Don't think Danny thought Brad would learn this quick...

[Bosstown]

I don't think he anticipated Brad learning the pro game as soon as his second season. Stevens is a really good coach, he is getting A LOT out of this roster that is made of young guys and fringe nba players. It's impressive, and I can only imagine what Stevens actually can do when he gets a All-Star or two, and a real center who can make a difference in the paint. The Tank is off...it's off because Brad Stevens is a great coach, and that my friends is a great thing. Danny take's risks and it just so happened going after the young Butler coach paid off already in year 2.

I hope we can get Brad some All-Stars/Superstars in these next few years so he can take this team to a championship.

[tyrone biggums]

If nothing else it will make the NBA consider college coaches again.

[Bosstown]

If nothing else it will make the NBA consider college coaches again.

well certain ones anyway. Brad is a advance stats guy and I think that has a lot to do with it, with balancing a personality that players like.

[Moranis]

A good coach is a good coach.  There shouldn't be that much of a learning curve.

[Bosstown]

A good coach is a good coach.  There shouldn't be that much of a learning curve.

I know what you're, but still the college game and nba are so different. So many college coaches have failed in the NBA, and had successful careers in college...so it doesnt always work.

[TitleMaster]

Stevens is doing actually what Doc couldn't, and that's using the entire roster, and drawing up key plays.

Many coaches like Doc, throw out the stars on the court, and win or loss, based upon that.

If Stevens had been seasoned couch in '08, with Thibs by his side, I believe the Lakers go down 4-1. I never believed that the Lakers were a better team than us throughout the entire series, too much Kobe ball and soft players.

And we would have won in '10 as well.

[jpotter33]

A good coach is a good coach.  There shouldn't be that much of a learning curve.

You would think this would be the case, but history really hasn't favored this notion.

[incoherent]

Doc was good out of timeouts always to end a quarter but to end the game he let pierce just Iso..... Baffling considering he could draw up plays pretty well.

[Kuberski33]

Stevens is doing actually what Doc couldn't, and that's using the entire roster, and drawing up key plays.

Many coaches like Doc, throw out the stars on the court, and win or loss, based upon that.

If Stevens had been seasoned couch in '08, with Thibs by his side, I believe the Lakers go down 4-1. I never believed that the Lakers were a better team than us throughout the entire series, too much Kobe ball and soft players.

And we would have won in '10 as well.

Think back to how many backup PG's Doc went through and none of them panned out.  Save for the year they won it, the bench was never quite deep enough and Doc wouldn't try to develop his bench during the season. 

Brad on the other hand seems to be able to get contributions out of most of his roster - and this is all with most of these guys not being here for a training camp.

[SHAQATTACK]

I read an article the other day , I think by a Mavs writer ....that Doc left Boston mainly because of Rondo.  I never heard that before.

[saltlover]

I read an article the other day , I think by a Mavs writer ....that Doc left Boston mainly because of Rondo.  I never heard that before.

I very much doubt that to be true.  If Doc left it was because Rondo got hurt (which led to the KG/Pierce trade).  Doc knew that was on the horizon, figured he had about 5 years of coaching left, and didn't want to spend 2-3 of them coachinf non-contenders. 

[TitleMaster]

Stevens is doing actually what Doc couldn't, and that's using the entire roster, and drawing up key plays.

Many coaches like Doc, throw out the stars on the court, and win or loss, based upon that.

If Stevens had been seasoned couch in '08, with Thibs by his side, I believe the Lakers go down 4-1. I never believed that the Lakers were a better team than us throughout the entire series, too much Kobe ball and soft players.

And we would have won in '10 as well.

Think back to how many backup PG's Doc went through and none of them panned out.  Save for the year they won it, the bench was never quite deep enough and Doc wouldn't try to develop his bench during the season. 

Brad on the other hand seems to be able to get contributions out of most of his roster - and this is all with most of these guys not being here for a training camp.

For the most part, Doc was a quitter. What I mean by that was that he'd consistently fall back to his starters, mainly Pierce & KG, to save the day. What that does is that a lot of the bench doesn't get utilized and thus, no one's got enough in-game experience to know what they're good at.

And remember that finals game 4, the greatest comeback one. Doc basically rode House and Posey, for much of the game because those two didn't need any coaching. They were both hustle players who could perform under that kind of pressure. The only thing he did was to keep the momentum going.

And in reality, it was poor defensive in the first half, which created that hole to begin with. If let's say Stevens were at the helm, meaning Stevens with 4-5 years of coaching NBA experience, the way the series would have gone is that the Lakers would have won a closely contested game 3 and that's about it. The rest would have been the Celtics.

Even today, if we had let's say a 2008 version of Pierce, we'd probably be near the top of the conference, between Chicago & Toronto, and at the same time, every game wouldn't be a Pierce iso/hero ball event. Stevens would be able to keep Pierce fresh for the playoffs. On the other hand, with Doc, we'd be in the toilet because he'd run screens for Pierce, all game long, until Pierce would get injured.

[kozlodoev]

What I mean by that was that he'd consistently fall back to his starters, mainly Pierce & KG, to save the day.

You mean that he'd expect falling back to his best players would give him the best chance to win the game? Shocker!

This is, in fact, something Brad S still has to wrap his mind around (and yes, the process of him grappling around until he figures it out is mildly infuriating).

Stevens is doing actually what Doc couldn't, and that's using the entire roster, and drawing up key plays.

Of course. Using Phil Pressey is important. I mean, winning games just hinges on this team  getting the most out of Phil Pressey, right?

[TitleMaster]

What I mean by that was that he'd consistently fall back to his starters, mainly Pierce & KG, to save the day.

You mean that he'd expect falling back to his best players would give him the best chance to win the game? Shocker!

This is, in fact, something Brad S still has to wrap his mind around (and yes, the process of him grappling around until he figures it out is mildly infuriating).

Stevens is doing actually what Doc couldn't, and that's using the entire roster, and drawing up key plays.

Of course. Using Phil Pressey is important. I mean, winning games just hinges on this team  getting the most out of Phil Pressey, right?

If I recall, the '76 squad used Glenn McDonald to win game 5 and the '87 team had Greg Kite for game 3, during the finals. Unlikely candidates, but it did happen.

So it is important to know what one's bench can do. Sure, for the most part, the starters play more minutes in a playoff series, however, you can't expect that out of them, for a full 82 game season w/o burn out.

If Doc was coaching this team and the 2008 version of Pierce was on it, opponents would be running double teams on Pierce, non-stop, because Doc wouldn't trust anyone else to handle the play. The entire team would be sitting around, waiting for Pierce to make his move, having no confidence in themselves. Yes, this is key ... Doc doesn't instill confidence in anyone, outside of his key starters. In this case, it would be Pierce and perhaps, Thomas.

By the end of the season, Pierce would be gassed and during the playoffs, probably addressing pulled tendons and so forth. And then perhaps, get knocked out of the 1st round, without much contention.

[D.o.s.]

What I mean by that was that he'd consistently fall back to his starters, mainly Pierce & KG, to save the day.

You mean that he'd expect falling back to his best players would give him the best chance to win the game? Shocker!

This is, in fact, something Brad S still has to wrap his mind around (and yes, the process of him grappling around until he figures it out is mildly infuriating).

Stevens is doing actually what Doc couldn't, and that's using the entire roster, and drawing up key plays.

Of course. Using Phil Pressey is important. I mean, winning games just hinges on this team  getting the most out of Phil Pressey, right?

If I recall, the '76 squad used Glenn McDonald to win game 5 and the '87 team had Greg Kite for game 3, during the finals. Unlikely candidates, but it did happen.

So it is important to know what one's bench can do. Sure, for the most part, the starters play more minutes in a playoff series, however, you can't expect that out of them, for a full 82 game season w/o burn out.

If Doc was coaching this team and the 2008 version of Pierce was on it, opponents would be running double teams on Pierce, non-stop, because Doc wouldn't trust anyone else to handle the play. The entire team would be sitting around, waiting for Pierce to make his move, having no confidence in themselves. Yes, this is key ... Doc doesn't instill confidence in anyone, outside of his key starters. In this case, it would be Pierce and perhaps, Thomas.

By the end of the season, Pierce would be gassed and during the playoffs, probably addressing pulled tendons and so forth. And then perhaps, get knocked out of the 1st round, without much contention.

You know, it's interesting that you say that, because Doc did coach Pierce when Pierce was the only star on the team. So, uh, we actually have some idea what Doc would have done with 2008  Pierce if he was out on an island.

Baseless hyperbole doesn't make much sense here unless you're just inventing a scenario to fit your narrative.