Is it really Doc's fault?

[wdleehi]

Where is the offensive adjustment? 


Doc may change the players out there (to different levels of temporary success), but what changes has he made to get his stars the good shots?


Outside of KG, none of the stars are being put in a place where they can be at the most efficient.  (or at least constantly.  There have been short stretches where Pierce was put in such a position)


Where is Doc working the officials?  Coaches like Jackson, Pop work the officials before, during and after the game.  Is it any surprise that their teams get a ton of calls?


Where is the adjustment for the defensive boards?  Cut the 2nd chance points in half, Celtics win. 




But my biggest gripe, not having this team playing it's best ball now.  This team was at it's best during the middle of the season.  They had more motivation when they were trying to prove their regular season superiority then they have now trying to win a title. 





My first hope is the team wakes up.  It still has as much if not more talent then the rest of the league. 


My fall back is if the Celtics fizzle out, two of the stars get fed up and go to Ainge and say 'We love Doc, but he isn't getting it done for this team.'

[pearljammer10]

I thought we would be ok with Doc after the regular season, but watching the way hes coached in the playoffs has just made me realize why he is just a horrible coach. Playing Cassell until 4 minutes in the 4th then bringing in a cold Rondo, not playing Eddie House when he can give us a good spark off the bench, playing Powe consistantly all year long then throwing big baby in there and not playing Powe at all. So many thing that Doc should be controlling arent happening. This team is at its best when they move the ball and are led by Rondo. Doc hasnt made them aware of this apparently.

[wdleehi]

[Who]

Well, now that Rivers is on record about the rebounding, I assume you'll finally admit you were wrong... or are you going to continue drawing the clearly false equating of rebounds with execution?

Scintan I don't give a toss about Doc Rivers. I just don't blame people for things which I don't believe are their fault. I'm perfectly content with blaming Doc for things that are his fault.

Rebounds were a huge factor last night and played a huge role in deciding who won the game. We got pummeled on the boards. They were not in factor in the previous 5 games, I'm sorry they just were not a pivotal factor. Last night was the first night they were.

There's a saying "Propter Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" which translates - After, Therefore, Because of it. It means one thing follows the other therefore it caused the other. But it's not always true, in fact it's hardly ever true. Just because the rebounding edge went to the winning side in the first four games and those teams won the game doesn't mean it was the reason why they won. It wasn't. Rebounding wasn't a pivotal factor in any of those games, it was too even and there were way too many other more important factors that decided those games. Was it last night? Absolutely. It was a huge part of why Boston lost and Cleveland won.


Offensive execution is that crux of the majority of this teams problems+losses in the postseason which is why I talk about that the most. But ....

There's other types of execution, execution counts under anything the players are supposed to do. What's in their game plan that they need to do win.

Defensive execution is obviously the next biggest. For the most part it's good to excellent for this series. That's why I haven't talked about it much in this series. It wasn't an adjusment in game five that stopped LeBron from scoring in the second half, it was the players doing what they were supposed to do in the first half. It was LeBron's defender playing better defense, it was the big men trapping him on the screen and rolls. Doc said himself he changed nothing. The players just needed to execute their defense better. They did, life got better, they won the game.

Rebounding can be about execution too (weak connection but sort of so I'll keep it). It's about fundamentals like boxing out, about 5 players hitting the backboards like they have all season (big part of why KG averaged single digit rebounds this season) instead of leaving the big men alone and vulnerable.

It's not like you can blame Doc for the rebounders not boxing out often enough, for not attacking the boards. This last game was about the players no matter how you want to slice it. It's not about Perkins not being on the floor either because Z had 4 of his 5 offensive boards in the first few minutes of the game while Perkins was on the court, it wasn't about subsitutions and was in or not in. Doc's not the reason why the team lost on the backboards, they lost because the players didn't do what they are supposed to do.

[Scintan]

Well, now that Rivers is on record about the rebounding, I assume you'll finally admit you were wrong... or are you going to continue drawing the clearly false equating of rebounds with execution?

Scintan I don't give a toss about Doc Rivers. I just don't blame people for things which I don't believe are their fault. I'm perfectly content with blaming Doc for things that are his fault.

Rebounds were a huge factor last night and played a huge role in deciding who won the game. We got pummeled on the boards. They were not in factor in the previous 5 games, I'm sorry they just were not a pivotal factor. Last night was the first night they were.

There's a saying "Propter Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" which translates - After, Therefore, Because of it. It means one thing follows the other therefore it caused the other. But it's not always true, in fact it's hardly ever true. Just because the rebounding edge went to the winning side in the first four games and those teams won the game doesn't mean it was the reason why they won. It wasn't. Rebounding wasn't a pivotal factor in any of those games, it was too even and there were way too many other more important factors that decided those games. Was it last night? Absolutely. It was a huge part of why Boston lost and Cleveland won.


Offensive execution is that crux of the majority of this teams problems+losses in the postseason which is why I talk about that the most. But ....

There's other types of execution, execution counts under anything the players are supposed to do. What's in their game plan that they need to do win.

Defensive execution is obviously the next biggest. For the most part it's good to excellent for this series. That's why I haven't talked about it much in this series. It wasn't an adjusment in game five that stopped LeBron from scoring in the second half, it was the players doing what they were supposed to do in the first half. It was LeBron's defender playing better defense, it was the big men trapping him on the screen and rolls. Doc said himself he changed nothing. The players just needed to execute their defense better. They did, life got better, they won the game.

Rebounding can be about execution too, about fundamentals like boxing out, about 5 players hitting the backboards like they have all season (big part of why KG averaged single digit rebounds this season) instead of leaving the big men alone and vulnerable.

It's not like you can blame Doc for the rebounders not boxing out often enough, for not attacking the boards. This last game was about the players no matter how you want to slice it. It's not about Perkins not being on the floor either because Z had 4 of his 5 offensive boards in the first few minutes of the game while Perkins was on the court, it wasn't about subsitutions and was in or not in. Doc's not the reason why the team lost on the backboards, they lost because the players didn't do what they are supposed to do.

When you define 'execution' as overly broad as you do, it covers a lot of things that aren't actually execution.  Just to use an extreme example, Rivers could put Rondo at center and Perkins at the point, and your definition of "execution" would still cover it.  You're using a definition that's designed to achieve the result you're looking for, rather than using it as it's intended.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, for example, Perkins not being in for more minutes when the team is losing the rebounding battle is on Rivers, not Perkins.  Now, Perkins collecting fouls last night the way kids collect coupons playing "Whack-A-Mole" isn't on Rivers, but that's one aspect of one game.  Mike Brown has been killing Doc Rivers, and it's embarrassing.

[Who]

When you define 'execution' as overly broad as you do, it covers a lot of things that aren't actually execution.  Just to use an extreme example, Rivers could put Rondo at center and Perkins at the point, and your definition of "execution" would still cover it.  You're using a definition that's designed to achieve the result you're looking for, rather than using it as it's intended.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, for example, Perkins not being in for more minutes when the team is losing the rebounding battle is on Rivers, not Perkins.  Now, Perkins collecting fouls last night the way kids collect coupons playing "Whack-A-Mole" isn't on Rivers, but that's one aspect of one game.  Mike Brown has been killing Doc Rivers, and it's embarrassing.

Execution is a very broad term - it means delivering the game plan and doing what you're supposed to do. The game plan are the ways that are going to allow you to win the series, it's how you want to play and that's to your strengths. How well you do that is execution.

Teams that execute best win championships. It's not my definition either, it's Bill Russell's, Bill always says that execution is the single most important factor in a championship. Frankly, the man is right so I'm going to run with his ideals.

This isn't the best clip but it's from just a quick search (Google search is flooded with various copies of that recent ESPN interview) and it'll do fine. Here's a clip of his blog from last season:

It's All About Execution

..... -[talking about who wins, who's the best team, Dallas, Phoenix or Spurs]

Around this time of year you hear the thing of who wants it the most? That is garbage. The team that loses wants it just as much as the team that wins. It is the team that executes the best in playing the way they want to play.

The players aren't executing the team's game plan. They're not playing the way they want to play, they're not doing the things they want to do and that they need to do to win. You know that because you've watched them play 90 games before the playoffs started.

The majority of their problems have come on the offensive end where they are not doing what they want to do. They are not moving the basketball, aren't getting player movement, aren't attacking the rim, aren't establishing KG in the post often enough, aren't pushing the tempo, aren't getting into their offense quick enough, are not getting Ray Allen shots. These are things they've done throughout the year and are part of their game plan, they're not executing that plan.

The defensive execution on the other hand has been good - they'vve wanted to stop Jmaes from taking over and force their supporting cast to beat them. They've done that, and done it well. If they weren't messing up the offense they'd be in great shape.

[Scintan]

Execution is a very broad term - it means delivering the game plan and doing what you're supposed to do. The game plan are the ways that are going to allow you to win the series, it's how you want to play and that's to your strengths. How well you do that is execution.

Teams that execute best win championships. It's not my definition either, it's Bill Russell's, Bill always says that execution is the single most important factor in a championship. Frankly, the man is right so I'm going to run with his ideals.

You keep ignoring the most salient point.  When the game plan is flawed, even perfect execution is going to end up as a loss.  For the majority of times up and down the court, Boston is doing what Rivers wants the players to do.  It's simply a terrible offensive strategy against the defense being employed by Cleveland.

The players aren't executing the team's game plan. They're not playing the way they want to play, they're not doing the things they want to do and that they need to do to win. You know that because you've watched them play 90 games before the playoffs started.

The majority of their problems have come on the offensive end where they are not doing what they want to do. They are not moving the basketball, aren't getting player movement, aren't attacking the rim, aren't establishing KG in the post often enough, aren't pushing the tempo, aren't getting into their offense quick enough, are not getting Ray Allen shots. These are things they've done throughout the year and are part of their game plan, they're not executing that plan.

The defensive execution on the other hand has been good - they'vve wanted to stop Jmaes from taking over and force their supporting cast to beat them. They've done that, and done it well. If they weren't messing up the offense they'd be in great shape.

This argument is completely wrong.  The problem is not execution of the offensive game plan.  The problem is an offensive game plan combined with players in roles where they can't succeed.  Rondo can't drive and dish because Cleveland is backing off of Rondo and forcing him to shoot the ball.  The results have been predictable.  Allen can't hit jumpers because the team doesn't run screens to get him loose the way the Pacers used to run them for Reggie Miller.  This is a problem because Rondo's man is able to play way off of him, which makes it easier for the other 4 defenders to sag onto their men knowing there's a free man to help out as needed.

Rivers has kept Perkins as an afterthought offensively for much of the season.  That's now coming back to haunt the team, because the Cavaliers are just defending the arc and not worrying about the post game.  Boston is essentially playing 3-on-5 offensively, and that's why Cleveland is beating the more talented Celtics at home, and giving them trouble even on the road.  Game plan, not execution, is killing this Boston team.  It's why they've gone 7 games in both series.

[connerhenry43]

ray allen goes to the hoop, gets fouled, goes to the line. 23 seconds to go. it is 72-67, 5 point game, still winnable. ray allen is at the line. doc has a chance to make subsitions, yell out instructions, do whatever he wants. it is the nba, 2 free throws in the final minute take about 20 minutes ().

ray steps up, makes the first, another break. he steps up, makes the second. 3 point game, one possesion game. we need a steal or we neeed to extend the game as much as possible. the c's press, the cavs inbounds. the ball goes into lebron, probably the guy you want to foul, figuring d-west and wally are the other ball handlers. they do not foul. lebron advances, throws it to wally, who gets fouled by House. then i find out, we had a foul to give. if we had a foul to give, there is zero excuse for not fouling lebron instantly, and making them re-inbound. a waste of roughly 5 seconds because our team did not know what to do. now the cavs get the ball in the front court, they inbounds to joe smith, who makes them both. we fiddle around, miss a heave, game over.

this is a minor point, and we probably were not going to win anyway. but the lack of preparation and execution is amzing for an nba team with 84 assistant coaches. there is no excuse we did not foul lebron instantly after the initial inbounds. there is a reason doc's record in the close games has always been bad. the small things count, and doc is not good at making sure we have every opportunity to win a close game.

[Who]

Well okay we disagree on two big points that effect everything else

For the majority of times up and down the court, Boston is doing what Rivers wants the players to do.  It's simply a terrible offensive strategy against the defense being employed by Cleveland.

This I believe to be false. I do believe the players are trying to enact Doc's game plan and trying to execute what he wants done. I just don't think they are doing a good job of it.

If they were doing a good job I believe we'd have results more in line (not exactly the same but closer to that) with what we saw with the regular season. Like ball movement, we'd see things like that again.

You keep ignoring the most salient point.  When the game plan is flawed, even perfect execution is going to end up as a loss.

This is the most important part. I believe if they execute the game plan they'll win. You do not.

Do I believe the game plan is perfect? No, I do not
Do I believe the game plan is excellent? No
Do I believe the game plan is very good? Eh ...
Do I believe the game plan is more than good enough to beat this team? Yes absolutely

There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind that if the player's play the way they've played all season they can win this series and could have won this series convincingly if they'd been enacting it well throughout.

The game plan is not flawed enough to make us lose this series. It's nowhere close to being that.

Do I believe the game plan is good enough to win a title? Eh ... no, not really. It's possible but the margin of error is too small for me to favour it happening.

[clover]

There's a reason they practice the 2-minute drill in the NFL, and the C's both didn't get much practice at winning close games this year, nor has Doc ever been particularly good at it.

[Scintan]

Well okay we disagree on two big points that effect everything else

For the majority of times up and down the court, Boston is doing what Rivers wants the players to do.  It's simply a terrible offensive strategy against the defense being employed by Cleveland.

This I believe to be false. I do believe the players are trying to enact Doc's game plan and trying to execute what he wants done. I just don't think they are doing a good job of it.

If they were doing a good job I believe we'd have results more in line (not exactly the same but closer to that) with what we saw with the regular season. Like ball movement, we'd see things like that again.

In order for this to be true, you'd have to be arguing a failure of execution for all six games this series and at least 3 of the 7 last series.  Just ask LeBron about the Cavaliers strategy.  He essentially gave it to us when he was interviewed following Rondo's 2 3-point shots.  Cleveland's strategy is negating Rivers' strategy, particularly on the road.   

This is the most important part. I believe if they execute the game plan they'll win. You do not.

Do I believe the game plan is perfect? No, I do not
Do I believe the game plan is excellent? No
Do I believe the game plan is very good? Eh ...
Do I believe the game plan is more than good enough to beat this team? Yes absolutely

There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind that if the player's play the way they've played all season they can win this series and could have won this series convincingly if they'd been enacting it well throughout.

The game plan is not flawed enough to make us lose this series. It's nowhere close to being that.

Do I believe the game plan is good enough to win a title? Eh ... no, not really. It's possible but the margin of error is too small for me to favour it happening.

All the evidence is proving you wrong.  What you claim is not there is blatantly obvious to LeBron James, the broadcast teams, Hubie Brown, etc...  If this game 7 were being held in Cleveland, you could bank on Boston's season ending with this series.  As it is, home cooking might allow the team to advance.  It certainly won't be advancing because of this awful game plan of Rivers.

[Who]

Well okay we disagree on two big points that effect everything else

For the majority of times up and down the court, Boston is doing what Rivers wants the players to do.  It's simply a terrible offensive strategy against the defense being employed by Cleveland.

This I believe to be false. I do believe the players are trying to enact Doc's game plan and trying to execute what he wants done. I just don't think they are doing a good job of it.

If they were doing a good job I believe we'd have results more in line (not exactly the same but closer to that) with what we saw with the regular season. Like ball movement, we'd see things like that again.

In order for this to be true, you'd have to be arguing a failure of execution for all six games this series and at least 3 of the 7 last series.  Just ask LeBron about the Cavaliers strategy.  He essentially gave it to us when he was interviewed following Rondo's 2 3-point shots.  Cleveland's strategy is negating Rivers' strategy, particularly on the road.   

I don't follow your thinking on that above

I think the execution has been better at home than away, so we've played better at home than away.

That said I don't think the execution has been good enough at home in this series with Cleveland, in fact I think it leaves an awful lot to be desired.

As for the last series, absolutely, the execution was awful for most of the series. We saw the odd chunk of nice play but I'm not sure we even saw a full game of good execution.

Better but good is a long way off. Some chunks of good play but not consistently good at home.

[winsomme]

the outrebounding stat is a phony debate....

the essential question is what equates with outrebounding the other team.

when a team is executing on offense and defense better, the players are in better to position to rebound. when players are spaced properly and rotate properly then they end in up in position to rebound.

that is what leads to a rebounding edge. it's not a simple decision to "rebound" or "not rebound".

rebounding is figured into the offensive and defensive sets. so when a player doesn't make the right rotation or pass, then people are out of position.

personnel is another factor, but i think we have the right rotations at this point with Eddie, Posey, Big Baby, and PJ coming off the bench.....

[Scintan]

Well okay we disagree on two big points that effect everything else

For the majority of times up and down the court, Boston is doing what Rivers wants the players to do.  It's simply a terrible offensive strategy against the defense being employed by Cleveland.

This I believe to be false. I do believe the players are trying to enact Doc's game plan and trying to execute what he wants done. I just don't think they are doing a good job of it.

If they were doing a good job I believe we'd have results more in line (not exactly the same but closer to that) with what we saw with the regular season. Like ball movement, we'd see things like that again.

In order for this to be true, you'd have to be arguing a failure of execution for all six games this series and at least 3 of the 7 last series.  Just ask LeBron about the Cavaliers strategy.  He essentially gave it to us when he was interviewed following Rondo's 2 3-point shots.  Cleveland's strategy is negating Rivers' strategy, particularly on the road.   

I don't follow your thinking on that above

I think the execution has been better at home than away, so we've played better at home than away.

That said I don't think the execution has been good enough at home in this series with Cleveland, in fact I think it leaves an awful lot to be desired.

As for the last series, absolutely, the execution was awful for most of the series. We saw the odd chunk of nice play but I'm not sure we even saw a full game of good execution.

Better but good is a long way off. Some chunks of good play but not consistently good at home.

Ok, let's try a different angle.

Your claim is that the game plan has been fine and the execution has been the problem, so let's start with the basics.  What has been the offensive game plan for Boston?

[Andy Jick]

you guys can debate all you want...

but 69 points in a playoff is proof that there's a problem.  the coach isn't making adjustments and the players aren't playing good offense.

this is a great defensive team, but that's only ONE facet of the game.