Banks2Pierce wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
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?
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, haven't been on the boards much.
Your big problem is that you defend Rivers without substance; throughout the course of the regular season, Rivers displayed all of his old problems (weak rotations, odd lineups, weak in-game adjustments, weak structure to his offense, a tendency towards weak fourth quarters, etc).
None of that changed, the Celtics displayed all the hallmarks of every team Rivers has headed up as the coach since he started out in Orlando.
That, right off the bat, invalidates your comments.
The roster components have changed, yes, and dramatically. The Celtics added a player who anchored their defense and won the DPOY, they added two other 20 ppg scorers, they added a great defensive coach under Rivers. These things are significant.
Rivers has improved; in the postseason, particularly in the series against the Pistons and in the first game against the Lakers, he's been trusting his bench more and working with more reasonable rotations.
But for you to attack me on the basis of those comments would be somewhat ridiculous given that you imply Rivers has made noticeable changes and upgrades to his coaching style when the preponderance of evidence at hand suggests otherwise... Lately, he's been doing a better job and I did acknowledge what changes he's made.
Doc might be the reason the Celtics won Game One of the Finals, on the basis of every one of his decisions working out just right. But while that evidences improvement, it is not the hallmark of a radical change in his coaching disposition. That'd be like wondering why the Bulls went from 40 wins in 86-87 to 50 wins in 87-88. The coach stayed the same but they added some key new players (of some note is that Phil Jackson became an assistant with the Bulls in '87, as well).
He's always been a middle-of-the-pack coach, never an especially stand-out example of coaching acumen. That observation is borne out by watching games, listening to quotes from players and other coaches, etc.
Happily, it has not been an impediment to Boston and he has begun adapting to the roster. Lately, we've seen him empowering Rajon Rondo and not abusing the presence of Sam Cassell with big minutes and we saw him give Perk big minutes in the ECF, about 8 more than he averaged in either of the first two rounds (though he's down to around 18 in the Finals because he only played 14 minutes in Game 2, probably on account of the ankle). He's been riding the hot bench hand and trusting Rondo, the two most important things for him to be doing, so that's fine.
Notably, the Celtics resisted a big scoring push from Kobe (even while Kobe added 8 assists), though it is with some consternation that we all remember the 41-point 4th the Celtics just allowed, yes?
EDIT: Just to add to the 4th Q meltdown the Celtics experienced, that was ENTIRELY on Doc and his stupid small-ball lineup... Ugh.
