Fire Joe! ... or critique Joe ... or defend Joe... or worry about Joe's coaching

[tenn_smoothie]

Tenn, didn?t the Celtics win the championship last year shooting from deep? They just pounded the Knicks at home- it?s going to be ok.

Here we go ................. yes, they had a highly motivated group and a relatively easy path to the title, avoiding difficult matchups.

The motivation fueled strong defensive efforts, they did not win because they were shooting like the Curry/Thompson GSW teams did.
The one strength Joe seemed to have was that the team played hard for him, but they may have done that anyway. They were a little bit like the '08 team in that they came together at a good time in their careers when they were ready to sacrifice for the team and were hungry for a championship.

Some of that hunger has declined - as I have said, our main guys are not obsessed with competitiveness to begin with. The effort on defense has been inconsistent and Joe has taken the offense to a ridiculous extreme with no alternative schemes to attack with.

I said after the title that they won in spite of Joe and I maintain that view. I never altered my opinion of his incompetence.

You're right - the Knicks win was impressive, but it required an over-the-top scoring night from Tatum. Maybe they will be ok. I think Roy's comparison to the 2010 team was interesting. We can only hope they catch fire in the playoffs with a different outcome.

[Atzar]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals. 

[Phantom255x]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

My thing is, neither guy is perfect. Ime and Joe. This thread is proving it too with all the back and forths on the flaws and shortcomings from each guy. And it's all valid.

It's not like we're debating Popovich vs. Joe Mazzulla lol. Ime is a great coach too. He's not perfect. Joe isn't either.

[GetLucky]

Tenn, didn?t the Celtics win the championship last year shooting from deep? They just pounded the Knicks at home- it?s going to be ok.

Here we go ................. yes, they had a highly motivated group and a relatively easy path to the title, avoiding difficult matchups.

The motivation fueled strong defensive efforts, they did not win because they were shooting like the Curry/Thompson GSW teams did.
The one strength Joe seemed to have was that the team played hard for him, but they may have done that anyway. They were a little bit like the '08 team in that they came together at a good time in their careers when they were ready to sacrifice for the team and were hungry for a championship.

Some of that hunger has declined - as I have said, our main guys are not obsessed with competitiveness to begin with. The effort on defense has been inconsistent and Joe has taken the offense to a ridiculous extreme with no alternative schemes to attack with.

I said after the title that they won in spite of Joe and I maintain that view. I never altered my opinion of his incompetence.

You're right - the Knicks win was impressive, but it required an over-the-top scoring night from Tatum. Maybe they will be ok. I think Roy's comparison to the 2010 team was interesting. We can only hope they catch fire in the playoffs with a different outcome.

Ah yes, I'm sure the Celtics only won the championship last year because they were trying the hardest on defense.

And they had the easiest path in the playoffs because they were the *checks notes* #1 seed in the conference due to one of the most dominant regular seasons of all time.

And after the 5th best net rating team of all time, they're currently on pace for the 25th best net rating of all time, tied with the 85-86 Celtics at 9.2.

The Thunder are #1 and the Cavs are #11, so competition is definitely stiff this year. But the C's are on pace to win 58 games. They're certainly more than good enough to win it all. And Joe is absolutely a reason for both the high ceiling and the high floor, especially for a team with four players coming off of a championships and Olympic gold medal run.

[SparzWizard]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

It's not attaching asterisks, but it's just the reality. The only asterisks that exist are the 2012 championship and the 2020 bubble chip. Those were schedule-affected seasons

[ozgod]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

My thing is, neither guy is perfect. Ime and Joe. This thread is proving it too with all the back and forths on the flaws and shortcomings from each guy. And it's all valid.

It's not like we're debating Popovich vs. Joe Mazzulla lol. Ime is a great coach too. He's not perfect. Joe isn't either.

Personally at some point it's just down to personal preference. If you're a defensive minded guy who wants to see discipline in your team, Ime's the best coach for that. For someone who wants to see points getting racked up and a more zen-type, collaborative approach to coaching backed by analytics and nerds, they will like what Joe has done for the team. But if we won the championship despite Joe, and could have easily won it with Ime, then what we're really saying is the coach doesn't really have an influence on the fortunes to the team...so it doesn't really matter who it is, or whether they even have one for that matter.

I remember when I lived in Australia in 2000 and they were having a debate about how useful the coach of their (apparently) ATG cricket team was, one of the players said that a coach (bus) was the vehicle they traveled to and from the ground, the actual coach they had was less useful than that   

So if we can win in spite of whoever it is, because our team is good enough to overcome a bad coach, then ultimately it's all about the players and it doesn't really matter who it is, so we have nothing to worry about - we just need to make sure our players are on their game so they can coach themselves come playoff time... I feel like they're not as influential in basketball games as they are in football games for example, just the same as soccer coaches are useless once the game starts, it's all up to the players. They can do the occasional ATO or make the subs, that's about it. Maybe as Tenn said above, Joe just needs to make sure they keep playing hard for him, and leave the schemes and coverages to them

[tenn_smoothie]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

My thing is, neither guy is perfect. Ime and Joe. This thread is proving it too with all the back and forths on the flaws and shortcomings from each guy. And it's all valid.

It's not like we're debating Popovich vs. Joe Mazzulla lol. Ime is a great coach too. He's not perfect. Joe isn't either.

Personally at some point it's just down to personal preference. If you're a defensive minded guy who wants to see discipline in your team, Ime's the best coach for that. For someone who wants to see points getting racked up and a more zen-type, collaborative approach to coaching backed by analytics and nerds, they will like what Joe has done for the team. But if we won the championship despite Joe, and could have easily won it with Ime, then what we're really saying is the coach doesn't really have an influence on the fortunes to the team...so it doesn't really matter who it is, or whether they even have one for that matter.

I remember when I lived in Australia in 2000 and they were having a debate about how useful the coach of their (apparently) ATG cricket team was, one of the players said that a coach (bus) was the vehicle they traveled to and from the ground, the actual coach they had was less useful than that   

So if we can win in spite of whoever it is, because our team is good enough to overcome a bad coach, then ultimately it's all about the players and it doesn't really matter who it is, so we have nothing to worry about - we just need to make sure our players are on their game so they can coach themselves come playoff time... I feel like they're not as influential in basketball games as they are in football games for example, just the same as soccer coaches are useless once the game starts, it's all up to the players. They can do the occasional ATO or make the subs, that's about it. Maybe as Tenn said above, Joe just needs to make sure they keep playing hard for him, and leave the schemes and coverages to them

Maybe a little extreme ?

Of course the coach matters. I liked your description of these two coaches, pretty accurate. My opinion though is that, yes, we won last year with a coach who had a couple of strengths that did help the team, but who overall has too many negatives to keep winning. I think that with a much better coach, this very good team could be so much stronger and could win multiple titles.

[SparzWizard]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

My thing is, neither guy is perfect. Ime and Joe. This thread is proving it too with all the back and forths on the flaws and shortcomings from each guy. And it's all valid.

It's not like we're debating Popovich vs. Joe Mazzulla lol. Ime is a great coach too. He's not perfect. Joe isn't either.

Personally at some point it's just down to personal preference. If you're a defensive minded guy who wants to see discipline in your team, Ime's the best coach for that. For someone who wants to see points getting racked up and a more zen-type, collaborative approach to coaching backed by analytics and nerds, they will like what Joe has done for the team. But if we won the championship despite Joe, and could have easily won it with Ime, then what we're really saying is the coach doesn't really have an influence on the fortunes to the team...so it doesn't really matter who it is, or whether they even have one for that matter.

I remember when I lived in Australia in 2000 and they were having a debate about how useful the coach of their (apparently) ATG cricket team was, one of the players said that a coach (bus) was the vehicle they traveled to and from the ground, the actual coach they had was less useful than that   

So if we can win in spite of whoever it is, because our team is good enough to overcome a bad coach, then ultimately it's all about the players and it doesn't really matter who it is, so we have nothing to worry about - we just need to make sure our players are on their game so they can coach themselves come playoff time... I feel like they're not as influential in basketball games as they are in football games for example, just the same as soccer coaches are useless once the game starts, it's all up to the players. They can do the occasional ATO or make the subs, that's about it. Maybe as Tenn said above, Joe just needs to make sure they keep playing hard for him, and leave the schemes and coverages to them

Maybe a little extreme ?

Of course the coach matters. I liked your description of these two coaches, pretty accurate. My opinion though is that, yes, we won last year with a coach who had a couple of strengths that did help the team, but who overall has too many negatives to keep winning. I think that with a much better coach, this very good team could be so much stronger and could win multiple titles.

Fact of the matter is, can't just rely solely on 3's to win games. If those 3's aren't falling, then what other offense do you have. Need to get creative or trim down on this 3-ball philosophy and be more dynamic with offenses. And of course, getting the team to play defense is another challenge.

[ozgod]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

My thing is, neither guy is perfect. Ime and Joe. This thread is proving it too with all the back and forths on the flaws and shortcomings from each guy. And it's all valid.

It's not like we're debating Popovich vs. Joe Mazzulla lol. Ime is a great coach too. He's not perfect. Joe isn't either.

Personally at some point it's just down to personal preference. If you're a defensive minded guy who wants to see discipline in your team, Ime's the best coach for that. For someone who wants to see points getting racked up and a more zen-type, collaborative approach to coaching backed by analytics and nerds, they will like what Joe has done for the team. But if we won the championship despite Joe, and could have easily won it with Ime, then what we're really saying is the coach doesn't really have an influence on the fortunes to the team...so it doesn't really matter who it is, or whether they even have one for that matter.

I remember when I lived in Australia in 2000 and they were having a debate about how useful the coach of their (apparently) ATG cricket team was, one of the players said that a coach (bus) was the vehicle they traveled to and from the ground, the actual coach they had was less useful than that   

So if we can win in spite of whoever it is, because our team is good enough to overcome a bad coach, then ultimately it's all about the players and it doesn't really matter who it is, so we have nothing to worry about - we just need to make sure our players are on their game so they can coach themselves come playoff time... I feel like they're not as influential in basketball games as they are in football games for example, just the same as soccer coaches are useless once the game starts, it's all up to the players. They can do the occasional ATO or make the subs, that's about it. Maybe as Tenn said above, Joe just needs to make sure they keep playing hard for him, and leave the schemes and coverages to them

Maybe a little extreme ?

Of course the coach matters. I liked your description of these two coaches, pretty accurate. My opinion though is that, yes, we won last year with a coach who had a couple of strengths that did help the team, but who overall has too many negatives to keep winning. I think that with a much better coach, this very good team could be so much stronger and could win multiple titles.

I guess the point was that a good coach can be a significant force multiplier, while a bad one might not be as much of a hindrance, as long as they (the coach) half know what they are doing or have some skill that can add value to the team (i.e. being able to motivate them, being really good at subs, etc). As long as you have a mature team that knows its roles, understands the hierarchy and nobody tries to be more than what they should be. If your team isn't quite at that level, or they are trying to figure out their roles (eg. Philly) or is a young team (like Houston) then the role of the coach becomes a lot more important to provide the structure and the operating blueprint.

[Kernewek]

This fanbase has a weird tendency to try to attach an asterisk to our own title run.  Leave that nonsense for bitter rivals.

My thing is, neither guy is perfect. Ime and Joe. This thread is proving it too with all the back and forths on the flaws and shortcomings from each guy. And it's all valid.

It's not like we're debating Popovich vs. Joe Mazzulla lol. Ime is a great coach too. He's not perfect. Joe isn't either.

Personally at some point it's just down to personal preference. If you're a defensive minded guy who wants to see discipline in your team, Ime's the best coach for that. For someone who wants to see points getting racked up and a more zen-type, collaborative approach to coaching backed by analytics and nerds, they will like what Joe has done for the team. But if we won the championship despite Joe, and could have easily won it with Ime, then what we're really saying is the coach doesn't really have an influence on the fortunes to the team...so it doesn't really matter who it is, or whether they even have one for that matter.

I remember when I lived in Australia in 2000 and they were having a debate about how useful the coach of their (apparently) ATG cricket team was, one of the players said that a coach (bus) was the vehicle they traveled to and from the ground, the actual coach they had was less useful than that   

So if we can win in spite of whoever it is, because our team is good enough to overcome a bad coach, then ultimately it's all about the players and it doesn't really matter who it is, so we have nothing to worry about - we just need to make sure our players are on their game so they can coach themselves come playoff time... I feel like they're not as influential in basketball games as they are in football games for example, just the same as soccer coaches are useless once the game starts, it's all up to the players. They can do the occasional ATO or make the subs, that's about it. Maybe as Tenn said above, Joe just needs to make sure they keep playing hard for him, and leave the schemes and coverages to them

Maybe a little extreme ?

Of course the coach matters. I liked your description of these two coaches, pretty accurate. My opinion though is that, yes, we won last year with a coach who had a couple of strengths that did help the team, but who overall has too many negatives to keep winning. I think that with a much better coach, this very good team could be so much stronger and could win multiple titles.

Ok, let's play this out - if the Celtics win another championship this season (or next season, since the roster is largely locked in) in spite of the coach, then the coach must not matter, right?

[green_bballers13]

This is getting silly. What fanbase prefers the coach that loses the championship vs winning the championship? The same guy that lost the championship was being a creep with a younger woman at work, putting his team's  chances of a future championship at risk.

What is the likable trait that I'm missing?

[moiso]

This is getting silly. What fanbase prefers the coach that loses the championship vs winning the championship? The same guy that lost the championship was being a creep with a younger woman at work, putting his team's  chances of a future championship at risk.

What is the likable trait that I'm missing?

Udoka holds the players more accountable, instills a level of defensive intensity that Mazzulla doesn't match, cares a little more about shot selection...  you can't act like Udoka doesn't have his good traits.

[Roy H.]

This is getting silly. What fanbase prefers the coach that loses the championship vs winning the championship? The same guy that lost the championship was being a creep with a younger woman at work, putting his team's future chances of a championship at risk.

What is the likable trait that I'm missing?

Look at the complete picture.

Last year of Brad:  .500 team, 1st round playoff loss
Only year of Ime:  No personnel changes; Finals appearance; dominant run from January through April
First year of Joe:  Add 6MOY; Net Rtg decreases from prior year; lose in ECF to #8 seed
Second year of Joe:  Add Porzingis, Jrue, Charles Lee, Sam Cassell, JVG; 64 wins, cruise to championship
Third year of Joe:  No personnel changes; disappointing regular season; playoffs TBD

All you can really say is that Ime's team performed better than Joe's team performed in their first seasons.  The Celts went further with a lesser team.  Those are facts.  It's also true that Ime had more time to prepare.  Ime was hired on June 23, 2021.  Joe took over around September 22, 2022.  Ime built his own staff; Joe inherited his assistant coaches.  Those are also facts.

Anything after their first year is an extrapolation.  Joe has gone on to tremendous success while being provided with superb personnel and a first class coaching staff; Ime has the Rockets playing over their heads.

It's fair for fans to have an opinion that Ime is better, because he's done more with less.  It's fair for fans to have an opinion that Joe is better, because he won a title.

What's probably unfair is the strawman arguments that led people (you) to resurrect this thread and to continually post in it, claiming imaginary grievances.

[green_bballers13]

This is getting silly. What fanbase prefers the coach that loses the championship vs winning the championship? The same guy that lost the championship was being a creep with a younger woman at work, putting his team's future chances of a championship at risk.

What is the likable trait that I'm missing?

It's fair for fans to have an opinion that Ime is better, because he's done more with less.  It's fair for fans to have an opinion that Joe is better, because he won a title.

I will give it to you- your writing is persuasive. The problem is that you said that Ime has done more with less, but you didn't prove it.

Joe has a championship. This is Boston Celtics basketball, not horseshoes. Ime doesn't get credit for a Finals loss in this city. Regular season wins don't count here. Only championships.

[Kernewek]

This is getting silly. What fanbase prefers the coach that loses the championship vs winning the championship? The same guy that lost the championship was being a creep with a younger woman at work, putting his team's future chances of a championship at risk.

What is the likable trait that I'm missing?

It's fair for fans to have an opinion that Ime is better, because he's done more with less.  It's fair for fans to have an opinion that Joe is better, because he won a title.

I will give it to you- your writing is persuasive. The problem is that you said that Ime has done more with less, but you didn't prove it.

Joe has a championship. This is Boston Celtics basketball, not horseshoes. Ime doesn't get credit for a Finals loss in this city. Regular season wins don't count here. Only championships.

I tend to agree with you on the topic, but we're at 180+ pages of arguments that prove or disprove it. The horse isn't just dead, the glue it was turned into has given out.