When the team loses you hate doc but when they win you like him?

[Tr1boy]

I personally don't respect his coaching skills in relations to substitution patterns, when to call time outs, letting vets barge in huddles, disciplining young players hard but saying nothing to the vets etc. Yes i do agree he overall has good relations with the players and is not bad with teaching younger players about the game, but overall he is damm lucky to have a gm like ainge who pretty much spoonfed him two other HOF to the roster.

When we lose everyone bashes him good. When we win he is a good guy, he got us a championship, he should be coach of the year etc.

Why the two face reactions?? (no offense for those who stand by their decision about him)

To also add another point why he is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again. (i would like to hear a real counterargument about this example for those don't agree)

In any case , i like to see people be decisive about rivers and for me personally i think he is [dang] lucky and lacks true coaching skills during crucial moments of the year and game. If he improves on those facets i can admit he is a good coach , that but thats a big if

[Redz]

I've always liked Doc, but dare to say that any coach in any sport is going to be loved more by his fans more when he wins than when he loses

[dark_lord]

i was pretty critical of doc his first few years.  however, i think he does MUCH better managing a veteran team.  the players love him, which is key.

he isnt the best coach, as i think he could do a couple things better, but he is no where near as bad as some on here would like to say.  he is the best fit for our team and im glad he is our coach.

[BudweiserCeltic]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

[Tr1boy]

I've always liked Doc, but dare to say that any coach in any sport is going to be loved more by his fans more when he wins than when he loses

I hope thats not the truth cuz thats sort of sad. I guess those are the same fans that were hibernating when the celts were ultra bad two years ago.

[Tr1boy]

i was pretty critical of doc his first few years.  however, i think he does MUCH better managing a veteran team.  the players love him, which is key.

he isnt the best coach, as i think he could do a couple things better, but he is no where near as bad as some on here would like to say.  he is the best fit for our team and im glad he is our coach.

he is a decent fit with the team but i don't feel confident to be able to win another ring this year with him(he will stay though). Last year we had the ultimate championship team makeup that even an ncaa coach could have led us to the title. But this year we don't and its frustating to see him mess the rotation and not utilize guys like scal(till he was forced to cuz of injury reasons). A good coach doesn't make mistakes on those things more than once

[crownsy]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

yea this is the problem tri, that anolgy makes no sense on so many levels it's hard to take it seriously. For one, it assumes the ability to be nostrdumous. You ASSUME that this team would be just as good with mchale, but thats not a fact, for all you know they would stink. You can be like;

"The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is." as a base for a discussion.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, its just that alot of your posts depend on total agreement with a flawed or illogical premise.

[BudweiserCeltic]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

yea this is the problem tri, that anolgy makes no sense on so many levels it's hard to take it seriously. For one, it assumes the ability to be nostrdumous. You ASSUME that this team would be just as good with mchale, but thats not a fact, for all you know they would stink. You can be like;

"The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is." as a base for a discussion.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, its just that alot of your posts depend on total agreement with a flawed or illogical premise.

And funny he brings Scal in his post above and Doc's lack of usage, since he frequently was calling for Scal to be cut from the team earlier in the year because pretty much he was useless. And then he wants to call 'us' out for two face reactions?

[Tr1boy]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

yea this is the problem tri, that anolgy makes no sense on so many levels it's hard to take it seriously. For one, it assumes the ability to be nostrdumous. You ASSUME that this team would be just as good with mchale, but thats not a fact, for all you know they would stink. You can be like;

"The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is." as a base for a discussion.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, its just that alot of your posts depend on total agreement with a flawed or illogical premise.

And funny he brings Scal in his post above and Doc's lack of usage, since he frequently was calling for Scal to be cut from the team earlier in the year because pretty much he was useless. And then he wants to call 'us' out for two face reactions?

Rivers underutlized him since day 1 pretty much putting him in with the 2nd unit instead of maximizing his talent his the 1st unit.

Get real man

[Chris]

The life of a coach.  They are not like players where you can watch them and judge how they are producing.  With a coach, there are too many variables that can't be judged easily by fans (we don't see practices, we don't know what he is telling these guys).  So for coaches, it all comes down to wins.  If they are not winning games, then they are not doing a great job, plain and simple.

[Tr1boy]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

yea this is the problem tri, that anolgy makes no sense on so many levels it's hard to take it seriously. For one, it assumes the ability to be nostrdumous. You ASSUME that this team would be just as good with mchale, but thats not a fact, for all you know they would stink. You can be like;

"The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is." as a base for a discussion.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, its just that alot of your posts depend on total agreement with a flawed or illogical premise.

dude not to be a jerk back but look up the meanings of logic vs. rational.

""The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is."

your example is irrational because the sky is blue.

If a coach from a bad team can overmaximize their talents in theory he should do amazing things with an well equiped team.

Same should be the said that a good coach which everyone thinks doc is should help overmaximize a team like the wolves. But just as the proof two years ago when doc didnt prevent the celts from being an embaressment(and that the team to the current wolves team are simliar in talent), he wont likely help maximize the current wolves team.

Nobody will know actually if Mchale will overmaxmize the celts and rivers unable to overmaximize the wolves but im basing my examples on reasonable speculations

[crownsy]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

yea this is the problem tri, that anolgy makes no sense on so many levels it's hard to take it seriously. For one, it assumes the ability to be nostrdumous. You ASSUME that this team would be just as good with mchale, but thats not a fact, for all you know they would stink. You can be like;

"The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is." as a base for a discussion.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, its just that alot of your posts depend on total agreement with a flawed or illogical premise.

And funny he brings Scal in his post above and Doc's lack of usage, since he frequently was calling for Scal to be cut from the team earlier in the year because pretty much he was useless. And then he wants to call 'us' out for two face reactions?

Rivers underutlized him since day 1 pretty much putting him in with the 2nd unit instead of maximizing his talent his the 1st unit.

Get real man

I think your missing his point, you were kinda a very big advocater (along with myself i might add) of scal being buried or cut when it looked like we might need a spot.

I was wrong, scal has proved he has a spot on this team, but it IS kinda ridiculous of you now to try to use the fact that rivers doesn't start him at center over perk (a meh idea at best IMO, though usage off the bench at the 5 is ok against certain teams) as a knock on the coach.

[gustusias]

I happen to like Doc all the time. Maybe you should phrase your assumptiopn differently. Not all of us are you.

[BudweiserCeltic]

To also add another point why is below par compared to some other coaches, on some other thread i stated that mchale is a better coach than rivers. Everyone pretty much disagreed with that notion. So i provided the ultimate example that if you replace rivers with mchale right now the celts would be as good of a team if not better however if you replaced mchale with rivers, the wolves would stink again.

Well, you're clearly oozing with unequivocal logic, and clearly you've done a good job of using actual facts when creating this thread.

In all seriousness, what do you want to discuss since your post is pretty much a complete fabrication of what is actually going on.

yea this is the problem tri, that anolgy makes no sense on so many levels it's hard to take it seriously. For one, it assumes the ability to be nostrdumous. You ASSUME that this team would be just as good with mchale, but thats not a fact, for all you know they would stink. You can be like;

"The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is." as a base for a discussion.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, its just that alot of your posts depend on total agreement with a flawed or illogical premise.

dude not to be a jerk back but look up the meaning logic vs. rational.

""The sky is red, and if you don't think it is to, clearly your the one with a problem, not me. everyone knows thats the way it is."

your example is irrational because the sky is blue.

If a coach from a bad team can overmaximize their talents in theory he should do amazing things with an well equiped team.

Same should be the said that a good coach which everyone thinks doc is should help overmaximize a team like the wolves. But just as the proof two years ago when doc didnt prevent the celts from being an embaressment(and that the team to the current wolves team are simliar in talent), he wont likely help maximize the current wolves team.

Listen i know its not actual facts but is reasonable speculations

In no shape and form is this Wolves team of comparable talent to that Celtics team, especially when you factor in Pierce missing a ton of time due to injury among others. Just because he had a couple of similar players in there, the stage of their career is a HUGE factor.

And no, it's completely unreasonable speculation.

[Tr1boy]

And i stick by my opinion scal should start because it helps the starters by opening up the floor without our defense being affected and we already have proof we can beat teams that have centers like shaq without perk.

Perk also would be better than scal in the 2nd unit.

If you replace scal with perk in the starting unit than the middle is clogged, rondo, allen, pierce cant play their inside outside game and scal is uselesss with the 2nd unit

so you take your pick. We will win with perk starting because we are a great team still but against smarter teams like lakers and cavs we will pay

Going a little off topic but like i say i will stick to my opinion that scal should start