<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Doc Rivers and the Boston Celtics haven?t discussed terms of a new contract, but Rivers believes things will work out. According to Paul Pierce, the continuity is important. ?If you?re talking about getting off to a good start, then it?s good,? he said. ?I mean, you?ve got a number of guys who are going to be here (and) you?ve got a number of guys who are not going to be here. And if this organization is serious about getting off to a good start, getting to the playoffs, making a deep run for next year, I think that?s good. ?When you get a whole new coach and get whole new players, then the tendency is to get off to a slow start because you?ve got to implement the guys. You?ve got to know people?s tendencies. You?ve got to get to know your players. There?s a lot of things that come along with getting a new coach. So I think it?s good (Rivers will likely stay), especially with a team that?s serious about moving forward next year.? Perkins was pleased to hear the news. ?It feels good, but I didn?t think there was going to be a change anyway,? he said. ?I think he deserves it. With all the things that happened this year, Doc didn?t give up on us. He stuck with it. He coached a lot of young guys to be better than they were at the beginning of the season, so I think he?s doing his job. A lot of things he?s done have come under the table. It doesn?t really come to light just how much he means to this team, but he means a lot to us.?</div>http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/455...s_is_important/Yeah..he means a lot to this team all 23 victories and 54 losses...I hope this isn't how the players really feelI know it's important for him to keep them motivated off the court..but his on the court coaching is very questionableHow many times has he blown the game? Last night is a prime exampleHow many times has he not drawn up a good enough play to win the game in a situation where it was either win or lose?He's a TERRIBLE coach...really nice guy but TERRIBLE coach
First of all playa, I dislike Doc's coaching, but you can't sit here and say that he's done nothing good. Like it or not, he has been responsible for some of these players' development, he is an outstanding motivator, he hasn't given up (he still coaches/teaches every game until the final buzzer, whether we're up 4 or down 20). He does do some things well. He's not the best x's and o's coach, he makes bad decisions, and he sometimes mishandles young players, but you can't act like he does NOTHING right. He keeps the chemistry level high, like it or not. And secondly, the players OBVIOUSLY aren't going to come out and say negative things about him.
obviously not..you always say thatim just saying I hope this isn't how they actually feel deep in side..that he's the right coach for this team
Notice they never said anything about his coaching ability being better than everyone makes it out to be. I wish they'd just can Doc and offer the job to Rick Adelman. He's the best head coach out there right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Apr 11 2007, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Notice they never said anything about his coaching ability being better than everyone makes it out to be. I wish they'd just can Doc and offer the job to Rick Adelman. He's the best head coach out there right now.</div> Yeah, but I'm not so sure Adleman would be the best decision. He would make sure we play a team game, we would run, but I'm skeptical of how that would work out when you are talking about the defensive side of things.
It's more Ainge's fault the Celtics are in this position than it is Doc's. Aside from some questionable in-game coaching methods I think Doc hasn't done that bad of a job. He's a coach players can relate too and I think he has a lot to do with the development of Rondo. If we had a different GM I think a lot of people in Boston would have different opinions on Doc.
It's amazing what having the right amount of talent will do for a coach too.Raptors are the best example of this.They overhaul the roster, thanks to a new GM and this year no one is talking about getting rid of Sam Mitchel even though he's not a great X and O's guy.Sam may be growing into his role a bit better too.If Ainge makes the right moves and the ping pong ball rolls our way, the C's could make a huge leap next year and Doc will be 'alright'
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ Apr 11 2007, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's more Ainge's fault the Celtics are in this position than it is Doc's. Aside from some questionable in-game coaching methods I think Doc hasn't done that bad of a job. He's a coach players can relate too and I think he has a lot to do with the development of Rondo. If we had a different GM I think a lot of people in Boston would have different opinions on Doc.</div>Those would be great traits to have for a veteran team, but the Celtics are young and need a coach who can teach and develop a system to hide their considerable flaws. Doc makes horrible in-game decisions and his lack of a rotation in previous years has absolutely killed the team as far as winning is concerned. If the Celtics want to make a jump they need to fire this guy. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Apr 11 2007, 04:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, but I'm not so sure Adleman would be the best decision. He would make sure we play a team game, we would run, but I'm skeptical of how that would work out when you are talking about the defensive side of things.</div>He has his flaws, but his Kings teams were great for a number of years and defense isn't nearly as important as it used to be with all the rule changes. The Celts have the personnel to fit his style of play perfectly, and he'd definitely be able to develop an offense better than Rivers. Plus, if there's a better unemployed coach out there I'd love to hear who.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Apr 11 2007, 10:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He has his flaws, but his Kings teams were great for a number of years and defense isn't nearly as important as it used to be with all the rule changes. The Celts have the personnel to fit his style of play perfectly, and he'd definitely be able to develop an offense better than Rivers. Plus, if there's a better unemployed coach out there I'd love to hear who.</div> Defense isn't as important as it used to be? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Apr 11 2007, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Defense isn't as important as it used to be? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.</div>With the new rules defenses can only be so good. The Bad Boy Pistons or the early-90's Knicks wouldn't be able to play the way they did then. The Suns aren't a particularly great defensive team and they're doing great, as are the Jazz. They're 15th and 24th respectively in OPP PPG. Orlando plays better defense than Toronto (7th to 15th), but they're not the better team by any means. If you can play defense then great, but as long as you can score it's possible to compete and even make a playoff run in the East. Don't get me wrong, defense still matters. Almost all the top teams in the league are also among the best defensive teams, but Boston is a long way off from that. If the Celts need to play great defense to win a title then make a change when that time comes, but right now they just need to start being competitive. Adelman would be a big step in that direction. I think worrying about the team not playing good defense when they can't do anything well right now is a little nitpicky. Again, who would be a better choice as a new head coach then?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Apr 11 2007, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Suns aren't a particularly great defensive team and they're doing great, as are the Jazz.</div> That's also why the Suns haven't won a championship, and likely won't win a championship. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They're 15th and 24th respectively in OPP PPG. Orlando plays better defense than Toronto (7th to 15th), but they're not the better team by any means. If you can play defense then great, but as long as you can score it's possible to compete and even make a playoff run in the East.</div> You can win games in the regular season, but if you don't defend - you don't do anything more than "make runs." And yes, Orlando plays better defense than Toronto and are the worse team, but they seriously DON'T have a legit #1 option offensively. There's a difference. Orlando plays solid defense, but don't have a go-to guy offensively. But an elite team will not win a championship without good defense. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Don't get me wrong, defense still matters. Almost all the top teams in the league are also among the best defensive teams, but Boston is a long way off from that. If the Celts need to play great defense to win a title then make a change when that time comes, but right now they just need to start being competitive. Adelman would be a big step in that direction. I think worrying about the team not playing good defense when they can't do anything well right now is a little nitpicky. Again, who would be a better choice as a new head coach then?</div> Again, ridiculous. Only add defense when you think you can win a title? That's absurd. The point is you CAN'T win a championship without good defense. What is the point of hiring Adleman right now, go all offense for 2-3 years, then get a brand new coach after that who can take us far? That's stupid. You waste valuable years teaching these young players offense, with little emphasis on defense, and then bring in another coach (who will go upon things much differently and have a different system) and have everyone start all over again. What is the point of that? And I don't know who out there could provide what we need, I don't strongly evaluate coaches like league general managers, but I'll tell you one thing - it's not Rick Adleman (especially if we get Oden - knock on wood).
Doc's not that bad, yes he could be better but I think he's a fine fit in boston.. just do not worry Doc will get better as coach as time passes.
If the Celts don't have a good coach in mind to replace Doc, they shouldn'tthere something to be said for continuity.Doc did well when he first started coaching and was able to take the Magic and make them better.Look at the teams that are always bad. They're constantly changing coaches and it confuses the players. If the players are behind Doc, I guess give him another year and we'll see.I haven't heard any players blasting Doc to the media, that's a good sign IMO.As for defense. Absolutely it's needed to win, you have to be able to make stops.I think you can't be like the Knicks of the 90's though and get by on mostly defense, you have to be able to score 100 points. You don't see those 77-72 games as much as we were seeing in the 90's due to the rules changes/enforcements the league has stressed.Of course, the best defensive teams this year are the Spurs, Mavs and Pistons so that says a lot too. They can all score too though, unlike defensive teams in the past.I think Pierce, Jefferson, Rondo and if he can stay on the court Perkins can play decent to good D if they focus on it. It just doesn't happen often.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Apr 12 2007, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If the Celts don't have a good coach in mind to replace Doc, they shouldn't there something to be said for continuity. Doc did well when he first started coaching and was able to take the Magic and make them better. Look at the teams that are always bad. They're constantly changing coaches and it confuses the players. If the players are behind Doc, I guess give him another year and we'll see. I haven't heard any players blasting Doc to the media, that's a good sign IMO. As for defense. Absolutely it's needed to win, you have to be able to make stops. I think you can't be like the Knicks of the 90's though and get by on mostly defense, you have to be able to score 100 points. You don't see those 77-72 games as much as we were seeing in the 90's due to the rules changes/enforcements the league has stressed. Of course, the best defensive teams this year are the Spurs, Mavs and Pistons so that says a lot too. They can all score too though, unlike defensive teams in the past. I think Pierce, Jefferson, Rondo and if he can stay on the court Perkins can play decent to good D if they focus on it. It just doesn't happen often.</div> I agree that changing coaches too often can get to the players, that's true. However, this isn't just "giving him another year to see what happens" like you said. Doc still has 1 year on his contract, and they want to extend that 1-2 more years (making it 2-3). THAT is what I don't agree with. I also think you are underrating the Knicks of the 90's on the offensive end. They had Patrick Ewing, for starters. Mark Jackson was one of the best playmakers of that era, John Starks and Gerald Wilkins could score the basketball. The Knicks were a very well rounded team with great defense, a lot of grit, a GREAT center, and a top playmaker. Also, you failed to mention our best defender in your last sentence: Tony Allen.
whoops slipped my mind with him being out.Allen is the best defender and Rondo has the athletic skills to take that mantle away from Allen if he continues to learn the nuances of the game
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Apr 12 2007, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>whoops slipped my mind with him being out. Allen is the best defender and Rondo has the athletic skills to take that mantle away from Allen if he continues to learn the nuances of the game</div> Or how about "Allen if he can recover from his torn knee." God, I hope he returns and eventually reaches the level he was playing at before he went down.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Apr 12 2007, 02:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's also why the Suns haven't won a championship, and likely won't win a championship.You can win games in the regular season, but if you don't defend - you don't do anything more than "make runs." And yes, Orlando plays better defense than Toronto and are the worse team, but they seriously DON'T have a legit #1 option offensively. There's a difference. Orlando plays solid defense, but don't have a go-to guy offensively. But an elite team will not win a championship without good defense.Again, ridiculous. Only add defense when you think you can win a title? That's absurd. The point is you CAN'T win a championship without good defense. What is the point of hiring Adleman right now, go all offense for 2-3 years, then get a brand new coach after that who can take us far? That's stupid. You waste valuable years teaching these young players offense, with little emphasis on defense, and then bring in another coach (who will go upon things much differently and have a different system) and have everyone start all over again. What is the point of that?And I don't know who out there could provide what we need, I don't strongly evaluate coaches like league general managers, but I'll tell you one thing - it's not Rick Adleman (especially if we get Oden - knock on wood).</div>Last year Miami was 14th in the NBA in PPG allowed. They won a championship and weren't a defensive juggernaut by any means. I'll admit that they were an unusual team, but that proves it is possible to win a title without being great on defense. The reason they won was because Dallas (who is a great defensive team) couldn't stop Wade due to the new rule changes that inhibit physical D. How is it ridiculous to grab the best available coach out there? Adelman is more proven than anyone the Celts could possibly hire. His Kings teams were the elite of the NBA for a number of years even though they were never a great defensive team. If it wasn't for their complete lack of a single clutch player they would've won at least one championship. My point is that it's ridiculous to not hire a guy because he's not the best defensive teacher when you have the second worst team in the league and have had Doc Rivers at the helm the past few years. Even if the Celtics become great in 3 years but suddenly need to improve on D to compete for a title they can always bring in an assistant who specializes in that. It's not like the head coach is always all by himself; assistants can help make up for his shortcomings.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Apr 12 2007, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Last year Miami was 14th in the NBA in PPG allowed. They won a championship and weren't a defensive juggernaut by any means. I'll admit that they were an unusual team, but that proves it is possible to win a title without being great on defense. The reason they won was because Dallas (who is a great defensive team) couldn't stop Wade due to the new rule changes that inhibit physical D.</div> Oh, screw the stats. If you watched them, they played good team defense in the playoffs and they made a ton of key defensive stops in the Finals. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How is it ridiculous to grab the best available coach out there? Adelman is more proven than anyone the Celts could possibly hire. His Kings teams were the elite of the NBA for a number of years even though they were never a great defensive team. If it wasn't for their complete lack of a single clutch player they would've won at least one championship.</div> No, they couldn't take out the Lakers. Nobody could. You can't sit here and say "if they had an extra clutch player, Adleman would have won them a championship." You can't say that. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>My point is that it's ridiculous to not hire a guy because he's not the best defensive teacher when you have the second worst team in the league and have had Doc Rivers at the helm the past few years. Even if the Celtics become great in 3 years but suddenly need to improve on D to compete for a title they can always bring in an assistant who specializes in that. It's not like the head coach is always all by himself; assistants can help make up for his shortcomings.</div> And my point is that it's stupid to hire a coach right now, early in all of these "kids'" careers, that doesn't teach good defense. We have Paul Pierce, Wally Szczerbiak, Al Jefferson, Tony Allen, Delonte West, Gerald Green, and Ryan Gomes... we KNOW we can score the basketball. It's ALL about defense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Those would be great traits to have for a veteran team, but the Celtics are young and need a coach who can teach and develop a system to hide their considerable flaws. Doc makes horrible in-game decisions and his lack of a rotation in previous years has absolutely killed the team as far as winning is concerned. If the Celtics want to make a jump they need to fire this guy.</div>Who do you suggets hiring as a coach then?
Celts need to play better defence, doesn't have to be great, just better.I think Adleman could achieve that. He did manage some very good Trailblazer teams.
