A lot of fans around the league seem to have a fantasy image of what this Celtics team is all about, not the least of which is that there are a team with little playoff viability and more than their share of hard times ahead.I may not be the last word on the issue, but there are things going on in Boston, good and bad, that the majority of people have overlooked and are going to be surprised about this season. While I help you understand some of these comings and goings a little better keep in mind that the league is ever-changing, and winners and losers alike are almost always in flux, and Boston is no exception.As we take a department-by-department look at the team, keep in mind that this team was in the Eastern Conference Finals just four short years ago, and see if you can see the biggest differences between that Jim O?Brien-led team and the latest vintage.CoachingLots of Doc apologists seem to have the wrong-headed notion that he has gotten a raw deal in Boston. After winning coach of the year in Orlando in 2000 and leading that same team of no-names to three straight playoff seasons, Doc was brought to Boston to manage a team of youngsters and bad contracts. It was expected that Doc would take a running approach to the team, not unlike his days in Orlando. It was also expected that Doc could handle big game pressure, thanks to his days playing in Atlanta during the heart of that team?s heyday.After learning that Doc was capable of neither of those things, the effect started to snowball. While most coaches believe in set rotations, Doc was everybody?s friend and gave them all playing time. The little league approach has proved to be marginally ineffective, as evidenced by the fact that Celtics have taken large steps backwards in the two seasons he has been there.To say that the team has taken steps backwards without backing up the statement would be unfair, so let?s take an inventory.In Doc?s first season, the team was essentially run by a future hall of famer in Gary Payton, and a guy who took a lot of cues from Doc?s playing days. He also couldn?t abide Doc?s coaching style, and as a result, was far less effective as a mentor than was expected.Despite being surrounded by rookies and young backcourt talent, GP resisted a leadership role (excepting on the court) and saw the progress of that backcourt stagnate and eventually level off. Victims of his ineffective leadership are now scattered about the league, and indeed the world.Guys like Marcus Banks in Phoenix by way of Minnesota, Ricky Davis in Minny, Jiri Welsch in God knows where (Unicaja Malaga in the Spanish ACB), and some still in Boston, like Delonte West and Tony Allen.The best examples of stunted growth would be Banks and Welsch. Marcus Banks showed a great deal of promise on the defensive end and as a penetrating point guard, with a drive and kick mentality, a player eerily reminiscent of GP himself back in the day.But Marcus? abilities and surely enough playing time leveled off in his first season with the team, and he was shipped out just as soon as it was realized that he would never stop fouling opposing point guards before they even crossed half court.Welsch was the classic fish out of water. A serviceable shooter and a player who did nothing if not hustle, Welsch was marginalized as the team moved away from the perimeter and started driving with more frequency.And therein lies a great deal of the issues Doc?s coaching style has brought up. Doc hasn?t played to his player?s strengths, he has played to a game plan that has been unrealistic, and to this point, ineffective.While in Orlando, Doc coached a team of misfits that was not expected to do much of anything, but took them to the playoffs three times and from zero to respectability in one season flat. To do that, he ran limited offensive sets, asked his players to run a lot, and left the issue of chemistry to the veteran leadership, who in the Magic?s case, were more than happy to oblige. Players like Darrell Armstrong, John Amaechi, and Bo Outlaw made the team go on both ends of the floor, and accepted their role with grace and pride.One of those players still accepts that role, and is on the fast track to a coaching career. The only problem with those things is that the wrong players in the wrong situation will not accept those roles, and certainly will not be strengths to their squad.More than anything, fitness and training have been major bumps in the road for young players and coaches alike. This is where not having a set rotation hurts the most. Without a set rotation of players to work around, injuries cause even more mayhem. When one player goes down, there is a set role to fill with other bench players or even a reserve. However, when a player goes down in a lineup without a set rotation, a staff must scramble to fill a void that may or may not be easily definable, with players that aren?t used to that role.For example, if a player like Jason Kidd goes down on a team like New Jersey, we know that that team must make up for that vacancy with a playmaker who is pass-first and willing to run.However, when a player like Paul Pierce goes down, what do you need to replace him? Do you need someone who can rebound, score, draw fouls, and lead his team in assists on his best nights? Or do you need someone who is going to lead his team on offense, take a lesser role on defense, and hit the boards and the break? Or do you just need a player to make up his offense and lean harder on the rest of the lineup?Any number of things would be required to fill the role that Pierce plays on this team, but at the same time, do you want to trust a reserve with that kind of responsibility? Or would you rather divvy up the role and add shares of the load to the rest of the starters too?And that?s not even the worst part of the set rotation issue. When it comes time to substitute, you have entirely too many options for a subpar coach to tinker with. Not getting enough rebounds? Should you bring in a smallish, hustle-oriented power forward, or should you bring in someone who?s going to knock down open shots and eliminate opportunities for your opponent to outrebound you. Some would say that that situation is an easy fix, but there are variables in a coach?s head that one should take into consideration, especially when all you?re doing is running a game plan, as opposed to using players that play a particular role.The Celtics? coaching staff is a far cry from ideal, and unfortunately there isn?t a lot to be thankful for on the C?s bench, but the team isn?t far from a resolution. Which, of course, is the biggest problem; the team still seems hell-bent on riding out the storm.-Squishface, JBB writing team.
Nice article, why is it called the real deal in boston? Kinda makes it sound like all us Celtics fans are in denial about the situation or something when none of us (atleast on this board) are clearly not. I could some all of that up in one sentence. Doc doesn't know what he's doing and needs to leave.
I don't know where this guy was getting at with marcus banks having a drive and kick mentality, but other than that, pretty good write-up.but yeah, Doc needs to go. I swear to god, he has to pick these rotations out of a hat. It's impossible to form chemistry on a young team when the line-ups are so inconsistent. Same thing happened with the Knicks last year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Nov 20 2006, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know where this guy was getting at with marcus banks having a drive and kick mentality, but other than that, pretty good write-up. but yeah, Doc needs to go. I swear to god, he has to pick these rotations out of a hat. It's impossible to form chemistry on a young team when the line-ups are so inconsistent. Same thing happened with the Knicks last year.</div> LMAO I know, right? Marcus Banks has a drive and kick game? Maybe in NBA 2k7, but in real life, he's watching the wrong Marcus. But I agree with your second statement. I agree Doc should go, but what we are going through is SO different from New York's situation it's not even funny. We have a load of unproven and undeveloped young players. New York has an incredibly talented veteran roster, who all happen to have huge contracts and terrible ego problems. Sure, the lineups are inconsistant on this team, but how can you have a consistant rotation when: a) None of these players are proven We have Theo Ratliff, Al Jefferson, Michael Olowokandi out with Perk, Delonte, and Wally having injury problems c) A lot of our young talent plays the same positions as each other You can't really have a stable rotation with that, I can't blame Doc for that. I blame Doc for handling young players poorly, managing minutes terribly, making bad in-game decisions, and making those bad decisions at the wrong times. He's consistant with all that.
I was just using new york's chemistry trouble's as an example. That team may have had veterans, but they hadn't been playing together for too long.
