At very least, Doc needs to be on the hot seat...

[LACtdom]

I'm glad squads are limited to 15 players or Doc would sign every scrub who was on a team that beat his celtics.

[HeartBreakKid]

Doc Rivers doomed this franchise. Chris Paul is my favorite player, so I am pretty sad because I've seen Doc Rivers slowly ruin Paul's chances of ever getting a ring.

As a coach, Rivers is clueless when it comes to subs. Even though Chris Paul choked away an important game in that Thunder series, it was really Jamal Crawford's chucking that dug the Clippers in a hole. Crawford has too much of Rivers respect for me to ever see Rivers not playing him.


As a GM....Jesus. Those trades to give up Austin Rivers is just ridiculous. I know people will say he didn't give up much, but it still wasn't worth it.

The team hasn't had 2 starting wings since the CP3 era began. They're still rolling with Matt Barnes. They have no real great athlete on the perimeter to play stellar defense either. No back up point guard is a huge blow to this team, as watching Jamal run the point is painful.

I thought Hawes was a good pick up initially so I can't be too hard on Rivers, but he's still made a lot of poor choices. Despite playing in a big market and having superstars, he still hasn't signed anyone worth noting.

[MartinToVaught]

As usual, I agree with everything og says. Anyone who doesn't think Doc is a great coach loses all credibility and I just can't take him seriously.

He's not a great coach. You can handwave away things like rotations and developing talent, but those kinds of skills are what separates the great coaches from the mediocre ones.

Yes, Doc is very good at inbounds plays and some defensive matchups, but coaches like Pop, Carlisle, etc. can do that AND play the right players at the right times, turn young players like Kawhi into key cogs on title teams, get players like Monta Ellis and Boris Diaw who had already been written off to elevate their games, etc.

Compare that to the Clippers. We still have to suffer through Doc's mancrush on Jamal in the 4th even though it loses us more games than it wins. We still have to watch Austin and Hawes try and fail to play NBA basketball because Doc can't admit he made a mistake. None of the role players he's brought in have produced above their usual level, most have actually regressed. Bullock and now Wilcox haven't been developed at all.

Maybe calling him a "bad" coach is harsh, but calling him a "great" coach only serves as further proof that the word "great" has become overused in sports. He's decent, and decent isn't good enough to cancel out the horrible job he's done as a general manager.

[Neddy]

As usual, I agree with everything og says. Anyone who doesn't think Doc is a great coach loses all credibility and I just can't take him seriously.

He's not a great coach. You can handwave away things like rotations and developing talent, but those kinds of skills are what separates the great coaches from the mediocre ones.

Yes, Doc is very good at inbounds plays and some defensive matchups, but coaches like Pop, Carlisle, etc. can do that AND play the right players at the right times, turn young players like Kawhi into key cogs on title teams, get players like Monta Ellis and Boris Diaw who had already been written off to elevate their games, etc.

Compare that to the Clippers. We still have to suffer through Doc's mancrush on Jamal in the 4th even though it loses us more games than it wins. We still have to watch Austin and Hawes try and fail to play NBA basketball because Doc can't admit he made a mistake. None of the role players he's brought in have produced above their usual level, most have actually regressed. Bullock and now Wilcox haven't been developed at all.

Maybe calling him a "bad" coach is harsh, but calling him a "great" coach only serves as further proof that the word "great" has become overused in sports. He's decent, and decent isn't good enough to cancel out the horrible job he's done as a general manager.

but we don't have Kawhi or Ellis on our roster, do we? we have Austin as the lone defensively energetic guard off the bench, don't we? Hawes, whether you want him as a piece or to trade him somehow, we need him to perform better to do so, don't we?

and like Diaw, Baby has gone rather well, coming off the bench when many had written him off as being "done", no?

every criticism you have minus inability to develop young talent, is the fault of Doc the GM. those aren't the fault of Doc, the coach.

the greatest clipper coach of all time, in my eyes, has always been Larry Brown. Larry Brown was often accused of not spending any time developing youth and favoring vets. Larry once was quoted back in the early 90s, that kids should stay in school longer because there is no profession where an employee should be learning on the job to be competent. you should come out ready, if you want to be a pro. can you imagine general surgeons allow to learn their skills on the job? basketball players, the very bottom of the guaranteed contracts as a minimum player makes much better money than a general surgeon.

of course the times are now different and sports franchises will always invest on potentials, but as the old saying, potentials get coaches fired. I can't point a finger at the coach Doc going for the safe bet, and Doc is so far a very close second in my eyes to Larry as a coach. guys like Bill Fitch had no place here but just to collect paychecks. hell even the great Larry pulled his usual vegabond approach and bailed out of LA.

there was a time when Mike Dunleavy was a coach of the year. there was a time when MIke Dunleavy was the next Pat Riley to many journalists. MIke was a good coach, and by the time he was let go from here, was a coach who not only lost his team's respect but out of touch and unable to adapt to the change of times. MIke was the so called "good but not great" you are referring to.

but the GM doc and the GM doc only, should be fired and replaced. this I will agree. on.

[LACtdom]

but we don't have Kawhi or Ellis on our roster, do we?

That's the problem, we don't know because Doc isn't that type of coach. Maybe the right coach could have made Hawes a starting worthy center or a 15 and 7 big man off the bench. We have to admit that a Hawes / DJ lineup is really allowing DJ to flourish. Also what Doc did for DJ was amazing.

every criticism you have minus inability to develop young talent, is the fault of Doc the GM. those aren't the fault of Doc, the coach.

The fault of poor rotation decisions is on Doc the coach. We've lost games late in the 4th because of Doc going for an offensive lineup (who didn't produce) and we failed to get stops. I can live with poor player development but the lack of creativity and unwillingness to try new rotations is a big pet peeve of mine. I realise that our 3 guard lineup has won us a lot of games but what if it isn't the best possible lineup for us in the playoffs. Would Doc change more than just add in Barnes?

[Neddy]

but we don't have Kawhi or Ellis on our roster, do we?

That's the problem, we don't know because Doc isn't that type of coach. Maybe the right coach could have made Hawes a starting worthy center or a 15 and 7 big man off the bench. We have to admit that a Hawes / DJ lineup is really allowing DJ to flourish. Also what Doc did for DJ was amazing.

every criticism you have minus inability to develop young talent, is the fault of Doc the GM. those aren't the fault of Doc, the coach.

The fault of poor rotation decisions is on Doc the coach. We've lost games late in the 4th because of Doc going for an offensive lineup (who didn't produce) and we failed to get stops. I can live with poor player development but the lack of creativity and unwillingness to try new rotations is a big pet peeve of mine. I realise that our 3 guard lineup has won us a lot of games but what if it isn't the best possible lineup for us in the playoffs. Would Doc change more than just add in Barnes?

i personally think it was doc's mission to bring in as many quality stretch 4s who can be a major threat to create space for DJ to gain confidence on offensive end to translate and motivate him on defensive end. I think Doc thought bringing in Hawes was worth more for the long haul over bringing in old Pierce. of course for the short term PP was the right choice, but for the long run, it could have been the right choice except the GM doc will probably pull the plug before it can maturate.

I think Hawes is one of those players who needs to play a diverse role in order to be in flow of things to knock down 3s more consistently. he is not a natural dead eye shooter to just come off the bench cold and be a catch and shoot type of a player which is exactly what we are asking him to do.

as for the 4th quarter rotation, I agree. I expressed numerous times in game threads to see JJ over JC for better team play. JC is a chucker and sometimes he can bail us out but many times he puts us in the hole.

[og15]

As usual, I agree with everything og says. Anyone who doesn't think Doc is a great coach loses all credibility and I just can't take him seriously.

He's not a great coach. You can handwave away things like rotations and developing talent, but those kinds of skills are what separates the great coaches from the mediocre ones.

Yes, Doc is very good at inbounds plays and some defensive matchups, but coaches like Pop, Carlisle, etc. can do that AND play the right players at the right times, turn young players like Kawhi into key cogs on title teams, get players like Monta Ellis and Boris Diaw who had already been written off to elevate their games, etc.

Compare that to the Clippers. We still have to suffer through Doc's mancrush on Jamal in the 4th even though it loses us more games than it wins. We still have to watch Austin and Hawes try and fail to play NBA basketball because Doc can't admit he made a mistake. None of the role players he's brought in have produced above their usual level, most have actually regressed. Bullock and now Wilcox haven't been developed at all.

Maybe calling him a "bad" coach is harsh, but calling him a "great" coach only serves as further proof that the word "great" has become overused in sports. He's decent, and decent isn't good enough to cancel out the horrible job he's done as a general manager.

Substitutions are not guaranteed, sometimes you get the desired result, sometimes you don't. Pop subbed out Duncan in a critical play and Miami got an offensive rebound. There were reasons for the decision, it wasn't necessarily a bad decision until the outcome happened. That's part of coaching.

Diaw wasn't really counted out. Sure we knew he was rotting on Charlotte, but every playoff level team was interested in his services. I certainly wanted the Clippers to get him and knew he would be useful. Leonard has physical tools that no Clipper perimeter player has.

To be fair Monta Ellis hasn't been particularly different on Dallas, they just have enough talent where he can help them win. He was not helpful when he was being asked to be this one man show, super high usage player, he's not that good. Dallas allowed was for him to not have to do as much on a nightly basis compared to his last two seasons on Golden State, so he's been a little more efficient but still essentially the same player.

There are things to criticize Doc for, yes, but we can't just expect him to have done every single good thing every other franchise was able to do. Doc is a good coach, far from bad. Yes, he does suck as a GM, I don't think any of us is in disagreement with that part though.

That's the problem, we don't know because Doc isn't that type of coach. Maybe the right coach could have made Hawes a starting worthy center or a 15 and 7 big man off the bench. We have to admit that a Hawes / DJ lineup is really allowing DJ to flourish. Also what Doc did for DJ was amazing.

No coach can do that for Hawes, can't forget about minutes. Hawes has a career average of 14/9 per 36 minutes, so the only way a coach is making him a 15/7 big man while coming off the bench would be if he's playing 35-36 mins off the bench which would just be crazy. Hawes is playing 18.5 mpg this season, at those minutes, a reasonable expectation in those minutes based on his abilities is actually 7-8 pts, 4-5 rebs.

He's at 6.5 pts and 3.8 rebs, so he's not there, but the expectation is not 15/7, there's no coach capable of making him produce that in 18.5 mins.

The thing is that Hawes is getting open shots on this team and he's missing them, he's even missing his FT's, shooting a career worst FT%. We can't really start saying that's Doc's fault. Maybe if Hawes was given a role he couldn't fulfill like being asked to create shots or be a primary option, but he hasn't been.

In terms of lineup, those are the hard decisions. Percentage wise, does the 3 guard lineup do so much more on offense and do enough on defense where they are generally positive, or does leaving Barnes give you an overall more positive outcome? It's not necessarily an easy question to answer. 5 man unit data says that lineups of starters with Redick or with Crawford have a better net pts/100 than lineups with both. So maybe Doc is making the wrong decision. Of course it's not necessarily that simple, those lineups might play more against tougher opponents or in points in the game where teams are clamping down.

You know what would help though? If the team had better personnel where it didn't have to chose offense or defense down the stretch, but could put wing players that can give you balance. Crazy thought

[og15]

but we don't have Kawhi or Ellis on our roster, do we?

That's the problem, we don't know because Doc isn't that type of coach. Maybe the right coach could have made Hawes a starting worthy center or a 15 and 7 big man off the bench. We have to admit that a Hawes / DJ lineup is really allowing DJ to flourish. Also what Doc did for DJ was amazing.

every criticism you have minus inability to develop young talent, is the fault of Doc the GM. those aren't the fault of Doc, the coach.

The fault of poor rotation decisions is on Doc the coach. We've lost games late in the 4th because of Doc going for an offensive lineup (who didn't produce) and we failed to get stops. I can live with poor player development but the lack of creativity and unwillingness to try new rotations is a big pet peeve of mine. I realise that our 3 guard lineup has won us a lot of games but what if it isn't the best possible lineup for us in the playoffs. Would Doc change more than just add in Barnes?

i personally think it was doc's mission to bring in as many quality stretch 4s who can be a major threat to create space for DJ to gain confidence on offensive end to translate and motivate him on defensive end. I think Doc thought bringing in Hawes was worth more for the long haul over bringing in old Pierce. of course for the short term PP was the right choice, but for the long run, it could have been the right choice except the GM doc will probably pull the plug before it can maturate.

I think Hawes is one of those players who needs to play a diverse role in order to be in flow of things to knock down 3s more consistently. he is not a natural dead eye shooter to just come off the bench cold and be a catch and shoot type of a player which is exactly what we are asking him to do.

as for the 4th quarter rotation, I agree. I expressed numerous times in game threads to see JJ over JC for better team play. JC is a chucker and sometimes he can bail us out but many times he puts us in the hole.

Seems like Doc was actually trying to get a stretch 4/5, not just a stretch 4 so that this said player could be paired with both DJ and Blake. A stretch 4 is much easier to get than a guy who is a stretch big but can also play C.

If all we wanted was a stretch 4, actually using Dudley as a PF in small ball lineups would have been a cheaper and better decision. Actually even Pierce was used as a 4 in small ball on the Nets last season. The idea was good, one guy that you can pair with both guys and can back up two positions. Hawes' poor play has just made the idea and direction behind the signing seem bad when it actually wasn't.

Probably in hindsight, Doc would have spent the money elsewhere and just gone with a stretch 4 for the minimum like a Villanueva or just use Hedo as a stretch 4 and then get a guy who is more of an athletic 4/5 to pair with him off the bench.

[Neddy]

That's the problem, we don't know because Doc isn't that type of coach. Maybe the right coach could have made Hawes a starting worthy center or a 15 and 7 big man off the bench. We have to admit that a Hawes / DJ lineup is really allowing DJ to flourish. Also what Doc did for DJ was amazing.


The fault of poor rotation decisions is on Doc the coach. We've lost games late in the 4th because of Doc going for an offensive lineup (who didn't produce) and we failed to get stops. I can live with poor player development but the lack of creativity and unwillingness to try new rotations is a big pet peeve of mine. I realise that our 3 guard lineup has won us a lot of games but what if it isn't the best possible lineup for us in the playoffs. Would Doc change more than just add in Barnes?

i personally think it was doc's mission to bring in as many quality stretch 4s who can be a major threat to create space for DJ to gain confidence on offensive end to translate and motivate him on defensive end. I think Doc thought bringing in Hawes was worth more for the long haul over bringing in old Pierce. of course for the short term PP was the right choice, but for the long run, it could have been the right choice except the GM doc will probably pull the plug before it can maturate.

I think Hawes is one of those players who needs to play a diverse role in order to be in flow of things to knock down 3s more consistently. he is not a natural dead eye shooter to just come off the bench cold and be a catch and shoot type of a player which is exactly what we are asking him to do.

as for the 4th quarter rotation, I agree. I expressed numerous times in game threads to see JJ over JC for better team play. JC is a chucker and sometimes he can bail us out but many times he puts us in the hole.

Seems like Doc was actually trying to get a stretch 4/5, not just a stretch 4 so that this said player could be paired with both DJ and Blake. A stretch 4 is much easier to get than a guy who is a stretch big but can also play C.

If all we wanted was a stretch 4, actually using Dudley as a PF in small ball lineups would have been a cheaper and better decision. Actually even Pierce was used as a 4 in small ball on the Nets last season. The idea was good, one guy that you can pair with both guys and can back up two positions. Hawes' poor play has just made the idea and direction behind the signing seem bad when it actually wasn't.

Probably in hindsight, Doc would have spent the money elsewhere and just gone with a stretch 4 for the minimum like a Villanueva or just use Hedo as a stretch 4 and then get a guy who is more of an athletic 4/5 to pair with him off the bench.

well, when i said a stretch 4, i meant that in a relation to DJ, and really was referring to a stretch big.

of course i was not implying an undersized/out of position 3s playing 4.

and I too feel that in hindsight, we would have been better off with Hedo filling that stretch 4 role and going with Paul Pierce. he would have not only solved our starting 3 issues but his championship experience along with coming back home would have been priceless for this team. plus we get to have Matt Barnes coming off the bench which would have automatically strengthened our second unit.

but hey what's done is done. gotta move on to improve from here on, ya?

[og15]

i personally think it was doc's mission to bring in as many quality stretch 4s who can be a major threat to create space for DJ to gain confidence on offensive end to translate and motivate him on defensive end. I think Doc thought bringing in Hawes was worth more for the long haul over bringing in old Pierce. of course for the short term PP was the right choice, but for the long run, it could have been the right choice except the GM doc will probably pull the plug before it can maturate.

I think Hawes is one of those players who needs to play a diverse role in order to be in flow of things to knock down 3s more consistently. he is not a natural dead eye shooter to just come off the bench cold and be a catch and shoot type of a player which is exactly what we are asking him to do.

as for the 4th quarter rotation, I agree. I expressed numerous times in game threads to see JJ over JC for better team play. JC is a chucker and sometimes he can bail us out but many times he puts us in the hole.

Seems like Doc was actually trying to get a stretch 4/5, not just a stretch 4 so that this said player could be paired with both DJ and Blake. A stretch 4 is much easier to get than a guy who is a stretch big but can also play C.

If all we wanted was a stretch 4, actually using Dudley as a PF in small ball lineups would have been a cheaper and better decision. Actually even Pierce was used as a 4 in small ball on the Nets last season. The idea was good, one guy that you can pair with both guys and can back up two positions. Hawes' poor play has just made the idea and direction behind the signing seem bad when it actually wasn't.

Probably in hindsight, Doc would have spent the money elsewhere and just gone with a stretch 4 for the minimum like a Villanueva or just use Hedo as a stretch 4 and then get a guy who is more of an athletic 4/5 to pair with him off the bench.

well, when i said a stretch 4, i meant that in a relation to DJ, and really was referring to a stretch big.

of course i was not implying an undersized/out of position 3s playing 4.

and I too feel that in hindsight, we would have been better off with Hedo filling that stretch 4 role and going with Paul Pierce. he would have not only solved our starting 3 issues but his championship experience along with coming back home would have been priceless for this team. plus we get to have Matt Barnes coming off the bench which would have automatically strengthened our second unit.

but hey what's done is done. gotta move on to improve from here on, ya?

No, I didn't mean you were, but I think Doc wanted a guy that could also play C. So he didn't want like a Ryan Anderson, not that he was available because a guy like that is just a 4, and he didn't want a guy like Charlie necessarily for the same reason. He was looking for a guy that could also play the 5 size wise so he could pair him with Blake in addition to pairing him with DJ because Blake unlike some other 4's can't mask as a 5.

Yea, it is what it is now, just gotta roll with it

[LACtdom]

That's the problem, we don't know because Doc isn't that type of coach. Maybe the right coach could have made Hawes a starting worthy center or a 15 and 7 big man off the bench. We have to admit that a Hawes / DJ lineup is really allowing DJ to flourish. Also what Doc did for DJ was amazing.

No coach can do that for Hawes, can't forget about minutes. Hawes has a career average of 14/9 per 36 minutes, so the only way a coach is making him a 15/7 big man while coming off the bench would be if he's playing 35-36 mins off the bench which would just be crazy. Hawes is playing 18.5 mpg this season, at those minutes, a reasonable expectation in those minutes based on his abilities is actually 7-8 pts, 4-5 rebs.

He's at 6.5 pts and 3.8 rebs, so he's not there, but the expectation is not 15/7, there's no coach capable of making him produce that in 18.5 mins.

The thing is that Hawes is getting open shots on this team and he's missing them, he's even missing his FT's, shooting a career worst FT%. We can't really start saying that's Doc's fault. Maybe if Hawes was given a role he couldn't fulfill like being asked to create shots or be a primary option, but he hasn't been.

That's partly my point. Hawes isn't good enough for us to warrant more than 18 minutes. I personally don't want Blake and DJ playing 35+ minutes throughout a grueling regular season. You don't need stats to see that Hawes isn't playing well. If Doc could bring out the best in Hawes then maybe we could increase his minutes to take pressure off starters. Houston makes Josh Smith make 200 3pt shots every training session. What systems does Doc have in place to improve Hawes? I still think Hawes is a great addition for us, I just believe that we need more focus on developing his role instead of dumping him as a Mullens 2.0.

In fact, I can't think of a single bench player who Doc has acquired and gotten close to career best production out of them.

In terms of lineup, those are the hard decisions. Percentage wise, does the 3 guard lineup do so much more on offense and do enough on defense where they are generally positive, or does leaving Barnes give you an overall more positive outcome? It's not necessarily an easy question to answer. 5 man unit data says that lineups of starters with Redick or with Crawford have a better net pts/100 than lineups with both. So maybe Doc is making the wrong decision. Of course it's not necessarily that simple, those lineups might play more against tougher opponents or in points in the game where teams are clamping down.

Exactly. I think Doc's rotations are good but when push comes to shove and it's Game 7 with 24 seconds to go, will he be able to make the right call? (For example, Jamal is having a garbage game or something uncharacteristic, Hawes is 4/4 from deep, etc.)

You know what would help though? If the team had better personnel where it didn't have to chose offense or defense down the stretch, but could put wing players that can give you balance. Crazy thought

I agree, Doc should really ask our GM for better players.

[mattd13]

doc has made some poor choices on players and has been unlucky because they have not played up to expectations. hawes is the most obvious. however he has got a lot out of others, such as baby, dj, redick, and matt. where I have a problem with doc is in the last part of games when the score is close. there has to be more structure and a better plan. letting cp3 go one on five with every one else stand and watch is not coaching. have some plays please and get others involved.

[QRich3]

As usual, I agree with everything og says. Anyone who doesn't think Doc is a great coach loses all credibility and I just can't take him seriously.

He's not a great coach. You can handwave away things like rotations and developing talent, but those kinds of skills are what separates the great coaches from the mediocre ones.

Yes, Doc is very good at inbounds plays and some defensive matchups, but coaches like Pop, Carlisle, etc. can do that AND play the right players at the right times, turn young players like Kawhi into key cogs on title teams, get players like Monta Ellis and Boris Diaw who had already been written off to elevate their games, etc.

Compare that to the Clippers. We still have to suffer through Doc's mancrush on Jamal in the 4th even though it loses us more games than it wins. We still have to watch Austin and Hawes try and fail to play NBA basketball because Doc can't admit he made a mistake. None of the role players he's brought in have produced above their usual level, most have actually regressed. Bullock and now Wilcox haven't been developed at all.

Maybe calling him a "bad" coach is harsh, but calling him a "great" coach only serves as further proof that the word "great" has become overused in sports. He's decent, and decent isn't good enough to cancel out the horrible job he's done as a general manager.

I think we've already established he's not Pop or Carlisle. That doesn't mean he's not great. Doc's on the tier right after them, and I don't think I'd pick any other coach than him after those two. You seem to have a very weird notion of being great, like what you keep repeating about only Lebron, Durant and Davis are worth a max contract in the NBA, I just don't know what to answer to that, but that's not how the league works. Seeing things in black & white is not very helpful to evaluate how things work.

We keep going in circles in this thread and mistaking what is being a coach and being a GM, so I'm not gonna keep repeating all that, I'll just say again that he's a very good coach and that goes way beyond drawing specific plays and managing rotations. That's just surface stuff that doesn't really get into the heart of what a coach can do to maximize a team's potential.

[Forte IV]

Reggie Bullock played 14 minutes the other night and took only 1 shot. At this rate Austin is a upgrade over Bullock. Bullock was nothing but a shooter who wouldn't shoot.

[nickhx2]

i know a lot of people like to point that out, but how much of that is really giving your young guy proper on-court development time?

i think one thing we shouldn't forget is that these guys are really young and highly malleable. confidence is an oft-overused term, but let's be real, not everyone who comes into the league are alpha wolves. some guys need help learning that kind of stuff and they are just one coach's tirade from crawling into their shell and never coming out.

doc definitely did not do bullock any favors and i think under a different coach we might not be talking about bullock as a shooter who won't shoot.

[MartinToVaught]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/572465153570025472[/tweet]

Typical Doc. McGee isn't washed up and actually has athleticism... can't have that! And it would also require Doc to admit he made a mistake in signing Hawes. McGee will go to another West playoff team and make them better while we still trot out the worst bench in the NBA.

[og15]

i know a lot of people like to point that out, but how much of that is really giving your young guy proper on-court development time?

i think one thing we shouldn't forget is that these guys are really young and highly malleable. confidence is an oft-overused term, but let's be real, not everyone who comes into the league are alpha wolves. some guys need help learning that kind of stuff and they are just one coach's tirade from crawling into their shell and never coming out.

doc definitely did not do bullock any favors and i think under a different coach we might not be talking about bullock as a shooter who won't shoot.

Definitely possible, but Bullock might also be one of those guys with the personalities where they can get tentative. In his 43 games as a rookie, Bullock took 11 FGA/36, that's a good amount of shooting for his role.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/572465153570025472[/tweet]

Typical Doc. McGee isn't washed up and actually has athleticism... can't have that! And it would also require Doc to admit he made a mistake in signing Hawes. McGee will go to another West playoff team and make them better while we still trot out the worst bench in the NBA.

You certainly need to just breathe a little sometimes. Not everything is devastating. I'm always feeling like you're stressing yourself out too much or something.

[HeartBreakKid]

As usual, I agree with everything og says. Anyone who doesn't think Doc is a great coach loses all credibility and I just can't take him seriously.

He's not a great coach. You can handwave away things like rotations and developing talent, but those kinds of skills are what separates the great coaches from the mediocre ones.

Yes, Doc is very good at inbounds plays and some defensive matchups, but coaches like Pop, Carlisle, etc. can do that AND play the right players at the right times, turn young players like Kawhi into key cogs on title teams, get players like Monta Ellis and Boris Diaw who had already been written off to elevate their games, etc.

Compare that to the Clippers. We still have to suffer through Doc's mancrush on Jamal in the 4th even though it loses us more games than it wins. We still have to watch Austin and Hawes try and fail to play NBA basketball because Doc can't admit he made a mistake. None of the role players he's brought in have produced above their usual level, most have actually regressed. Bullock and now Wilcox haven't been developed at all.

Maybe calling him a "bad" coach is harsh, but calling him a "great" coach only serves as further proof that the word "great" has become overused in sports. He's decent, and decent isn't good enough to cancel out the horrible job he's done as a general manager.

I think we've already established he's not Pop or Carlisle. That doesn't mean he's not great. Doc's on the tier right after them, and I don't think I'd pick any other coach than him after those two. You seem to have a very weird notion of being great, like what you keep repeating about only Lebron, Durant and Davis are worth a max contract in the NBA, I just don't know what to answer to that, but that's not how the league works. Seeing things in black & white is not very helpful to evaluate how things work.

We keep going in circles in this thread and mistaking what is being a coach and being a GM, so I'm not gonna keep repeating all that, I'll just say again that he's a very good coach and that goes way beyond drawing specific plays and managing rotations. That's just surface stuff that doesn't really get into the heart of what a coach can do to maximize a team's potential.

I think you're really overrating Doc Rivers if you think only Pop and Carlisle are better than him. Doc Rivers is really overrated, the best move Doc ever made as a coach was getting Thibs as his assistant coach (who is also a better coach than Doc Rivers). I'll give props on Doc Rivers for developing DeAndre Jordan, outside of that he has been pretty underwhelming for the Clippers. Better than Del-Negro at least.


Other coaches who are better than Doc Rivers - Budenholzer, Hornacek, Karl, Stan Van Gundy, Kidd, Kerr (we'll see for sure in the playoffs) and as I mentioned before Thibedou.

[QRich3]

I think you're really overrating Doc Rivers if you think only Pop and Carlisle are better than him. Doc Rivers is really overrated, the best move Doc ever made as a coach was getting Thibs as his assistant coach (who is also a better coach than Doc Rivers). I'll give props on Doc Rivers for developing DeAndre Jordan, outside of that he has been pretty underwhelming for the Clippers. Better than Del-Negro at least.


Other coaches who are better than Doc Rivers - Budenholzer, Hornacek, Karl, Stan Van Gundy, Kidd, Kerr (we'll see for sure in the playoffs) and as I mentioned before Thibedou.

Bah I don't really care for specific rankings, there's some on your list that have a case, some are just starting their careers, and some I wouldn't take over him in no way. I'd rather have Doc for this specific team, as a coach at least.

And I think you're the one not rating correctly if you buy into the "it was all Thibs" hype. If you followed your team closely and spoke objectively you'd know that's far from true.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think you're really overrating Doc Rivers if you think only Pop and Carlisle are better than him. Doc Rivers is really overrated, the best move Doc ever made as a coach was getting Thibs as his assistant coach (who is also a better coach than Doc Rivers). I'll give props on Doc Rivers for developing DeAndre Jordan, outside of that he has been pretty underwhelming for the Clippers. Better than Del-Negro at least.


Other coaches who are better than Doc Rivers - Budenholzer, Hornacek, Karl, Stan Van Gundy, Kidd, Kerr (we'll see for sure in the playoffs) and as I mentioned before Thibedou.

Bah I don't really care for specific rankings, there's some on your list that have a case, some are just starting their careers, and some I wouldn't take over him in no way. I'd rather have Doc for this specific team, as a coach at least.

And I think you're the one not rating correctly if you buy into the "it was all Thibs" hype. If you followed your team closely and spoke objectively you'd know that's far from true.

I do follow my team closely, and I am objective...I am not a homer in the least bit, not even from Boston. If anything I would be overrating Doc Rivers if I was not objective, as most people who are Celtics fans do.