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

[mctyson]

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

Not from college to the NBA.  Top college coaches are control freaks and often the beneficiaries of cheating NCAA rules. 

I made an argument with friends the other day that I think Stevens left to the NBA because he wanted to compete at the highest level in either the college or the pros, but the latter is only one where you can't really cheat your way to championships.  Total speculation on my part but we can all safely assume that he was contacted by many major college programs and offered plenty of money/security.

[kozlodoev]

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.

I know, you're describing the 2004-2005 Celtics. Paul Pierce played 39 minutes a game and was nothing short of spectacular (47% from the field, 35% from three, 27 ppg). That team had 33 wins and the only semblance of real NBA talent on the roster consisted of Pierce and 71 games from the Ricky Davis/Wally combo.

The moral of the story is that in the NBA, you win by maximizing your best guys, not by maximizing your scrubs. Maybe Doc "doesn't instill confidence" in your mind, but I don't remember him losing games because the end of the bench didn't light the world on fire.

[Moranis]

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.

Not really.  A lot of the college coaches get into trouble in the NBA because they get GM duties and that is vastly different.  Pitino and Calipari come to mind on that one.  Pitino is actually a great example because before Boston he had actually done it with at least fair success (providence to the knicks). 

Then you have guys like Tim Floyd which take over the Bulls the year after Jordan and Pippen left.  No one was ever going to win in that situation as those teams were terrible.  He is cited as a failure, but come on, that is a crap job. 

[TitleMaster]

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.

I know, you're describing the 2004-2005 Celtics. Paul Pierce played 39 minutes a game and was nothing short of spectacular (47% from the field, 35% from three, 27 ppg). That team had 33 wins and the only semblance of real NBA talent on the roster consisted of Pierce and 71 games from the Ricky Davis/Wally combo.

The moral of the story is that in the NBA, you win by maximizing your best guys, not by maximizing your scrubs. Maybe Doc "doesn't instill confidence" in your mind, but I don't remember him losing games because the end of the bench didn't light the world on fire.

Here's the key difference, prior to 2006, Pierce was very young, <28, very durable, and seldom got injured. When he hit the end of his 20s, he was injured for some time.

Thus, I'd say that a 2008 Pierce needed to be used more judiciously, then the younger version of him, who could win games single handily, a.k.a hero ball. That's also a part of my hypothetical scenario here. Stevens, by training and utilizing as many players as possible, Pierce's famous plays would not tax him for 40 mins x 82 games, which is nearly guaranteed to produce some sort of nagging injury even if it's just a strain.

I believe that Pierce would also flourish under Stevens because he'd have his glory moments but he won't have to do it, for the entire game w/o rest. A bunch of the times, he'd be a decoy for double teams and so-forth. That's a lot less stress then plowing through several players, just to get off a floater.

[nickagneta]

How about we save the "Brad Stevens is better than Doc Rivers as a coach" posts until sometime after Stevens has actually had a winning season in the NBA or even just after 3 winning months in a row.

I am with Moranis, I think Brad Stevens was a good coach before he got here. He's just adapted a lot better than some college coaches have because he isn't strictly a system coach and he doesn't alienate his players, which, unfortunately, a lot of college coaches that come to the NBA do. Most college coaches are married to their system and can't handle the fact that the players are the show in the NBA not the coaches. That's why they fail and probably why Stevens could be successful.

[incoherent]

On the season Brad has the 6th most efficient offense out of a time out situation, per synergy sports. All 5 coaches ahead of him are playoff bound.   Doc is one of them.

[JHTruth]

How about we save the "Brad Stevens is better than Doc Rivers as a coach" posts until sometime after Stevens has actually had a winning season in the NBA or even just after 3 winning months in a row.

I am with Moranis, I think Brad Stevens was a good coach before he got here. He's just adapted a lot better than some college coaches have because he isn't strictly a system coach and he doesn't alienate his players, which, unfortunately, a lot of college coaches that come to the NBA do. Most college coaches are married to their system and can't handle the fact that the players are the show in the NBA not the coaches. That's why they fail and probably why Stevens could be successful.

I actually think a little different in this away. I think Stevens is an exceptional systems coach. This is a team of role players that punches above its weight. It's only because of the Stevens system. It remains to be seen what happens if Stevens ever gets serious talent that can create offense without the "system".

Or he could adapt a new offense to the NBA like the triangle or something. But I think Stevens strengths as a coach are a great fit for the personnel.

[JHTruth]

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.

Defenses tighten up considerably in the closing moments of games. Stars win or lose those games in the NBA

[TitleMaster]

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.

Defenses tighten up considerably in the closing moments of games. Stars win or lose those games in the NBA

Yes, however, he still needs fresh legs in the closing minutes, if he wants to go iso. The issue is that the opponent is expecting it and is prepped for the iso whereas having a coach, who can mix things up, would make it a lot easier for Pierce to score.

I actually think a little different in this away. I think Stevens is an exceptional systems coach. This is a team of role players that punches above its weight. It's only because of the Stevens system. It remains to be seen what happens if Stevens ever gets serious talent that can create offense without the "system".

Or he could adapt a new offense to the NBA like the triangle or something. But I think Stevens strengths as a coach are a great fit for the personnel.

Even if/when he adapts a triangle (or some other strategy), at some point in time, a star player will foul out (or get a pulled hamstring), and then, someone else needs to step up. If that other person was poorly utilized, for much of the season, chances are, that person won't show up in the end, unlike what Glenn McDonald did back in '76.

McDonald was clearly below the more famous Celtics players like Chaney, Scott, Nelson, JoJo, Hondo, Silas, and Cowens, however, he'd showed up because one, he was young, ~23, and was arriving with fresh legs when everyone else was beat by the 3rd OT but also, he had playing experience of some 13+ minutes per game during the regular '76 season but wasn't highly utilized during the playoff, until it was his moment to shine.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mcdongl01.html

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

yet we had people wanting CBS fired this year. 

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

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.

doc was a buffoon

[Celts Fan 508]

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.

JPotter is 100000% correct, joining a new league with new rules and new players and not being able to recruit players to fit your style is much much different.  Stevens has shown an innate ability to adapt his style to fit the players on his team. 

[JHTruth]

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.

doc was a buffoon

Come on man the guy won one title and was on the brink of a second. Stevens might get us the 8 seed. Settle down..

[Ogaju]

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.

doc was a buffoon

Come on man the guy won one title and was on the brink of a second. Stevens might get us the 8 seed. Settle down..

would not call him a buffoon, but he sure was a plastic front running traitor.

[SHAQATTACK]

I'm telling Danny ....ah ah ....

CBS ..said a cuss word ...

Or

Fifty

Hee hee hee