Eddie House Out against Miami, Will Bill Walker finally play?

[nickagneta]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

You mean like Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson and Pat Riley and Joe Torre and Bill Belichick?

Please?!?!

[slamtheking]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

You mean like Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson and Pat Riley and Joe Torre and Bill Belichick?

Please?!?!

Why would that be difficult to believe?  of your list of examples I'd certainly put Torre in that bucket.  All coaches look better with great players. 
Look at KC Jones in the 80's with the big 3.  That's the example that came to my mind. KC was no coaching genius by any stretch -- just knew enough to get out of his starters' way and let them do what they do best. 

Some coaches are better with experienced players, some are better at developmental aspects of the game.  I think Doc's strenths lie with vets and dealing with players' personalities.
 
Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

[nickagneta]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

You mean like Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson and Pat Riley and Joe Torre and Bill Belichick?

Please?!?!

Why would that be difficult to believe?  of your list of examples I'd certainly put Torre in that bucket.  All coaches look better with great players. 
Look at KC Jones in the 80's with the big 3.  That's the example that came to my mind. KC was no coaching genius by any stretch -- just knew enough to get out of his starters' way and let them do what they do best. 

Some coaches are better with experienced players, some are better at developmental aspects of the game.  I think Doc's strenths lie with vets and dealing with players' personalities.
 
Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

If Rondo's and Pierce's post game interviews last night discussing how the only reason they executed that play with 0:06 left on the clock was because of Doc's great play calling and his constant work on late game situational plays doesn't show people that Doc is an exceptional coach, I don't know what will.

Doc, much to the dismay of Doc detractors, does not just roll a ball onto the court, tell the vets to go play and get out of the way. The amount of misinformation and down right falsehoods that people make up to discredit Doc as a coach on this site astounds me. Want to criticize his rotations, decision making in certain situations, use of timeouts, mental preparation of his players, lack of a control over hotheaded players, etc. I agree with all that.

But some of the stuff I read is absurd.

[Toine43]

Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

This is a fair point. I have been pro-Scal in the past but it's pretty clear that he's been just about useless this year in most games. At some point you have to think about giving someone else his minutes. I know he's more trustworthy in big games, but that's because he's more comfortable out there than any of the younger guys. If you integrate a Walker or Giddens into the rotation now, maybe with that experience they'll be able to serve as a better 12th man than Scal come playoff time.

However, I'm not going to call Doc a useless coach and make ridiculous blanket statements about him because I haven't seen enough J.R. Giddens or Bill Walker for my liking. To the posters who are, get over these guys - if they were any good they'd have been in the game already.

[nickagneta]

Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

This is a fair point. I have been pro-Scal in the past but it's pretty clear that he's been just about useless this year in most games. At some point you have to think about giving someone else his minutes. I know he's more trustworthy in big games, but that's because he's more comfortable out there than any of the younger guys. If you integrate a Walker or Giddens into the rotation now, maybe with that experience they'll be able to serve as a better 12th man than Scal come playoff time.

However, I'm not going to call Doc a useless coach and make ridiculous blanket statements about him because I haven't seen enough J.R. Giddens or Bill Walker for my liking. To the posters who are, get over these guys - if they were any good they'd have been in the game already.

TP Toine. Well said.

[wiley]

no. face the facts that doc doesn't play rookies. So basically he is the type of coach who wants other coaches and teams to go through the trials in raising a player, have them leave and come to doc so he can sit down and do nothing

useless coach.

He needs to learn how to bring in rookies and not be so hard on them. Of course they won't be able to play like the vets. Absolutely no chance is given.

Truer words have not been spoken on these boards

"Useless coach" begs for some follow up....Which coach would you prefer to coach the Celtics and what specifically would that coach bring?  (that is, aside from having removed Scal from the lineup and playing Walker or Giddens in his place, and playing Hudson over House).

You guys sound mad that we put so much money into the top of our lineup and therefore could no longer do the development thing in earnest.
 
I'd like to see Billy played over Scal as well, but I'm ready to be proven wrong on that if Billy is too mistake prone or doesn't know which area of the court to be at the right time....

"useless coach?"  have you got inside info on Walker/Giddens potential? 

I also think you're over-estimating Doc's power.  Yes he decides who plays.  But do you think Danny has no input?  Of course he does and I'm sure he catches plenty of practices.  Danny has no choice but to have his pulse on this team so he can make decisions about the future.  Don't underestimate the input of KG, Paul and Ray on an issue like Billy verses Scal.  I'm sure those three have private discussions (one on one or whatever) all the time with Doc.

Doc is not operating in a bubble.  The Celtics are a big, fat organization full of influential people and players.... 

[bucknersrevenge]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

  LOL I'm sorry that was kind of a hilarious comment.

[Roy Hobbs]

As a coach, I think Doc's priority has always been about winning games, first and foremost.  That has led to some frustration, because at times it's seen him play vets over talented young players, and has seen him play injured players more minutes than recommended. 

[Induna]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

  LOL I'm sorry that was kind of a hilarious comment.

I stand by the comment. The coaching thatb is going on at Memphis, Houston, New York and OKC impressess me more. What they have done with limited experience and NBA know how is a [dang] site more imp[ressive than putting all your egs in the veteran basked even when this includes obviously limited guys like Scal.

[slamtheking]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

You mean like Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson and Pat Riley and Joe Torre and Bill Belichick?

Please?!?!

Why would that be difficult to believe?  of your list of examples I'd certainly put Torre in that bucket.  All coaches look better with great players. 
Look at KC Jones in the 80's with the big 3.  That's the example that came to my mind. KC was no coaching genius by any stretch -- just knew enough to get out of his starters' way and let them do what they do best. 

Some coaches are better with experienced players, some are better at developmental aspects of the game.  I think Doc's strenths lie with vets and dealing with players' personalities.
 
Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

If Rondo's and Pierce's post game interviews last night discussing how the only reason they executed that play with 0:06 left on the clock was because of Doc's great play calling and his constant work on late game situational plays doesn't show people that Doc is an exceptional coach, I don't know what will.

Doc, much to the dismay of Doc detractors, does not just roll a ball onto the court, tell the vets to go play and get out of the way. The amount of misinformation and down right falsehoods that people make up to discredit Doc as a coach on this site astounds me. Want to criticize his rotations, decision making in certain situations, use of timeouts, mental preparation of his players, lack of a control over hotheaded players, etc. I agree with all that.

But some of the stuff I read is absurd.

tell the vets to go play and get out of the way.
This is not what I said about Doc.  Please reread my post.  I said that about KC Jones. 

My comments about Doc were that he's better working with vets and that he's good at handling player personalities.  My opinions of his actual coaching are mixed.  I don't agree with his time management (both player minutes and time outs).  I will give him credit for calling up plays out of timeouts that have a high percentage rate of effectiveness.  I'll also give him credit for bringing in very good asst coaches and knowing when to defer to them. 

He's not the worst coach in the game nor is he the best.  The fact he totally outcoached Phil Jackson in the finals was a surprise at that time and a great one at that.

[slamtheking]

As a coach, I think Doc's priority has always been about winning games, first and foremost.  That has led to some frustration, because at times it's seen him play vets over talented young players, and has seen him play injured players more minutes than recommended. 

Roy, I don't think you could have captured the situation any better than that.  TP

[Evantime34]

As a coach, I think Doc's priority has always been about winning games, first and foremost.  That has led to some frustration, because at times it's seen him play vets over talented young players, and has seen him play injured players more minutes than recommended. 

Although this line of reasoning does not sit well with all fans it make perfect practical sense. Let's say someone is the manager, would they hire young inexperienced workers with high upside over consistent producers, knowing it could cost them their job? Probably not.

If Doc wins with the vets he keeps his job. If Doc plays the rookies and wins he keeps his job. However, the chances of winning are higher with the vets and if you're a coach with your job on the line there is no reason to take the risk.

Thinking about Doc's coaching as a job makes you realize that there is no way he's going to take a chance that could eventually get him fired. I am always calling for more playing time for the youngsters but if I were in Doc's position I would do exactly as he is doing.

[nickagneta]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

You mean like Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson and Pat Riley and Joe Torre and Bill Belichick?

Please?!?!

Why would that be difficult to believe?  of your list of examples I'd certainly put Torre in that bucket.  All coaches look better with great players. 
Look at KC Jones in the 80's with the big 3.  That's the example that came to my mind. KC was no coaching genius by any stretch -- just knew enough to get out of his starters' way and let them do what they do best. 

Some coaches are better with experienced players, some are better at developmental aspects of the game.  I think Doc's strenths lie with vets and dealing with players' personalities.
 
Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

If Rondo's and Pierce's post game interviews last night discussing how the only reason they executed that play with 0:06 left on the clock was because of Doc's great play calling and his constant work on late game situational plays doesn't show people that Doc is an exceptional coach, I don't know what will.

Doc, much to the dismay of Doc detractors, does not just roll a ball onto the court, tell the vets to go play and get out of the way. The amount of misinformation and down right falsehoods that people make up to discredit Doc as a coach on this site astounds me. Want to criticize his rotations, decision making in certain situations, use of timeouts, mental preparation of his players, lack of a control over hotheaded players, etc. I agree with all that.

But some of the stuff I read is absurd.

tell the vets to go play and get out of the way.
This is not what I said about Doc.  Please reread my post.  I said that about KC Jones. 

My comments about Doc were that he's better working with vets and that he's good at handling player personalities.  My opinions of his actual coaching are mixed.  I don't agree with his time management (both player minutes and time outs).  I will give him credit for calling up plays out of timeouts that have a high percentage rate of effectiveness.  I'll also give him credit for bringing in very good asst coaches and knowing when to defer to them. 

He's not the worst coach in the game nor is he the best.  The fact he totally outcoached Phil Jackson in the finals was a surprise at that time and a great one at that.

Sorry, slam. I didn't mean to infer that you said that it's just I have heard that exact line thrown out there about Doc for years here and it's patently untrue. TP for forgiveness?? Hopefully?

I think you have some definite fair criticisms regarding his use of time outs and game management. It's definitely his less than best aspect of the job he does. I think he's one of the best managers in the game and best handlers of players and egos. His in game coaching is probably the worst part of the job he does.

But that's also only about 5% of the work a head coach does to get his team to be a winner.

I think Roy brings up a fair criticism too. His use of players nursing injuries. Case in point is Pierce the other night. Now, what was released to the public was Pierce would be restricted in his number of minutes. But he played 43 minutes. Was his limit 50? Or was he reassessed at halftime and the medical staff gave him an okay for long minutes? Or did Doc overuse him against medical advice? based on released info and actual actions the latter conclusion is easy to come to but we really don't know.

And this isn't the first time for this.

As for the Billy Walker thing, as we have learned from the Lester Hudson situation and Gabe Pruitt last year and others before, if a young player is not playing ahead of a vet that fans feel aren't getting the job done, there's probably a very good reason for it other than, "Doc won't play the young guys". It probably has more to do with needing to do what is right, understanding what is needed and expected, repeatedly doing those things over and over again in practice and earning the time in games. I seriously doubt it has to do with some love of veterans. Doc has played and developed way, way too many young players here and in Orlando for that to be true.

[slamtheking]

Doc is a good coach when he he is coaching players who need very little coaching

You mean like Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson and Pat Riley and Joe Torre and Bill Belichick?

Please?!?!

Why would that be difficult to believe?  of your list of examples I'd certainly put Torre in that bucket.  All coaches look better with great players. 
Look at KC Jones in the 80's with the big 3.  That's the example that came to my mind. KC was no coaching genius by any stretch -- just knew enough to get out of his starters' way and let them do what they do best. 

Some coaches are better with experienced players, some are better at developmental aspects of the game.  I think Doc's strenths lie with vets and dealing with players' personalities.
 
Having said that, the only plausible reason for putting Walker in a game is to see if he can deliver more than Scal.  Scal hasn't produced worth a [dang] this year.  Walker can't deliver much less and could possibly deliver more.  It's not that people expect Walker to be a major contributor at this point, but many people have seen enough of Scal.

If Rondo's and Pierce's post game interviews last night discussing how the only reason they executed that play with 0:06 left on the clock was because of Doc's great play calling and his constant work on late game situational plays doesn't show people that Doc is an exceptional coach, I don't know what will.

Doc, much to the dismay of Doc detractors, does not just roll a ball onto the court, tell the vets to go play and get out of the way. The amount of misinformation and down right falsehoods that people make up to discredit Doc as a coach on this site astounds me. Want to criticize his rotations, decision making in certain situations, use of timeouts, mental preparation of his players, lack of a control over hotheaded players, etc. I agree with all that.

But some of the stuff I read is absurd.

tell the vets to go play and get out of the way.
This is not what I said about Doc.  Please reread my post.  I said that about KC Jones. 

My comments about Doc were that he's better working with vets and that he's good at handling player personalities.  My opinions of his actual coaching are mixed.  I don't agree with his time management (both player minutes and time outs).  I will give him credit for calling up plays out of timeouts that have a high percentage rate of effectiveness.  I'll also give him credit for bringing in very good asst coaches and knowing when to defer to them. 

He's not the worst coach in the game nor is he the best.  The fact he totally outcoached Phil Jackson in the finals was a surprise at that time and a great one at that.

Sorry, slam. I didn't mean to infer that you said that it's just I have heard that exact line thrown out there about Doc for years here and it's patently untrue. TP for forgiveness?? Hopefully?

I think you have some definite fair criticisms regarding his use of time outs and game management. It's definitely his less than best aspect of the job he does. I think he's one of the best managers in the game and best handlers of players and egos. His in game coaching is probably the worst part of the job he does.

But that's also only about 5% of the work a head coach does to get his team to be a winner.

I think Roy brings up a fair criticism too. His use of players nursing injuries. Case in point is Pierce the other night. Now, what was released to the public was Pierce would be restricted in his number of minutes. But he played 43 minutes. Was his limit 50? Or was he reassessed at halftime and the medical staff gave him an okay for long minutes? Or did Doc overuse him against medical advice? based on released info and actual actions the latter conclusion is easy to come to but we really don't know.

And this isn't the first time for this.

As for the Billy Walker thing, as we have learned from the Lester Hudson situation and Gabe Pruitt last year and others before, if a young player is not playing ahead of a vet that fans feel aren't getting the job done, there's probably a very good reason for it other than, "Doc won't play the young guys". It probably has more to do with needing to do what is right, understanding what is needed and expected, repeatedly doing those things over and over again in practice and earning the time in games. I seriously doubt it has to do with some love of veterans. Doc has played and developed way, way too many young players here and in Orlando for that to be true.

no hard feelings on this side Nick.  (TP'ed you on another thread for a good idea just after I responded on this thread---I don't take a contrasting opinion/critique personally, just a simple disagreement)

I think we're close to the same opinion on Doc's non-youth coaching skills.  We're definitely on different sides of the fence regarding his approach to young players and that's fine. 

I think where some people, including myself, get frustrated with Doc and young players is when the vets aren't producing for a prolonged period of time and there are other options like a young player that might deliver better results.  Scal would be the prime example.  I haven't heard anyone clamoring for Giddens and Walker to get PT over Marquis (or TA now that he's healthy and playing well) but as alternatives to Scal.