A Doc Rivers Coached Team is in the NBA Finals

[ToffKobe]

I think that what sums up Doc, is when Pierce talked about watching two odd hours of Mohamed Ali tapes before games, courtesy of Rivers. I can only say that I stopped there, wonder: "Wouldn't the ECF be an ideal moment to, I dunno, watch basketball game tape instead of boxing?"

Then I recalled it was about Rivers as a coach, and it made sense.

LOL yeah I was watching that thinking the same thing.

[humblebum]

Doc Rivers is great at managing personalities and is improving as an X's and O's guy. He's also improved quite a bit in terms of utilizing his roster effectively. I will say that its definitely great to have such an excellent assistant coaching staff headed up by Thibodeau with Clifford Ray, Armond Hill and Kevin Eastman as well.

[tsherkin]

Doc Rivers is generally a good "player's coach;" he does seem to manage egos pretty well and always has. He's not very good at the Xs and Os; his rotations are whacked sometimes, for example, and he's never put together a really compelling offense. He's not a "system" coach like Jerry Sloan, Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman, etc, he doesn't have a codified offensive system he likes to use and that generally makes him pretty weak offensively. Of course, historically he has not enjoyed deep teams with lots of offensive talent but you can see that the sets his teams are running are rarely very good. You have to credit him for using T-Mac in the post relentlessly while he was in Orlando, though, that was definitely a good move.

As for Boston, the major differences are not related to Rivers; he still blows decisions on a regular basis. The major differences between this year and last year are Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and a massively upgraded defensive team.

Let's not forget that Thibodeau is in his first year with the Celtics; he spent time with Jeff Van Gundy in New York and Houston. He even has some college head coaching experience with Salem State and was inducted into the New Britain, Connecticutt Hall of Fame a decade ago. The man has an outstanding coaching pedigree and he is of considerably more value than Rivers, who is mainly a figurehead.

You've got the DPOY, one of the best defensive coaches in the league, three guys with 20+ ppg capability... what does Rivers have to do? The Celtics aren't especially well-prepared at the end of games, they've been giving up leads a lot, they don't have a well-organized offensive attack (though you must credit him for not SCREWING the offense, he does let Ray, Paul and Kevin all attack from their favorite spots and he has done a semi-respectable job of keeping Garnett in the post)...

Doc Rivers isn't anything special as a coach. He's not, you know, ridiculously incompetent or anything but he's no more than a mediocre head coach. His COY is as ridiculous as Sam Mitchell's, both awarded to unimpressive teams with nice turnarounds and absolutely nothing to claim as far as postseason success: Mitchell's Raptors won 47 games and got smoked by the Nets; Rivers' Magic, pre-McGrady, won 41 games and didn't even MAKE the playoffs; he received attention because he took a craptacular, injury-riddled roster and made it to .500, with no one paying any attention to Ben Wallace and Corey Maggette.

Rivers? Meh.

Boston is a team defined by star power and defense, none of which have anything to do with Rivers' contributions to the team.

[Devin 1L]

Doc Rivers is generally a good "player's coach;" he does seem to manage egos pretty well and always has. He's not very good at the Xs and Os; his rotations are whacked sometimes, for example, and he's never put together a really compelling offense. He's not a "system" coach like Jerry Sloan, Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman, etc, he doesn't have a codified offensive system he likes to use and that generally makes him pretty weak offensively. Of course, historically he has not enjoyed deep teams with lots of offensive talent but you can see that the sets his teams are running are rarely very good. You have to credit him for using T-Mac in the post relentlessly while he was in Orlando, though, that was definitely a good move.

As for Boston, the major differences are not related to Rivers; he still blows decisions on a regular basis. The major differences between this year and last year are Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and a massively upgraded defensive team.

Let's not forget that Thibodeau is in his first year with the Celtics; he spent time with Jeff Van Gundy in New York and Houston. He even has some college head coaching experience with Salem State and was inducted into the New Britain, Connecticutt Hall of Fame a decade ago. The man has an outstanding coaching pedigree and he is of considerably more value than Rivers, who is mainly a figurehead.

You've got the DPOY, one of the best defensive coaches in the league, three guys with 20+ ppg capability... what does Rivers have to do? The Celtics aren't especially well-prepared at the end of games, they've been giving up leads a lot, they don't have a well-organized offensive attack (though you must credit him for not SCREWING the offense, he does let Ray, Paul and Kevin all attack from their favorite spots and he has done a semi-respectable job of keeping Garnett in the post)...

Doc Rivers isn't anything special as a coach. He's not, you know, ridiculously incompetent or anything but he's no more than a mediocre head coach. His COY is as ridiculous as Sam Mitchell's, both awarded to unimpressive teams with nice turnarounds and absolutely nothing to claim as far as postseason success: Mitchell's Raptors won 47 games and got smoked by the Nets; Rivers' Magic, pre-McGrady, won 41 games and didn't even MAKE the playoffs; he received attention because he took a craptacular, injury-riddled roster and made it to .500, with no one paying any attention to Ben Wallace and Corey Maggette.

Rivers? Meh.

Boston is a team defined by star power and defense, none of which have anything to do with Rivers' contributions to the team.

Well said.

[Banks2Pierce]

Doc Rivers is generally a good "player's coach;" he does seem to manage egos pretty well and always has. He's not very good at the Xs and Os; his rotations are whacked sometimes, for example, and he's never put together a really compelling offense. He's not a "system" coach like Jerry Sloan, Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman, etc, he doesn't have a codified offensive system he likes to use and that generally makes him pretty weak offensively. Of course, historically he has not enjoyed deep teams with lots of offensive talent but you can see that the sets his teams are running are rarely very good. You have to credit him for using T-Mac in the post relentlessly while he was in Orlando, though, that was definitely a good move.

As for Boston, the major differences are not related to Rivers; he still blows decisions on a regular basis. The major differences between this year and last year are Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and a massively upgraded defensive team.

Let's not forget that Thibodeau is in his first year with the Celtics; he spent time with Jeff Van Gundy in New York and Houston. He even has some college head coaching experience with Salem State and was inducted into the New Britain, Connecticutt Hall of Fame a decade ago. The man has an outstanding coaching pedigree and he is of considerably more value than Rivers, who is mainly a figurehead.

You've got the DPOY, one of the best defensive coaches in the league, three guys with 20+ ppg capability... what does Rivers have to do? The Celtics aren't especially well-prepared at the end of games, they've been giving up leads a lot, they don't have a well-organized offensive attack (though you must credit him for not SCREWING the offense, he does let Ray, Paul and Kevin all attack from their favorite spots and he has done a semi-respectable job of keeping Garnett in the post)...

Doc Rivers isn't anything special as a coach. He's not, you know, ridiculously incompetent or anything but he's no more than a mediocre head coach. His COY is as ridiculous as Sam Mitchell's, both awarded to unimpressive teams with nice turnarounds and absolutely nothing to claim as far as postseason success: Mitchell's Raptors won 47 games and got smoked by the Nets; Rivers' Magic, pre-McGrady, won 41 games and didn't even MAKE the playoffs; he received attention because he took a craptacular, injury-riddled roster and made it to .500, with no one paying any attention to Ben Wallace and Corey Maggette.

Rivers? Meh.

Boston is a team defined by star power and defense, none of which have anything to do with Rivers' contributions to the team.

See, I really hate when people offer their insight on something where they really have no place doing it. If you are not in the locker room and at practices, I can not see how you can form an opinion like this.

They don't see that out of the people in the rotation this year, only 3 of them are in it now. People also don't take into account that people can improve in their abilities. Rookies can improve but coaches can't?

[sirgant1]

I think that what sums up Doc, is when Pierce talked about watching two odd hours of Mohamed Ali tapes before games, courtesy of Rivers. I can only say that I stopped there, wonder: "Wouldn't the ECF be an ideal moment to, I dunno, watch basketball game tape instead of boxing?"

Then I recalled it was about Rivers as a coach, and it made sense.

But when Phil Jackson if burning sage, walking down the hall beating a tom tom drum and having players meditate when other coaches are giving chalk talks that's different.

You thing Rivers doesn't have them watching basketball film? Some people take some tidbits they get from TV and make their own silly assumptions.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



But when Phil Jackson if burning sage, walking down the hall beating a tom tom drum and having players meditate when other coaches are giving chalk talks that's different.

You thing Rivers doesn't have them watching basketball film? Some people take some tidbits they get from TV and make their own silly assumptions.

You're right. Doc Rivers is a good coach.

[UGA Hayes]

Look whether you think Doc is a good coach overall or not, he did a damn good job in the Detroit series we lost 2 game and only one of them did I ever think Doc didn't have a good pulse on the game (game 4). There were really only two things that Doc was doing that was sort of questionable.

He was giving Cassell a lot of chances, but most people thought bringing in Cassell was a good idea, he did have a few ok games in Atlanta, and it really isn't any different from the way Poppovich has been trotting out washed up vets for years.

The other problem was that he was sort of keeping a strict schedule on when he was rotating guys in and out of games. He has gotten much better at not doing that during the playoffs.

His actual adjustment have been pretty solid this postseason.

[sixers_610]

Except for Pierce and a few others, these are not Celtics players. Garnett and Allen are mercenaries brought in to win an NBA title. It definitely takes away from the significance of their finals appearance.

[Lazy Faizy]

Except for Pierce and a few others, these are not Celtics players. Garnett and Allen are mercenaries brought in to win an NBA title. It definitely takes away from the significance of their finals appearance.

+1

You took the thoughts right out of my head man... this is why is just doesn't feel like a rivalry to me. Kobe and Pierce have been on their respective teams since forever, while KG, Ray Ray and Gasol have not.

I'm still expecting a classic NBA Finals though.


EDIT: I disagree with your last sentence. IMO it doesn't take away from anything, since they're still very good players and have been for a VERY long time... just didn't have any teams built around them that were capable of contending for a title.. especially Garnett. They're not washed up like say Chris Webber going to the Pistons, or GP chasing a ring with first LA, then Miami, and now Boston. Or even to some extent Malone chasing a ring with LA.

[Gant]

Except for Pierce and a few others, these are not Celtics players. Garnett and Allen are mercenaries brought in to win an NBA title. It definitely takes away from the significance of their finals appearance.

That didn't seem to apply to Dr.J and Moses Malone.

[sixers_610]

-= original quote snipped =-



That didn't seem to apply to Dr.J and Moses Malone.

Did I say that was any different? Please show me where if so. I don't recall.

[Gant]

-= original quote snipped =-




Did I say that was any different? Please show me where if so. I don't recall.

You are correct and wise. Moses and Erving were Sixers. Garnett and Allen are Celtics. There is no difference.

Being traded to the Celtics and reaching the finals is no diminishment. It's the opposite, just as the great 83 Sixers were not devalued in any way by acquiring two of their stars.

[sixers_610]

-= original quote snipped =-




You are correct and wise. Moses and Erving were Sixers. Garnett and Allen are Celtics. There is no difference.

Being traded to the Celtics and reaching the finals is no diminishment. It's the opposite, just as the great 83 Sixers were not devalued in any way by acquiring two of their stars.

You don't get it. It's not a right or wrong answer. It's a personal opinion. This is the opinion of myself and my friend, who is a die hard Celtics Fan in his mid 30's.. so he does recall the good old days.

[Gant]

-= original quote snipped =-




You don't get it. It's not a right or wrong answer. It's a personal opinion. This is the opinion of myself and my friend, who is a die hard Celtics Fan in his mid 30's.. so he does recall the good old days.

You're correct. You are right. You are accurate. Your opinions are of great worth. Your friend's opinions are of equal value. I agree with everything you say. We are of one mind. The conversation has run its course. All is harmony. All is good.

[sixers_610]

-= original quote snipped =-



You're correct. You are right. You are accurate. Your opinions are of great worth. Your friend's opinions are of equal value. I agree with everything you say. We are of one mind. The conversation has run its course. All is harmony. All is good.

We just have different opinions. Neither of us is right or wrong here. I see a team of hired guns brought in just to win a championship. I don't see a team that was drafted and developed and grown together. That's all.

[Mahoney_jr]

-= original quote snipped =-




We just have different opinions. Neither of us is right or wrong here. I see a team of hired guns brought in just to win a championship. I don't see a team that was drafted and developed and grown together. That's all.

Forget it. In today's NBA you can't grow/build a championship team from scratch without adding significant pieces through trades. It's not possible because valuable young players get a very bad impact/salary-rate after they sign their 2nd contract.

You win with experienced players. And because the Celtics managed it to keep their captain during the rebuilding years I wouldn't call them a bunch of merceneries or ring chasers. Hey, three players from the starting 5 were drafted by the Celtics! That's a lot.

[mattlanta]

Well you had three very high caliber players on your team. It would only be a shame if you didn't reach the finals with that regular season record. I think this just goes to show you that the coach doesn't really have as big as an impact on the team as people would imagine... I'd say it was 70% on the players and 30% on the coach.

[sirgant1]

Except for Pierce and a few others, these are not Celtics players. Garnett and Allen are mercenaries brought in to win an NBA title. It definitely takes away from the significance of their finals appearance.

Yea, the Celts should have stuck with Gerald Green, Al Jefferson and Ryan Gomes. They would definitely still be in the finals.

Teams should never try to improve via trades, just work with what you get from the draft, otherwise it's tainted.

Bottom line is they are wearing the green, so they are Celtics. This is 2008, not 1968.

[eatyourchildren]

Well you had three very high caliber players on your team. It would only be a shame if you didn't reach the finals with that regular season record. I think this just goes to show you that the coach doesn't really have as big as an impact on the team as people would imagine... I'd say it was 70% on the players and 30% on the coach.

When you're facing equally dumb coaches in Woodson, Brown, and Saunders, then yeah--30% on the coach.

When you have to face a really good coach who knows how to manage timeouts and run plays out of them, in addition to making the correct on-the-fly and between-game adjustments, that percentage rises drastically.

Doc has his work cut out for him.