Prediction About Our Coaching Situation in the Off-season

[GreenlyGreeny]

If we fail to win the title with Joe, I suspect as soon as Ime signs to coach another team, Brad will pull a Pat Riley double-duty GM/coach role with Joe and Stoudamire as his chief assistants.

If we win the title with Joe, which I am seriously doubting at this point, he will obviously become our HC.

[ozgod]

Greeny, no matter how many times you try to speak it into existence, Brad doesn't want to coach again. He's mentioned this many, many times. Too much stress, too much travel, being the focus of fan vitriol when you are on a losing streak...he's happy with his job and in many ways more suited to it.

If he gets them to the finals, Joe will probably be given the job full time (to the disappointment of many no doubt). If they flame out in the first round then it might be a harder sell for him to continue, but if you hire someone to be in your organization you assume they have the qualities to one day be a head coach, and Brad and Wyc don't strike me as "hire and fire" type people.

[trickybilly]

If Joe doesn't win, I'd like to see a proper recruiting process in summer and a coach given a 2 year deal

[aefgogreen]

If we fail to win the title with Joe, I suspect as soon as Ime signs to coach another team, Brad will pull a Pat Riley double-duty GM/coach role with Joe and Stoudamire as his chief assistants.

If we win the title with Joe, which I am seriously doubting at this point, he will obviously become our HC.

I don't see anyone taking a double-duty role again.  Besides the fact that it's too big a workload, there's somewhat of a conflict as coaches need to win now and GMs need to think long-term.

[Celtics2021]

If Joe doesn't win, I'd like to see a proper recruiting process in summer and a coach given a 2 year deal

No coach is given a 2-year deal as a new hire.  Coaches with only two years left on their deal are already viewed as on the hot seat — why would you start out in that situation?  Four years is the minimum.

Also, Joe will be given the full barring an epic collapse that isn’t related to injuries.  They just have to officially let Ime go, and they don’t want to do that during the season because then it will reopen organizational trauma.  Moving on from Mazz would mean the C’s would have their fourth coach in four years — no organization likes that kind of discontinuity.

[Hoopvortex]

If we fail to win the title with Joe, I suspect as soon as Ime signs to coach another team, Brad will pull a Pat Riley double-duty GM/coach role with Joe and Stoudamire as his chief assistants.

If we win the title with Joe, which I am seriously doubting at this point, he will obviously become our HC.

This is a misunderstanding of what coaches do.

Joe has done an amazing job. AMAZING.

Player development has been a strength for the Celtics in the Ainge/Stevens era - but so has coaching staff development. The Udoka disaster didn't even cause a blip in performance. Next man up would have been Will Hardy - but he was gone, too. Next man up, no problem.

Boston is now 5th in defense, 2nd in offense. That defensive number is the key, if you're going to start to evaluate a coach. The team has steadily climbed in this statistic as the season has gone on.

Defensive rebounding is 2nd in the league at .786 - and that without any one player over 23.2%; and that, furthermore, without artificially inflating that number by fouling. In fact, Boston leads the league in Defensive FT/FGA at a remarkable .178. What does this mean? Bottom line, Joe Mazzulla has the whole team getting in and getting physical to get the defensive board.

More than anything, a coach builds a winning mindset by asking his guys to sacrifice, to get down in a stance and move their feet and fight for the ball - and then for them to respond, game after game, through the marathon season. This was true in 1963, and it's still true today.

No need to say much about offense today, but surely the thorough revamping of the offense shows not only that Joe is his own man, but that he's got a talent for assigning roles. The shift of emphasis onto ballhandlers having the ball - especially Marcus Smart - has been a huge success.

There's a temptation to judge a coach by the number of wins; but that is simplistic. Is it not obvious that the players are also part of the equation? Obvious, no?

The other day I heard someone bring up the ridiculous fantasy about Joe's supposed weakness in timeout calling. Really? Could we please put an end to this silliness?

[wdleehi]

It really depends on the "why".   


If the Celtics lose because Joe loses the locker room, then yes, he should be gone.

If the Celtics lose because a team out plays them (like last year), he should stay and the team needs to figure out what they need to add.

[Hoopvortex]

It really depends on the "why".   


If the Celtics lose because Joe loses the locker room, then yes, he should be gone.

If the Celtics lose because a team out plays them (like last year), he should stay and the team needs to figure out what they need to add.

Yes, very reasonable. Since he obviously has not lost the locker room, the likelihood of being fired is low.

[ozgod]

If we fail to win the title with Joe, I suspect as soon as Ime signs to coach another team, Brad will pull a Pat Riley double-duty GM/coach role with Joe and Stoudamire as his chief assistants.

If we win the title with Joe, which I am seriously doubting at this point, he will obviously become our HC.

This is a misunderstanding of what coaches do.

Joe has done an amazing job. AMAZING.

Player development has been a strength for the Celtics in the Ainge/Stevens era - but so has coaching staff development. The Udoka disaster didn't even cause a blip in performance. Next man up would have been Will Hardy - but he was gone, too. Next man up, no problem.

Boston is now 5th in defense, 2nd in offense. That defensive number is the key, if you're going to start to evaluate a coach. The team has steadily climbed in this statistic as the season has gone on.

Defensive rebounding is 2nd in the league at .786 - and that without any one player over 23.2%; and that, furthermore, without artificially inflating that number by fouling. In fact, Boston leads the league in Defensive FT/FGA at a remarkable .178. What does this mean? Bottom line, Joe Mazzulla has the whole team getting in and getting physical to get the defensive board.

More than anything, a coach builds a winning mindset by asking his guys to sacrifice, to get down in a stance and move their feet and fight for the ball - and then for them to respond, game after game, through the marathon season. This was true in 1963, and it's still true today.

No need to say much about offense today, but surely the thorough revamping of the offense shows not only that Joe is his own man, but that he's got a talent for assigning roles. The shift of emphasis onto ballhandlers having the ball - especially Marcus Smart - has been a huge success.

There's a temptation to judge a coach by the number of wins; but that is simplistic. Is it not obvious that the players are also part of the equation? Obvious, no?

The other day I heard someone bring up the ridiculous fantasy about Joe's supposed weakness in timeout calling. Really? Could we please put an end to this silliness?

TP. Sometimes people only look at the part of coaching that they can physically see, and make judgements based on that.