Originally Posted by mlh1981
Upon reading the responses, I guess it's not so crazy after all to assume that Pierce would be a top 5 Celtic.
Why, because Pierce could become the #1 scorer in Celtic history?
Bill Russell was never known for his scoring; Bird & Hondo were much more complete players then Pierce and Cousy is just an icon in Celtic history, a PG who distributed the ball rather then score. A perennial All-Star like Pierce shouldn't even be allowed to be in the same tier as him, let alone be considered better then him.
Besides Bird & Hondo; those three players (including McHale) simply either didn't have as long of career or they simply played different positions and had different strengths (other then being asked to be a primary scorer). And although Pierce could beat out Bird & Hondo on the All-Time scoring list; those guys were a heck of a lot more complete as basketball players.
Pierce is good at everything, I'm not dissing him. He is a really good player, an All-Star, who has had a great career. He is extremely clutch, a great scorer and an underrated defender. But he doesn't do anything at a legendary level; I can't see him being placed on that "Top 50 Players of All-Time" list, there are nearly 25-30 players in this past decade and in the 90's who were at least as good as Pierce was. Guys like Mitch Richmond, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson and Joe Dumars. None of those players should be considered better then any of those Celtic legends; and Pierce isn't exactly better then any of those careers either.
Boston have won the most titles; and those five individuals have won 90%+ for them; I find it an insult for anyone to consider Pierce above any one of those guys (McHale, Bird, Russell, Hondo or Cousy).