"There's nothing I can do about it"

[dlpin]

Doc is not the main culprit.

You bring back the 08 KG, the 08 PP and we win most of these close games. The main culprit is KG and PP's decline, Sheed's general uselessness, Ray Allen's hit-or-miss nights.

It's the players.

As much as they've declined, they are still top notch players.

In 07-08, we could win despite Doc's ineptness because the players were good enough to overcome that. I remember us blowing an 11 point lead in 08 against the cavs in the playoffs because big Z was killing us, and Doc left big baby on him for 6 minutes in the third half.


Today is a perfect example: the cavs got back in the game through rebounding and a ton of scoring in the paint. How did that happen? That happened when Perkins and KG left with a 6 point lead and Davis and Sheed got in. By the time they returned the celtics were down by 6.

With them back, the cavs only scored another 6 points in the paint the rest of the quarter.

But then the problem became 3 point defense. And, unsurprisingly, Rondo simply couldn't keep up with Mo after having played the whole game.

It's all about rotations. Doc let Varejao and Hickson kill us in the paint for a while against our two worst rebounders, and then played Rondo to the ground, opening up the 3 pointers.

[FallGuy]

Doc is not the main culprit.

You bring back the 08 KG, the 08 PP and we win most of these close games. The main culprit is KG and PP's decline, Sheed's general uselessness, Ray Allen's hit-or-miss nights.

It's the players.

As much as they've declined, they are still top notch players.

In 07-08, we could win despite Doc's ineptness because the players were good enough to overcome that. I remember us blowing an 11 point lead in 08 against the cavs in the playoffs because big Z was killing us, and Doc left big baby on him for 6 minutes in the third half.


Today is a perfect example: the cavs got back in the game through rebounding and a ton of scoring in the paint. How did that happen? That happened when Perkins and KG left with a 6 point lead and Davis and Sheed got in. By the time they returned the celtics were down by 6.

With them back, the cavs only scored another 6 points in the paint the rest of the quarter.

But then the problem became 3 point defense. And, unsurprisingly, Rondo simply couldn't keep up with Mo after having played the whole game.

It's all about rotations. Doc let Varejao and Hickson kill us in the paint for a while against our two worst rebounders, and then played Rondo to the ground, opening up the 3 pointers.

Look, I agree Doc is mismanaging the team and you point that out well above. I don't disagree about the rotations. But a younger healthier KG would have stayed in the game, and with him our lead would have been bigger at that point to start with.

[dlpin]

Look, I agree Doc is mismanaging the team and you point that out well above. I don't disagree about the rotations. But a younger healthier KG would have stayed in the game, and with him our lead would have been bigger at that point to start with.

Yeah, but if KG is not healthier, it's Doc's job to manage playing minutes so that is not an issue. There was no reason to play Sheed and Davis together for so long, especially with Perkins playing just 26 minutes. Similarly, there is no reason to play Rondo 45 minutes, including stints as a shooting guard.

[FallGuy]

Look, I agree Doc is mismanaging the team and you point that out well above. I don't disagree about the rotations. But a younger healthier KG would have stayed in the game, and with him our lead would have been bigger at that point to start with.

Yeah, but if KG is not healthier, it's Doc's job to manage playing minutes so that is not an issue. There was no reason to play Sheed and Davis together for so long, especially with Perkins playing just 26 minutes. Similarly, there is no reason to play Rondo 45 minutes, including stints as a shooting guard.

Re: Perk and Rondo.

Excellent points both.

I guess my broader point, that I'm beating to death in the other threads, and with which you may not even disagree, is that this team, under any coach, can't win a title without a series of very unlikely things happening at exactly the right time of year.

[PosImpos]

Yeah, I really don't understand Rondo getting 45 minutes but Perk only getting 26.  Surely Perk is in good enough shape to play 35 minutes in a big game.  Don't play Glen against guys half a foot taller than him.  Please.

[dlpin]

Re: Perk and Rondo.

Excellent points both.

I guess my broader point, that I'm beating to death in the other threads, and with which you may not even disagree, is that this team, under any coach, can't win a title without a series of very unlikely things happening at exactly the right time of year.

No, I think that this team, with a good coach, would have a very decent chance of winning a title. Our half time leads show that in pure talent level we are very good. The problem is that Doc does his weird line changes and his weird rotations and then let them in too long. And he always runs a player into the ground. It was Ray a few weeks ago, now its Rondo.

If we had a coach that could outcoach the opposition by just a little bit, we'd be fine. Unfortunately, Doc has been outcoached badly by Mike Woodson, Mike Brown, and Van Gundy.

[guava_wrench]

I wonder what the record is for blown double-digit leads in a season? I would guess that the Celtics are closing in on it, whatever it is. 23-5 the first 28 (against a weak schedule), 13-15 since. It's all going the wrong way and there are no answers.

Well there's always holding the coach and/or members of his staff accountable I guess.

Hold the players accountable before the coach.

[guava_wrench]

Look, I agree Doc is mismanaging the team and you point that out well above. I don't disagree about the rotations. But a younger healthier KG would have stayed in the game, and with him our lead would have been bigger at that point to start with.

Yeah, but if KG is not healthier, it's Doc's job to manage playing minutes so that is not an issue. There was no reason to play Sheed and Davis together for so long, especially with Perkins playing just 26 minutes. Similarly, there is no reason to play Rondo 45 minutes, including stints as a shooting guard.

Re: Perk and Rondo.

Excellent points both.

I guess my broader point, that I'm beating to death in the other threads, and with which you may not even disagree, is that this team, under any coach, can't win a title without a series of very unlikely things happening at exactly the right time of year.

That was an important point.

It could be that this team can't do any better under any coach. People like often don't want to accept the true state of the team so it is easier for them to blame a coach (or refs). That way, they can hold out hope that they really are the best and bringing in a replacement coach could bring a title. How often does that actually work?

Perhaps it can work if you actually bring in an elite coach, like Larry Brown in Detroit. Bringing in a subpar replacement like Thibs is suicide.

[Who]

You can't blame it all on Doc.

The Celtics don't have a go to guy when things get tough.  Don't argue about it; they really don't.  Pierce isn't that guy anymore.  Neither is Ray.  Neither is KG.  Rondo isn't there yet.  All of those 4 guys are still very good players, but they aren't guys you can go to when things get rough and depend on them to pull your rear end out of the fire.

You need a go to guy if you want to win big games, and ultimately, a championship.  No team in the past 20-30 years (as far as I'm aware) has won a championship without a real go to guy.  Even Detroit had Mr. Big Shot.

The lack of a go to guy is why this team sputters late in games when the opposing defense clamps down and they can't get the same easy looks they got before.  They don't have a player who can demand the ball and make things happen single-handedly no matter what the opposing defense does. 

You look at all the best teams in the league, they have that guy.  Cleveland has LeBron.  The Lakers have Kobe.  Nuggets have Melo.  Atlanta has Joe Johnson.  Mavericks have Dirk (and Terry, too).  Even the Jazz have D-Will and the Magic have Rashard, Vince, and Nelson; even Dwight has become more of a clutch player recently.

There are nights when one of the Big 4 will look phenomenal.  They might even hit a game winner or come up big in the 4th.  But none of them can do it consistently.  None of them can really take over a game anymore - not against a really good team.  Unless that somehow changes, I am very skeptical about the Celtic's chances of playing in June this year.

Agreed -- this is the Celtics biggest problem talent wise.

[CoachBo]

Dumping all this on Rivers simply ignores the reality - this team is old and too unathletic to answer the bell in key second half situations.

As Cleveland proved last night, if you'll move the basketball this team cannot rotate defensively to prevent you from an easy shot.

And if you'll run and attack the rim, this team cannot keep up with you.

It is what it is - this team won a title with the trades; it's not going to win another with this group. There won't be any June basketball this year - or again - with Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

The window is closed, folks. Best to embrace that notion and be grateful that we got one title. There won't be another with this group.

[Neurotic Guy]

Exploring the history of CelticsBlog, in 2006-7, Doc Rivers was a terrible coach (rotations, rotations, rotations). Then, in 2007-8 he was a terrific coach (meshing the Big 3 and melding together the old and the young). In early 2008-9, he was still a great coach (developing Rondo, BBD, TA and managing the personalities). However, in late 2008-9, he was an awful coach again.  Then, in early 2009-10 at 25-3, he was a wonderfully skilled coach.  Now, in a 13-15 run , he is inept.

Baloney to all.  Rivers, as a coach, does some things exceptionally well and other things average.  When his players have been healthy he has done as well with this team as any coach in the NBA would or could (including an historical start in 2008-9).  When his players are unhealthy and/or tired/slowing down he is balancing a completely different  dynamic and therefore his rotations change (and he and the team struggle).  He does make mistakes, but overall he has been as good for this team as any coach (with a few exceptions) could have been. 

[kozlodoev]

Doc is a problem sometimes. Bad rotations, too slow to sub guys, etc.

But that's not the real problem. It's the decline of our top players.

Why are our top guys able to make short work of almost any team in the first 36 minutes of any game if their skills are declining?

[WeMadeIt17]

Well Doc has a lot to do with it. I always defend doc but last night really showed how screwed up his rotations are. No Nate in the 3rd quarter? That was really stupid. IDK just like KG I don't know what to say but I cant say I was happy with KG when he literally handed Hickson the ball when we were down 12 in the 4th. We don't have a go to guy. Even when Pierce is in there we really don't have that guy. Idk what to say anymore I really hope these last 26 games we tighten up.

[Spilling Green Dye]

"Nothing I can do about it" is pretty much one of the worst quotes a coach could use after the past 28 Celtic performances.

There's a lot Doc can do, and it can begin with playing with the matchups correctly.  It really bugs me that when the opposing coach makes a move, Doc then makes his move to try and match up with it.. as opposed to attempting to create the mismatch himself.  He's always coaching from behind, and doesn't utilize what he has.  Like others have also mentioned, he stinks at allocating minutes.

Also, how predictable are his lineups?  Every opposing coach pretty much knows to a 'T' when each Celtics is coming in and out of the game.  It's pretty easy to counter such obviousness.

[FallGuy]

Doc is a problem sometimes. Bad rotations, too slow to sub guys, etc.

But that's not the real problem. It's the decline of our top players.

Why are our top guys able to make short work of almost any team in the first 36 minutes of any game if their skills are declining?

They aren't. There are as many bad first halves as the few good ones you'd like to cherry pick to prove this assertion. You don't want to think they're in decline - feel free. The opposite seems obvious to me.