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

[Chris]

nickagneta some good points. Basically he is more like a sr captain, manager like someone said, cheerleader and a better fit with teams stacked with some good vet talent.

Like you said he is not good at some of the micro managing stuff, but to me that is as important if not slightly more than the personality stuff.

The basics is that players are signed to big deals to perform at a professional level and the coach who can further inspire their play is a bonus but their main essential dudties are running plays, adapting, matching players with other players etc. (things players can't do themselves)

If doc can one day get those technical parts down i will even admit he is a top 5 coach in the league and can pretty much coach any team in the league to respectable levels. Right now he is missing the basics

See my problem is that I can't understand how anyone can say he is bad at the in game stuff.  Just because he doesn't do what some fans, who don't have anywhere near the information or experience he has, does not mean he is making the wrong moves.

Right now I see him as the head coach of one of the most disciplined defensive teams I have ever seen, as well as an incredibly efficient offensive team. 

I don't care who the coach is, it is easy to constantly second guess their moves...especially when you watch every game.  But I just don't see how he can be really criticized to the point of deciding he is a bad technical coach, when his team is performing so well. 

[celticswillwin43]

I think doc is a crappy coach at all times, championship or not

[Change]

Edit - do not put put back what a staff member has edited out.  Wide Load.

[BballTim]

like i said i'm rationalizing the idea mchale would take the celts to another level and doc wouldn't do as well coaching the lowly wolves. Its not only judging by the winning streak the wolves have gone on but they actually can beat bad teams consistantly. The celtics two years ago couldn't be nobody. And i want to compare the team that even had paul pierce playing. (we still didn't win and tahts why he was retired for the season)

  Take away Love and Foye and Miller and you'd be close to the team Doc had in 2006-2007. Think McHale would still be piling up the wins? You should also consider that Doc was spending as much time developing players as he was trying to win. Or, to add to the reality, have McHale play Gerald Green for about 20 minutes a game with that reduced roster and then see how he does.

   Also, in case you didn't notice, that 18 game losing streak killed our season and Oden and Durant were going to be in the draft. We weren't going all out to win after Pierce came back. He was retired for the season not because we couldn't win with him playing but because we WERE winning with him playing. We'd gone 9-7 in his last 16 games and we were starting to pass other teams in the standings when they shut him down.

[cordobes]

In a conservative estimative, three quarters of the people who criticize Doc's micromanagement are unable to identify most of the basic sets the team is running out there. Fans always **** about in-game adjustments and rotations and substitutions when that's the less important and smallest part of a coach's job. Nonsensical.

[Tr1boy]

First of all love was inconsistant beginning of the year and ppl thought mchale was nutz to choose him over mayo. 2nd of all mike miller is an ok vet and lastly foye was also considered an inconsistant talent.

The wolves team right now are comparbale to the celts two years ago that had pierce, al jefferson(he broke through that season), d west, rondo who just like love was in his first year), perkins (vet by then), wally world/ricky davis etc.

The wolves have pretty much one vet in mike miller contributing and he is not even considered a star paul pierce was

What is going on exactly is that mchale is pushing all the right buttons for this team to work together and win. I watch many wolves game if the celts are not playing and he is doing basic stuff like calling time outs at the right time, starting gomes and smith but near the end of the game playing the hot hands/guys who excel better in that situation and utilizing guys like jefferson, foye, love magnificantly together

Rivers on the other hand mostly set 1 play and that was give it to pierce and sometimes jefferson and everyone move out of the way garbage. His substitution patterns were also dreadful and played dwest out of position at pg as one of many examples that went wrong. There was most importantly no team synergy/trust and thats why we lost 18 in a row. And alot of those loses weren't even close games

[Tr1boy]

In a conservative estimative, three quarters of the people who criticize Doc's micromanagement are unable to identify most of the basic sets the team is running out there. Fans always **** about in-game adjustments and rotations and substitutions when that's the less important and smallest part of a coach's job. Nonsensical.

i cant agree with you. Most coaches in the nba have the ability to inspire their players. (some better than others) But only a small percent of coaches in the league really know how to utilize the x and o's, make proper substitution patterns, etc.

You can't be just good at one or the other but if your players are self motivated to a certain degree (they are professionals and hopefuly they are) then the micro management is the only thing that is missing for them to win more close/important games. (and how many of those do you play a year?)

you can't expect players to micro manage the games themselves because they can't really see the whole forrest, taht is the coaches job.

So both components of being a coach are important but one is essential(x and o's substitution pattern etc) and the other one even though important is non essential (because the players can inspire themselves and each other if nothing else)

[nickagneta]

Triboy, just because you don't agree with his technical end of running the show doesn't mean that:

A. Doc isn't great at it
B. That even if Doc isn't great at it that that makes him a bad coach.

As our very wise friend cordobes said earlier, 95% of coaching happens before the ball is tipped off. He has to:

- develop offensive and defense philosophies, sets, plays and rotations.
- implement said planning with the personnel given
- teach the plan to the players and get them to perform it
- condition the players
- game plan
- review game tape, break it down, determine the deficiencies and correct them
- manage the players personal situations while maximizing their time given to the team
- maintain good morale and a positive locker room
- pick out and hire assistant coaches
- convey to the assistants your general philosophies and expectations and designate responsibilities according to specialty
- deal with the media
- communicate with the GM and scouting department any scouting reports, agendas, future decisions, and daily goings on that transpire
- scout prospects the team may consider when asked to by the GM
- run training camp
- review scouting reports of future opponents
- run practices and teach players
- develop young talent

and that's just a few. There's tons more stuff and some of the things I generalized with a quick sentence but take hours of detailed work and tons of time. I've heard Doc sometimes doesn't leave the Garden until 4-5 hours after the game ends because after addressing the team and communicating the next days schedule, he still has to review the game tape, make notes regarding the tape, review scouting reports of the next opponent, and other things. A head coach in the NBA has a 16 hour day, seven days a week during the season.

And you think that because he has a philosophy of trusting vets, making young players earn their minutes through practice, and believes in 10 man regular season rotations, doesn't call time outs when you would and don't like his play calling at times that he is an inferior coach, well I'm not sure what you would call a great coach. The man has his team with the best record in the league, the same record he had at this time last year, has won a championship, and has his team primed for another championship run while developing younger players to keep the team competitive long term and you want someone who can do a better job? Who?

The man had the 11th best winning percentage for one year in NBA history. He's won a championship. He's won a Coach of the Year award and should have two but was ripped off last year. He has this team with the best record in the league.

Good luck replacing him.

[cordobes]

Phil Jackson has more rings than any other active coach and he doesn't give a [dang] about micro-management, doesn't change nothing whatsoever from game to game or quarter to quarter. Don Nelson, who's close to achieve 1000 wins, frequently stays in complete silence during time-outs - even those he called, he simply doesn't say a word.

What's wrong about the way Doc uses the X's and O's? What do you don't like? The secondary break, is that the problem? Would you prefer the team to defend drives from wing by forcing middle, a la Red? Would you prefer a flex offense? A  2guard front? What's exactly the problem? All this "X's and O's" rants always seem extremely vague to me.

[MattG12]

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

I've always liked Doc, I didn't call for him to be fired when the team was bad, it wasn't his fault he was given garbage to work with... and don't say that McHale is better because he's coaching the same players and they're winning. Get it through your head that the players have grown up, it is not the same.

You also asked for people to provide you with a real counterargument that McHale wouldn't be a better coach here than Doc and Doc wouldn't be worse in Minny than McHale. In order for somebody to actually give you a counterargument shouldn't you actually give us a good argument? You have no numbers that prove McHale would be better. He is currently doing good. You don't talk about the fact that he lost his first 8 games coaching this year and the first time he took over after he fired Flip Saunders he failed to get the Timberwolves into the Finals... and he had Kevin Garnett. Doc Rivers got the Celtics a championship in his first year when given Garnett, wouldn't that make Doc better than McHale? If that's the type of argument you want to give, that's the type of argument you will receive. Stop voicing your flawed opinion. The fact the nobody agrees with you should be enough proof that you are wrong.

[Brickowski]

I've been one of Doc's biggest detractors, and I still don't think he's a good coach, technically.  At best he's mediocre.  But what is outstanding about him is is willingness to listen to the players and to let Thibodeau run the defense.  Ainge could have done worse in his selection of a coach.

 

[Tr1boy]

you can't have x's and o's set in stone. As the game develops your strategy has to also. The problem with doc is that he is not keen on adapting to anything.

If its a close game and he needs points he tells rondo dribble up halfcourt then toss it to pierce and get out of the way. That is brainless coaching. You shouldn't do that everytime with 5 minutes to go

Also the defensive setup is not designed by him its mostly thibs so please lets give credit were its properly due.

offensively doc has more responsibilities for and it took him a while to realize that rondo is our pg and he should have some autonomy to drive and pass as he pleases. Not REalizing during our mini slump not to overplay our starters and use some of your bench guys etc. It had to take injuries to perk and t allen for him to finally find out how to utilize scal.

So basically the strategy aspect of his coaching skills are hurting.

ok guys have a good one, i'll check back later

[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

I've always liked Doc, I didn't call for him to be fired when the team was bad, it wasn't his fault he was given garbage to work with... and don't say that McHale is better because he's coaching the same players and they're winning. Get it through your head that the players have grown up, it is not the same.

You also asked for people to provide you with a real counterargument that McHale wouldn't be a better coach here than Doc and Doc wouldn't be worse in Minny than McHale. In order for somebody to actually give you a counterargument shouldn't you actually give us a good argument? You have no numbers that prove McHale would be better. He is currently doing good. You don't talk about the fact that he lost his first 8 games coaching this year and the first time he took over after he fired Flip Saunders he failed to get the Timberwolves into the Finals... and he had Kevin Garnett. Doc Rivers got the Celtics a championship in his first year when given Garnett, wouldn't that make Doc better than McHale? If that's the type of argument you want to give, that's the type of argument you will receive. Stop voicing your flawed opinion. The fact the nobody agrees with you should be enough proof that you are wrong.

-mchale had to come in during mid season to clean up a mess and did a great job. Doc started with the team that year. How about talent comparison?? The celts had more talent on that team vs wolves(due to kg's enormous contract)

give me a better counter counter argument my friend


-And lastly 8 games losing streak in the beginning but going 10-2 there after. Rivers two years ago = 18 games losing streak and never stopped losing there after

[nickagneta]

you can't have x's and o's set in stone. As the game develops your strategy has to also. The problem with doc is that he is not keen on adapting to anything.

If its a close game and he needs points he tells rondo dribble up halfcourt then toss it to pierce and get out of the way. That is brainless coaching. You shouldn't do that everytime with 5 minutes to go

Also the defensive setup is not designed by him its mostly thibs so please lets give credit were its properly due.
offensively doc has more responsibilities for and it took him a while to realize that rondo is our pg and he should have some autonomy to drive and pass as he pleases. Not REalizing during our mini slump not to overplay our starters and use some of your bench guys etc. It had to take injuries to perk and t allen for him to finally find out how to utilize scal.

So basically the strategy aspect of his coaching skills are hurting. We are so good right now mainly cuz of the big three, thibadeau(for our defense) and finally letting rondo be a pg. I won't discount what doc has done for the team cuz he does deserve come praise but my main pt's in the thread is that i don't think he is very good as an overall coach(lucky is the word), he can't coach bad teams as good as he can good and that ppl change their minds about him frequently.  

ok guys have a good one, i'll check back later

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to break out this audio but the defense is Doc's not Thibodeau's. Here's proof. Strart listening with 11:30 already in.

http://audio.weei.com/m/18827930/danny_ainge.htm?col=en-all-pod_weei-ep&q=big+show&match=QUERY&seek=160.029

It's an audio of Ainge on the Big Show correcting someone, I think Larry Johnson, that it is in fact not Thibodeau's defense but Doc's. I do belive the president of the team and the guy who hired Doc and who played and coached the game would know who's defensive design his team was running. It's Doc's defense, Thibodeau only teaches and coached it because he is familiar with it.

Thib's is familiar with it because it is a hybrid off of the Pat Reilly defense from New York with a little Mike Fratello stuff thrown in. The Van Gundy's run a very similar defense and hence Thibodeau's familiarity with the set.

[MattG12]

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

I've always liked Doc, I didn't call for him to be fired when the team was bad, it wasn't his fault he was given garbage to work with... and don't say that McHale is better because he's coaching the same players and they're winning. Get it through your head that the players have grown up, it is not the same.

You also asked for people to provide you with a real counterargument that McHale wouldn't be a better coach here than Doc and Doc wouldn't be worse in Minny than McHale. In order for somebody to actually give you a counterargument shouldn't you actually give us a good argument? You have no numbers that prove McHale would be better. He is currently doing good. You don't talk about the fact that he lost his first 8 games coaching this year and the first time he took over after he fired Flip Saunders he failed to get the Timberwolves into the Finals... and he had Kevin Garnett. Doc Rivers got the Celtics a championship in his first year when given Garnett, wouldn't that make Doc better than McHale? If that's the type of argument you want to give, that's the type of argument you will receive. Stop voicing your flawed opinion. The fact the nobody agrees with you should be enough proof that you are wrong.

-mchale had to come in during mid season to clean up a mess and did a great job. Doc started with the team that year. How about talent comparison?? The celts had more talent on that team vs wolves(due to kg's enormous contract)

give me a better counter counter argument my friend


-And lastly 8 games losing streak in the beginning but going 10-2 there after. Rivers two years ago = 18 games losing streak and never stopped losing there after

Are you kidding me... If you want to talk about talent comparison, the current wolves team has more talent then the celtics did 2 years ago... two years ago the celtics had a team full of potential... that potential has blossomed into talent for the wolves. Rivers never stopped losing two years ago because the Celtics didn't want to. Why do you think Pierce was kept on the bench? We were trying to get top pick in the draft.

Do not tell me I need a better "counter counter argument" when you still have not made a valid argument that McHale is a better coach than Doc. Seriously now pal, prove your point.