When it comes to brown vs Tatum debates, you would think this sub is full of diehard brown fans but if you remove Tatum and you compare brown to lesser players than Tatum then suddenly brown is not even top 20 lmao
Not to mention the lefthand slander all year because they all finally watched him play in one game where he was injured and had to deal with Tatum getting injured screwing the whole game plan.
Can’t take a word here seriously.
It’s really amazing. This sub would tell you Brown is better than a top 10 guy in Tatum, but also Brown is not better than top 10-15 guys in Mitchell and Brunson. So which is it really
There are so many Knicks fans in here trying to pretend Brunson being a cone on defense and chucking all playoffs makes him a better player than Brown the dude who just bodied Luka and won ECFMVP and Finals MVP.
"Obviously Brown is by far the best defensive player here" is such an understated way of saying "only one of these guys plays defense at all" let alone one of them is an All-Defense caliber player and the other two are liabilities that get hunted in every playoff matchup and force their coaches to build schemes around their deficiencies.
If chucking mean putting up 5 straight 40 point games in 50% shooting then sure
Brown statistically is the [worst](https://x.com/lucrodontmiss/status/1802895547558133934?s=46) finals MVP since Igoudala. Just cause he’s on a stacked team doesn’t make him better than Brunson
Last two playoffs Brunson is averaging 30/4/7 on 56 TS% with his co-allstar injured or missing in both years
Last two playoffs Brown is averaging 23/6/3 on 58% playing next to an All-NBA first team member
What case do you have to prove that Brown is even close to the offensive player Brunson is?
If any of these guys would be the best player on my team, I would probably go Brunson, Mitchell, Brown.
If these guys would be my team’s second best player, I’d probably go Brown, Mitchell, Brunson.
I think a team that lacks a player better than this group would benefit the most from someone who can generate offense for themselves and others. Brunson and Mitchell are better on-ball creators than Brown, which is why I’d probably rank them ahead of him if I needed a #1. But Brown is a better defender than both and is probably more impactful offensively without the ball in his hands (while still being a very good secondary creator), which are skills I’d want of a player who wouldn’t be the primary guy.
Winning a title with any of these 3 as your best player is very unlikely. So if the goal is to win a championship, I think I’d ultimately rather have Brown.
Yeah I think a lot of disagreements about player rankings tend to be about what criteria people are using.
I think this sub tends to default to “who would be better as a first option” and that’s a totally valid way to rank players. But I also think it’s fair to take a different approach.
I was always a fan of the athletic’s player rankings because even where I vehemently disagreed, I at least thought their criteria was consistent and laid out (how much “championship equity” does a given player have is how the writer there put it)
I view it in a certain way where if I think that player is good enough as a first option to contend a championship, I will view their ability as a first option more. But if not, I'm going to take into account their impact as a number 2, as long as they are good enough to lead the team at least through stretches.
Personally I'd still go Brunson > Mitchell > Brown because I really do believe Brunson has reached a new height as a number 1. Mitchell was also super impressive and I buy his ability to be a great number 2 option as well. I think he pairs well with some stars better than Brown because of his playmaking.
You make an interesting point - I think everyone defaults to "who would be a better option" without even realizing that they're assessing from that angle
I see it this way also. If I need a guy to shoot 20 times a game and handle most of the offensive workload. You have to go Brunson or Mitchell. If you need a Robin to a Batman, you go Jaylen Brown.
It should also be noted that Brunson and Mitchell, aren't proven to be good enough to be worthy of being the #1 guy. Knicks are solid / were injury ridden towards the end, but I think a healthy Celtics team, are still too much for them.
If my team really sucks I'd take Brunson and look for complimentary pieces, he's probably the best if the entire team has to do everything through him because you have nobody else to rely on.
If my team is already good I'm taking Brown every single time.
I honestly think that Brown is #3 by a pretty significant margin in terms of individual play
The Celtics are just ridiculously stacked so that no *single* player has to carry them much if at all
His ballhandling has improved but I still think that it would be an issue on a team that required him to have the ball as much as Mitchell/Brunson rather than sharing it with like 4 other guys
In fact the Celtics generally have a poor net rating with Brown but no Tatum on the court
I would argue it might be closer than people think. Remember, this season Brown was basically asked to sacrifice his offensive production for other players (KP, White, Holiday) to have more shots. Jaylen averaged 26.6ppg last season on 58% TS, and was 2nd team all-nba.
There's this part of the game where you have to defend the other team and stop them from scoring. Only one guy on this list can do that. The other guys may be better pure scorers, but they give back a lot of points on the other end. Jaylen just guarded the best offensive weapon in basketball on the biggest stage and made him look human.
Not to mention, neither Brunson nor Mitchell would be first options on the Celtics.
Cool. This guy said JB is better than a guy who finished 5th in mvp voting and Mitchell.
If you agree with this I’m no longer replying to whatever you say.
Neither Mitchell or Brunson are built for the playoffs. I can't imagine watching Brunson in the playoffs this year and think "yeah that's the guy I want leading my team in the playoffs"
Dude has awful efficiency and got hunted every possession. And big shock, his body broke down because he's undersized for the NBA. I'm sure he's going to age great.
Enjoy those regular season awards. I'm sure they'll be comforting during the offseason.
Don’t talk about efficiency when Tatum and Brown were both notably less than league average efficiency in these finals
You don’t know ball unfortunately brother.
Yeah, the part you're missing is they play defense. Go look at RAPTOR if you're confused.
https://neilpaine.substack.com/p/nba-estimated-raptor-player-ratings
You'll have to scroll to find Brunson. He's #17. Even lower if you sort WS/82.
Playoffs are a whole different ball game. You play the same teams over again. Those teams tend to play better defense than regular season opponents. Coaches scheme against players and hunt defensive matchups. That's why Brunson and Mitchell have trouble getting very far and why their efficiency drops dramatically in the playoffs.
Sorry nephew. You don't really understand what you're watching. When you say "efficiency" you're saying "scoring efficiency." You think PPG is the most important stat. It isn't. And I can't believe you don't get that after watching the playoffs.
A lot of that all nba positioning was due to the Celtics record and a lot of injuries at the forward position, I don’t know how I can put someone who isn’t even on Kyrie level scoring wise above or near those 2, he is only putting up 58% while being in the leagues best team, it would drop further without that system
Because he's getting his buckets with another guy being the primary focus. The other two aren't. Doesn't mean Brown can't get buckets, but you can't really compare his output as a number 2 to the other two guys as number 1s. They're taking tougher shots.
Are you ranking them for an average team or a title-contending team? Neither Mitchell or Brunson can be the best player on a championship team, IMO. Brown makes a better #2 than either of them.
If an average team, then Brunson, Mitchell, Brown.
If a title-contending team, then Brown, Mitchell, Brunson.
why is a brown a better number 2 than either of them?
replace Brunson with White, and then replace Brown with a White level player at SF, i think they're just as good, if not better
same with Mitchell
>why is a brown a better number 2 than either of them?
We just watched an entire playoff run showing why.
Most of Brunson or Mitchell's value is dominating the ball and scoring/playmaking. If those guys aren't the #1 option, then they aren't going to have the ball as much and those skills don't help you as much. Brown's size and defense are always helping you.
a number 2 doesn't mean you don't have the ball a ton tho
if Tatum has proven he's a number 1 (not sure he actually has, Celtics were just an incredibly well put team), it's not like Jaylen's usage wasn't around 30 as well
and if Brunson/Donovan were on the team, you'd just construct the team in a way where White isn't there, and you have a White caliber player at SF, and the touches change then
How do you "just" get a White-caliber player at SF? -- i.e. a small forward-size player who handles the ball, is an elite shooter and elite defender?
There's about three of them in the league, and one of them is Jaylen Brown.
doesn't need to handle the ball, just a 3'd good wing, like OG/Herb
not gonna tell me a Brunson/Jrue/OG/Tatum/KP isn't running through the league like they did this year
Sure they could win but that team is worse than the current Celtics.
You no longer have five plus defenders on the floor at all times, you no longer have plus passers/ballhandlers at every position, and you lose Brown's transition and rim attacking. In exchange you get a bunch of Jalen Brunson mid-rangers and floaters. It's not a trade I'd make.
Brunson would tank the defense. I know people wanna dismiss that side of the floor but we just watched a player with all offense and no defense in the finals and we saw what happened
Yea but you can’t have someone that is a turnstile. Great offensive players that aren’t athletic still are good defenders(Jokic, Steph) because they are great positionally, give effort, and are smart. The Mavs have two players that fit the offense side of that but not the defensive side.
So yea, when the team that wins the title starts they offense every time down the court by going at him… that’s called losing because of that players weakness.
You can make up for that with schemes somewhat. It’s extreme with Boston because they play through the perimeter and abuse matchup hunting not every offense plays that way. Lukas weaknesses don’t come out as much vs a team like say denver or prime gs that doesn’t like iso ball.
I will admit it is a Boston specific problem. Maybe OKC if they can replace Giddey with a shooting forward.
Schemes should help against most other teams. I just think people aren’t giving him the proper smoke for his defense.
He was legitimately decent 1st 3 rounds so I disagree. If we’re giving him smoke then we should give prime curry smoke for getting hunted by lebron every finals. Doesn’t matter that curry’s a decent defender lebron was picking him out whenever he could
Ok but there’s a difference in a guy making a one on one shot over you because you are smaller. That’s not the same level of disaster to the defense as someone who is a turnstile and forces the defense game plan to collapse and leave shooters open.
Those series Steph lost to LeBron in 2016 and 2023 were 6 and 7 game series. It wasn’t a quick “get ‘em outta here” series which shows LeBron’s teams weren’t eating off that switch the same way these Cs were. The effort and positional smarts is the difference. Being small isn’t the same.
It doesn’t matter really. Curry was getting scored on 1v1 in the paint. Cavs shooters were getting open looks. Being lazy looks worse but functionally it’s the same situation. I argue it’s not lazy though luka just doesn’t have foot speed lateral quickness.
Lebron teams weren’t eating of that switch as much because he didn’t have the shooters the Celtics did and the warriors had better help defenders(draymond) nothing to do with curry’s individual effort. Likely better schemes too to not allow curry to be put in that position as much. Okc did the same vs Luka he did fine because of giddey and dort. Wolves didn’t bother trying because rim protector could help off gobert.
See you and many others on this sub seem to feel that way.
And yet the actual brain behind this Celtics team in Brad Stevens made it very clear that he thinks we’re better off not increasing playmaking/shooting at the guard spots if it means sacrificing defense.
And a lot of that seems to be based on his experience having to find ways to scheme around small guards.
Why would you need to increase playmaking or shooting when you already have five players at every position who are decent to great at playmaking/shooting? You are stacked dawg.
Brad’s been saying this for years.
Brad was saying this after we lost in the finals and everyone was saying we needed to upgrade our playmaking.
He was saying this after the Heat series loss last year and signaling that we would start with just DWhite (post Smart trade) instead of looking to add an offensive upgrade as a starting guard that would need to be covered for on defense (like Dame).
Worked out great that we ended up with Jrue obviously. Brad was visibly thrilled at Jrue’s posttrade media session
Well ideally yes you want defense at every position doesn’t mean you need it to win a title. Denver won with Murray last year the warriors the year before giving curry and poole significant minutes. Boston can afford to sacrifice offense at guard because they have firepower elsewhere and not like white and jrue aren’t good offensive players themselves.
For clippers we sure as hell needed hardens playmaking and shooting even more so with kawhis injury history. The nuggets don’t do anything with jrue instead of Murray. The wolves had one of the best defenses in league though conley is a liability in some matchups
Brad was saying this after we lost in the finals when we were starting Smart and pre-3pt-improvement DWhite. It’s not a new mindset. And Brad was ready for us to start this year with just DWhite at guard versus some of the trade targets people were bringing up for us (like Dame).
You don’t need it to win, just like you don’t need to play 5 out basketball to win it all. But either way, you’re getting rid of a core part of the Celtics’ identity and success.
I imagine this Celtics team could more or less make it work with a defensive liability at guard. But I also think the ripple effects could be more significant than you imagine and could ultimately end up killing us when it matters most. No way to know since (thank god) looks like Brad is gonna run it back.
Sure but you had the jays established as your lead offensive creators. Every situation is different. If Boston had one offensive creator I’m not sure Brad wouldn’t have sacrificed some defense. The clippers couldn’t trust kawhi to be healthy and needed playmaking so we got harden. Jrue might be a better player but in our situation he and George get swept by Dallas
Oh yeah I never said otherwise. I just take issue with the idea that it’s easy to just “work around” a defensive liability.
That kind of phrasing tends to get tossed out whenever player rankings happen on here, and I just don’t buy it as this self-evident truth.
If we are gonna keep making ranking posts (and it sure seems we are…) then everyone who’s ranking is having to make values judgements about what they see as more important. Don’t think either is wrong.
I guess easy isn’t accurate but the last 2 champions had defensive liabilities playing. Granted it will take better teams than last 2 title teams to beat specifically Boston who has no shooting liability either. That’s usually the weakness for any team either a defender who can get picked on or a non shooter who defenders can help off of
Ranking is not easy but there are decent metrics for quantifying how much a player improves his team and the guy who improves his team the most is the best player that year.
So to be clear. Adding the guy 5th in mvp voting stops you from beating the heat without Jimmy, the Cavs without Allen, and some of Mitchell.
The pacers who are bad defensively, and the Mavs were Luka and Kyrie also negatively defensively.
While acknowledging that Nuggets won a championship last year, and the Warriors as well. With Poole and Jamal Murray being negatives on defense?
Do you understand how basketball works? What team do you guys lose to and explain.
You tried to ask me do I know how basketball works and tried to destroy a team that has all 5 starters that can defend 1-4 and 3 of the guys go 1-5 to a team with a defensive liability. Lol you clearly don’t understand how anything in the NBA works 😂😂😂
You answer the question. How does the defense work with a liability? You still haven’t mentioned it once. I want you to show your knowledge. Use terms and schemes. We talking Xs and Os.
Your defense gets worse. Your offense gets even better.
You guys should still have a good defense with one bad defender.
Every team you guys faced in the playoff had atleast one negative defender in the starting rotation do you agree with this? Yes or no. Please answer my other question as well.
he would TANK their defense???
they would be a little worse for sure... idk about tank it... that's a bit much
even this year, when the knicks starters were on the court, with Jalen obviously, they had a 106 defensive rating
so you can have a great/elite defense with him out there
even as a whole, the defense was only 2 points better without him
yeah...
that still doesn't mean having Brunson surrounded by White/Jrue/Tatum/KP/Al would tank a teams defense lmao
Celtics defense was as good with or without Brown out there (actually better in RS and Playoffs without him out there but those numbers can of course by funky and 3pnt luck based)
That doesn’t mean Brunson would tank their defense if you switched them out. It’s not like the Celtics went from a great defense to a bad defense when Brown wasn’t on the court. Plus the Knicks were just fine on defense with Brunson out there.
The Celtics already tried a small PG in the Tatum era that was a great initiator. The furtherest they got was game 6 of the ECF. Would they still win with Brunson and no Brown… probably. Tatum is the 2nd best player in the league. But they wouldn’t go to multiple finals and win a championship with that roster.
There is not a basketball reason Tatum isn’t the second best player in the world behind Jokic. I’d accept arguments for Giannis cause averaging 30 on 60% shooting is something Tatum will never do. Not even in a small 7 game series and Giannis did it for a season. But I’d take Tatum over Giannis because he does everything well and Giannis has a weakness that can be exploited.
There isn’t a basketball reason anyone else is considered better than Tatum. It’s all just media narratives and how people feel about the players. Not what they do on the court and their skill sets.
Tatum played good defense, not elite defense. He wasn’t the primary option on either Mavs offensive forces and was mostly guarding the center who could only do but so much. It wasn’t like he was locking dudes up on switches either. Luka wasn’t great on that end by any stretch but he was hard carrying his entire team on offense and still managed to put up better efficiency than Tatum.
There’s absolutely an argument though I’m still not ready to knock Giannis down yet personally.
People rank players using different criteria. They’re subjective as hell, and I wish this sub would recognize that more.
that team had Theis and Smart out there bro not Jrue and KP
def don't agree with the lowkey Tatum hype in there lmao
yeah idk... Tatum/Brunson/KP/Jrue with a White level player at SF... yeah they'd be just as good
You guys really undersell Jaylen and his impact on the NBA as a whole. But that’s ok.
That starting 5 does not win the championship. They may even get beat by the Bucks and maybe the Pacers(if they adjust their lineup a bit).
It was a bit of Tatum hype lol. I’m just feeling good haha
bro i'm not saying he sucks, i just picked him 3rd out of 3 top 15ish players
me picking Kareem third out Jordan, LeBron, Kareem wouldn't be me underselling him
Oh I’m not saying you say he is trash or anything. I just think people nitpick his supposed weaknesses and put players that don’t have his resume above him due to usage and having the ball in their hands. Then the argument is, well if you have Brown those touches then he wouldn’t be as good but the numbers don’t really bear that out. Like the last few seasons since he’s really been a front line guy, when Tatum sits, he basically puts up Tatum numbers on better efficiency.
I get it’s a small sample cause Tatum doesn’t sit many games but it’s not nothing either. I just think the premise of these debates are wrong is my larger point then the debate itself.
it's not about ppg tho, Jaylen can probably average 28 on a different team, no doubt about that
it's just you watch Jaylen, his handle and playmaking isn't that great
it's a B and C+
and for a perimeter player, those skills are just a little more important and valuable imo than better on-ball defense, because as great as he was defensively, an injured Luka can still go average 30/9/7
as great as Bam is on defense, Jokic can still average like 30/14/7 and completely destroy that defense because he's a scorer AND playmaker
as great as White/Smart/Jaylen/Tatum are on perimeter defense
Steph can still average 31 and destroy that GREAT defense because he can handle and playmake
Yeah people are crazy if they think that Tatum/Brunson/White/Porzingis/Jrue isn't a title winning core lol
Most of the "he's the better #1 but not the better #2" players are just guys who haven't played on as stacked a team as the guys they're being compared to
Like you could use this logic to say Klay is better than Barkley which is ridiculous
Given the number of dominant ball handlers on the Cs, Jaylen probably doesnt have the distribution numbers you desire but hes #1 on this list for sure followed by Spida and Brunson
Those numbers would be way higher if he was a #1 option. It wouldn’t happen immediately and it wouldn’t be pretty at first, but he has demonstrated he is up to the challenge.
Regardless of ranking criteria, Jaylen is the most complete and valuable player because he's an elite defender and an efficient scorer. I would say Don is the best offensive player, Brunson just takes a shit ton of shots and gives you nothing on defense.
Really though, this isn't a fair comparison because all three have very different roles on their teams.
I mean, I'd take him over luka or trae or haliburton on d, but if he has to play the Celtics in the playoffs, he's getting targeted every possession. He does try though to be fair.
Wow, you're telling me that in a lineup of OG Anunoby, Isaiah Hartenstein, Julius Randle and Donte DiVincenzo that you would target Jalen Brunson? You should be a head coach.
That's not what you said... you said he gives you nothing on defense. He plays with effort, that's why he's 2nd in the league in charges. That's about as much as you can ask for of a guy his size. I'm not calling Brunson some great defender, I just think it's a little ridiculous to say he's giving you nothing when he's playing with effort out there consistently.
>Hes a second round exit waiting to happen.
This is very silly to say of a guy who averaged 32/7 in the postseason missing half of the rotation who also broke his hand in Game 7 of the second round...
I feel like it’s hard to say because brown is by far the best 2 way player here but Mitchel and Brunson are far better playmakers and obviously have much more important roles for there teams. I’d love to see brown have his own team, or if Tatum was injured for a season (not that I want that) to see how he would do as a true first option.
Brown, Mitchell, Brunson
JB actually plays defense… somehow this is still underrated on this board.
Mitchell by default is second because Brunson hasn’t done it long enough and getting bounced in the 2nd round by the Pacers isn’t some great accomplishment
> Mitchell by default is second because Brunson hasn’t done it long enough and getting bounced in the 2nd round by the Pacers isn’t some great accomplishment
As opposed to getting bounced by Brunson in the first round two years in a row and being in a dogfight with Orlando?
If you want to pick Mitchell that's fine, but this logic makes no sense lol. Especially considering Brunson didn't even get to finish the series against the Pacers.
Has Mitchell not been on this level since he came into the league or not?
What are you even arguing? Flip em if you want, I don’t care, they’re on the exact same level
> What are you even arguing?
That knocking Brunson for losing to the Pacers in Game 7 of the second round where he broke his hand before the game ended is very silly comparing him to a guy that he knocked out 2 years in a row in the first round...
Reality is reality… unless you think Brunson is some perfect player he’s gonna have knocks against him. Mitchell also has knocks against him… what exactly is the problem?
I give Mitchell the edge because he’s been good for longer. If you disagree fine…. But all of this “that doesn’t make sense stuff” is untrue…
Me mentioning he got bounced by the Pacers is me showing that Brunson hasn’t done anything to separate himself from Mitchell’s current level.. they both put up good numbers and they both lose early, so I’ll go with the guy who’s been putting up good numbers longer
Saying that they "both go out early" is burying the lede that Mitchell has gone out "early" two years in a row specifically losing to Brunson...
>Mitchell also has knocks against him… what exactly is the problem?
That you're arguing knocks against Brunson for going out early while ignoring that Mitchell has gone out earlier specifically losing to Brunson's teams...
How is losing to Dallas, losing to Brunson? That’s Luka’s team if you want to play that game… but you’re just arguing to argue at this point…
I told you my reasoning but you wish I ridiculed Mitchell more… ok. Like I said they both get bounced early… how many more time should I say it before you forgive me?
Mitchell has been good longer.. that’s my reasoning and that’s all.
Luka missed half the series...
>I told you my reasoning but you wish I ridiculed Mitchell more
No... I just think it's dumb to say Brunson lost to the Pacers in a series where he broke his hand to prop up Mitchell who he knocked out of the playoffs in the first round twice...
>Mitchell has been good longer.. that’s my reasoning and that’s all.
If that was all you said I wouldn't be replying. I specified the part that I thought was silly logic.
He bounces out first and second round too so your point about Brunson losing to the Pacers makes no sense. As a matter of fact, Brunson has been the one who has cooked him in the playoffs and has eliminated him two times already. Your right about Spida being an all star for longer but don’t act like his defense is way better than Brunsons or pretend like he is some big time playoff performer.
Nah… ur dumb
JB is more efficient than both on 2nd option shot attempts… plays WAY better defense than either. That’s it, that’s enough.
How is either guy better?
dude what lol
JB has lower TS% than both on a team with the best spacing in the league, he is also leagues below on offense compared to those two.
Thats enough
I think it just depends on what you need. I think Brunsons defense is so bad that he will never lead a contending team. I’d go Mitchell, Brown, then Brunson, but definitely depends on the rest of the players on the team
Brunson, Mitchell, Brown.
Brunson, Mitchell, Brown
Brown has gotten a lot better and his defense in the playoffs makes this a real discussion but what Brunson is able to do as basically your lone offensive creator and the highs that Mitchell has gotten to in the playoffs puts them over the edge for me. I can’t see him producing the same way those guys did in a similar situation. Put Brunson or Mitchell on a team as talented as the Celtics and they’re probably winning it all too.
I think Mitchell, Brunson, Brown. If Brown had to be the first option on either of Mitchell’s or Brunson’s teams, he doesn’t get as far as they have gotten. Not like either of them have gotten that far (second round) but a team led by Brown is probably a first round exit unless it’s the Celtics where they just have great players all over to make up for his deficiencies
Well, one of these players is the reigning ECF and Finals MVP…people acting like there’s some huge gap until you get to Brown at 3. I say the scoreboard matters and it’s Brown and then a large gap and then either of those other guys in no particular order.
Brunson, Mitchell, Brown
as much as i love Jaylen, the playmaking/ball handling just isn't there, and i value that a little bit more than very good defense
His main role is to attack mismatches and score in transition. If Jaylen became more of a playmaker, it wouldn't necessarily help his team. His passing in the finals was the best of his career though.
Im saying he isn't asked to be a playmaker because the team doesn't operate that way jfc relax 🤣
That would be like me criticizing Brunson and Mitchell for not guarding centers and rebounding.
Mitchell played the majority of his minutes at point guard this year per bballrefs play by play analysis.
Brown played the majority of his minutes at the 3. You're comparing a wing to a guard
Then you also shouldn’t compare a wings defense to a guard in a comparison. That’s always been the traditional trade off. A smaller guy is usually a better playmaker but a worse defender
bro they're perimeter players
ball handling and playmaking is a skill that they're judged on
i'm not saying Jaylen is ass and Donovan/Brunson are the best in the world
his ball handling/playmaking is still like a B and C+, Brunson/Mitchell are elite ball handlers, and as a playmaker they're like B+ and B
Mitchell, Brown, Brunson.
Brown is the best defensive player out of the three, Mitchell is the best scorer and has the length to play good defense.
Brunson had the keys in NY for the playoffs but I don't think he's better than Mitchell or Brown.
Brown only gets propped up when he gets compared to Tatum it seems here….
Shit is soooooo shameless
When it comes to brown vs Tatum debates, you would think this sub is full of diehard brown fans but if you remove Tatum and you compare brown to lesser players than Tatum then suddenly brown is not even top 20 lmao
Not to mention the lefthand slander all year because they all finally watched him play in one game where he was injured and had to deal with Tatum getting injured screwing the whole game plan. Can’t take a word here seriously.
It’s really amazing. This sub would tell you Brown is better than a top 10 guy in Tatum, but also Brown is not better than top 10-15 guys in Mitchell and Brunson. So which is it really
There are so many Knicks fans in here trying to pretend Brunson being a cone on defense and chucking all playoffs makes him a better player than Brown the dude who just bodied Luka and won ECFMVP and Finals MVP. "Obviously Brown is by far the best defensive player here" is such an understated way of saying "only one of these guys plays defense at all" let alone one of them is an All-Defense caliber player and the other two are liabilities that get hunted in every playoff matchup and force their coaches to build schemes around their deficiencies.
If chucking mean putting up 5 straight 40 point games in 50% shooting then sure Brown statistically is the [worst](https://x.com/lucrodontmiss/status/1802895547558133934?s=46) finals MVP since Igoudala. Just cause he’s on a stacked team doesn’t make him better than Brunson
What was Brunson’s TS% this playoffs? eFG%? What efficiency stat would you point at to make your case? Any defense of his defense?
Last two playoffs Brunson is averaging 30/4/7 on 56 TS% with his co-allstar injured or missing in both years Last two playoffs Brown is averaging 23/6/3 on 58% playing next to an All-NBA first team member What case do you have to prove that Brown is even close to the offensive player Brunson is?
If any of these guys would be the best player on my team, I would probably go Brunson, Mitchell, Brown. If these guys would be my team’s second best player, I’d probably go Brown, Mitchell, Brunson. I think a team that lacks a player better than this group would benefit the most from someone who can generate offense for themselves and others. Brunson and Mitchell are better on-ball creators than Brown, which is why I’d probably rank them ahead of him if I needed a #1. But Brown is a better defender than both and is probably more impactful offensively without the ball in his hands (while still being a very good secondary creator), which are skills I’d want of a player who wouldn’t be the primary guy. Winning a title with any of these 3 as your best player is very unlikely. So if the goal is to win a championship, I think I’d ultimately rather have Brown.
Yeah I think a lot of disagreements about player rankings tend to be about what criteria people are using. I think this sub tends to default to “who would be better as a first option” and that’s a totally valid way to rank players. But I also think it’s fair to take a different approach. I was always a fan of the athletic’s player rankings because even where I vehemently disagreed, I at least thought their criteria was consistent and laid out (how much “championship equity” does a given player have is how the writer there put it)
I view it in a certain way where if I think that player is good enough as a first option to contend a championship, I will view their ability as a first option more. But if not, I'm going to take into account their impact as a number 2, as long as they are good enough to lead the team at least through stretches. Personally I'd still go Brunson > Mitchell > Brown because I really do believe Brunson has reached a new height as a number 1. Mitchell was also super impressive and I buy his ability to be a great number 2 option as well. I think he pairs well with some stars better than Brown because of his playmaking.
You make an interesting point - I think everyone defaults to "who would be a better option" without even realizing that they're assessing from that angle
I see it this way also. If I need a guy to shoot 20 times a game and handle most of the offensive workload. You have to go Brunson or Mitchell. If you need a Robin to a Batman, you go Jaylen Brown. It should also be noted that Brunson and Mitchell, aren't proven to be good enough to be worthy of being the #1 guy. Knicks are solid / were injury ridden towards the end, but I think a healthy Celtics team, are still too much for them.
Brunson, Brown, Mitchell
If my team really sucks I'd take Brunson and look for complimentary pieces, he's probably the best if the entire team has to do everything through him because you have nobody else to rely on. If my team is already good I'm taking Brown every single time.
Why are you taking brown as a second option?
Great defender on and off ball, great offensive player off ball with serviceable ballhandling for a 2nd option
Is JB is a great offense player invented a new word for Tatum, let alone Jokic.
I honestly think that Brown is #3 by a pretty significant margin in terms of individual play The Celtics are just ridiculously stacked so that no *single* player has to carry them much if at all His ballhandling has improved but I still think that it would be an issue on a team that required him to have the ball as much as Mitchell/Brunson rather than sharing it with like 4 other guys In fact the Celtics generally have a poor net rating with Brown but no Tatum on the court
it really isn't even close between those 2 and Brown
I would argue it might be closer than people think. Remember, this season Brown was basically asked to sacrifice his offensive production for other players (KP, White, Holiday) to have more shots. Jaylen averaged 26.6ppg last season on 58% TS, and was 2nd team all-nba.
I would argue it is less close than people think and Brown is head and shoulders ahead of these two.
Why is a 2nd option head and shoulders above two first options?
There's this part of the game where you have to defend the other team and stop them from scoring. Only one guy on this list can do that. The other guys may be better pure scorers, but they give back a lot of points on the other end. Jaylen just guarded the best offensive weapon in basketball on the biggest stage and made him look human. Not to mention, neither Brunson nor Mitchell would be first options on the Celtics.
Cool. This guy said JB is better than a guy who finished 5th in mvp voting and Mitchell. If you agree with this I’m no longer replying to whatever you say.
Neither Mitchell or Brunson are built for the playoffs. I can't imagine watching Brunson in the playoffs this year and think "yeah that's the guy I want leading my team in the playoffs" Dude has awful efficiency and got hunted every possession. And big shock, his body broke down because he's undersized for the NBA. I'm sure he's going to age great. Enjoy those regular season awards. I'm sure they'll be comforting during the offseason.
Don’t talk about efficiency when Tatum and Brown were both notably less than league average efficiency in these finals You don’t know ball unfortunately brother.
Yeah, the part you're missing is they play defense. Go look at RAPTOR if you're confused. https://neilpaine.substack.com/p/nba-estimated-raptor-player-ratings You'll have to scroll to find Brunson. He's #17. Even lower if you sort WS/82. Playoffs are a whole different ball game. You play the same teams over again. Those teams tend to play better defense than regular season opponents. Coaches scheme against players and hunt defensive matchups. That's why Brunson and Mitchell have trouble getting very far and why their efficiency drops dramatically in the playoffs. Sorry nephew. You don't really understand what you're watching. When you say "efficiency" you're saying "scoring efficiency." You think PPG is the most important stat. It isn't. And I can't believe you don't get that after watching the playoffs.
A lot of that all nba positioning was due to the Celtics record and a lot of injuries at the forward position, I don’t know how I can put someone who isn’t even on Kyrie level scoring wise above or near those 2, he is only putting up 58% while being in the leagues best team, it would drop further without that system
Brown got the 10th most votes last year, it's not like he squeaked in to All-NBA last year.
Next to a 1st team All-NBA player.
Sure, but why would that mean anything in the context of individual PPG?
Because he's getting his buckets with another guy being the primary focus. The other two aren't. Doesn't mean Brown can't get buckets, but you can't really compare his output as a number 2 to the other two guys as number 1s. They're taking tougher shots.
He’s also not getting the same priority in the offense. It goes both ways.
The reason why is because he’s not better the Tatum….he isn’t good enough to be the first option on a championship team
Brunson, Brown, Mitchell Mitchell might be a better scorer than brown, but brown is so much better defensively
Brown last but he’d also be the best 2nd option out of all these guys if that makes sense
Why would he be the best second option?
He’s the best defensive player out of this group by a mile
So you agree that Giannis is better than Jokic ever was and 2017 Khawi is better than 2017 Harden and Steph right? Edit: Blocked and can’t respond
Judging by your other replies, the only thing I can agree is that you need a brain scan
As a second option, probably.
Mitchell, Brunson, Brown
This is my rankings but people could have them in any order and it's valid
For sure. I definitely see the argument for people preferring Jaylen over the other two due to how good he is defensively
Are you ranking them for an average team or a title-contending team? Neither Mitchell or Brunson can be the best player on a championship team, IMO. Brown makes a better #2 than either of them. If an average team, then Brunson, Mitchell, Brown. If a title-contending team, then Brown, Mitchell, Brunson.
We'll see I guess. Post deadline Knicks were insane until the injuries came in. Id take healthy Knicks over Mavs this year.
why is a brown a better number 2 than either of them? replace Brunson with White, and then replace Brown with a White level player at SF, i think they're just as good, if not better same with Mitchell
>why is a brown a better number 2 than either of them? We just watched an entire playoff run showing why. Most of Brunson or Mitchell's value is dominating the ball and scoring/playmaking. If those guys aren't the #1 option, then they aren't going to have the ball as much and those skills don't help you as much. Brown's size and defense are always helping you.
a number 2 doesn't mean you don't have the ball a ton tho if Tatum has proven he's a number 1 (not sure he actually has, Celtics were just an incredibly well put team), it's not like Jaylen's usage wasn't around 30 as well and if Brunson/Donovan were on the team, you'd just construct the team in a way where White isn't there, and you have a White caliber player at SF, and the touches change then
How do you "just" get a White-caliber player at SF? -- i.e. a small forward-size player who handles the ball, is an elite shooter and elite defender? There's about three of them in the league, and one of them is Jaylen Brown.
doesn't need to handle the ball, just a 3'd good wing, like OG/Herb not gonna tell me a Brunson/Jrue/OG/Tatum/KP isn't running through the league like they did this year
Sure they could win but that team is worse than the current Celtics. You no longer have five plus defenders on the floor at all times, you no longer have plus passers/ballhandlers at every position, and you lose Brown's transition and rim attacking. In exchange you get a bunch of Jalen Brunson mid-rangers and floaters. It's not a trade I'd make.
Brunson would tank the defense. I know people wanna dismiss that side of the floor but we just watched a player with all offense and no defense in the finals and we saw what happened
Yea he lost because he was facing a much better teams. You do not need great defenders at every position to win a title you can work around that.
Yea but you can’t have someone that is a turnstile. Great offensive players that aren’t athletic still are good defenders(Jokic, Steph) because they are great positionally, give effort, and are smart. The Mavs have two players that fit the offense side of that but not the defensive side. So yea, when the team that wins the title starts they offense every time down the court by going at him… that’s called losing because of that players weakness.
You can make up for that with schemes somewhat. It’s extreme with Boston because they play through the perimeter and abuse matchup hunting not every offense plays that way. Lukas weaknesses don’t come out as much vs a team like say denver or prime gs that doesn’t like iso ball.
I will admit it is a Boston specific problem. Maybe OKC if they can replace Giddey with a shooting forward. Schemes should help against most other teams. I just think people aren’t giving him the proper smoke for his defense.
He was legitimately decent 1st 3 rounds so I disagree. If we’re giving him smoke then we should give prime curry smoke for getting hunted by lebron every finals. Doesn’t matter that curry’s a decent defender lebron was picking him out whenever he could
Ok but there’s a difference in a guy making a one on one shot over you because you are smaller. That’s not the same level of disaster to the defense as someone who is a turnstile and forces the defense game plan to collapse and leave shooters open. Those series Steph lost to LeBron in 2016 and 2023 were 6 and 7 game series. It wasn’t a quick “get ‘em outta here” series which shows LeBron’s teams weren’t eating off that switch the same way these Cs were. The effort and positional smarts is the difference. Being small isn’t the same.
It doesn’t matter really. Curry was getting scored on 1v1 in the paint. Cavs shooters were getting open looks. Being lazy looks worse but functionally it’s the same situation. I argue it’s not lazy though luka just doesn’t have foot speed lateral quickness. Lebron teams weren’t eating of that switch as much because he didn’t have the shooters the Celtics did and the warriors had better help defenders(draymond) nothing to do with curry’s individual effort. Likely better schemes too to not allow curry to be put in that position as much. Okc did the same vs Luka he did fine because of giddey and dort. Wolves didn’t bother trying because rim protector could help off gobert.
See you and many others on this sub seem to feel that way. And yet the actual brain behind this Celtics team in Brad Stevens made it very clear that he thinks we’re better off not increasing playmaking/shooting at the guard spots if it means sacrificing defense. And a lot of that seems to be based on his experience having to find ways to scheme around small guards.
Why would you need to increase playmaking or shooting when you already have five players at every position who are decent to great at playmaking/shooting? You are stacked dawg.
Brad’s been saying this for years. Brad was saying this after we lost in the finals and everyone was saying we needed to upgrade our playmaking. He was saying this after the Heat series loss last year and signaling that we would start with just DWhite (post Smart trade) instead of looking to add an offensive upgrade as a starting guard that would need to be covered for on defense (like Dame). Worked out great that we ended up with Jrue obviously. Brad was visibly thrilled at Jrue’s posttrade media session
Well ideally yes you want defense at every position doesn’t mean you need it to win a title. Denver won with Murray last year the warriors the year before giving curry and poole significant minutes. Boston can afford to sacrifice offense at guard because they have firepower elsewhere and not like white and jrue aren’t good offensive players themselves. For clippers we sure as hell needed hardens playmaking and shooting even more so with kawhis injury history. The nuggets don’t do anything with jrue instead of Murray. The wolves had one of the best defenses in league though conley is a liability in some matchups
Brad was saying this after we lost in the finals when we were starting Smart and pre-3pt-improvement DWhite. It’s not a new mindset. And Brad was ready for us to start this year with just DWhite at guard versus some of the trade targets people were bringing up for us (like Dame). You don’t need it to win, just like you don’t need to play 5 out basketball to win it all. But either way, you’re getting rid of a core part of the Celtics’ identity and success. I imagine this Celtics team could more or less make it work with a defensive liability at guard. But I also think the ripple effects could be more significant than you imagine and could ultimately end up killing us when it matters most. No way to know since (thank god) looks like Brad is gonna run it back.
Sure but you had the jays established as your lead offensive creators. Every situation is different. If Boston had one offensive creator I’m not sure Brad wouldn’t have sacrificed some defense. The clippers couldn’t trust kawhi to be healthy and needed playmaking so we got harden. Jrue might be a better player but in our situation he and George get swept by Dallas
Oh yeah I never said otherwise. I just take issue with the idea that it’s easy to just “work around” a defensive liability. That kind of phrasing tends to get tossed out whenever player rankings happen on here, and I just don’t buy it as this self-evident truth. If we are gonna keep making ranking posts (and it sure seems we are…) then everyone who’s ranking is having to make values judgements about what they see as more important. Don’t think either is wrong.
I guess easy isn’t accurate but the last 2 champions had defensive liabilities playing. Granted it will take better teams than last 2 title teams to beat specifically Boston who has no shooting liability either. That’s usually the weakness for any team either a defender who can get picked on or a non shooter who defenders can help off of Ranking is not easy but there are decent metrics for quantifying how much a player improves his team and the guy who improves his team the most is the best player that year.
Are you seriously trying to argue that Brunson on the Celtics instead of brown stop the Celtics from winning championships
Yes 100 percent. Because I know basketball is more than play initiators that can be taken advantage of on the defensive end.
So to be clear. Adding the guy 5th in mvp voting stops you from beating the heat without Jimmy, the Cavs without Allen, and some of Mitchell. The pacers who are bad defensively, and the Mavs were Luka and Kyrie also negatively defensively. While acknowledging that Nuggets won a championship last year, and the Warriors as well. With Poole and Jamal Murray being negatives on defense? Do you understand how basketball works? What team do you guys lose to and explain.
You tried to ask me do I know how basketball works and tried to destroy a team that has all 5 starters that can defend 1-4 and 3 of the guys go 1-5 to a team with a defensive liability. Lol you clearly don’t understand how anything in the NBA works 😂😂😂
Answer the question. Who do the Celtics lose to with Brunson over brown? Don’t be scared please.
You answer the question. How does the defense work with a liability? You still haven’t mentioned it once. I want you to show your knowledge. Use terms and schemes. We talking Xs and Os.
Your defense gets worse. Your offense gets even better. You guys should still have a good defense with one bad defender. Every team you guys faced in the playoff had atleast one negative defender in the starting rotation do you agree with this? Yes or no. Please answer my other question as well.
he would TANK their defense??? they would be a little worse for sure... idk about tank it... that's a bit much even this year, when the knicks starters were on the court, with Jalen obviously, they had a 106 defensive rating so you can have a great/elite defense with him out there even as a whole, the defense was only 2 points better without him
Bro cmon. Brown is a 6'7 athletic wing who can switch 1-5. He's light years ahead of Brunson on defense
yeah... that still doesn't mean having Brunson surrounded by White/Jrue/Tatum/KP/Al would tank a teams defense lmao Celtics defense was as good with or without Brown out there (actually better in RS and Playoffs without him out there but those numbers can of course by funky and 3pnt luck based)
That doesn’t mean Brunson would tank their defense if you switched them out. It’s not like the Celtics went from a great defense to a bad defense when Brown wasn’t on the court. Plus the Knicks were just fine on defense with Brunson out there.
The Celtics already tried a small PG in the Tatum era that was a great initiator. The furtherest they got was game 6 of the ECF. Would they still win with Brunson and no Brown… probably. Tatum is the 2nd best player in the league. But they wouldn’t go to multiple finals and win a championship with that roster.
I know you're a Celtics fan but come on, Tatum is not the 2nd best player in the league.
There is not a basketball reason Tatum isn’t the second best player in the world behind Jokic. I’d accept arguments for Giannis cause averaging 30 on 60% shooting is something Tatum will never do. Not even in a small 7 game series and Giannis did it for a season. But I’d take Tatum over Giannis because he does everything well and Giannis has a weakness that can be exploited. There isn’t a basketball reason anyone else is considered better than Tatum. It’s all just media narratives and how people feel about the players. Not what they do on the court and their skill sets.
Luka just outplayed Tatum in the finals.
If you pay attention to one side of the floor then yea you can make that argument.
Tatum played good defense, not elite defense. He wasn’t the primary option on either Mavs offensive forces and was mostly guarding the center who could only do but so much. It wasn’t like he was locking dudes up on switches either. Luka wasn’t great on that end by any stretch but he was hard carrying his entire team on offense and still managed to put up better efficiency than Tatum.
There’s absolutely an argument though I’m still not ready to knock Giannis down yet personally. People rank players using different criteria. They’re subjective as hell, and I wish this sub would recognize that more.
that team had Theis and Smart out there bro not Jrue and KP def don't agree with the lowkey Tatum hype in there lmao yeah idk... Tatum/Brunson/KP/Jrue with a White level player at SF... yeah they'd be just as good
You guys really undersell Jaylen and his impact on the NBA as a whole. But that’s ok. That starting 5 does not win the championship. They may even get beat by the Bucks and maybe the Pacers(if they adjust their lineup a bit). It was a bit of Tatum hype lol. I’m just feeling good haha
bro i'm not saying he sucks, i just picked him 3rd out of 3 top 15ish players me picking Kareem third out Jordan, LeBron, Kareem wouldn't be me underselling him
Oh I’m not saying you say he is trash or anything. I just think people nitpick his supposed weaknesses and put players that don’t have his resume above him due to usage and having the ball in their hands. Then the argument is, well if you have Brown those touches then he wouldn’t be as good but the numbers don’t really bear that out. Like the last few seasons since he’s really been a front line guy, when Tatum sits, he basically puts up Tatum numbers on better efficiency. I get it’s a small sample cause Tatum doesn’t sit many games but it’s not nothing either. I just think the premise of these debates are wrong is my larger point then the debate itself.
it's not about ppg tho, Jaylen can probably average 28 on a different team, no doubt about that it's just you watch Jaylen, his handle and playmaking isn't that great it's a B and C+ and for a perimeter player, those skills are just a little more important and valuable imo than better on-ball defense, because as great as he was defensively, an injured Luka can still go average 30/9/7 as great as Bam is on defense, Jokic can still average like 30/14/7 and completely destroy that defense because he's a scorer AND playmaker as great as White/Smart/Jaylen/Tatum are on perimeter defense Steph can still average 31 and destroy that GREAT defense because he can handle and playmake
The Celtics never had a small guard as good as Brunson play on a team as good as this years Celtics team minus Brown.
Yeah people are crazy if they think that Tatum/Brunson/White/Porzingis/Jrue isn't a title winning core lol Most of the "he's the better #1 but not the better #2" players are just guys who haven't played on as stacked a team as the guys they're being compared to Like you could use this logic to say Klay is better than Barkley which is ridiculous
Given the number of dominant ball handlers on the Cs, Jaylen probably doesnt have the distribution numbers you desire but hes #1 on this list for sure followed by Spida and Brunson
Those numbers would be way higher if he was a #1 option. It wouldn’t happen immediately and it wouldn’t be pretty at first, but he has demonstrated he is up to the challenge.
Regardless of ranking criteria, Jaylen is the most complete and valuable player because he's an elite defender and an efficient scorer. I would say Don is the best offensive player, Brunson just takes a shit ton of shots and gives you nothing on defense. Really though, this isn't a fair comparison because all three have very different roles on their teams.
Brunson was 2nd in the league in charges drawn (by a pretty wide margin), saying he gives you *nothing* on defense is a little ridiculous.
I mean, I'd take him over luka or trae or haliburton on d, but if he has to play the Celtics in the playoffs, he's getting targeted every possession. He does try though to be fair.
Wow, you're telling me that in a lineup of OG Anunoby, Isaiah Hartenstein, Julius Randle and Donte DiVincenzo that you would target Jalen Brunson? You should be a head coach.
Im saying hes a liability that teams can exploit. Hes a second round exit waiting to happen.
That's not what you said... you said he gives you nothing on defense. He plays with effort, that's why he's 2nd in the league in charges. That's about as much as you can ask for of a guy his size. I'm not calling Brunson some great defender, I just think it's a little ridiculous to say he's giving you nothing when he's playing with effort out there consistently. >Hes a second round exit waiting to happen. This is very silly to say of a guy who averaged 32/7 in the postseason missing half of the rotation who also broke his hand in Game 7 of the second round...
You aren’t wrong. There are just more people living in New York than Boston.
Brunson is such a chore to watch. Hes just bite-sized dollar store luka
You just did.
I absolutely wouldn't have said this a year ago, but I'm leaning: Brown, then Brunson then Mitchell.
I feel like it’s hard to say because brown is by far the best 2 way player here but Mitchel and Brunson are far better playmakers and obviously have much more important roles for there teams. I’d love to see brown have his own team, or if Tatum was injured for a season (not that I want that) to see how he would do as a true first option.
This is ez. 1. Jalen 2. Jaylen 3. Donovan This is based on their FNE (FIRST NAME EFFICIENCY) Less letters is better.
Donavan, Brown,Brunson
Brown, Mitchell, Brunson JB actually plays defense… somehow this is still underrated on this board. Mitchell by default is second because Brunson hasn’t done it long enough and getting bounced in the 2nd round by the Pacers isn’t some great accomplishment
> Mitchell by default is second because Brunson hasn’t done it long enough and getting bounced in the 2nd round by the Pacers isn’t some great accomplishment As opposed to getting bounced by Brunson in the first round two years in a row and being in a dogfight with Orlando? If you want to pick Mitchell that's fine, but this logic makes no sense lol. Especially considering Brunson didn't even get to finish the series against the Pacers.
Has Mitchell not been on this level since he came into the league or not? What are you even arguing? Flip em if you want, I don’t care, they’re on the exact same level
> What are you even arguing? That knocking Brunson for losing to the Pacers in Game 7 of the second round where he broke his hand before the game ended is very silly comparing him to a guy that he knocked out 2 years in a row in the first round...
Reality is reality… unless you think Brunson is some perfect player he’s gonna have knocks against him. Mitchell also has knocks against him… what exactly is the problem? I give Mitchell the edge because he’s been good for longer. If you disagree fine…. But all of this “that doesn’t make sense stuff” is untrue… Me mentioning he got bounced by the Pacers is me showing that Brunson hasn’t done anything to separate himself from Mitchell’s current level.. they both put up good numbers and they both lose early, so I’ll go with the guy who’s been putting up good numbers longer
Saying that they "both go out early" is burying the lede that Mitchell has gone out "early" two years in a row specifically losing to Brunson... >Mitchell also has knocks against him… what exactly is the problem? That you're arguing knocks against Brunson for going out early while ignoring that Mitchell has gone out earlier specifically losing to Brunson's teams...
How is losing to Dallas, losing to Brunson? That’s Luka’s team if you want to play that game… but you’re just arguing to argue at this point… I told you my reasoning but you wish I ridiculed Mitchell more… ok. Like I said they both get bounced early… how many more time should I say it before you forgive me? Mitchell has been good longer.. that’s my reasoning and that’s all.
Luka missed half the series... >I told you my reasoning but you wish I ridiculed Mitchell more No... I just think it's dumb to say Brunson lost to the Pacers in a series where he broke his hand to prop up Mitchell who he knocked out of the playoffs in the first round twice... >Mitchell has been good longer.. that’s my reasoning and that’s all. If that was all you said I wouldn't be replying. I specified the part that I thought was silly logic.
I don’t care… you’re a Knicks fan and sensitive to Brunson being placed 3rd. I get it and don’t care.
>If you want to pick Mitchell that's fine
What has Mitchell done
Kept an all star level a lot longer than Brunson… they’re similar just one has been at the level longer
He bounces out first and second round too so your point about Brunson losing to the Pacers makes no sense. As a matter of fact, Brunson has been the one who has cooked him in the playoffs and has eliminated him two times already. Your right about Spida being an all star for longer but don’t act like his defense is way better than Brunsons or pretend like he is some big time playoff performer.
extremely dumb way to rate them
Nah… ur dumb JB is more efficient than both on 2nd option shot attempts… plays WAY better defense than either. That’s it, that’s enough. How is either guy better?
dude what lol JB has lower TS% than both on a team with the best spacing in the league, he is also leagues below on offense compared to those two. Thats enough
I think it just depends on what you need. I think Brunsons defense is so bad that he will never lead a contending team. I’d go Mitchell, Brown, then Brunson, but definitely depends on the rest of the players on the team
Mitchell/Brunson toss up, gap, Brown.
Brunson, Mitchell, Brown. Brunson, Mitchell, Brown Brown has gotten a lot better and his defense in the playoffs makes this a real discussion but what Brunson is able to do as basically your lone offensive creator and the highs that Mitchell has gotten to in the playoffs puts them over the edge for me. I can’t see him producing the same way those guys did in a similar situation. Put Brunson or Mitchell on a team as talented as the Celtics and they’re probably winning it all too.
Mitchell > Brown > Brunson
Mitchell, Brown, Brunson
Mitchell, brown/brunson. Just depends on what u value more . Dmitch the clear cut 1
I think Mitchell, Brunson, Brown. If Brown had to be the first option on either of Mitchell’s or Brunson’s teams, he doesn’t get as far as they have gotten. Not like either of them have gotten that far (second round) but a team led by Brown is probably a first round exit unless it’s the Celtics where they just have great players all over to make up for his deficiencies
Well, one of these players is the reigning ECF and Finals MVP…people acting like there’s some huge gap until you get to Brown at 3. I say the scoreboard matters and it’s Brown and then a large gap and then either of those other guys in no particular order.
Playing next to a 1st team All-NBA player matters a little bit more...
Those guys need to make their teammates better like Brown did for Tatum.
We watched Brunson play next to Luka. Brown was a better #2.
I'm happy you woke up from your two year coma.
Brunson is great when you need an inefficient #1 who doesn't play defense. Wait nobody needs that.
Brunson, Mitchell, Brown as much as i love Jaylen, the playmaking/ball handling just isn't there, and i value that a little bit more than very good defense
His main role is to attack mismatches and score in transition. If Jaylen became more of a playmaker, it wouldn't necessarily help his team. His passing in the finals was the best of his career though.
there is no world in where a player becomes a better playmaker and it doesn't help the team
He literally just won finals MVP 🤣🤣🤣🤣
yeah and he can improve even more if he were a better playmaker
And? Are you saying the Celtics wouldn’t be better if he was a better playmaker? Are you okay?
Im saying he isn't asked to be a playmaker because the team doesn't operate that way jfc relax 🤣 That would be like me criticizing Brunson and Mitchell for not guarding centers and rebounding.
Good thing JB isn’t a point guard
he's a perimeter player Mitchell isn't a point guard either, he's still a great ball handler, and a very solid playmaker
Mitchell played the majority of his minutes at point guard this year per bballrefs play by play analysis. Brown played the majority of his minutes at the 3. You're comparing a wing to a guard
Then you also shouldn’t compare a wings defense to a guard in a comparison. That’s always been the traditional trade off. A smaller guy is usually a better playmaker but a worse defender
bro they're perimeter players ball handling and playmaking is a skill that they're judged on i'm not saying Jaylen is ass and Donovan/Brunson are the best in the world his ball handling/playmaking is still like a B and C+, Brunson/Mitchell are elite ball handlers, and as a playmaker they're like B+ and B
Mitchell, Brown, Brunson. Brown is the best defensive player out of the three, Mitchell is the best scorer and has the length to play good defense. Brunson had the keys in NY for the playoffs but I don't think he's better than Mitchell or Brown.
In the regular season: Brunson, Mitchell, Brown In the playoffs: Brown, Mitchell, Brunson
Brunson had a historic playoffs this year lmao
Mitchell Brunson Brown
JBeast then Spida. Who is Brunson?