CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics History => Topic started by: TitleMaster on June 16, 2014, 09:30:01 PM
-
Here's how history changes, during the KG era ...
2008 finals, clearly, Kobe ball loses and there's no needed game 4 comeback, nor the let up in game 5, as the C's handily beat the Lakers, 4-1. This is the best bench in the NBA and Pops uses every one of them well.
2009, yes, we beat the Magic and advance but lose to the Lakers 4-1, however, with a healthy KG/Powe, it's a full 7 games against the Lakers, no definitive winner as the Lakers have moved away from Kobe ball and is now a full team effort. I still think the Lakers can pull that one out, as Ariza/Odom were playing like there's no tomorrow.
2010 finals, we beat the Lakers in 6. Sorry, but the '10 Lakers were not the same team as the prior year. We start by winning game one and then, the Phil Jackson curse is waived. Six games in total.
2011, with Miami disposed of, the C's beat the Mavs in 7.
So there you have it, 3 titles in 4 years.
And why Pops couldn't do it with the Spurs in the west is that during that time period, they were highly dependent upon a healthy Ginobili, to be a Paul Pierce during Q4, a.k.a. sixth man closer. Well, Manu was injured more often than not (plus aging) and finally, the Spurs had grown additional talent, not to have to do that, these past couple of seasons, making 'em a much more versatile team. In contrast, under Doc, the C's seldom worked on their bench, despite having players who could shave the minutes from Pierce and Garnett.
-
Ok, only a year ago, this thread would have invited the Doc Rivers supporters, to validate all those Celtics wins and losses, during the KG era.
Today, I suspect that many Doc fans have felt betrayed and no longer believe that Rivers was as great as he'd thought that he was.
Personally, I believe that Doc simply drove the starters into their NBA graves, not too distinct from K.C. Jones, when the starting five of Bird/Chief/McHale/DJ/Ainge played most of the minutes during those years with minimal bench rotation, outside of the Walton title in '86.
In contrast to the Bird era, the KG/Pierce run, always had better subs available but yet, Doc did not know how to use them, w/o losing the lead, in countless games. In the end, the strategy was something akin to the Jim O'Brien era, get the ball to Paul (or Kevin), and get out of the way.
This is why that '08 title, took so many games. Clearly, there was no team, better than the C's that year, in terms of the starters and the bench. Sure, biased refs, etc, had helped LeBron and Kobe, but let's be real, their supporting casts were a joke, in contrast to the Celtics.
-
The commas make your posts sound like poetry.
While I agree, I wouldn't dock Doc Tommy Points for what he did with us. If doing what Pop did was easy, then everyone would be the Spurs.
-
Ok, only a year ago, this thread would have invited the Doc Rivers supporters, to validate all those Celtics wins and losses, during the KG era.
Today, I suspect that many Doc fans have felt betrayed and no longer believe that Rivers was as great as he'd thought that he was.
Personally, I believe that Doc simply drove the starters into their NBA graves, not too distinct from K.C. Jones, when the starting five of Bird/Chief/McHale/DJ/Ainge played most of the minutes during those years with minimal bench rotation, outside of the Walton title in '86.
In contrast to the Bird era, the KG/Pierce run, always had better subs available but yet, Doc did not know how to use them, w/o losing the lead, in countless games. In the end, the strategy was something akin to the Jim O'Brien era, get the ball to Paul (or Kevin), and get out of the way.
This is why that '08 title, took so many games. Clearly, there was no team, better than the C's that year, in terms of the starters and the bench. Sure, biased refs, etc, had helped LeBron and Kobe, but let's be real, their supporting casts were a joke, in contrast to the Celtics.
Back in the 1980's, especially prior to 1985, who was there on the Celts bench who could
have come in and made any kind of positive contribution? Heck, back in the 1970's we used
to yell at Heinsohn for playing Big Red way too many minutes given his chronic back condition. But who was behind him? Finkel, Ard?
-
We have a young Pops here in Brad Stevens now.
-
We have a young Pops here in Brad Stevens now.
He could be a Larry Brown type as well. Larry Brown was a great teacher and Brad Stevens seems to put an emphasis on teaching. Here is to hoping he doesn't move around like Larry Brown.
-
We have a young Pops here in Brad Stevens now.
He could be a Larry Brown type as well. Larry Brown was a great teacher and Brad Stevens seems to put an emphasis on teaching. Here is to hoping he doesn't move around like Larry Brown.
Larry Brown led the 04 Pistons, too.
-
Back in the 1980's, especially prior to 1985, who was there on the Celts bench who could
have come in and made any kind of positive contribution? Heck, back in the 1970's we used
to yell at Heinsohn for playing Big Red way too many minutes given his chronic back condition. But who was behind him? Finkel, Ard?
Well that's a part of the point, KC had very little depth, during the Bird era, minus the Walton year in '86 and the 'Hop on My Back' year in 84 w/ Max.
-
I don't deny Doc is a great coach, one of the best in the league, however, Pop is another level. He is a lot better in utilizing every last player on his roster and developing them and also probably one of the best in time management.
Had Pop been our coach instead of Doc, we would easily squeeze 2 chips instead of 1. Arguably we could also grab one more.
With him as our coach, KG may or may not be injured in that Utah game as I ALWAYS felt Doc relies on his stars TOO much (not saying Doc doesn't use rookies or whatnot).
-
The commas make your posts sound like poetry.
While I agree, I wouldn't dock Doc Tommy Points for what he did with us. If doing what Pop did was easy, then everyone would be the Spurs.
Well ... here's part of why I'm not so Doc friendly, in general.
During the '08 title run, Kobe would chastise his teammates, telling 'em to feed him the ball, and then, he could initiate the play. In other words, Kobe drives and finds the open man. In a nutshell, that was the Laker's identity.
And yet, despite that insulting motif of a one man showboat team, we'd kept losing leads and managed to win games 2 & 4, given our extreme depth (game 2 was Powe on fire & game 4 was the Posey/House defensive-offense explosion matrix) and that fact that Tib's was our defensive specialist.
And finally, the Lakers got in that game 5 win, also based upon us letting up, and trying to catch up in the end.
Thus, the Lakers didn't make it a series by Jackson's alleged coaching but by the fact that Kobe ball was working, when a better C's coach could have shutdown that jerk & his 'all about me' game in 5, much easier.
And then, in '09, the above had changed and the '09 Lakers squad was much more of a team on a mission with some serious depth and not Kobe's b*tches.
-
Funny that you excuse Pop's loss in 09-10 to Manu's health, but don't consider KG/Rondo/Ray/Perk being banged up for the Finals.
Manu was great that year, the fact that they had Richard Jefferson playing 34 MPG and giving them nothing was the problem.
If you're going to be Harry Turtledove and write alternate history you should probably actually look at what happened that year instead of just making something up.
Also the idea that Boston had superior benches is strange to me. That's the roster area we've always lacked the most in. 09-10 was probably the best bench year for the C's, one of the reasons they made it so far. That was hurt by the fact that KG wasn't right yet, he was a much stronger player in 10-11 despite the shorter playoff run.
-
And yet, despite that insulting motif of a one man showboat team, we'd kept losing leads and managed to win games 2 & 4, given our extreme depth (game 2 was Powe on fire & game 4 was the Posey/House defensive-offense explosion matrix) and that fact that Tib's was our defensive specialist.
Extreme depth?
Powe played 1 good game, after that he got minutes and did absolutely nothing that series to the point Doc had to pull him.
Our depth in 07-08 was Posey, House, Cassel, 40 year old PJ Brown, Powe, and Glen Davis. That's not an impressive bench by any means. Posey was the only high level well rounded player among the bunch. House/Powe had one elite skill that the provided but had to be covered up for defensively and offensively when not doing their one thing. (shooting and offensive board crashing)
I understand that Pop's a great coach, but the idea that he'd suddenly turn that crew into a bunch of world beating difference makers is nuts. It took the Spurs years to create their balanced team, and they've cycled through a lot of players looking for the great group.
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
And the legend of Popovich has grown so wildly that he is now imagined to do things that he's never accomplished in his career, i.e. win three championships in four years.
-
The title year had Posey, House, Powe, Big Baby, Brown, Cassell, & T Allen.
In contrast, Larry Bird had Thirdkill, Carlisle, Kite, Carr, Buckner, & sometimes uninjured Wedman.
The 2008 bench alone, as a team, could wipe up many of Bird's supporting cast. That's depth at every position.
The Laker's best sub was Odom and in '08, Odom did not show up. Plus, Ariza was injured. The following year, these guys made a staggering comeback, albeit for a new contract ;)
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
-
That '09 team wasn't getting by the Cavs in the conference finals. That Celtics team was running of fumes, bubble gum, and duct tape by the end of that Orlando series. The fact that the Celtics even pushed it to 7 games was a testament to that teams's fortitude & mental toughness sans KG. They certainly weren't going down without putting up a fight.
Celtics wouldn't have lasted past Cleveland. The ironic thing is that Orlando winning that conference semi against us cost the Cleveland a legit title shot and a Lebron/Kobe final. That Orlando squad was a terrible matchup for the Cavs.
-
The Laker's best sub was Odom and in '08, Odom did not show up. Plus, Ariza was injured. The following year, these guys made a staggering comeback, albeit for a new contract ;)
Man having a bench player who averages 14 and 10 in the playoffs sure is not showing up.
Especially compared to his 12 and 9 next year (in 5 less minutes) and his 9 and 9 next year (in 9 less minutes)
Of course he was starting in 08 hence the additional minutes and numbers, but Odom was darn consistent for the Lakers during their run. His minutes regularized numbers are all pretty much the same.
-
That '09 team wasn't getting by the Cavs in the conference finals. That Celtics team was running of fumes, bubble gum, and duct tape by the end of that Orlando series. The fact that the Celtics even pushed it to 7 games was a testament to that teams's fortitude & mental toughness sans KG. They certainly weren't going down without putting up a fight.
Celtics wouldn't have lasted past Cleveland. The ironic thing is that Orlando winning that conference semi against us cost the Cleveland a legit title shot and a Lebron/Kobe final. That Orlando squad was a terrible matchup for the Cavs.
Our go to backup big man was Brian Scalabrine!!!
Scalabrine didn't play a single minute the year before in the playoffs and barely played in 09-10!
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
And the legend of Popovich has grown so wildly that he is now imagined to do things that he's never accomplished in his career, i.e. win three championships in four years.
If Greg Popovich coached every team in the NBA at the same time, they would all go 82-0 and win the championship.
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
Agreed. That's why its fun.
I think Doc's definitely shown that he has a long way to go to match San Antonio's talent analysis -- looking at his maneuvers as GM this season shows that.
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
Agreed. That's why its fun.
I think Doc's definitely shown that he has a long way to go to match San Antonio's talent analysis -- looking at his maneuvers as GM this season shows that.
I don't know, Pop's screwed up on that front plenty.
Remember how they traded for and gave a big extension to Richard Jefferson?
-
After '07
In terms of star power
KG = Duncan
Pierce > Ginobili, esp after '06 when Manu was injury prone & not near PP's level as a closer
Ray+Rondo > Parker + any of their extras
Ok, now weave in Perks, Tony Allen, Posey, House ...
Now, don't you think that Pops would have Pierce all ready for that famous Q4, where if the game's close, that PP can pull off one of his miracles?
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
Agreed. That's why its fun.
I think Doc's definitely shown that he has a long way to go to match San Antonio's talent analysis -- looking at his maneuvers as GM this season shows that.
I don't know, Pop's screwed up on that front plenty.
Remember how they traded for and gave a big extension to Richard Jefferson?
No. You can't make me. I believe in the purity of the Popovich.
-
Ok, here's my guarantee... give me a time machine and I'll swap Paul Pierce for Manu Ginobili.
Then, Pops gets to coach Duncan, Pierce, & Parker. Then, I'll say that the Spurs win the west, for many of those years, 2008 till today.
-
Then, Pops gets to coach Duncan, Pierce, & Parker. Then, I'll say that the Spurs win the west, for many of those years, 2008 till today.
Let me illustrate how this works.
The clock is ticking... it's the final possession of the game. Parker hands it to Pierce. Paul dribbles, makes a drive, defenders descend upon the Truth. Pierce dishes to Tony. Paul clears his opponents, Parker now bolts it back to Paul, perfect pick & roll execution! Pierce goes for the jumper. It's no good. Hold it! Duncan with the rebound and slams it down!
The Spurs win and advance to the NBA finals. What a team!
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
Agreed. That's why its fun.
I think Doc's definitely shown that he has a long way to go to match San Antonio's talent analysis -- looking at his maneuvers as GM this season shows that.
well then going back to '08 both teams have 2 finals appearances and 1 championship to show for it. case closed. that was fun.
-
I think Pop is a good coach andslightly better than Doc. I think Doc is a good coach too. Arguments could be made that they are only as good as their players but Pop has won in three decades and has stood the test of time. Pop is better X and Os though Doc draws mean plays after time outs. But Doc ran his guys into ground, Pop is better at preserving his players. That is not to say Doc is bad, he is not but I think Pop is better. Both are superb motivators and communicators to their team. I think Pop is slightly better at developing young guys than Doc who always didn't use or trust them.
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
Agreed. That's why its fun.
I think Doc's definitely shown that he has a long way to go to match San Antonio's talent analysis -- looking at his maneuvers as GM this season shows that.
well then going back to '08 both teams have 2 finals appearances and 1 championship to show for it. case closed. that was fun.
What a debbie downer.
-
Pop is better X and Os though Doc draws mean plays after time outs. But Doc ran his guys into ground, Pop is better at preserving his players. That is not to say Doc is bad, he is not but I think Pop is better. Both are superb motivators and communicators to their team. I think Pop is slightly better at developing young guys than Doc who always didn't use or trust them.
In my Paul Pierce switch example, isn't that essentially what Doc did to PP? Think about it, Pierce is possibly the most durable swingman in the league. He's clearly the most dangerous man on the court, given proper rest & a supporting cast.
In Q4, a properly rested PP will draw the better defenders and passing out to Parker will force opponents to take Parker seriously, as he's not afraid to shoot. In Doc's world, however, Pierce having already played 40+ mins, will probably get the ball stolen, if he attempts that in Doc's court or worse, have Rondo toss a brick, since it's highly likely that KG won't be down low to accept a pass.
-
The counterfactual hubris assumed in this thread is silly.
the whole premise is silly.
Agreed. That's why its fun.
I think Doc's definitely shown that he has a long way to go to match San Antonio's talent analysis -- looking at his maneuvers as GM this season shows that.
well then going back to '08 both teams have 2 finals appearances and 1 championship to show for it. case closed. that was fun.
What a debbie downer.
I don't think we're going to find many here that would take doc over pop.
-
Don't/didn't Pop and Doc both have a big say in how their teams are built?
That's why I think Pop saying "screw it, we're reinventing ourselves" truly separated him from Doc.
Pop recently had this to say about 3 pointers:
I hate it.
Contrast this with Doc, who wasn't willing to use advanced stats:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--in-nba-s-new-era--celtics--brad-stevens-is-the-changing-face-of-coaches-071340647.html Celtics GM Danny Ainge leans heavily on his analytics staff, and at a meeting with Doc Rivers at season's end, it was suggested Rivers should perhaps incorporate more of those elements into his game plans and preparations, several sources told Y! Sports.
Privately, Rivers winced over the contents of some of the discussion, sources said. There was no confrontation, but there was tension.
In response to the new age, perhaps more contrived brand, of basketball, Pop has accepted that he must change. No more revolving your entire strategy around the post. Pop has somewhat deconstructed new age basketball. The popular team defense Thibs invented and practically all good teams are using now - Pop has used that against other teams.
Edit: URL
-
Don't/didn't Pop and Doc both have a big say in how their teams are built?
That's why I think Pop saying "screw it, we're reinventing ourselves" truly separated him from Doc.
Pop recently had this to say about 3 pointers:
I hate it.
Contrast this with Doc, who wasn't willing to use advanced stats:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--in-nba-s-new-era--celtics--brad-stevens-is-the-changing-face-of-coaches-071340647.html Celtics GM Danny Ainge leans heavily on his analytics staff, and at a meeting with Doc Rivers at season's end, it was suggested Rivers should perhaps incorporate more of those elements into his game plans and preparations, several sources told Y! Sports.
Privately, Rivers winced over the contents of some of the discussion, sources said. There was no confrontation, but there was tension.
In response to the new age, perhaps more contrived brand, of basketball, Pop has accepted that he must change. No more revolving your entire strategy around the post. Pop has somewhat deconstructed new age basketball. The popular team defense Thibs invented and practically all good teams are using now - Pop has used that against other teams.
Edit: URL
People have been responding to Thib's defensive schemes since he was with the Knicks, and Miami doesn't really run a version of the Boston/Chicago style D anyway, nor do many teams in the West.