Hollinger: Rivers and Del Negro are Dumb and Dumber

[kozlodoev]

Oh please.  X's and O's were never Doc's strength.

And committing a foul is related to drawing a play how exactly?

[Rondo_is_better]

Celtics Fans are idiots for caring about that loser's opinion. Doc said he instructed his team to foul. Vinny just drew up a good play and Ben made a lucky fadeaway shot. Stuff happens and you move on. Game 5 probably another 20 point blowout.

Good attitude. That's the right way to think. TP.

[cdif911]

what is more polarizing on this board

option A) opinion on Doc's coaching ability

option B) bring Antoine back

option C) bring Gerald Green back

option D) if the deli guy is right or wrong

[Change]

Oh please.  X's and O's were never Doc's strength.

Totally erroneous. Doc in my opionion is the best X's and O's coach in the league. Ask Ray Allen? He makes those game saving 3's because of Doc's brilliant X's and O's late game situations.

But I do attest that Doc weakest link is his rotation. That too could be lack of a true bench. But overall this is probably Doc's best coaching job thus far.

[RAcker]

Oh please.  X's and O's were never Doc's strength.

And committing a foul is related to drawing a play how exactly?

Thank you and Amen.

[KCattheStripe]

Haven't we already established that Doc is the worst coach ever to win 62+ games in consecutive years and a championship?

Avery Johnson is Doc's neighborhood, with 60 and 67 wins in consecutive seasons and an NBA Finals loss.

Bill Fitch?

[CelticsWhat35]

I'd love to hear the rationalization from Hollinger that guarantees the Celtics a victory if they fouled Salmons.  He does realize that the Celtics wouldn't be able to run out the clock, right?

You can make an argument either way for fouling or not, but what you can't do is make a blanket statement saying a team was guaranteed victory going either route.  That's just plain dumb.

[fairweatherfan]

I'd love to hear the rationalization from Hollinger that guarantees the Celtics a victory if they fouled Salmons.  He does realize that the Celtics wouldn't be able to run out the clock, right?

You can make an argument either way for fouling or not, but what you can't do is make a blanket statement saying a team was guaranteed victory going either route.  That's just plain dumb.

That's a great point, TP - someone whose entire schtick is stats should be much more careful about declaring certainty.

[Fafnir]

I'd love to hear the rationalization from Hollinger that guarantees the Celtics a victory if they fouled Salmons.  He does realize that the Celtics wouldn't be able to run out the clock, right?

You can make an argument either way for fouling or not, but what you can't do is make a blanket statement saying a team was guaranteed victory going either route.  That's just plain dumb.

If the Celts foul, inbound, rebound, and shoot free throws perfectly they would have won. That is a lot of ifs.

[CelticsWhat35]

I'd love to hear the rationalization from Hollinger that guarantees the Celtics a victory if they fouled Salmons.  He does realize that the Celtics wouldn't be able to run out the clock, right?

You can make an argument either way for fouling or not, but what you can't do is make a blanket statement saying a team was guaranteed victory going either route.  That's just plain dumb.

If the Celts foul, inbound, rebound, and shoot free throws perfectly they would have won. That is a lot of ifs.

You're right.  That is a lot of if's, and even in that situation, it's not guaranteed.  Because if Salmons hit's his free throws, and say, Ray hits his, we're back to the same place we were before, except for maybe 7 seconds instead of 9.  And who's to say the next play goes the same way?  Maybe the next play is a direct inbound to Salmons, Gordon, etc. at the 3 point line.  There are too many if's.