So Doc is either bad because he never developed talent on veteran teams, or he's bad because he won due to players having breakout years and became superstars while he was coaching them?
Pierce was a superstar before Doc. McGrady was going to be a superstar no matter what. Only "superstar" that can be credited to Doc may be Wallace, but the argument could be made that he broke out in Washington a season before he went to Orlando. Some people might not even want to say he fully broke out until he went to Detroit under Carlisle. So I guess there is Rondo too, which I'll give Doc. Doc managed his personality well enough even if I don't think his shot was properly developed. That's more on Rondo than Doc probably, though, we've seen Stevens force a couple of his players to shoot 3s to develop their game regardless of past experience with the shot (Sully and Olynyk).
Never said Doc was bad anyway. Only that I agree that he is somewhat overrated.
Pierce was a superstar? Pierce was the best player on a bad team.
Best players on bad teams can still be superstars. Pierce was a superstar. Superstar to me = top 10-15 player.
It's amazing how underrated Pierce can be, on a Celtics forum no less. Kobe, McGrady, Lebron, etc never outplayed Pierce when he was in his prime in head to head matchups. Pierce almost always got the best of the "flashy" superstars (Vince and McGrady) and played them toe to toe. It's not his fault management in Boston sucked until Ainge turned the whole thing around because let me tell you, even Kobe Bryant wasn't winning crap here with the rosters Pierce had to play with. One of the bigger (roster) tragedies in Boston sports history is not getting to see Pierce play with a good, balanced team for most of his prime.
After a rocky start with Doc (Pierce was indoctrinated by the O'Brien system) Pierce became a superstar under Doc's system which used him in a much more efficient way, IMO. In no way do I undervalue Pierce...I was not a fan of the OB system.