Reply With Quote
No but neither is the mascot.
It's not about who's out there, but whether or not he needs to be fired. You don't hire someone before you fire him anyhow. His assistants could do just fine. Imagine he quits a couple years back and Thibs takes over.
No but neither is the mascot.
Instead of letting their Big 3 move the ball and use the fact that they were all Hall of Fame talent, Rivers just let Rondo stat-pad for assists.
He may have led in assists, but the Celtics live and die by jump shots... to no one's surprise their offense actually became slightly more tenable when Pierce was allowed to facilitate AND score.
It's funny. One could argue that NBA coaches are little more than mascots. They can only do so much, etc.
I mean, I find it incredibly difficult to judge coaching, especially in pro sports. There are so many factors involved with a team's success, how do you isolate the variables attributable to coaching? This is evident by the wide disagreements about coaches; one guy will say Pop is the greatest coach of all time, and the next guy will say he's a terrible coach. Most likely they are both wrong, but how could you prove it either way?
motivation ain't the only element a successful coach needs to have imho. being black yourself you can be a big brother of a band of s but that's not the right way to long-term success in NBA imho
As for a replacement, the NBA has a serious issue with coaching, tbh..
The NBA coaching circle is a perpetual cycle of inep ude..they continue to recycle ty coaches that failed during their previous stints..teams need to explore the availability of coaches that are not experienced NBA guys, rather than signing ty coaches like Byron Scott, Mike Brown and Vinny Del Negro..
Could Doc Rivers coach the Spurs to the best record in the West?
Could Doc Rivers take the Heat to the wire without his big 3?
Could Doc Rivers make good players out of players like Danny Green and Gary Neal?
Could Doc Rivers ever win a game with Bonner and Blair on the floor at the same time?
Quite easily. You take someone like Lawrence Frank who couldn't coach little league softball and you pit him against a Pat Riley, Larry Brown, Jerry Sloan or Pop (and a few others). Who wins if the talent levels on the teams are similar? Which would you take if you had your pick for a new team and why?I mean, I find it incredibly difficult to judge coaching, especially in pro sports. There are so many factors involved with a team's success, how do you isolate the variables attributable to coaching? This is evident by the wide disagreements about coaches; one guy will say Pop is the greatest coach of all time, and the next guy will say he's a terrible coach. Most likely they are both wrong, but how could you prove it either way?
Mike D, for example, runs the out of his team. He plays them too many minutes. He doesn't preach defense and doesn't grant minutes based on defensive effort. Mike Brown doesn't run an efficient offense, doesn't take control of the team, doesn't portray himself as a leader to the team, begs for respect, whines like a (as does Mike D). Then you take a George Karl, Nellie or Pop type coach who acts as a manager to his team, has their trust, doesn't on them to the media individually, understands the game and knows where to put his resources and when. Understands how to run plays out of the timeout and when to use a time out. Knows how to close and has great time management knowledge. No way you take Mike D over those guys.
Doc runs the score up, played his big 3 up 40 with 2 minutes left in the 4th. He's not a good coach.
And Lawrence Frank and Avery Johnson and Mike D'Antoni and on and on.
that's what... one 60 win season after their championship? I mean, hypothetically Thibs does great with Boston because he's a great coach and his style fits with Boston's culture and players, but I just don't see the reasoning in getting Doc out.
I agree he's unique in the sense he needs enormous talent to win les but the more I watch basketball the more you see that most coaches with enormous talents crumble under pressure. Just take a look at D'antoni right now, you can bet the Lakers would be much better and with MINIMAL injuries if PJ was coach right now. 11 rings to back that argument up.
Unless they want to remain a mediocre team until Garnett dies or retires, fine. They have talent they just don't explore. Of course you don't see the reason, the reason(s) never get an opportunity to present themselves. Good coaches explore the roster, find gems in the pile, they don't just play the recently hired guns 40 minutes a game while ignoring the talent on the bench. Anyone can win with a stacked team (most anyone, Mike D might be an exception), but a good coach can develop players. After all, what's the use in getting young upstarts if they aren't developed?
Larry Brown is the GOAT imo
PJ was coach when Dirk ushered him out. They had Bynum, Pau and Kobe (with both tendons intact). Bynum can shoot FTs. That same team won b2b rings.
Phil lost their ears. He also quit after '10 imo. He pretty much just gave up and sat there like a bump on a log.
I agree, not knowing much about Red, LB was a great coach, but not much for tenure.
I do think Rivers needed Thibodeau more than Thibodeau needed Rivers.
But I don't necessarily agree about Rivers when it comes to offense. I think he's good at designing plays out of the timeout.
He's also very good at adjustments. I think it was last year where they gave up the least amount of points in the 3rd quarter.
That can be a misleading stat. Teams that are up by 20+ at the half often put in end of bench players in the 3rd who don't do a lot on offense, then go back to their starters to start the 4th if the lead is trimmed significantly.
I agree with developing players... maybe the larger markets having money for FAs plays part in that. Even Boston's reemergence in this era was result of an off-season.
I don't know. Those are all hypothetical. What if it's all arbitrary?
Just playing devil's advocate, you see. I don't really think coaching is arbitrary, but I think coaching success is often conflated with player/team success - which in turn muddies the perceptual water, making it hard to know which ones are really superior.
That is such a horrible analogy, Thibs' was our defensive coach not offense and our increase of offensive struggle were due to aging on PP KG and Ray. Chicago's increase was purely the rise of Derrick Rose, they are ranked 25th this year.
I agree that Doc is overrated but our offensive struggles isn't because Thibs' left us.
I understand what you are saying, but the guy could take any ELITE team and win les. Now, the legit knock on Phil is he is no Larry Brown, he can't build a team from the bottom up and take them to win it all. PJ is also the man who would tool with IMO the second greatest coach of this era aka yours truly Popo.
...and you got run out of town
& then most of the mob that ran me out of town came after me begging me to return. "Oh, Cubby, we miss you." Oh, Cubby, come back soon." Oh, Cubby, kiss my mouth." "Oh, Cubby, you're sorely missed. The place is dead without you. We made a greivous mistake and our black asses are sorry, uh, master." - rayray
I'm sorry, I can't hear you yelling from way out of town
You're forgiven.
Doc's biggest problem is that he doesn't trust young guys. Also, it's not just the loss of Rondo, but Sullinger as well.
That said, if the Cs make their shots at all in the fourth, we would have stole Game 1.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions