Author Topic: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.  (Read 9192 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2008, 05:06:08 PM »

Online Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31738
  • Tommy Points: 3845
  • Yup
There is usually growth in players from season to season,especially when they win a championship.I

expect Doc has grown as a coach as well.I bet he will capitalize on his mistakes in the past,use

those lessons to his advantage as a coach in the future,.House was Doc biggest error in judgement

during the playoffs. Doc didn't show much confidence in House,far from being a youth.Im not positive

that Doc is always calling the shots,when it comes to who is given the greenlight at times.It almost

seems like DA wanted Sam to have the bulk of the minutes,regardless of whether it was wrong or not

.I do not  want to think,that any good coach would let that go the way it did for so long.I

want to think Doc is better than that.
Then Danny Ainge must be a pretty bad GM in your opinion considering he forced Doc to play the pathetic Sam Cassell when it was obvious to even the most simple and naive of basketball fans that Sam couldn't hit the ocean with a basketball if he was sailing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Sam's got a big boat!
Yup

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2008, 06:13:35 PM »

Offline bolvbball

  • Neemias Queta
  • Posts: 10
  • Tommy Points: 1
There is usually growth in players from season to season,especially when they win a championship.I

expect Doc has grown as a coach as well.I bet he will capitalize on his mistakes in the past,use

those lessons to his advantage as a coach in the future,.House was Doc biggest error in judgement

during the playoffs. Doc didn't show much confidence in House,far from being a youth.Im not positive

that Doc is always calling the shots,when it comes to who is given the greenlight at times.It almost

seems like DA wanted Sam to have the bulk of the minutes,regardless of whether it was wrong or not

.I do not  want to think,that any good coach would let that go the way it did for so long.I

want to think Doc is better than that.
Then Danny Ainge must be a pretty bad GM in your opinion considering he forced Doc to play the pathetic Sam Cassell when it was obvious to even the most simple and naive of basketball fans that Sam couldn't hit the ocean with a basketball if he was sailing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Nope  not at all,just feel that Doc didn't single-handedly make the Cassell decisions in the playoffs.

Until someone show me proof that Doc made all those decisions himself without some other influences,i will

hold that thought.Also,I do not have evidence to prove otherwise either.As far as DA is concern,i think he is

a good GM,capable of mistakes like all the rest.Danny has his flaws to,just because he recently struck gold

doesn't make him immune from making more.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2008, 07:50:52 PM by bolvbball »

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2008, 07:03:53 PM »

Offline DannyZ

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 882
  • Tommy Points: 76
I'm disappointed in the roster that Danny has handed Doc.  I don't think it fits well with Doc's coaching style of coaching, which emphasizes veterans.  I'm also a bit concerned because Doc has struggled when he has too many options; he's better when he's handed a roster with clearly defined roles on it, and he certainly hasn't been given that.

  I think Doc handled this pretty well in the playoffs last year. He had plenty of options (House or Cassell, Powe or Davis or PJ, Posey or TA) but he kept his rotations pretty small and played whoever he thought would succeed in a given situation. He didn't go with the same rotation throughout the playoffs yet he didn't switch who he went with game by game or half by half. 

Right:  By default, Doc went to his vets.  Our "top 8" was the starters plus Posey, Cassell, and P.J.  That stayed *very* consistent in the playoffs, except when Cassell's slump forced Doc's hand.  The man loves veterans.  When those vets weren't available, or when younger guys needed to be played, Doc was much more prone to play hunches (Powe vs. BBD, etc.), which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.

I don't think this roster plays to Doc's strengths, and I'm a bit disappointed in it.

Doc stuck with Rondo who wasn't exactly a playoff tested "vet".

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2008, 07:49:15 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
I'm disappointed in the roster that Danny has handed Doc.  I don't think it fits well with Doc's coaching style of coaching, which emphasizes veterans.  I'm also a bit concerned because Doc has struggled when he has too many options; he's better when he's handed a roster with clearly defined roles on it, and he certainly hasn't been given that.

  I think Doc handled this pretty well in the playoffs last year. He had plenty of options (House or Cassell, Powe or Davis or PJ, Posey or TA) but he kept his rotations pretty small and played whoever he thought would succeed in a given situation. He didn't go with the same rotation throughout the playoffs yet he didn't switch who he went with game by game or half by half. 

Right:  By default, Doc went to his vets.  Our "top 8" was the starters plus Posey, Cassell, and P.J.  That stayed *very* consistent in the playoffs, except when Cassell's slump forced Doc's hand.  The man loves veterans.  When those vets weren't available, or when younger guys needed to be played, Doc was much more prone to play hunches (Powe vs. BBD, etc.), which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.

I don't think this roster plays to Doc's strengths, and I'm a bit disappointed in it.

Doc stuck with Rondo who wasn't exactly a playoff tested "vet".

Doc didn't exactly have a ton of options.  Are you seriously arguing that Doc *doesn't* have a clear preference for vets?  If it wasn't a complete waste of time, I'd find the numerous quotes from Doc on the subject; he's made the point enough times that I'm surprised that any Celtics fan would argue with it.

That being said, Rondo averaged 32.0 minutes per game in the playoff, including a number of games where he played less than 30 minutes (in both wins and losses). 


All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2008, 08:09:41 PM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
Doc does seem to have a "fetish" with vets which is understandable to a point, not that watching Sam play in the playoffs should have raised a HUGE red flag.
You do learn as you coach, I know I did, lets hope Doc has learned how to use the young guys better, know the strengths (and weaknesses) of his team.  He helped us win the championship, not my choice for coach but as I have stated KC wasn't that good either and he got us a few rings coaching.
Break out season for TA.  More improvements for Powe, Davis and future all star Rondo.  Perk suddenly shows the offensive flash he had in the playoff game (detroit? mind going).  Big 3 just keep going ....
then you know what who cares what doc does (except the bizarre sub rotations)

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2008, 04:13:28 PM »

Offline DannyZ

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 882
  • Tommy Points: 76
I'm disappointed in the roster that Danny has handed Doc.  I don't think it fits well with Doc's coaching style of coaching, which emphasizes veterans.  I'm also a bit concerned because Doc has struggled when he has too many options; he's better when he's handed a roster with clearly defined roles on it, and he certainly hasn't been given that.

  I think Doc handled this pretty well in the playoffs last year. He had plenty of options (House or Cassell, Powe or Davis or PJ, Posey or TA) but he kept his rotations pretty small and played whoever he thought would succeed in a given situation. He didn't go with the same rotation throughout the playoffs yet he didn't switch who he went with game by game or half by half. 

Right:  By default, Doc went to his vets.  Our "top 8" was the starters plus Posey, Cassell, and P.J.  That stayed *very* consistent in the playoffs, except when Cassell's slump forced Doc's hand.  The man loves veterans.  When those vets weren't available, or when younger guys needed to be played, Doc was much more prone to play hunches (Powe vs. BBD, etc.), which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.

I don't think this roster plays to Doc's strengths, and I'm a bit disappointed in it.

Doc stuck with Rondo who wasn't exactly a playoff tested "vet".

Doc didn't exactly have a ton of options.  Are you seriously arguing that Doc *doesn't* have a clear preference for vets?  If it wasn't a complete waste of time, I'd find the numerous quotes from Doc on the subject; he's made the point enough times that I'm surprised that any Celtics fan would argue with it.

That being said, Rondo averaged 32.0 minutes per game in the playoff, including a number of games where he played less than 30 minutes (in both wins and losses). 



The big question when we got Sam Cassell was whether Doc would start him or not.  At the time, no one knew that Sam was going to be as bad as he turned out to be.  Some people though Sam's playoff experience meant we should start him and bring Rondo off the bench.  But Doc said from the beginning that we was sticking with Rondo as the starter.  So I don't think you can use the blanket statement "Doc prefers vets".  I think Doc has a clear preference for guys that know their role and play within his system, which most of the time means vets, but not always.  I don't see too many coaches giving big minutes to inconsistent rookies and second year players unless it's by necessity or the team is clearly playing for the future.

I thought Doc did a good job of juggling his rookies with his vets.  In the playoffs, Powe and Big Baby were on a short leash, but that is because they weren't consistent.  Rondo was given more leeway, because he was more consistent, especially on defense.


Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2008, 04:55:44 PM »

Offline brownbagger

  • Jordan Walsh
  • Posts: 22
  • Tommy Points: 0
I'm disappointed in the roster that Danny has handed Doc.  I don't think it fits well with Doc's coaching style of coaching, which emphasizes veterans.  I'm also a bit concerned because Doc has struggled when he has too many options; he's better when he's handed a roster with clearly defined roles on it, and he certainly hasn't been given that.

  I think Doc handled this pretty well in the playoffs last year. He had plenty of options (House or Cassell, Powe or Davis or PJ, Posey or TA) but he kept his rotations pretty small and played whoever he thought would succeed in a given situation. He didn't go with the same rotation throughout the playoffs yet he didn't switch who he went with game by game or half by half. 

Right:  By default, Doc went to his vets.  Our "top 8" was the starters plus Posey, Cassell, and P.J.  That stayed *very* consistent in the playoffs, except when Cassell's slump forced Doc's hand.  The man loves veterans.  When those vets weren't available, or when younger guys needed to be played, Doc was much more prone to play hunches (Powe vs. BBD, etc.), which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.

I don't think this roster plays to Doc's strengths, and I'm a bit disappointed in it.

Doc stuck with Rondo who wasn't exactly a playoff tested "vet".

Doc didn't exactly have a ton of options.  Are you seriously arguing that Doc *doesn't* have a clear preference for vets?  If it wasn't a complete waste of time, I'd find the numerous quotes from Doc on the subject; he's made the point enough times that I'm surprised that any Celtics fan would argue with it.

That being said, Rondo averaged 32.0 minutes per game in the playoff, including a number of games where he played less than 30 minutes (in both wins and losses). 



The big question when we got Sam Cassell was whether Doc would start him or not.  At the time, no one knew that Sam was going to be as bad as he turned out to be.  Some people though Sam's playoff experience meant we should start him and bring Rondo off the bench.  But Doc said from the beginning that we was sticking with Rondo as the starter.  So I don't think you can use the blanket statement "Doc prefers vets".  I think Doc has a clear preference for guys that know their role and play within his system, which most of the time means vets, but not always.  I don't see too many coaches giving big minutes to inconsistent rookies and second year players unless it's by necessity or the team is clearly playing for the future.

I thought Doc did a good job of juggling his rookies with his vets.  In the playoffs, Powe and Big Baby were on a short leash, but that is because they weren't consistent.  Rondo was given more leeway, because he was more consistent, especially on defense.


It was  more out of necessity in Rondo's case in the playoffs than whether or not he was consistent

or not.
 

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2008, 03:11:34 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
I'm disappointed in the roster that Danny has handed Doc.  I don't think it fits well with Doc's coaching style of coaching, which emphasizes veterans.  I'm also a bit concerned because Doc has struggled when he has too many options; he's better when he's handed a roster with clearly defined roles on it, and he certainly hasn't been given that.

  I think Doc handled this pretty well in the playoffs last year. He had plenty of options (House or Cassell, Powe or Davis or PJ, Posey or TA) but he kept his rotations pretty small and played whoever he thought would succeed in a given situation. He didn't go with the same rotation throughout the playoffs yet he didn't switch who he went with game by game or half by half. 

Right:  By default, Doc went to his vets.  Our "top 8" was the starters plus Posey, Cassell, and P.J.  That stayed *very* consistent in the playoffs, except when Cassell's slump forced Doc's hand.  The man loves veterans.  When those vets weren't available, or when younger guys needed to be played, Doc was much more prone to play hunches (Powe vs. BBD, etc.), which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.

I don't think this roster plays to Doc's strengths, and I'm a bit disappointed in it.

Doc stuck with Rondo who wasn't exactly a playoff tested "vet".

Doc didn't exactly have a ton of options.  Are you seriously arguing that Doc *doesn't* have a clear preference for vets?  If it wasn't a complete waste of time, I'd find the numerous quotes from Doc on the subject; he's made the point enough times that I'm surprised that any Celtics fan would argue with it.

That being said, Rondo averaged 32.0 minutes per game in the playoff, including a number of games where he played less than 30 minutes (in both wins and losses). 



I think saying that Doc has a preference for vets is a little misleading.  I think he has a preference for consistent players, and players who understand the system...but yes, that would generally mean that Rookies would have a little more trouble getting a chance.

I don't think that is any different from 99% of basketball coaches (or coaches in any sport for that matter).

Young guys make more mistakes, therefore, young guys generally have a tougher time earning and keeping jobs.  I don't think Doc has anything to do with it, I just think it makes it more difficult for any coach.

The thing is, it is very tough for teams not to have young guys in the rotation.  There are very few great teams that don't have young guys in the rotation these days...and many of those have been building up their roster for much longer than the C's

For example the Spurs, who have basically all veterans now...but just a few years ago, they were trying to work young guys like Ginobili and Parker into their rotation, while still playing for a championship.

Or the Pistons last year who had two very young guys contributing off the bench in Stuckey and Maxiell.

I guarantee you that those coaches prefer veterans too...but sometimes you need to have young guys playing, in order to afford to keep the overall talent-level high enough.


Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2008, 04:20:34 PM »

Offline 2008CELTICS17

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 36
  • Tommy Points: 1
I think they will go with the youth more this year. See Rajon go nutts. He might average 12.00 ppg and 8.00 apg.I think Powe has a monster year. You could see him really grow each game,and Garnett really takes to him and his talent. Pruitt will be some instant offense this year. Championship teams have ok role players most times. The Bulls had Toni off the bench,and Kerr was a shooter. They did'ny have much of a bench.
During both 3-peats. It was there big 2 of Jordan and Pippen.Demanding better,and alot of there role players when leaving did not see any playing time,or went downhill. The Rockets in the 90's to? A whole list of teams. We have this 2-4 year window of greatness ahead.I think we end this decade with a 3-peat.The same way the fakers started it.

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2008, 10:27:21 PM »

Offline zerophase

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2394
  • Tommy Points: 334
  • Anything's Possible
I think they will go with the youth more this year. See Rajon go nutts. He might average 12.00 ppg and 8.00 apg.I think Powe has a monster year. You could see him really grow each game,and Garnett really takes to him and his talent. Pruitt will be some instant offense this year. Championship teams have ok role players most times. The Bulls had Toni off the bench,and Kerr was a shooter. They did'ny have much of a bench.
During both 3-peats. It was there big 2 of Jordan and Pippen.Demanding better,and alot of there role players when leaving did not see any playing time,or went downhill. The Rockets in the 90's to? A whole list of teams. We have this 2-4 year window of greatness ahead.I think we end this decade with a 3-peat.The same way the fakers started it.

see thats where i think you are over-valuing our youth. they're solid but not all-star players yet, even though you describe them as such.

Become Legendary.

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2008, 11:43:23 PM »

Offline bucknersrevenge

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1967
  • Tommy Points: 170
I'm disappointed in the roster that Danny has handed Doc.  I don't think it fits well with Doc's coaching style of coaching, which emphasizes veterans.  I'm also a bit concerned because Doc has struggled when he has too many options; he's better when he's handed a roster with clearly defined roles on it, and he certainly hasn't been given that.

  I think Doc handled this pretty well in the playoffs last year. He had plenty of options (House or Cassell, Powe or Davis or PJ, Posey or TA) but he kept his rotations pretty small and played whoever he thought would succeed in a given situation. He didn't go with the same rotation throughout the playoffs yet he didn't switch who he went with game by game or half by half. 

Right:  By default, Doc went to his vets.  Our "top 8" was the starters plus Posey, Cassell, and P.J.  That stayed *very* consistent in the playoffs, except when Cassell's slump forced Doc's hand.  The man loves veterans.  When those vets weren't available, or when younger guys needed to be played, Doc was much more prone to play hunches (Powe vs. BBD, etc.), which sometimes worked, and sometimes didn't.

I don't think this roster plays to Doc's strengths, and I'm a bit disappointed in it.

Doc stuck with Rondo who wasn't exactly a playoff tested "vet".

Doc didn't exactly have a ton of options.  Are you seriously arguing that Doc *doesn't* have a clear preference for vets?  If it wasn't a complete waste of time, I'd find the numerous quotes from Doc on the subject; he's made the point enough times that I'm surprised that any Celtics fan would argue with it.

That being said, Rondo averaged 32.0 minutes per game in the playoff, including a number of games where he played less than 30 minutes (in both wins and losses). 



I think saying that Doc has a preference for vets is a little misleading.  I think he has a preference for consistent players, and players who understand the system...but yes, that would generally mean that Rookies would have a little more trouble getting a chance.

I don't think that is any different from 99% of basketball coaches (or coaches in any sport for that matter).

Young guys make more mistakes, therefore, young guys generally have a tougher time earning and keeping jobs.  I don't think Doc has anything to do with it, I just think it makes it more difficult for any coach.

The thing is, it is very tough for teams not to have young guys in the rotation.  There are very few great teams that don't have young guys in the rotation these days...and many of those have been building up their roster for much longer than the C's

For example the Spurs, who have basically all veterans now...but just a few years ago, they were trying to work young guys like Ginobili and Parker into their rotation, while still playing for a championship.

Or the Pistons last year who had two very young guys contributing off the bench in Stuckey and Maxiell.

I guarantee you that those coaches prefer veterans too...but sometimes you need to have young guys playing, in order to afford to keep the overall talent-level high enough.


I agree. I know Danny said early on this season rookies like JR, POB and Pruitt are going to get their fair share of opportunities to show that they can contribute down the line for this team. You have to have a good mix of both veterans and young talent. In the end we're still talking about a talent league here. People have their issues about Tony, many well-warranted but Doc and Danny judged that bringing Tony with his talent and experience with the team here was better value than most other available options. And whether you like Tony or not, going into his 5th year he's definitely not a rookie anymore. So here we are. Honestly I love the mix of talent we have here and I think in the long run it's gonna make us a better team overall going forward. 
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity...

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #26 on: September 06, 2008, 01:47:56 AM »

Offline Bossco

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 254
  • Tommy Points: 54
"I think most except the most ardent Doc detractors will admit that Doc did an overall very good job last year.

Or do you?

If you know me, you know I support Doc and will defend him incessantly.

He was our coach and until he got some talent to work with, I said give the man a break and let's see what he could do.

He did well.

But, he drove me nuts. His overuse of Posey at the PF position and small ball was maddening. His horrible rotations that quite often used a "Green" team of subs when the game was still on the line had me throwing things at the television screen. His reliance on anyone but Perk in the fourth when the C's needed his size and defense almost had me committed. The misuse of Ray Allen as solely a three point assassin was almost unforgivable. And there was a lot of other things."

This post is very interesting to me. On one hand it gives tremendous credit to doc's coaching abilities but then it is followed up by a lengthy critique. If he did all those things wrong that are stated above and "a lot of other things" too, then my comment is - it doesn't sound like he did such a good job, going by your very own words.

I agree with you, there are many areas of doc's coaching that bother me too.


I think that most coaches would have a hard time losing with the team we had last year.

Yes doc does have his positives traits, but how can the negatives ones be ignored now just because we won it all last year?

He deserves credit for sure, but I think that the negative effects of his coaching only get overlooked now because we have the big three and banner #17 is going up on Oct. 28. Winning the championship doesn't make doc a good coach in my opinion.

The bottom line is win baby - win, and we did.

doc was at the wheel when our championship bound tour bus hit the road last year so he gets the credit. But how much of it was doc's coaching and how much of it was our roster and Tom Thibodeau's defense?

Re: The forgotten summer subject: Doc Rivers.
« Reply #27 on: September 06, 2008, 07:56:43 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
"I think most except the most ardent Doc detractors will admit that Doc did an overall very good job last year.

Or do you?

If you know me, you know I support Doc and will defend him incessantly.

He was our coach and until he got some talent to work with, I said give the man a break and let's see what he could do.

He did well.

But, he drove me nuts. His overuse of Posey at the PF position and small ball was maddening. His horrible rotations that quite often used a "Green" team of subs when the game was still on the line had me throwing things at the television screen. His reliance on anyone but Perk in the fourth when the C's needed his size and defense almost had me committed. The misuse of Ray Allen as solely a three point assassin was almost unforgivable. And there was a lot of other things."

This post is very interesting to me. On one hand it gives tremendous credit to doc's coaching abilities but then it is followed up by a lengthy critique. If he did all those things wrong that are stated above and "a lot of other things" too, then my comment is - it doesn't sound like he did such a good job, going by your very own words.

I agree with you, there are many areas of doc's coaching that bother me too.


I think that most coaches would have a hard time losing with the team we had last year.

Yes doc does have his positives traits, but how can the negatives ones be ignored now just because we won it all last year?

He deserves credit for sure, but I think that the negative effects of his coaching only get overlooked now because we have the big three and banner #17 is going up on Oct. 28. Winning the championship doesn't make doc a good coach in my opinion.

The bottom line is win baby - win, and we did.

doc was at the wheel when our championship bound tour bus hit the road last year so he gets the credit. But how much of it was doc's coaching and how much of it was our roster and Tom Thibodeau's defense?

Let me first say that just because I critiqued certain aspects of his coaching doesn't mean that I think he did a bad job. He did an overall wonderful job last year and quite honestly, doesn't get the credit he deserves because he did have KG, RA, and PP in the lineup.

Doc is one of the best coaches in the league at managing people and emotions and keeping his team focused. Even when he had bad talent his teams were focused and were in every game they played. That held true through last year as well.

He is a great motivator as was finally revealed during the playoffs with some of the in huddle speeches being broadcast on television.

Most would agree that he is among the best in the league at getting his team to play well and execute immediately after time outs.

Doc took three huge egos that had never played together before and made each one believe that their sacrifice of their game would be in the best interest of all so that the team could win. We heard nearly nothing regarding complaints or calls for playing time from this group. He took 15 guys, 8-9 of which had never played with each other before, and had them melded into a solid and efficient operating group from DAY ONE. FROM DAY ONE!!!!

Doc's rotations got increasingly better as the playoffs wore on and by the end of the playoffs it was clearly evident that he outcoached a man that had previously coached 9 championship teams.

Also, how many times do I have to debunk this myth! The Celtics played a defensive set and scheme that is Doc's. He got it from Mike Fratello and Pat Riley. The defense is Doc's and Danny Ainge admitted as such in an interview on WEEI. I think Ainge would know who's defense his team plays.

Tom Thibodeau, who taught a similar defense played by Van Gundy when Thibodeau assisted for him, only taught Doc's system. He is great at teaching the subtleties needed to make that defense work. The defense isn't his, it's Doc's. Thibodeau only assisted in teaching and coaching it.

Lastly, I can think Doc did a great job and still have some qualms about certain aspects of that job. Don't read too much into the critiquing of a few areas that I think Doc has to improve on. He did a fantastic job last year.