoff basketball. Tough. Physical.

Watching the replay, the games were more physical than the past two Finals. Boston got away with very physical defense, and the refs were swallowing the whistles.

Those 2008, and 2010 Celtics are definitely better defensively than the Warriors of the past two seasons.

My question to ISH. Is that an underrated team now given they only won 1 championship? But they pushed LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to form down in South Beach as their legacy.

Also, who are you taking as the superior on ball defender between Tony Allen of that time period, and Iguodala of the past couple years?

How do you think the recent two year stretch of the Warriors would fare against those Celtics teams?

[tpols]

how would you rank them when healthy ?

2008
2010
2012
2011

[SouBeachTalents]

Re watching the 2008, and 2010 Finals ...

That 2008 Celtic team is massively underrated now it seems. They were flat out dominant all season. 67 wins. And besides 2 seven game series hiccups due to a seeming on/off switch of focus. The Finals weren't near as competitive as they should've been.

And they managed to be even better the next season after winning a ring with improved Rondo. Before KG had his career altering injury.

2010 cruised during the regular season but looked amazing in the playoffs, and Fimals.

To be honest, while the 2015 and 2016 Warriors are probably better teams overall due to their offensive capabilities. Those Celtics teams felt better built for playoff basketball. Tough. Physical.

Watching the replay, the games were more physical than the past two Finals. Boston got away with very physical defense, and the refs were swallowing the whistles.

Those 2008, and 2010 Celtics are definitely better defensively than the Warriors of the past two seasons.

My question to ISH. Is that an underrated team now given they only won 1 championship? But they pushed LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to form down in South Beach as their legacy.

Also, who are you taking as the superior on ball defender between Tony Allen of that time period, and Iguodala of the past couple years?

How do you think the recent two year stretch of the Warriors would fare against those Celtics teams?

The '08 Celtics were a great team, but their playoff performance was extremely underwhelming. Getting pushed to 7 games by the fuccing Hawks & the Cavs with LeBron being dreadful half the series is FAR from dominating the playoffs. Even the next two rounds were nothing special, tied 2-2 they beat the Pistons by 12 points combined the next 2 games, and were one historic collapse away from being tied 2-2 in the Finals, although yes, Game 6 was a masterful performance

[FreezingTsmoove]

Kobe was 6-7 against those Celtics in the playoffs. Those C's also knocked Lebron and Wade out the playoffs many times

Lebron is 6-7 against the Warriors in the playoffs

In the finals both teams won 7 out of 13 games

I would say they are even right now

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Definitely underrated, and for me, the last squad who had a 90s throw back feel. Gritty, tough, trash talking and skillfully well-rounded.

Had KG remained healthy, circa 2009 would've been their best version. That Laker team was nice, but I don't think even they matchup well with a full-powered Boston blitz.

[SamuraiSWISH]

how would you rank them when healthy ?

2008
2010
2012
2011
Am I including 2009 when mentioning health? They were at their best in 2009 with improved Rondo before KG went down with his injury.

2010 forward, KG was like 70 percent of the player he was in 2008 and 2009.

1) 2009
2) 2008
3) 2010
4) 2011
5) 2012

How do you compare them to the Warriors of the past few years? And whose the better on ball defender between Allen and Iguodala on the opposing team's best player ...

[Smoke117]

That 2009 Celtics team would have repeated for sure. Rondo was getting better, Ray was healthy (a lot of people forget he came into the 08 season coming off of double ankle surgeries), and they had a year of experience...that team pretty much looked unstoppable before KG went down. That 2008 team is underrated because they had those 7 game series...but if you watched those series...it was pretty easy to tell that the Celtics were coasting through some games while going full out on others...not an especially smart way to play, but it was what it was. Neither of those series needed to go 7 games. Ray was also distracted by his kid being sick and awful early on.

[ArbitraryWater]

Definitely underrated, and for me, the last squad who had a 90s throw back feel. Gritty, tough, trash talking and skillfully well-rounded.

Had KG remained healthy, circa 2009 would've been their best version. That Laker team was nice, but I don't think even they matchup well with a full-powered Boston blitz.

This is very true, but to go further than that? By 2010 they were a pretty ordinary finals type team... even in 2008 they looked bad during the playoffs, on the brink of exit against Cleveland.

Stand no chance against GSW.

[tpols]

Am I including 2009 when mentioning health? They were at their best in 2009 with improved Rondo before KG went down with his injury.

2010 forward, KG was like 70 percent of the player he was in 2008 and 2009.

1) 2009
2) 2008
3) 2010
4) 2011
5) 2012



KG had a resurgence in 2012 though.. i forget the exact numbers but his on off defensive impact was improving the D by like 30 points.. and he was playing true center. Rondo's best playoff years came in 2010 and 2012 imo, and he was an all around beast in them.




How do you compare them to the Warriors of the past few years? And whose the better on ball defender between Allen and Iguodala on the opposing team's best player ...

i have warriors better than any non 2008 celtic team, and on par with that team themselves (both historically great teams).. I know '16 didnt win the title, but i feel like they caught a lot of bad breaks that the '08 celtics didnt catch in terms of health and things.. they looked really dominant for a while.


I would say tony allen is the slightly better defender, with iggy being the better player..

[NBAGOAT]

yes they were and wat you said is mostly. not sure about allen vs iggy since allen didnt have that reputation yet in boston. the main problem is the difference in "offensive capabilities" is huge. Celtics were around average or below those years. warriors are def better than the celtics besides 08 and healthy 09.

[Nastradamus]

Re watching the 2008, and 2010 Finals ...

That 2008 Celtic team is massively underrated now it seems. They were flat out dominant all season. 67 wins. And besides 2 seven game series hiccups due to a seeming on/off switch of focus. The Finals weren't near as competitive as they should've been.

And they managed to be even better the next season after winning a ring with improved Rondo. Before KG had his career altering injury.

2010 cruised during the regular season but looked amazing in the playoffs, and Finals.

To be honest, while the 2015 and 2016 Warriors are probably better teams overall due to their offensive capabilities. Those Celtics teams felt better built for playoff basketball. Tough. Physical.

Watching the replay, the games were more physical than the past two Finals. Boston got away with very physical defense, and the refs were swallowing the whistles.

Those 2008, and 2010 Celtics are definitely better defensively than the Warriors of the past two seasons.

My question to ISH. Is that an underrated team now given they only won 1 championship? But they pushed LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to form down in South Beach as their legacy.

Also, who are you taking as the superior on ball defender between Tony Allen of that time period, and Iguodala of the past couple years?

How do you think the recent two year stretch of the Warriors would fare against those Celtics teams?

That Celtics team would destroy them in a series. Its a brutal matchup for GS. KG tearing his knee really messed with their potential. Its too bad.

[SamuraiSWISH]

That 2009 Celtics team would have repeated for sure. Rondo was getting better, Ray was healthy (a lot of people forget he came into the 08 season coming off of double ankle surgeries), and they had a year of experience...that team pretty much looked unstoppable before KG went down. That 2008 team is underrated because they had those 7 game series...but if you watched those series...it was pretty easy to tell that the Celtics were coasting through some games while going full out on others...not an especially smart way to play, but it was what it was. Neither of those series needed to go 7 games. Ray was also distracted by his kid being sick and awful early on.
Agreed on both counts. Shame we didn't get a trilogy of that Finals matchup. How do you think those Celtics matchup with the current Warriors teams?

[houston]

underrated??? nah they rated exactly what they were. They are the reason why Durant and Lebron did what they did. They choked the 2010 Finals something bad.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Who underrates them? In every hypothetical Finals question, people on here always have them winning. But they still would lose to the 16 Warriors. No matter how hard Jordan and Kobe stans try tearing down a 73 win team. OP is a clown.

[tpols]

Who underrates them? In every hypothetical Finals question, people on here always have them winning. But they still would lose to the 16 Warriors. No matter how hard Jordan and Kobe stans try tearing down a 73 win team. OP is a clown.

the '08 Celtics would definitely beat the Warriors sans Bogut and with Dray out a game.. we saw cleveland put the clamps on steph and klay w/o their screeners.. Boston's defense was on an entirely different level than the Cavs. They would shut them out in that scenario.

If all five pieces of the system, the finesse and the screeners, were available and clicking for the warriors like they were for 95% of the year? It would be a tightly contested series with Golden State having a moderate advantage.

[Annyong!]

Those were actually pretty weak years. Old stars Celtics were pretty good, but their competition wasn't really that great. Kobe+Pau and role players wouldn't be as elite at other times in the NBA. When Celtics couldn't make the Finals, Dwight and 3 pointers were the next up, which would be a 2nd round team in the 90s centers era. You know that the team isn't all time great when the excuse for missing those Finals was "Well, Perkins was injured." Warriors and Cavs have each had much more injury woes than a Perkins quality player in their last 2 Finals runs.

[Sarcastic]

After 2008, they were too old and out of prime.

[Indian guy]

This is a horrific post.




And besides 2 seven game series hiccups due to a seeming on/off switch of focus. The Finals weren't near as competitive as they should've been.

Those weren't "hiccups", they were a team prone to struggle because they had legit flaws. Namely the fact that they lacked a true superstar on offense, and all of their best offensive players were jump shooters north of 30. That's not a formula that's going to lead to consistent playoff success. That's how mediocre opponents often managed to stay competitive with them. And all of their series' that postseason were VERY competitive, not just the first 2. And the 2008 Finals could've gone down very differently if not for the worst choke job in Finals history.


2010 cruised during the regular season but looked amazing in the playoffs, and Finals.

They looked amazing in the Finals? In what world? They couldn't score to save their lives all damn series, and ended up losing the decider where the opposition's best player shot 6 for 24.


Those Celtics teams felt better built for playoff basketball.

Even though those Celtics lost a lot more games on their way to a championship than the Warriors did? This makes no sense. If the Celtics were built for playoff basketball, they would've won more than 1 championship.



Those 2008, and 2010 Celtics are definitely better defensively than the Warriors of the past two seasons.

They were incredible defensively, no denying that. The problem was their offense, where they were very, very mediocre. GS on the other hand were/are elite on both ends. There's no comparison. They are the much better team and thus win A LOT more games than those Celtic teams did. In a much tougher conference to boot.


Is that an underrated team now given they only won 1 championship?

Not at all. They are remembered as a very good team, which is all they should be remembered as. They had some very glaring flaws.


But they pushed LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to form down in South Beach as their legacy.

Because they were all stuck on garbage teams prior to coming together. It's not like they were part of talented teams that couldn't overcome the mighty Celtics and thus formed a super team.

And the 2011 Celtics won a lot more games than the 2010 team did, only for the weakest of the 4 Heat teams to dispatch them in 5 games.


How do you think the recent two year stretch of the Warriors would fare against those Celtics teams?

Warriors would win. 6 games tops. They are perfectly built to deal with Celtics' anemic offense. Their 3 best defenders play the same position Boston's 3 best offensive players do. And offensively, Boston doesn't have what is most essential to beat GS - a PG who's going to make Curry work.

The only team that has defeated the Warriors over the last 2 seasons, the Cavaliers, had 2 players that essentially went nuts for a large part of the series. Boston didn't have anyone who could sustain that level of offensive attack over the course of a series.

[ClipperRevival]

I still remember the 2008-09 Christmas game between the Celtics (27-2) and Lakers (23-5). Of course the Celtics destroyed the Lakers in the previous year's finals and it was one of the biggest Christmas games I can remember. That was a statement game. Laker beat them. Lakers also beat the Cavs that year when the Cavs hadn't lost at home all year. These are the type of games that can give a slight HINT of who is the best team. Had KG been healthy, the 2008-09 finals between the Lakers/Celtics would've been epic.

[Wally450]

The Warriors help defense would stifle the Celtics, but running the offense through Pierce would open things up more IMO.

The 2009 team was definitely the best of the bunch.

2009 Rondo would give Steph problems. I honestly believe that. Not to say Curry doesn't get his 25+ points, but he's gonna have problems doing it.

[Bigsmoke]

how would you rank them when healthy ?

2008
2010
2012
2011

the 2011 Celtics were better than the 2010 unless u think Perkins is some superstar.

the only difference is that 2011 had the Big 3 Heat and 2010 didnt

[tpols]

the 2011 Celtics were better than the 2010 unless u think Perkins is some superstar.

the only difference is that 2011 had the Big 3 Heat and 2010 didnt

the '11 Celtics started an ancient Jermaine Oneal in all their playoff games .. they had no tony allen either. Perkins and Sheed were major upgrades. The '10 Celtics were fresher, and clearly better team imo.. '11 version much like the '11 Lakers were beat up and tired. They re-surged in 2012 though with that shortened season.

[ArbitraryWater]

the 2011 Celtics were better than the 2010 unless u think Perkins is some superstar.

the only difference is that 2011 had the Big 3 Heat and 2010 didnt

bingo.. dont tell Kobetards though lol


This is a horrific post.



Those weren't "hiccups", they were a team prone to struggle because they had legit flaws. Namely the fact that they lacked a true superstar on offense, and all of their best offensive players were jump shooters north of 30. That's not a formula that's going to lead to consistent playoff success. That's how mediocre opponents often managed to stay competitive with them. And all of their series' that postseason were VERY competitive, not just the first 2. And the 2008 Finals could've gone down very differently if not for the worst choke job in Finals history.



They looked amazing in the Finals? In what world? They couldn't score to save their lives all damn series, and ended up losing the decider where the opposition's best player shot 6 for 24.



Even though those Celtics lost a lot more games on their way to a championship than the Warriors did? This makes no sense. If the Celtics were built for playoff basketball, they would've won more than 1 championship.




They were incredible defensively, no denying that. The problem was their offense, where they were very, very mediocre. GS on the other hand were/are elite on both ends. There's no comparison. They are the much better team and thus win A LOT more games than those Celtic teams did. In a much tougher conference to boot.



Not at all. They are remembered as a very good team, which is all they should be remembered as. They had some very glaring flaws.



Because they were all stuck on garbage teams prior to coming together. It's not like they were part of talented teams that couldn't overcome the mighty Celtics and thus formed a super team.

And the 2011 Celtics won a lot more games than the 2010 team did, only for the weakest of the 4 Heat teams to dispatch them in 5 games.



Warriors would win. 6 games tops. They are perfectly built to deal with Celtics' anemic offense. Their 3 best defenders play the same position Boston's 3 best offensive players do. And offensively, Boston doesn't have what is most essential to beat GS - a PG who's going to make Curry work.

The only team that has defeated the Warriors over the last 2 seasons, the Cavaliers, had 2 players that essentially went nuts for a large part of the series. Boston didn't have anyone who could sustain that level of offensive attack over the course of a series.

/thread

ya did it again

[Bigsmoke]

the '11 Celtics started an ancient Jermaine Oneal in all their playoff games .. they had no tony allen either. Perkins and Sheed were major upgrades. The '10 Celtics were fresher, and clearly better team imo.. '11 version much like the '11 Lakers were beat up and tired. They re-surged in 2012 though with that shortened season.

Never mind KG, Pierce, Allen, and Rondo all playing at a higher level in 2011 than in 2010:oldlol:

KG was coming back from knee surgery in 2010. That's why he looked so old and he went back to playing like an all star in 2011 and in 2012.

[Hey Yo]

The 2008 Celtics played 20 games before the the Finals and lost 8 of those


How can they be considered great...when they're struggling against the so-called awful East?

How come the Lakers couldn't beat a team who played so badly against the so-called awful East representative's??

[SilkkTheShocker]

It's pretty funny how the 16 Finals destroyed these people's psyche. Every LeBron hater on this board has been trying to convince themselves how (insert team) would had also beaten the 73 win Warriors. Hate to break it to you guys, but thats not how history will look at the 16 title. It will go down as one of the greatest Finals/biggest upsets of all-time. While you haters are still trying to convince yourselves the Warriors weren't that good :oldlol: As for the 08 Celtics, a lot of revisionist history with their run. They didn't win a road playoff game until the ECF, and were largely reliant on HCA. While on the other hand, everyone and their dog on this board was telling us how the Warriors were the greatest team of all-time, and Cleveland didn't have a chance :lol

[tpols]

Never mind KG, Pierce, Allen, and Rondo all playing at a higher level in 2011 than in 2010:oldlol:

KG was coming back from knee surgery in 2010. That's why he looked so old and he went back to playing like an all star in 2011 and in 2012.

thats just not true at all ... the big 3 were at a similar level in '11.. a little more beat up even. '11 was also the year dwayne wade bent rondo elbow back mid series and crippled his game, while in '10 rondo had his big coming out party in the playoffs.. you're just totally off on this one.

[JohnnySic]

In '09 they lacked depth even with KG, but injuries robbed them of titles in '10 and '11.

Perkins is a stiff, but not having him in game 7 meant that 'Sheed had to play too many minutes and the rotation was thrown off. If Perk had been there and just given them 8 rebounds, that would have likely been enough to swing the game.

If Shaq and Jermaine 'Oneal could have stayed healthy in '11, they would have beaten Miami and Dallas. People forget how well Shaq meshed the Big 4, even though he was on his last legs.

[aj1987]

In '09 they lacked depth even with KG, but injuries robbed them of titles in '10 and '11.

Perkins is a stiff, but not having him in game 7 meant that 'Sheed had to play too many minutes and the rotation was thrown off. If Perk had been there and just given them 8 rebounds, that would have likely been enough to swing the game.

If Shaq and Jermaine 'Oneal could have stayed healthy in '11, they would have beaten Miami and Dallas. People forget how well Shaq meshed the Big 4, even though he was on his last legs.
Yeah, no. They had no chance of beating Miami. Wade and LeBron absolutely butchered them.

[JohnnySic]

Yeah, no. They had no chance of beating Miami. Wade and LeBron absolutely butchered them.
They beat Miami 3/4 times in the regular season, with their size advantage.

[aj1987]

They beat Miami 3/4 times in the regular season, with their size advantage.
The Bulls beat the Heat 3-0 and the Heat beat the Mavs 2-0 in the RS. Remember what happened in the ECF and the Finals?

The '12 Celtics beat the Heat 3-1 and the '13 Pacers beat us 2-1. In '14, Miami was 0-4 against the Nets and 1-2 against the Pacers. Miami won all those series.

[Wally450]

Yea, that 2011 team was a shell of themselves. Shaq was old, Jermaine O'Neal seemed like he could hardly contribute. The offense was stagnant as hell. Only time they played well was Game 3 of that series with the Heat.

[SouBeachTalents]

The Bulls beat the Heat 3-0 and the Heat beat the Mavs 2-0 in the RS. Remember what happened in the ECF and the Finals?

The '12 Celtics beat the Heat 3-1 and the '13 Pacers beat us 2-1. In '14, Miami was 0-4 against the Nets and 1-2 against the Pacers. Miami won all those series.

The Mavs actually beat the Heat 2-0 in the 2011 season. One of those was the infamous LeBron-Spo bump game

[aj1987]

The Mavs actually beat the Heat 2-0 in the 2011 season. One of those was the infamous LeBron-Spo bump game
Oh yeah, my bad. Why do I remember the Heat beating the Mavs 2-0 in the RS? :facepalm :facepalm

[SouBeachTalents]

Oh yeah, my bad. Why do I remember the Heat beating the Mavs 2-0 in the RS? :facepalm :facepalm

They've had a strange rivalry. The Mavs beat them 14 times in a row in the regular season heading into the 2011 Finals. But the Heat have beaten them 9 out of 10 times since then

[greatest-ever]

Those Celtics had bad luck outside of 08, in 09 was obviously the Kg injury, so then into the next season you could tell he wasn't quite the same especially in the Finals, and there was the Perkins injury in game 6. The next year Rondo goes down against Miami. In 2012, Pierce and Allen are both banged up and older and they still nearly beat Miami. In 2013, Rondo tears his acl.

[JohnnySic]

The Warriors help defense would stifle the Celtics, but running the offense through Pierce would open things up more IMO.

The 2009 team was definitely the best of the bunch.

2009 Rondo would give Steph problems. I honestly believe that. Not to say Curry doesn't get his 25+ points, but he's gonna have problems doing it.
No, it really wasn't. They got off to a torrid start and likely make the finals if not for KG's injury, but they lacked depth and would not have matched up well with the Lakers' size. They lost a couple of key elements from '08 (Posey and Brown) and didn't replace them. They were going to over-rely on Glen Davis and Tony Allen, which would not have ended well. That's why they went and got 'Sheed and Marquis Daniels the next offeason - they needed a better reserve big and wing.

[Smoke117]

No, it really wasn't. They got off to a torrid start and likely make the finals if not for KG's injury, but they lacked depth and would not have matched up well with the Lakers' size. They lost a couple of key elements from '08 (Posey and Brown) and didn't replace them. They were going to over-rely on Glen Davis and Tony Allen, which would not have ended well. That's why they went and got 'Sheed and Marquis Daniels the next offeason - they needed a better reserve big and wing.

No...they got Sheed because KG was coming off the knee injury...he had a lot of trouble working his way back that season. They didn't coast as some people say...KG just had a really tough time working his way back and wasn't close to what he used to be defensively. (he would bounce back in 2011 though in this regard as he regained his health and confidence)

And...the Celtics don't match up well with a team they beat the previous season who made no signficiant changes? lol, right.

[JohnnySic]

No...they got Sheed because KG was coming off the knee injury...he had a lot of trouble working his way back that season. They didn't coast as some people say...KG just had a really tough time working his way back and wasn't close to what he used to be defensively. (he would bounce back in 2011 though in this regard as he regained his health and confidence)

And...the Celtics don't match up well with a team they beat the previous season who made no signficiant changes? lol, right.
They really didn't. A healthy Bynum makes a big difference whether people accept it or not. He wasn't healthy in '08. Gasol/Bynum/Odom was too much size for those C's and basically every other team.

That's why the C's needed 'Sheed, and then Shaq, JO, etc. They why Dallas got Chandler and Haywood. That's why Denver got McGee. And that's why OKC wanted Perkins. And on and on.

[PP34Deuce]

Probably the best balance of offense and defense.

Each of the 3 options had a great advantage.

KG- Defensive anchor, post player that could give you 18-19PPG with great rebounding.

Ray- Elite shooter who could also handle the ball and give you great percentages off ball.

PP- Do it all swingmen who could score 22-23PPG, get the team in foul trouble and play above average defense on 2-3's.

Then you had Rondo who was the super athletic PG who could cause havoc in the lanes.

Posey was great to play for speeding the tempo up and adding shooters.

Perkins was good alongside KG. Tony Allen being a defensive specialist.

[IGOTGAME]

Probably the best balance of offense and defense.

Each of the 3 options had a great advantage.

KG- Defensive anchor, post player that could give you 18-19PPG with great rebounding.

Ray- Elite shooter who could also handle the ball and give you great percentages off ball.

PP- Do it all swingmen who could score 22-23PPG, get the team in foul trouble and play above average defense on 2-3's.

Then you had Rondo who was the super athletic PG who could cause havoc in the lanes.

Posey was great to play for speeding the tempo up and adding shooters.

Perkins was good alongside KG. Tony Allen being a defensive specialist.

They had a lot of trouble for the best combo of offense and defense.

[Smoke117]

I also think people are underrating the Celtics offense. They were a defensive team first...and a great one at that...Pierce and Ray never played defense like they did on the Celtics anywhere else. Offensively they were a team built on precision and execution...not opportunity. The numbers may not be gaudy, but the Celtics generally got the shot they wanted on offense.

[ArbitraryWater]

Lackluster offensively, to downright mediocre offensively

[tamaraw08]

the '08 Celtics would definitely beat the Warriors sans Bogut and with Dray out a game.. we saw cleveland put the clamps on steph and klay w/o their screeners.. Boston's defense was on an entirely different level than the Cavs. They would shut them out in that scenario.

If all five pieces of the system, the finesse and the screeners, were available and clicking for the warriors like they were for 95% of the year? It would be a tightly contested series with Golden State having a moderate advantage.

It's amazing really how some fans forget that they had 3 Hall of Famers, yes KG got old but still tough as nails.
Rondo was awesome, they then have the freaking Rasheed Wallace, lock down defender Tony Allen, Nate Robinson and Big Baby ready to step in.
And BTW, Rivers had Thibs fully focusing in devising smart defensive schemes at his disposal.
Yes they are underrated.

[tamaraw08]

I also think people are underrating the Celtics offense. They were a defensive team first...and a great one at that...Pierce and Ray never played defense like they did on the Celtics anywhere else. Offensively they were a team built on precision and execution...not opportunity. The numbers may not be gaudy, but the Celtics generally got the shot they wanted on offense.

Great point, I was going to say the same thing.
A lot of it too are the rules back then. Yes, they looked great on defense but it worked both ways, as the refs allowed physical play back then,
Slowed down tempo= less shooting rhythm, allowed bumps here and there but overall, that team's main priority was defense, with Thibs fully focussed in ONE side of the court.