I've been going over this in my head. Who would I want to replace him? If you're going to answer, answer with someone realistic, someone we could actually get access to, either during this season, or after this season. I don't want to hear people saying Phil Jackson, or Pat Riley, or Gregg Popovich, because obviously those guys aren't going anywhere. If I had my way, Stan Van Gundy would be coaching this team next week. He's good with young guys (Wade), he knows how to make a splash in the playoffs (with or without Shaq), and he is a defensive-minded coach. And he's not doing anything right now, so why not?
Actually I really liking your idea you said before about bringing in one of the Nets coaches. Either Byron Scott, Lawrence Frank, or Eddie Jordan. Coaches that have established running games before and can develope their players.
This roster of athletic, quick players has Rick Adelman written all over it. He's great at distributing minutes and figuring out how to find successful rotations. Having the Celtics run the Princeton offense would be a thing of beauty in Beantown. Paul Pierce slashing underneath for backdoor cuts would be unstoppable.
I could go for the idea of Van Gundy. He is very good at preaching defense, and that is exactly what this team needs. There is not doubt the offense will be there, but defense wins championships, its simple.
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This roster of athletic, quick players has Rick Adelman written all over it. He's great at distributing minutes and figuring out how to find successful rotations. Having the Celtics run the Princeton offense would be a thing of beauty in Beantown. Paul Pierce slashing underneath for backdoor cuts would be unstoppable.</div> Good Lord no. Adelman's teams are notoriously soft and none of them are any good at boardwork, and none of them are ever capable of winning anything meaningful, because, just like the woman said, defense is what sets competitors apart from champions. With the way the game is played these days, every young guy comes into the league to get his minutes and his points, and hangs 'em up when he gets both. What those players miss out on is making an impact defensively and he ends up shorting himself and his team in an effort to wow fans. I like the idea of playing to the fans, but no one has enough pride in himself or his team to play the way he needs to win. Not only win, but win consistently. Sustained excellence is no longer valued the way it was. That in mind, Adelman is one of the worst perpetrators. He has forever coached in a manner insufficient to win the big game. Yes, he did take a team to the finals, but that Blazers team has some remarkable talents and a chemistry that he was never able to duplicate, and seemingly didn't try to. Any team starring Clyde Drexler in his prime (a man who's game resembles Paul's in a striking way), Terry Porter in his prime (a man who's game was unique in almost every way), Clifford Robinson at his best, Kersey before his knees went, I hate to say it but, Kevin Duckworth, and even Buck Williams, and Danny Ainge on his way into the sunset. That team was great, and the Celtics can't hope to match that squad in talent level. The '90 Blazers were even better, and he was flat out outcoached by Chuck Daly. Adelman also has no fostering spirit toward young players. Name a single player he has developed in his career, you can't. Because there aren't any. <div class="quote_poster">cMac44111 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Actually I really liking your idea you said before about bringing in one of the Nets coaches. Either Byron Scott, Lawrence Frank, or Eddie Jordan. Coaches that have established running games before and can develope their players.</div> That may be a good idea too, but the only problem is, those guys are tied up. And they hate the Celtics management team and ownership group. That said, I think that dream may die a quiet death.
Stan Van Gundy sounds like a good idea. I say we try to get someone who has been an assistant to and learned from Popovich, Riley, Jackson or any of the elite coaches in the league. Has to be someone who has won a championship at least as an assistant. It always seems like the best coaches are the ones who learned from the best.
<div class="quote_poster">olskoolFunktitude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Stan Van Gundy sounds like a good idea. I say we try to get someone who has been an assistant to and learned from Popovich, Riley, Jackson or any of the elite coaches in the league. Has to be someone who has won a championship at least as an assistant. It always seems like the best coaches are the ones who learned from the best.</div> Initially, the idea of picking someone who assisted a champion sounds like a great idea, but if you look at the possibilities from those squads, it's not such a great plan. Phil has Frank Hamblen and Kurt Rambis, two guys who coaching on an interim basis at one point or another and were not well received (and Rambis has been on a personal crusade against the Celtics for his entire career), the rest of his assistants are either too inexperienced, or only around for star power. Pat Riley has pretty much only Ron Rothstein, who actually would be a good fit, before you get into the star power garbage again. Bob McAdoo and Keith Askins (who is really more a homer type deal) round out that list. I would love to see Rothstein here in Boston, another defensive-minded coach, but he is very much a one franchise type of guy, and is Riley's right hand man. PJ Carlesimo is Pop's boy, and he really makes that team get moving, and I would love to have him here in Boston, but he's hardly a player favorite, and has trouble when he's not paired with Pop. The rest of his staff has no head coaching experience or are Spurs homegrowns and probably lifers, with the exception of Brett Brown, who I think one day will coach an NBA team, and be quite good at it.
Adelman had limited opportunities to develop players in Sacramento. When you're winning over 50 games a year, you don't have the lottery talent to develop. However here's 3 players Adelman did develop and all were late round picks. Hedo Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace, & Kevin Martin Adelman has only had 3 losing seasons, two of which weren't his fault with the Warriors. Stan Van Gundy is another solid choice, but I don't see the right pieces on this team for his style of coaching. If you want a hard-nosed defensive team, then you need to get those type of players on your roster. Adelman has always been great at resurrecting a franchise and putting them in a position to win a title. Maybe he's not a great closer, but he can get the Celtics to that point.
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Adelman had limited opportunities to develop players in Sacramento. When you're winning over 50 games a year, you don't have the lottery talent to develop. However here's 3 players Adelman did develop and all were late round picks. Hedo Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace, & Kevin Martin Adelman has only had 3 losing seasons, two of which weren't his fault with the Warriors. Stan Van Gundy is another solid choice, but I don't see the right pieces on this team for his style of coaching. If you want a hard-nosed defensive team, then you need to get those type of players on your roster. Adelman has always been great at resurrecting a franchise and putting them in a position to win a title. Maybe he's not a great closer, but he can get the Celtics to that point.</div> Never said he was a bad coach, or a loser, but I want someone who is going to coach this team to championships, and nothing less. I especially want someone who isn't afraid to coach young players, and I want someone who isn't going to forget about defense entirely, because that's how you win the big prize. Adelman may have Wallace under his belt, but Martin and Turkoglu don't impress me very much. As for his stance on defense, that record speaks for itself. Stan could definitely lead this team somewhere impressive, as it has all the elements that Heat team he lead more than capably had. It has the primary option scorer, the defensive-minded reserves, and the scrappy, undersized big guys. At this stage in the game, Doc can't even get his players to do what he wants, that's very obvious in games, so why drag this out any further? Do we need to wait 'till we're 0-10 like in Orlando? Or can we just axe him at 0-5?
<div class="quote_poster">H.ayes Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Two letters, one NBDL coach: DJ.</div> That would be nice, but he wasn't much to speak about in LA, and I strongly doubt that a jump from the D-League to the NBA would do too much for him or this team. He preaches defense, sure, but that's enough to actually get players to play it. I think it's going to take someone with a decent track record to get these cancers to do anything.
I saw this article below talking a little bit about Larry Brown being a possibility for the Celtics head coaching position. In my opinion, that would be sick. Though I think he would do better with a veteran team rather than with all the C's young guys who have "potential". http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20061108-124120-6641r.htm
<div class="quote_poster">CeltixQueen Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I saw this article below talking a little bit about Larry Brown being a possibility for the Celtics head coaching position. In my opinion, that would be sick. Though I think he would do better with a veteran team rather than with all the C's young guys who have "potential". http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20061108-124120-6641r.htm</div> That had to be the single most rambling and negative article I've ever read anyone write. It never had a point, and wasn't trying to make excuses for how little the guy knew about either situation he was talking about. But I agree with him on one thing, him and Boston is a BAD, B-A-D bad, fit.
Haha, yes, it was not very well written and sure did not state the "main idea" at any point. I neglected to actually read the article in it's entirety. But I saw Larry Brown and Boston, so I gave it some thought. I too believe it would not be a good fit.
After watching them lose the way they did last night to the Cavs, I'll settle for almost anyone to take over. That was a terrible game.
<div class="quote_poster">44Thrilla Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Danny Ainge should also be fired for the simple fact that he hasn't fired Rivers yet.</div> Much as I have enjoyed (?) Danny Ainge at the helm, this is verging on ridiculous. He hasn't improved this team a single lick since he's been here, and that's starting to make this situation painfully obvious.
