Poll

Given the circumstances surrounding each team as described below and assuming that the coaches stay with their respective teams, who do you realistically think will win a championship first?

Doc with the Clippers
10 (22.7%)
Brad with the Celtics
34 (77.3%)

Total Members Voted: 44

Author Topic: Between Doc (Clippers) & Brad (Boston), who will win a championship first?  (Read 23120 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Also here are the ESPN expert picks from that series (9 of 10 had the Lakers).

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/05/celtics-return-to-finals

Vegas had the Lakers as a 2-1 favorite.

I don't blame them. No one knew the BIG THREE could overcome the coaching of Doc Rivers. The Celtics were saved by 'forced adjustments'.

Rivers was forced by injuries and fouls to play folks that would have never seen the court, and they delivered in spades.

Good heavens, are you still trying to win?

What other coach has gotten more out of Rajon Rondo, one of the toughest players to coach in the league? Who turned Perk from doughboy scrub to championship Center?

Who else had PP and Ray Allen playing elite defense? Who was James Posey before 2008? He made the careers of BBD and Thibs.

Guy is a great coach, and some of the people on this thread are RIDICULOUS.
You would think such a great coach would be able to better Vinny Del Negro in LA, but it's not happening so far. And there's nothing to say Vinny couldn't have improved the team had he stayed.

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Ok. While we're engaging in revisionism and then asking people to look up links to support said revisionism let's talk about reality for a minute.

Yes sometimes Vegas screws up. They thought Brady would lose a few Super Bowls too.

Yes there is a link here where four out of five guys thought the other team in the finals had a better bench.  I'm not sure how "the other team in the finals has a better bench" suddenly equates to "not stacked".

The Celts had three all stars. One of which was widely considered one of the best players in the game, the other was one of the best shooters that ever lived. Is that common? Is it common for teams to have three top notch all stars? Were they not considered to be in the mix for the championship? Did it really surprise people when they went to the finals?

In the mean time does this mean we all consider Spoelstra a great coach? I mean look at what he had to work with. Just three all stars, but look at his bench and pg position. How can a guy be expected to win a ring with Mario Chalmers and Norris Cole? Udonis Haslem as one of your best bigs? I mean how did he do it? And he won two rings and went to two finals. So he must be like twice the coach Doc is, right? Nobody could expect him to have done what he did.
try this CB link. The third post down has the link to the Ryan article I remembered as well as a couple others

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=19304.msg301949#msg301949

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Ok. While we're engaging in revisionism and then asking people to look up links to support said revisionism let's talk about reality for a minute.

Yes sometimes Vegas screws up. They thought Brady would lose a few Super Bowls too.

Yes there is a link here where four out of five guys thought the other team in the finals had a better bench.  I'm not sure how "the other team in the finals has a better bench" suddenly equates to "not stacked".

The Celts had three all stars. One of which was widely considered one of the best players in the game, the other was one of the best shooters that ever lived. Is that common? Is it common for teams to have three top notch all stars? Were they not considered to be in the mix for the championship? Did it really surprise people when they went to the finals?

In the mean time does this mean we all consider Spoelstra a great coach? I mean look at what he had to work with. Just three all stars, but look at his bench and pg position. How can a guy be expected to win a ring with Mario Chalmers and Norris Cole? Udonis Haslem as one of your best bigs? I mean how did he do it? And he won two rings and went to two finals. So he must be like twice the coach Doc is, right? Nobody could expect him to have done what he did.


But wait a second. They're moving the goal posts to a real actual place, instead of an imaginary one right? I mean they're putting the goal posts to where they are supposed to be instead of a revised position on the field in order to increase scoring or something I assume.

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3181
  • Tommy Points: 496
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
Also here are the ESPN expert picks from that series (9 of 10 had the Lakers).

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/05/celtics-return-to-finals

Vegas had the Lakers as a 2-1 favorite.

I don't blame them. No one knew the BIG THREE could overcome the coaching of Doc Rivers. The Celtics were saved by 'forced adjustments'.

Rivers was forced by injuries and fouls to play folks that would have never seen the court, and they delivered in spades.

Good heavens, are you still trying to win?

What other coach has gotten more out of Rajon Rondo, one of the toughest players to coach in the league? Who turned Perk from doughboy scrub to championship Center?

Who else had PP and Ray Allen playing elite defense? Who was James Posey before 2008? He made the careers of BBD and Thibs.

Guy is a great coach, and some of the people on this thread are RIDICULOUS.
He may have helped big baby come along, but Doc should be thanking Thibs, not the other way around
I trust Danny Ainge

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Ok. While we're engaging in revisionism and then asking people to look up links to support said revisionism let's talk about reality for a minute.

Yes sometimes Vegas screws up. They thought Brady would lose a few Super Bowls too.

Yes there is a link here where four out of five guys thought the other team in the finals had a better bench.  I'm not sure how "the other team in the finals has a better bench" suddenly equates to "not stacked".

The Celts had three all stars. One of which was widely considered one of the best players in the game, the other was one of the best shooters that ever lived. Is that common? Is it common for teams to have three top notch all stars? Were they not considered to be in the mix for the championship? Did it really surprise people when they went to the finals?

In the mean time does this mean we all consider Spoelstra a great coach? I mean look at what he had to work with. Just three all stars, but look at his bench and pg position. How can a guy be expected to win a ring with Mario Chalmers and Norris Cole? Udonis Haslem as one of your best bigs? I mean how did he do it? And he won two rings and went to two finals. So he must be like twice the coach Doc is, right? Nobody could expect him to have done what he did.
try this CB link. The third post down has the link to the Ryan article I remembered as well as a couple others

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=19304.msg301949#msg301949
Ok. Wait a second. Hold on. I am fine with admitting that Bob Ryan wasn't on board with heading to the finals at first before Posey and PJ B was added and before anyone had seen Glen Davis play.
The quote was before and during the season. I think during the season it became pretty clear they were a very good team.

But even then I don't think we should put a lot of stock in something that Bob Ryan wrote that was clearly wrong. I mean it was sorta like "The Titanic is unsinkable" type wrong and it was wrong at the time. It's based on Bob Ryan's flawed understanding of the league remembering when the Celts won rings with about a million Hall of Famers on the bench before expansion when the league became very very star centric. One had only to look at teams like the Bulls with their three stars to see that the Celts were going to be very competitive. 

Offline celts10

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 543
  • Tommy Points: 25
Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if it has been mentioned, but prior to the Big Three, Doc never won a playoff series correct? I still think there was enormous pressure on him for the whole 07-08 season. And once the Hawks series was getting to 7 games, he must have felt like he was going to have a heart attack.

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
The point is many people felt before that season that the Celtics after the Big Three wasn't very good, which is what I said and shows that Doc a Rivers probably had something to do with that team going from being The Big Three and leftovers to what some are now claiming was a stacked team from the very beginning that Doc couldn't help but win with.

Lots of pundits had major doubts about the C's after Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

I will accept your apology for calling my view revisionist now. Obviously some of us has better memories of that time than others

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
Ok. While we're engaging in revisionism and then asking people to look up links to support said revisionism let's talk about reality for a minute.

Yes sometimes Vegas screws up. They thought Brady would lose a few Super Bowls too.

Yes there is a link here where four out of five guys thought the other team in the finals had a better bench.  I'm not sure how "the other team in the finals has a better bench" suddenly equates to "not stacked".


I'm not sure you know what "revisionism" means.

The Lakers were heavy favorites in that series, and the benches were viewed as being roughly equal. You can't dispute those statements because they are facts in the historical record. ESPN's experts thought the Lakers would win and viewed the benches as comparable. Bettors thought the Lakers would win.

That's not revisionist history. It's just history.

Your claiming after the fact that things were different from what the record shows, arguing that "Vegas was wrong" and that the consensus thinking of experts at the time should be ignored because of how things turned out later? THAT is revisionism.

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
The point is many people felt before that season that the Celtics after the Big Three wasn't very good, which is what I said and shows that Doc a Rivers probably had something to do with that team going from being The Big Three and leftovers to what some are now claiming was a stacked team from the very beginning that Doc couldn't help but win with.

Lots of pundits had major doubts about the C's after Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

I will accept your apology for calling my view revisionist now. Obviously some of us has better memories of that time than others
You said that "many" "pundits" "before and during the season" did not consider the Celtics "stacked". I think that's revisionism. If you want to say something more like "Some long time NBA analysts weren't so sure of the Celtics as a championship contender in the immediate aftermath of assembling the big three" I'd go along with that.  That's tremendously different from what you said, which was revisionism. Be responsible for what you say.

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Ok. While we're engaging in revisionism and then asking people to look up links to support said revisionism let's talk about reality for a minute.

Yes sometimes Vegas screws up. They thought Brady would lose a few Super Bowls too.

Yes there is a link here where four out of five guys thought the other team in the finals had a better bench.  I'm not sure how "the other team in the finals has a better bench" suddenly equates to "not stacked".


I'm not sure you know what "revisionism" means.

The Lakers were heavy favorites in that series, and the benches were viewed as being roughly equal. You can't dispute those statements because they are facts in the historical record. ESPN's experts thought the Lakers would win and viewed the benches as comparable. Bettors thought the Lakers would win.

That's not revisionist history. It's just history.

Your claiming after the fact that things were different from what the record shows, arguing that "Vegas was wrong" and that the consensus thinking of experts at the time should be ignored because of how things turned out later? THAT is revisionism.
So because most pros thought that the Lakers would win suddenly equates to many people before and during the season not thinking the Celtics were stacked? Speaking of moving goal posts...

So what did people think of the Celts? They were just kind of a nice collection of players? They were just going to give it the ole college try? They were just going to go out there and try to compete and do their best?

This is going to be an analogy......http://www.analogyexamples.com/.....I'm sure there were people that thought Muhammed Ali was going to lose to Sonny Liston. Probably both times. That doesn't mean he was some huge underdog who must have had the greatest trainer on Earth. That just means some people at the time were horribly wrong in their analysis. 

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
The point is many people felt before that season that the Celtics after the Big Three wasn't very good, which is what I said and shows that Doc a Rivers probably had something to do with that team going from being The Big Three and leftovers to what some are now claiming was a stacked team from the very beginning that Doc couldn't help but win with.

Lots of pundits had major doubts about the C's after Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

I will accept your apology for calling my view revisionist now. Obviously some of us has better memories of that time than others
You said that "many" "pundits" "before and during the season" did not consider the Celtics "stacked". I think that's revisionism. If you want to say something more like "Some long time NBA analysts weren't so sure of the Celtics as a championship contender in the immediate aftermath of assembling the big three" I'd go along with that.  That's tremendously different from what you said, which was revisionism. Be responsible for what you say.
LOL. Ej....reread what you just wrote. You basically said the exact same thing I did only in a different way. Rephrase it any way you want but 0+4 still equals 1+3 which still equals 2+2. What you are claiming is so different is exactly the same thing.

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
The point is many people felt before that season that the Celtics after the Big Three wasn't very good, which is what I said and shows that Doc a Rivers probably had something to do with that team going from being The Big Three and leftovers to what some are now claiming was a stacked team from the very beginning that Doc couldn't help but win with.

Lots of pundits had major doubts about the C's after Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

I will accept your apology for calling my view revisionist now. Obviously some of us has better memories of that time than others
You said that "many" "pundits" "before and during the season" did not consider the Celtics "stacked". I think that's revisionism. If you want to say something more like "Some long time NBA analysts weren't so sure of the Celtics as a championship contender in the immediate aftermath of assembling the big three" I'd go along with that.  That's tremendously different from what you said, which was revisionism. Be responsible for what you say.
LOL. Ej....reread what you just wrote. You basically said the exact same thing I did only in a different way. Rephrase it any way you want but 0+4 still equals 1+3 which still equals 2+2. What you are claiming is so different is exactly the same thing.
Ok ok....Now allow MEeeee a revision.....Some long time NBA analysts weren't so sure of the Celtics as a championship contender in the immediate aftermath of assembling the big three. They were completely wrong however, as anyone who had paid attention to the NBA for the preceding 15 years could easily tell you that they were definitely stacked. Helllloooo. You plaayyy to wiiinnn the game! (I like that quote).

Ok, so technically it wasn't revisionism to say some pundits didn't consider the team stacked. Indeed some pundits questioned out loud if they were stacked as a championship contender. (Nick is NOT guilty of revisionism! EJA was wrooonngggg!).  However those pundits were completely wrong at the time and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence that Doc pulled off a great coaching job.

Phew. Glad we sorted that out.

I will admit Doc outcoached Phil in that series.

I will also admit Doc could easily be considered a better coach than a lot of coaches. He definitely brought a credibility to the Celts. I would want Doc over Vinny Del Negro for many reasons and coaching is one of them. I don't think I'd want him over Brad Stevens, even though one could make an argument that Doc has the better resume.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Much the same way you could make the argument that the Earth circles the Sun.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Offline mahcus smaht

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 577
  • Tommy Points: 4
I never liked Doc much as a coach. His most impressive feat was getting the most out of Rajon Rondo, but I mean when you have three veteran leaders like KG, Paul, and Ray, then not to mention the guys the brought in (Cassel, PJ Brown). That team was brimming with talent and veteran leadership. most coaches could have won with that group.

Im going to go with Brad, because I dont see Doc winning another. The Clippers as presently constituted are neither improving nor true championship contenders so I expect them to resign Deandre, then continue to be very good and hope it all clicks one year. The cap escalation could allow them to add another piece, but I just dont see them winning one.

Offline TitleMaster

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 980
  • Tommy Points: 117
I'm going to write the Doc vs Jackson 2008 story from a Laker's perspective.

In 2008, the LA Lakers were an underpowered team led by Kobe and Gasol. Bynum was injured, Ariza was recovering from prior injuries, and Odom was somewhat inconsistent.

On the other hand, the much despised Boston Celtics were stacked at just about every position, lead by a Hall of Fame trio of Pierce, Garnett, and Allen.

Despite all their strengths, Kobe, under Phil Jackson's direction, hassled the formidable 66 win squad to a full 6 game series, before collapsing in the game 6 closer against a much more intensive defense squad, trained by Tom Thibodeau, one the league's best defensive coordinator.

In the year which followed, the Lakers eliminated their weaknesses and played a near flawless post-season, getting the most out of Odom and Ariza, winning their first title, after Shaquille O'Neil had left the team. Unfortunately, due to injuries, the Celtics did not meet the Lakers in the finals. That would have been the re-match of the ages.

And although the 2010 finals went to the Lakers, it was a much less satisfying win as it was mainly determined from the free throw line, and not in the heat of game 5, where only Kobe was scoring and no one else. In addition, key Celtics players were injured but least the Lakers did get to see a much less effective Paul Pierce in the fourth quarter of game 7 due to the defenses of a Metta World Peace.
1. The Celtics were never considered stacked in 2008. Most pundits, said before and during the season that the Celtics bench was very weak and that their PG position was a massive point of weakness.

2. The Celtics played the same defense before and after Tom Thibodeau was associated with the team. He was a very good assistant coach but he was not solely responsible for the construction or design of that defense. He just helped in the coaching of it.

3. After the Gasol trade the Lakers were the favorite to win the tittle every year until Lebron ended up in Miami. Given they had Bynum, Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Ariza, Metta, Fisher, Farmar and some others during those years, it's pretty safe to say if you consider the Celtics stacked, LA was equally or even more stacked.

First of all, I know Lakers fans in the Boston to NYC corridor, mostly transplants (who were not these media bandwagon types nor homers), but had nagging doubts about the Lakers.

Here were some of their worries that year ...

1) Gasol appeared to be a soft player, lacked defensive intensity,  and was new to the Lakers system. It was speculated that it would take him a year to make the adjustment.
2) Radmanovic vs Pierce was considered a mismatch. And these were ppl who'd watch Pierce play and destroy the Lakers, during the regular season prior to the KG era. This was a glaring concern on their minds. Everyone knows that the moniker, *The Truth*, came from Shaq during one of those outings.
3) Bynum was injured which put a huge whole in the middle.
4) Ariza, being a top hustle player, was recovering from injuries.
5) Fisher was getting old
6) Odom didn't always show up and probably had issues, working with Kobe.

Now, with the above stated, educated Lakers fans were not all that confident that Kobe, as both, the key playmaker and scorer, could handle a team with 3 HoF all stars and a solid supporting cast, without at least splitting the first two contests. Yes, they had their doubts before the series started.

Plus, the arrival of Metta World Peace was in 2010, not earlier.

Parts of my hypothetical narrative above is reflected in some of their IMs back in those days.