RealGM

Clips gotta release or trade Brice soon man Jamil and CJ have become too important to what we do.

Who would have thought we'd be saying that about a Doc Rivers coached team!

Clippers do not play good defense as they played in week period before game vs Grizzles.

Like they heard me. Much better job later on.

JGOJustin wrote:Clips gotta release or trade Brice soon man Jamil and CJ have become too important to what we do.

I'd like to see this rule get amended to be based on games played instead of days spent with the team.

There's no way we should be this close to the playoff field right now if Doc Rivers is that bad of a coach. Just a FYI

Yes the west field is mediocre, but for christ sake we're playing 4 rookies, two of which are 2nd rounders the other two are two way guys on g-league deals.

At the end of the day, no matter how this season ends, I'm excited because of the fact that early on, we're already seeing how good potentially the Clips new FO potentially is. They were dealt with a doomsday scenario with having 4 starters out with serious injuries and if they didn't do their homework in the summer and find value in the GL and 2nd round, there's no way we're being competitive so I for one am excited to see how resourceful this FO can be in years to come.

mkwest wrote:

JGOJustin wrote:Clips gotta release or trade Brice soon man Jamil and CJ have become too important to what we do.

I'd like to see this rule get amended to be based on games played instead of days spent with the team.

I'm just glad we have the rule at all
we'd have been able to keep guys like Ingles if it had been in force

the real problem is that if we want to keep them both, cutting Brice is the easy part
one more has to go too




either use our disabled player exception and go over the lux tax
or we cut WeJo

me, since he slumped so badly [AGAIN!!], last 12 games = shooting 25%/9%

http://www.espn.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/4247/wesley-johnson



it's time to go

JGOJustin wrote:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

There's no way we should be this close to the playoff field right now if Doc Rivers is that bad of a coach. Just a FYI

Yes the west field is mediocre, but for christ sake we're playing 4 rookies, two of which are 2nd rounders the other two are two way guys on g-league deals.

At the end of the day, no matter how this season ends, I'm excited because of the fact that early on, we're already seeing how good potentially the Clips new FO potentially is. They were dealt with a doomsday scenario with having 4 starters out with serious injuries and if they didn't do their homework in the summer and find value in the GL and 2nd round, there's no way we're being competitive so I for one am excited to see how resourceful this FO can be in years to come.

and we lost the 2 games Baby Doc missed so that's really 6-6 given half a chance

—I have to give Papa Doc credit for giving up on Sindarius for the moment and
—pushing Jawun forward even though his shooting stats are crap [32%/31% last 5 games, 35%/29% on the year] and
—starting the 2 G-leaguers instead of Dekker or Trezz and Lou so they can continue to work on becoming 2nd unit players, which is where they'll end up when we're full strength

I've never liked Doc's rotations and I still beg he abandons the 5-man second-unit concept, but I'm pleased so far. Dekker's also been not-horrible the past few games, mostly because he's pretty much abandoned the 3-pointer [15% on the year] and is attacking the basket [15-22, 68% the last 5 games].

esqtvd wrote:

mkwest wrote:

JGOJustin wrote:Clips gotta release or trade Brice soon man Jamil and CJ have become too important to what we do.

I'd like to see this rule get amended to be based on games played instead of days spent with the team.

I'm just glad we have the rule at all
we'd have been able to keep guys like Ingles if it had been in force

the real problem is that if we want to keep them both, cutting Brice is the easy part
one more has to go too

Read on Twitter

either use our disabled player exception and go over the lux tax
or we cut WeJo

me, since he slumped so badly [AGAIN!!], last 12 games = shooting 25%/9%

http://www.espn.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/4247/wesley-johnson



it's time to go

Wilson really played well lately. This will not be easy decision for Clippers but someone gotta go right?


-------FROM NBA.COM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clippers, led by Milos Teodosic, used a season-high 31 assists to take down the Kings.

Quote of the Night: “Milos Teodosic knows you’re open before you’re open. Sometimes the ball’s there and you’re like, oh.” - Jamil Wilson.

In his sixth game since returning from injury, Milos Teodosic recorded both a Clippers season-high and career-high in assists with 10. The 30-year-old rookie point guard controlled the Clippers offensive flow, and when the Clippers blew the game over the second quarter, Teodosic was instrumental, tallying 4 assists and connecting on two three-pointers, including a 28-footerhe walked into near the end, exhibiting a shooting swagger he hadn’t shown this season.

“It is infectious, too, when you watch Milos Teodosic,” said Doc Rivers.

With Teodosic selflessness leading the way, the Clippers passed a season-high 31 assists tonight. Austin Rivers dished out five. Both Jawun Evans and Sindarius Thornwell each tallied four.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FROM NBA.COM-----
Now when Blake and Gallo return things are only become even better. Still Beverly is missed because he was willing to cover Milosh defensive shortcomings.

Ugh, don't tell me people are going to start revising history on Doc's skills as a coach. His terrible playoff performances say it all. A few regular season wins don't change that.

or the blame is misplaced
perhaps it was the floor general, the "coach on the floor"

https://deadspin.com/the-chris-paul-problem-is-an-analytics-problem-1797409440

At Deadspin we’ve kicked the Chris Paul Problem around in many, many, oh God so ****ing many internal discussions over the past few years; surely we are not the only ones. Yesterday, the Ringer’s Jonathan Tjarks took a look at it, in a thoughtful piece that looks ahead to what the Rockets can expect from their new superstar. Persuasively, Tjarks tracks the gap between Paul’s regular season and postseason play back to three factors.

The first is the difference in quality between regular season and postseason competition. In the regular season, Paul can build a phenomenal aggregate body of work by bringing playoff intensity to every game and making the most of opportunities to crush sh__ty opponents, whereas in the playoffs, he’s going against top competition matching his intensity every night:

There is no one better at taking advantage of inferior opponents than Paul. He maximizes every possession, and he doesn’t take plays off on either side of the ball. He rarely makes the wrong decision on offense, and he always puts himself in the right position on defense, where his quick hands and viselike grip make him a nightmare for average ball handlers. Paul is like an NFL cornerback who jams at the line of scrimmage on every snap. He gets his hands on guys and makes them play in an area the size of a phone booth. However, that strategy is not as effective against elite players with the size, speed, and skill to beat him at the point of attack. He is so fundamentally sound that he runs up the margins against bad players better than anyone, but there are no bad players the deeper you advance in the playoffs, particularly at point guard.

Second, in the playoffs, the ability to switch on defense becomes more important and valuable, and Paul, one of the smallest players in the sport, loses much of his defensive value because most of the players on the floor can shoot right over him:

Paul is one of the best defensive point guards in the NBA, but a point guard’s ability to defend his position becomes less important in the playoffs, since teams often cross-switch bigger wings on them and switch screens more frequently rather than keep players on their original defensive assignments.

Third, in the playoffs, the defenses get much tougher and more focused, and Paul, who dominates possession of the ball like few other players, finds his perfectionism working against him as he grinds away possessions looking for perfect shots that can’t be found:

Paul can’t consistently create easy shots against an elite defense, but he’s also too disciplined to take bad shots, which limits his upside against higher levels of competition. Paul has averaged more than 25 points a game in a playoff series only once, and it was in his most recent seven-game battle against the Jazz. [Russell] Westbrook has done it nine times, and [Stephen] Curry has done it eight.

There's a big gap between the worst coach in the league as Doc has been called, and being a great coach. I jumped off the Doc is a "great" coach bandwagon quickly into his tenure, long before it was popular, but I've maintained that he has certainly been an above average coach and not this horrible, worst in the league coach that he can get portrayed as.

An above average coach having playoff failures like Doc has had is not necessarily anything wildly surprising, but in terms of the Clippers, there were personnel issues which, yes, Doc did have a hand in that directly related to those playoff failures, and then injuries for 50% of the seasons he has been with the Clippers. I know he is the coach that has lost multiple series' while up 3-1, etc, but if we aren't claiming he's a great coach, then, yea, that happens. Most of the great coaches, their claim to fame isn't that they don't have failures, it is that they stick around long enough, possibly adjust, depending on who it is, and also find the right situations to have enough success to diminish their failures.

esqtvd wrote:or the blame is misplaced
perhaps it was the floor general, the "coach on the floor"

This is one of those situations where it sounds good, and yes, it makes sense, but it doesn't really explain what it claims it does. Look at those three factors mentioned in that article, then go back to the Clippers playoff losses, and ask yourself if any of those things were actually the main reason the team lost. The article says grinding out possessions was an issue, but the problem is that technically most other teams ground out even more than the Clippers who were 2nd in playoff pace in both of the healthy post-seasons with Doc (13-14 and 14-15). It talks about the lesser value of PG defense and Paul's size limiting that, which is true, but Curry has the same issue, and so does almost every other PG, but how come those teams are fine, the article almost makes it seem like the other WC playoff teams had Jason Kidd sized PG's who could hold their own from 1-3, but that's false. Tony Parker? Steph Curry? Mike Conley? The actual difference is that most teams don't have a on defensive position player with PG length at SG (Redick) and instead have guys like Danny Green, Klay Thompson, Thabo Sefolosha, etc who can guard 1-3, so they can hide and/or rest their PG on defense and he doesn't have to guard those other PG's, but can guard Matt Barnes and Tony Allen. They can also mix and match defensive matchups with their 2/3, the Clippers did not have this luxury. Replace Redick with Danny Green defensively and for example, Thunder series, Danny Green guards Westbrook, Matt Barnes guards Durant, and Paul guards Sefolosha. Let's examine the switching issue now. The ball was rarely in Sefolosha's hands, especially not as a pick and roll ball handler, negating any need for Paul to switch off him. Sefolosha wasn't screening for Durant to force Paul to guard Durant, so now Clippers are better defensively, Paul can even take more risks helping off ball, etc, and now he's a "higher impact" playoff defender because his team got better. The other problem is that more teams employing switching tactics more is a more recent thing, and a couple of seasons ago, that was not how most teams were guarding, so it isn't even truly relevant to those previous playoff loses.

Let's look at an example, Memphis 12-13, in the losses, they gave up 104.8 ppg / 119.0 Ortg to a Memphis team that averaged 93.4 ppg / 104.9 Ortg during the season, what does that have to do with any of those three reasons? If the Clippers game plan was to average 120 Ortg in order to win the series, and Paul failed by not leading a 120 Ortg offense against the league's #2 defense (100.3 Drtg), then they had already lost. If you let a team go up +14 pts/100 from their regular season, then good luck winning. The Clippers had Ortg's of 106.7 and 113.6 in game 5 and 6 with a hobbled Blake, that's +6.4 and +13.3 above Memphis' Drtg, that's actually very good offense against that defense, and more than enough to beat Memphis if you play league average defense against them (Clippers Ortg in game 2 win was 103.6). So what happened? Well, in those 4 losses, Randolph averaged 25 ppg / 57% FG in those 4 games, and Gasol 18 ppg / 51% FG.

Lastly, it talks about Paul's discipline in shot selection, and this one is very true, he's not a score 50 points type of player because he looks for the best shot, feeds the hot hand, looks to get guys going. The looking to score all the time role was supposed to be Griffin's job, though Griffin also wanted to be more of a playmaker too. Westbrook is actually the opposite example. He can give you great highs, but he also gives you very bad lows which is partly why OKC was able to go up 3-1 on GS but then still lose despite him crossing that great 25 PPG barrier in those last three losses (we'll neglect the 37% FG / 26% 3PT). The reason it has worked out so well for him in addition to his own great talent is that he played Durant (and Harden earlier) who was/were generally super efficient and covered up for him. A healthy Thunder was always one of the biggest and lengthiest teams and usually very good on defense, so their margin of error was increased with the combo of ability to dominate with size, rebounding and defense, as well as the efficiency of Durant, and earlier, Harden. OKC had injury issues limit them, but for the majority of his career, Westbrook played with a guy who was considered the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. He has been on teams that are more talented than most of the league on a yearly basis for most of his career. He literally has just had last season and the Durant injury season where he was on a mediocre talented team, that's nothing.

og15 wrote:There's a big gap between the worst coach in the league as Doc has been called, and being a great coach. I jumped off the Doc is a "great" coach bandwagon quickly into his tenure, long before it was popular, but I've maintained that he has certainly been an above average coach and not this horrible, worst in the league coach that he can get portrayed as.

An above average coach having playoff failures like Doc has had is not necessarily anything wildly surprising, but in terms of the Clippers, there were personnel issues which, yes, Doc did have a hand in that directly related to those playoff failures, and then injuries for 50% of the seasons he has been with the Clippers. I know he is the coach that has lost multiple series' while up 3-1, etc, but if we aren't claiming he's a great coach, then, yea, that happens. Most of the great coaches, their claim to fame isn't that they don't have failures, it is that they stick around long enough, possibly adjust, depending on who it is, and also find the right situations to have enough success to diminish their failures.

esqtvd wrote:or the blame is misplaced
perhaps it was the floor general, the "coach on the floor"

This is one of those situations where it sounds good, and yes, it makes sense, but it doesn't really explain what it claims it does. Look at those three factors mentioned in that article, then go back to the Clippers playoff losses, and ask yourself if any of those things were actually the main reason the team lost. The article says grinding out possessions was an issue, but the problem is that technically most other teams ground out even more than the Clippers who were 2nd in playoff pace in both of the healthy post-seasons with Doc (13-14 and 14-15). It talks about the lesser value of PG defense and Paul's size limiting that, which is true, but Curry has the same issue, and so does almost every other PG, but how come those teams are fine, the article almost makes it seem like the other WC playoff teams had Jason Kidd sized PG's who could hold their own from 1-3, but that's false. Tony Parker? Steph Curry? Mike Conley? The actual difference is that most teams don't have a on defensive position player with PG length at SG (Redick) and instead have guys like Danny Green, Klay Thompson, Thabo Sefolosha, etc who can guard 1-3, so they can hide and/or rest their PG on defense and he doesn't have to guard those other PG's, but can guard Matt Barnes and Tony Allen. They can also mix and match defensive matchups with their 2/3, the Clippers did not have this luxury. Replace Redick with Danny Green defensively and for example, Thunder series, Danny Green guards Westbrook, Matt Barnes guards Durant, and Paul guards Sefolosha. Let's examine the switching issue now. The ball was rarely in Sefolosha's hands, especially not as a pick and roll ball handler, negating any need for Paul to switch off him. Sefolosha wasn't screening for Durant to force Paul to guard Durant, so now Clippers are better defensively, Paul can even take more risks helping off ball, etc, and now he's a "higher impact" playoff defender because his team got better. The other problem is that more teams employing switching tactics more is a more recent thing, and a couple of seasons ago, that was not how most teams were guarding, so it isn't even truly relevant to those previous playoff loses.

Let's look at an example, Memphis 12-13, in the losses, they gave up 104.8 ppg / 119.0 Ortg to a Memphis team that averaged 93.4 ppg / 104.9 Ortg during the season, what does that have to do with any of those three reasons? If the Clippers game plan was to average 120 Ortg in order to win the series, and Paul failed by not leading a 120 Ortg offense against the league's #2 defense (100.3 Drtg), then they had already lost. If you let a team go up +14 pts/100 from their regular season, then good luck winning. The Clippers had Ortg's of 106.7 and 113.6 in game 5 and 6 with a hobbled Blake, that's +6.4 and +13.3 above Memphis' Drtg, that's actually very good offense against that defense, and more than enough to beat Memphis if you play league average defense against them (Clippers Ortg in game 2 win was 103.6). So what happened? Well, in those 4 losses, Randolph averaged 25 ppg / 57% FG in those 4 games, and Gasol 18 ppg / 51% FG.

Lastly, it talks about Paul's discipline in shot selection, and this one is very true, he's not a score 50 points type of player because he looks for the best shot, feeds the hot hand, looks to get guys going. The looking to score all the time role was supposed to be Griffin's job, though Griffin also wanted to be more of a playmaker too. Westbrook is actually the opposite example. He can give you great highs, but he also gives you very bad lows which is partly why OKC was able to go up 3-1 on GS but then still lose despite him crossing that great 25 PPG barrier in those last three losses (we'll neglect the 37% FG / 26% 3PT). The reason it has worked out so well for him in addition to his own great talent is that he played Durant (and Harden earlier) who was/were generally super efficient and covered up for him. A healthy Thunder was always one of the biggest and lengthiest teams and usually very good on defense, so their margin of error was increased with the combo of ability to dominate with size, rebounding and defense, as well as the efficiency of Durant, and earlier, Harden. OKC had injury issues limit them, but for the majority of his career, Westbrook played with a guy who was considered the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. He has been on teams that are more talented than most of the league on a yearly basis for most of his career. He literally has just had last season and the Durant injury season where he was on a mediocre talented team, that's nothing.

Well-argued stuff, G, but mostly argued against the points featured in the article [esp a questionable arg that CP is too short to switch on defense] not against the overall point that the failure might have been Chris's more than the coach's.



I think the strongest arg is that CP's dominance doesn't seem to extend to playing against top teams; his regular season stats are inflated by feasting on the crap teams. In the playoffs, he comes up much smaller.

I do not know who a great coach is, really, except Popovich, and I'm still waiting to see what happens without Duncan and very soon, Parker. Even Phil Jax--who has proven to be a far bigger disaster than Doc ever was as GM--had Jordan/Pippen and Kobe/Shaq. His famed triangle offense seems unworkable by lesser talents. So how great was he, really?

My vote for the best working theory is Doc's recent "maybe we just weren't good enough." CP and Blake just aren't in the league of the aforementioned tandems, and let's add Curry/Klay + Durant plus LeBron/whoever, not to mention also-rans like Westbrook/Durant. CP/Blake is just not in that league.

If you want to really be critical and understand what happens on the court, instead of just screaming some hot take and whine cause you didn't get your team's win you were entitled to, there's no need to blame it all on this guy or that guy. Doc can offer an strategic advantage on every playoff series (and he's done just that on most of them), and Paul can be the best player on the team and the best player he can be (and he's too been really close to that), and the rest of the team mostly perform to expectations, and you can still lose.

og hits the nail, as usual, expanding on the nuances of each case.

If Paul gets to make some noise this year and advance late in the playoffs, there'll be many articles about how he's finally figured it out, but he might perfectly be the exact same player doing the exact same things, just surrounded by different circumstances. Not just the team he's in, but the teams he faces, how and when he faces them, how the ball is gonna randomly rebound that night, etc. If the rule about division seeding gets in a year or two earlier, or if Deandre makes a simple layup instead of having a brainfart on a random regular season game in March, things might unfold differently and we might be talking about the Clippers winning a title after facing a bunch of injured rivals instead of the Warriors getting them, and the narrative suddenly changes about how good each guy on those teams is and the nature of their characters. But all that changed is dumb luck.

Performance matters greatly to get results, but reverse engineering it to guess performance level after looking at just the result, and not the particulars of each case, is gonna make you be wrong most of the time. That article seems to do this a lot.

I just hate complainers man.

The next coach after doc will inevitably be hated by the end of his tenure too. No one's ever happy. Every single team's fanbase does not like their coach or their rotations and thinks they know more than the coach who's with the team daily. Seriously, go on NBA Twitter or even on this board and you'll see it. It's sick.

Every.single.one.

Like, as the HC of the Clips "he" won 50+ games every single season w/his star players missing significant time every single season. He's had to coach against a racist owner and injuries to his star players in every single playoff run that he's had with LAC. This season "He" has the clips in the 9th seed with 4 starters missing significant time before the new year even began.

How can you be "horrible" with this coaching profile? How lol some of y'all the type to stand on the walls at a party full of girls and when asked why, say "All of these girls elbows are too pointy"

He isn't above criticism but keep some perspective on it. For my mind, I seriously doubt another coach would have taken LAC further in Doc's tenure with the injuries he's had to coach against during his time here.

JGOJustin wrote:{Doc] isn't above criticism but keep some perspective on it. For my mind, I seriously doubt another coach would have taken LAC further in Doc's tenure with the injuries he's had to coach against during his time here.

This would be the argument. Plus Chris did this, Doc din't.



There are definitely bad coaches out there. In fact almost all of them are bad and will be fired soon. Among the retreads, offense genius Alvin Gentry can't make the Pelicans score consistently and D-Genius Tom Thibodeau can't get the Wolves to play defense.

It's a players' league. A good coach gets his team to play for him. This broken Clips team is playing.

esqtvd wrote:

JGOJustin wrote:{Doc] isn't above criticism but keep some perspective on it. For my mind, I seriously doubt another coach would have taken LAC further in Doc's tenure with the injuries he's had to coach against during his time here.

This would be the argument. Plus Chris did this, Doc din't.

Watch on YouTube

There are definitely bad coaches out there. In fact almost all of them are bad and will be fired soon. Among the retreads, offense genius Alvin Gentry can't make the Pelicans score consistently and D-Genius Tom Thibodeau can't get the Wolves to play defense.

It's a players' league. A good coach gets his team to play for him. This broken Clips team is playing.

Ugh can't believe I'm taking the bait about this again, but posting that clip pretty much disqualifies you from any argument about the Paul-era Clippers. Dude single handedly put us in the driver seat of a series we had no business winning, but apparently having one turnover (yes that's one, the other one is a clear foul on Reggie Jackson he can't really do anything about) means you're at fault for everything that happened. So you can have the best assist-to-turnover ratio in pretty much league's history, and you can have an all time great game 1, be the best Clippers player on your way to upsetting a better OKC team, but that one turnover is all you need to know about that series.

I'm the first to say that Doc is a great coach and has one of the best strategic minds out of all the coaches in the league, with of course some glaring flaws in setting rotations and planning long term, but if all you have to answer to his hot-taking critics are some even hotter takes about someone else to deflect, you're not helping him much.

QRich3 wrote:

esqtvd wrote:

JGOJustin wrote:{Doc] isn't above criticism but keep some perspective on it. For my mind, I seriously doubt another coach would have taken LAC further in Doc's tenure with the injuries he's had to coach against during his time here.

This would be the argument. Plus Chris did this, Doc din't.

Watch on YouTube

There are definitely bad coaches out there. In fact almost all of them are bad and will be fired soon. Among the retreads, offense genius Alvin Gentry can't make the Pelicans score consistently and D-Genius Tom Thibodeau can't get the Wolves to play defense.

It's a players' league. A good coach gets his team to play for him. This broken Clips team is playing.

Ugh can't believe I'm taking the bait about this again, but posting that clip pretty much disqualifies you from any argument about the Paul-era Clippers. Dude single handedly put us in the driver seat of a series we had no business winning, but apparently having one turnover (yes that's one, the other one is a clear foul on Reggie Jackson he can't really do anything about) means you're at fault for everything that happened. So you can have the best assist-to-turnover ratio in pretty much league's history, and you can have an all time great game 1, be the best Clippers player on your way to upsetting a better OKC team, but that one turnover is all you need to know about that series.

I'm the first to say that Doc is a great coach and has one of the best strategic minds out of all the coaches in the league, with of course some glaring flaws in setting rotations and planning long term, but if all you have to answer to his hot-taking critics are some even hotter takes about someone else to deflect, you're not helping him much.

Bleh. Just laying it out there. Who is to blame for the Clippers playoff failures, is all. Mebbe it's Blake. Mebbe we just weren't good enough. Read the whole thread, bruh.

The whole problem is the mentality of always trying to find that one person to blame. There isn't a single person to blame. There are a lot of factors and reasons including just not being good enough as a team. The whole line of thinking that we must find one specific person to blame is part of the bad analysis problem.