Pops is proof that Doc isn't all that great

[Boris Badenov]

It's pretty funny that for all the Doc-bashing that goes on here, the one alternative even the bashers compare him to consistently is Popovich, who is in the conversation as a top 3-5 coach of all time.

It's a little bit like saying "Lebron is not all that great, because Michael Jordan was better."

It's the utmost in flattery. I suspect that Doc himself would be very pleased to know that his name and Popovich's are mentioned together so often.

Doc is not even in the Pop conversation, so do not kid yourself.

Doc is in the same conversation as Spoelstra who won one chip with a big 3, Collins, Sloan, THIBS who helped Doc win the chip he won, Carlisle in Dallas who won a chip with Nowitzki and a bunch of helpers, Larry Brown. Yeah lump Doc in with those coaches. Pop is far superior to Doc.

Er, yeah, he actually is quite literally "in the conversation."

Look at the title of the thread. And nearly every post in it. That all looks like a "conversation" to me.

And like I said, the funny thing is that it's the anti-Doc folks who keep making the comparison.

Comical.

[D.o.s.]

It's pretty funny that for all the Doc-bashing that goes on here, the one alternative even the bashers compare him to consistently is Popovich, who is in the conversation as a top 3-5 coach of all time.

It's a little bit like saying "Lebron is not all that great, because Michael Jordan was better."

It's the utmost in flattery. I suspect that Doc himself would be very pleased to know that his name and Popovich's are mentioned together so often.

Doc is not even in the Pop conversation, so do not kid yourself.

Doc is in the same conversation as Spoelstra who won one chip with a big 3, Collins, Sloan, THIBS who helped Doc win the chip he won, Carlisle in Dallas who won a chip with Nowitzki and a bunch of helpers, Larry Brown. Yeah lump Doc in with those coaches. Pop is far superior to Doc.

Then what is this 5 page debate about then? If Doc isn't in tha same conversation as Pop, why is Pop tha only one a lot of you Doc bashers compare him to?

And to say Doc is in tha same conversation with Spoelstra is hog wash. Get off tha boo boo. Doc should be shown more respect than that. Spoelstra isn't in tha same conversation as Doc. Spoelstra isn't proven. Doc is. Spoelstra is coaching tha best player in tha NBA who makes his job easy for him just like he did for Mike Brown. Give Spo a team without tha talent he has now and see how he fairs before saying him and Doc are in tha same conversation. If somebody's in tha same conversation with Spo, it's Mike Brown.

Spolestra's actually a pretty good coach--look at what he's done to Miami's offense from 2010 to present, and you'll see a smart series of improvements that have definitely paid dividends.

More importantly, why do you insist on "tha" instead of "the" when the rest of your posts are grammatically sound? Not hating, just curious.

[NocturnalRebel]

It's pretty funny that for all the Doc-bashing that goes on here, the one alternative even the bashers compare him to consistently is Popovich, who is in the conversation as a top 3-5 coach of all time.

It's a little bit like saying "Lebron is not all that great, because Michael Jordan was better."

It's the utmost in flattery. I suspect that Doc himself would be very pleased to know that his name and Popovich's are mentioned together so often.

Doc is not even in the Pop conversation, so do not kid yourself.

Doc is in the same conversation as Spoelstra who won one chip with a big 3, Collins, Sloan, THIBS who helped Doc win the chip he won, Carlisle in Dallas who won a chip with Nowitzki and a bunch of helpers, Larry Brown. Yeah lump Doc in with those coaches. Pop is far superior to Doc.

Then what is this 5 page debate about then? If Doc isn't in tha same conversation as Pop, why is Pop tha only one a lot of you Doc bashers compare him to?

And to say Doc is in tha same conversation with Spoelstra is hog wash. Get off tha boo boo. Doc should be shown more respect than that. Spoelstra isn't in tha same conversation as Doc. Spoelstra isn't proven. Doc is. Spoelstra is coaching tha best player in tha NBA who makes his job easy for him just like he did for Mike Brown. Give Spo a team without tha talent he has now and see how he fairs before saying him and Doc are in tha same conversation. If somebody's in tha same conversation with Spo, it's Mike Brown.

Spolestra's actually a pretty good coach--look at what he's done to Miami's offense from 2010 to present, and you'll see a smart series of improvements that have definitely paid dividends.

More importantly, why do you insist on "tha" instead of "the" when the rest of your posts are grammatically sound? Not hating, just curious.

I'm not saying Spoelstra is a bad coach. Their offense has improved. I just feel it's unfair to Doc to put him in tha same conversation as Spoelstra when tha C's have made tha playoffs every year over tha last 6 years regardless of how many players were injured.

And to answer your last question, it's a Houston thing. 

[Vermont Green]

So Doc and his staff isn't fully done molding Rondo, he could still have Parker-like success in his thirties as well.

Then perhaps this is a good litmus test on Doc. And that's to see whether or not he can transform Rondo [ who's more talented than TP ] into a true combo-guard than just some fella looking to pad his assists record, while dribbling out the clock.

   Rondo's been at least as successful in the playoffs as Parker had been at the same stage in their careers. I don't think much molding needs to be done for that to continue. Also, it's hardly unusual for a player to be a bit better and have a more well-rounded game at 30 compared to 25 or 26, I think you're giving Pops way too much credit for "molding" Parker.

Wow, I actually agree with BBallTim in a discussion about Rondo, well sort of.  Tony Parker is not an elite scoring PG because of his coach and Rondo is not a bad shooter because of his coach.  That is just a totally unsupported theory to propose.

How many different coaches has Paul Pierce had for example.  Pierce is just a good player as is Tony Parker, as is Rondo.

Rondo would not suddenly become a good shooter if traded to San Antonio.  And I feel that Parker would have been an awesome PG for the Celtics through these last 5-6 years.

[BballTim]

So Doc and his staff isn't fully done molding Rondo, he could still have Parker-like success in his thirties as well.

Then perhaps this is a good litmus test on Doc. And that's to see whether or not he can transform Rondo [ who's more talented than TP ] into a true combo-guard than just some fella looking to pad his assists record, while dribbling out the clock.

   Rondo's been at least as successful in the playoffs as Parker had been at the same stage in their careers. I don't think much molding needs to be done for that to continue. Also, it's hardly unusual for a player to be a bit better and have a more well-rounded game at 30 compared to 25 or 26, I think you're giving Pops way too much credit for "molding" Parker.

By the time Tony Parker was 25 he'd won three rings as the starting PG, winning a finals mvp in the process.

  If KG hadn't injured his knee you'd be saying the same thing about Rondo. I was talking more about how they'd performed individually. In Parker's first 6 seasons in the league he played in 100 playoff games and averaged 18/3/5. Rondo's first 6 years, 92 playoff games, 15/6/9. I'd say Rondo was the better of the two over those stages of their careers. If you took out the first 2 years for each player (when their playoff stats weren't as hot) Parker gets 19/3/5 in 66 games, Rondo gets 16/7/10 in 66 games. Parker scored a little more and the superstar big on his team was quite a bit healthier but other than that I'd say advantage Rondo.

[blink]

In an alternate reality ...

Pops led Celtics:

2008, Win finals 4-1

2009, Lose finals 4-2, no true answer for Bynum/Gasol/Odom down low w/o KG and Powe.

2010, Win finals 4-3

2011, Lose ECSemis to Heat 4-2

2012, Win finals 4-1

3 titles in 5 years

Great job at just pulling random predictions / comparisons out of thin air that mean absolutely nothing because they aren't based in any sort of reality.  And exactly how did you come to these conclusions?

[D.o.s.]

So Doc and his staff isn't fully done molding Rondo, he could still have Parker-like success in his thirties as well.

Then perhaps this is a good litmus test on Doc. And that's to see whether or not he can transform Rondo [ who's more talented than TP ] into a true combo-guard than just some fella looking to pad his assists record, while dribbling out the clock.

   Rondo's been at least as successful in the playoffs as Parker had been at the same stage in their careers. I don't think much molding needs to be done for that to continue. Also, it's hardly unusual for a player to be a bit better and have a more well-rounded game at 30 compared to 25 or 26, I think you're giving Pops way too much credit for "molding" Parker.

By the time Tony Parker was 25 he'd won three rings as the starting PG, winning a finals mvp in the process.

  If KG hadn't injured his knee you'd be saying the same thing about Rondo. I was talking more about how they'd performed individually. In Parker's first 6 seasons in the league he played in 100 playoff games and averaged 18/3/5. Rondo's first 6 years, 92 playoff games, 15/6/9. I'd say Rondo was the better of the two over those stages of their careers. If you took out the first 2 years for each player (when their playoff stats weren't as hot) Parker gets 19/3/5 in 66 games, Rondo gets 16/7/10 in 66 games. Parker scored a little more and the superstar big on his team was quite a bit healthier but other than that I'd say advantage Rondo.

In the real world, KG's knee injury did happen, and Rondo was the least important starter for a pair of teams that made the finals and only won once. As his role on the team has increased, their success has dwindled. You can't say the same thing about Parker.

Statistically, they're similar, and if you measure accomplishments in basketball solely on numbers, I have a Wilt Chamberlain autograph for you. Personally, I'd rather have a championship.

In other words, "scoreboard."

[thirstyboots18]

I am getting old and crotchety, but I have not seen one decent argument for the thread subject....just lots of nattering.  Sorry, but if someone is trying to make a point, I am not getting it.

[BballTim]

So Doc and his staff isn't fully done molding Rondo, he could still have Parker-like success in his thirties as well.

Then perhaps this is a good litmus test on Doc. And that's to see whether or not he can transform Rondo [ who's more talented than TP ] into a true combo-guard than just some fella looking to pad his assists record, while dribbling out the clock.

   Rondo's been at least as successful in the playoffs as Parker had been at the same stage in their careers. I don't think much molding needs to be done for that to continue. Also, it's hardly unusual for a player to be a bit better and have a more well-rounded game at 30 compared to 25 or 26, I think you're giving Pops way too much credit for "molding" Parker.

By the time Tony Parker was 25 he'd won three rings as the starting PG, winning a finals mvp in the process.

  If KG hadn't injured his knee you'd be saying the same thing about Rondo. I was talking more about how they'd performed individually. In Parker's first 6 seasons in the league he played in 100 playoff games and averaged 18/3/5. Rondo's first 6 years, 92 playoff games, 15/6/9. I'd say Rondo was the better of the two over those stages of their careers. If you took out the first 2 years for each player (when their playoff stats weren't as hot) Parker gets 19/3/5 in 66 games, Rondo gets 16/7/10 in 66 games. Parker scored a little more and the superstar big on his team was quite a bit healthier but other than that I'd say advantage Rondo.

In the real world, KG's knee injury did happen, and Rondo was the least important starter for a pair of teams that made the finals and only won once. As his role on the team has increased, their success has dwindled. You can't say the same thing about Parker.

  I don't think anyone who actually watched the Celts play in 2010 would say that Rondo was the least important starter on that team, in fact he probably wasn't really the least important starter in 2008. Also, your claim about Parker winning 3 titles didn't seem to be at all related to whether he was the most important player on those teams (hint: he wasn't). And if you can't say that the Spur's success has dwindled since Parker's role has increased, you'd have to mean that his role hasn't increased since 2007 because by any measure the team's been less successful since then. So, not so "real world" for those comments.

[LGC88]

Pop asked TP 3 years ago to start being a leader for the team. He slowly graduate to that I believe. Before he was concern to pass the ball to Duncan and Ginobili.

[LooseCannon]

Doc is a good manager of personalities and a great come from behind coach.   But small ball does not work on any level.   We have yet to win a series going small.  At least Pops always has two bigs in there.

Death to small ball....

Popovich is not allergic to smallball.  See, for example, the fourth quarter of the closeout game against the Warriors, where Duncan exited the game for good with the Spurs leading 77-75 with 4:28 to go and Pop went with a lineup of Splitter, Leonard, Green, Ginobili, and Parker for most of the rest of the way.

The Celtics might still be playing right now if Rondo hadn't been injured and the team had a center who was a good option in a smallball lineup with Green at the 4 and Garnett on the bench.

[bfrombleacher]

Doc is a good manager of personalities and a great come from behind coach.   But small ball does not work on any level.   We have yet to win a series going small.  At least Pops always has two bigs in there.

Death to small ball....

Popovich is not allergic to smallball.  See, for example, the fourth quarter of the closeout game against the Warriors, where Duncan exited the game for good with the Spurs leading 77-75 with 4:28 to go and Pop went with a lineup of Splitter, Leonard, Green, Ginobili, and Parker for most of the rest of the way.

The Celtics might still be playing right now if Rondo hadn't been injured and the team had a center who was a good option in a smallball lineup with Green at the 4 and Garnett on the bench.

Sully did a great Big Baby impression right before he went down. He was making massive strides.

That's why if given the choice between Al Jefferson and Millsap, my instinct is to go Big Al. A player who can actually play center. As for slowing down the pace - how about Shaq?

However, Millsap is the better player. Hence I'm torn and glad I'm not Ainge.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

So the argument seems to be that because the Spurs made the finals this year and because Tony Parker is a really good shooter/scorer while Rondo still can't shoot, that Doc is a bad coach.  There is something also about managing minutes that I don’t understand that is illustrated by the fact that both Ginobili and Duncan are both healthy for the first time in “like forever” while I guess Pierce looked worn down in the playoffs.

Of the potential replacements for Doc, there was one maybe (Doug Collins) and one probably (Jerry Sloan).  For the record, I don't think either Collins or Sloan would be better than Doc overall but maybe they would do something a little different that would allow one player or another to flourish.

You can look at things all sorts of ways and convince yourself that this thing or that thing proves your point of view.  My favorite is when some says that Rondo shoots 48% or something while, I don’t know, Chris Paul shoots only 46% so see, Rondo is a better shooter than Chris Paul (or Doc is a better coach than Del Negro).

My feeling is that Doc is a great coach as compared to contemporaries.  Maybe not great as compared to all time but he has gotten just about all anyone was going to get out of the big three window what was only supposed to last 3-years.

Who knows, maybe if Pop was the coach we would have won few more playoff series, I doubt it but there is nothing I can say that would prove my opinion unequivocally.  Just like nothing said here proves the opposite.  This is a good Blog topic.  Everyone can have an opinion, and there is no way to ever prove who is wrong or right (as opposed to debating who will win a series or something like that).

tony parker may shoot better than rondo, but he isn't better than rondo...don't rest your argument there..!

[TitleMaster]

Ok, game 3 was played with an injured Parker. And Ginobili was off, as well.

If it were Doc, he would not have been able to make the adjustments, take LBJ out of his game, while spreading the offense around to other players. Instead, he'll try to get Manu to run isos, as a way of compensating for Parker not being JoJo of the night.

I predict that the Spurs will lose, 4-2 or 4-3, if Parker's not back however, they'll give it a good fight till it's over.

In contrast, I think Doc would lose the series, 4-1 or 4-2, even with a healthy roster.

[esel1000]

Ok, game 3 was played with an injured Parker. And Ginobili was off, as well.

If it were Doc, he would not have been able to make the adjustments, take LBJ out of his game, while spreading the offense around to other players. Instead, he'll try to get Manu to run isos, as a way of compensating for Parker not being JoJo of the night.

I predict that the Spurs will lose, 4-2 or 4-3, if Parker's not back however, they'll give it a good fight till it's over.

In contrast, I think Doc would lose the series, 4-1 or 4-2, even with a healthy roster.

Oh come on man we went to game 7 last year against the Heat with a busted Pierce and Ray, no AB, and Ryan Hollins a big part of the rotation... And last year's Heat team was healthier.