Author Topic: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20  (Read 59693 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #300 on: February 21, 2012, 02:05:23 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Who were the rookies that Doc didn't play and then went to prove they deserved playing time once they moved to another coach?

Doc's record is pretty obvious: if a rookie has talent, Doc will eventually find playing time for him. If he lacks talent or isn't ready, he won't play.

What's the problem with this? Seems perfect to me.
There is way too much logic in this post. Please Simplify so that even I can understand.

Wait. Its so simple even an idiot like me can understand. Doc didn't play players because.....

THEY WEREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO EARN PLAYING TIME!!!!!!

WOW!!!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

When Perkins, Rondo, Walker, Giddens, Erden, Harangody, Pruitt, Giddens,Johnson, and Moore didn't get time its because THEY WEREN'T BETTER THAN THE GUY IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE ROTATION!!!!


  I don't think this is completely true, but for a lot of those players I'd agree. In some of our worse years he was coaching/developing some players and not others. By this I mean, for example, Doc was trying to develop Perk and Al. He'd put them in games when they were doing what he wanted and take them out when they weren't. Skippy and Raef weren't out on the court because they were the better players, more that someone had to be on the court when he took out Perk and Al.

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #301 on: February 21, 2012, 02:16:08 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
Who were the rookies that Doc didn't play and then went to prove they deserved playing time once they moved to another coach?

Doc's record is pretty obvious: if a rookie has talent, Doc will eventually find playing time for him. If he lacks talent or isn't ready, he won't play.

What's the problem with this? Seems perfect to me.
There is way too much logic in this post. Please Simplify so that even I can understand.

Wait. Its so simple even an idiot like me can understand. Doc didn't play players because.....

THEY WEREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO EARN PLAYING TIME!!!!!!

WOW!!!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

When Perkins, Rondo, Walker, Giddens, Erden, Harangody, Pruitt, Giddens,Johnson, and Moore didn't get time its because THEY WEREN'T BETTER THAN THE GUY IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE ROTATION!!!!


  I don't think this is completely true, but for a lot of those players I'd agree. In some of our worse years he was coaching/developing some players and not others. By this I mean, for example, Doc was trying to develop Perk and Al. He'd put them in games when they were doing what he wanted and take them out when they weren't. Skippy and Raef weren't out on the court because they were the better players, more that someone had to be on the court when he took out Perk and Al.

The flip side is also true in that Doc will let veterans play on when their production or even effort is poor or erratic.  Look at 'Sheed a couple years ago or how consistantly atrocious 'Quis had to be this year before Doc consigned him to the bench.

Mike

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #302 on: February 21, 2012, 02:23:31 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
Who were the rookies that Doc didn't play and then went to prove they deserved playing time once they moved to another coach?

Doc's record is pretty obvious: if a rookie has talent, Doc will eventually find playing time for him. If he lacks talent or isn't ready, he won't play.

What's the problem with this? Seems perfect to me.
There is way too much logic in this post. Please Simplify so that even I can understand.

Wait. Its so simple even an idiot like me can understand. Doc didn't play players because.....

THEY WEREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO EARN PLAYING TIME!!!!!!

WOW!!!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

When Perkins, Rondo, Walker, Giddens, Erden, Harangody, Pruitt, Giddens,Johnson, and Moore didn't get time its because THEY WEREN'T BETTER THAN THE GUY IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE ROTATION!!!!


  I don't think this is completely true, but for a lot of those players I'd agree. In some of our worse years he was coaching/developing some players and not others. By this I mean, for example, Doc was trying to develop Perk and Al. He'd put them in games when they were doing what he wanted and take them out when they weren't. Skippy and Raef weren't out on the court because they were the better players, more that someone had to be on the court when he took out Perk and Al.

The flip side is also true in that Doc will let veterans play on when their production or even effort is poor or erratic.  Look at 'Sheed a couple years ago or how consistantly atrocious 'Quis had to be this year before Doc consigned him to the bench.

Mike

Yeah, I think the bigger issue is that Doc sticks with veterans he trusts long after they are no longer really producing.

Maybe the young players behind them are scrubs, or maybe not.  But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Yes, we've been in win-now mode in recent years, but part of what you have to do to win-now with a super old team is find ways to cut down minutes in the regular season and win even though you're playing some of the deeper bench guys (young players) longer minutes.  Otherwise, your team runs out of gas (which has been the Celtics problem for a long time).
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #303 on: February 21, 2012, 02:34:55 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Who were the rookies that Doc didn't play and then went to prove they deserved playing time once they moved to another coach?

Doc's record is pretty obvious: if a rookie has talent, Doc will eventually find playing time for him. If he lacks talent or isn't ready, he won't play.

What's the problem with this? Seems perfect to me.
There is way too much logic in this post. Please Simplify so that even I can understand.

Wait. Its so simple even an idiot like me can understand. Doc didn't play players because.....

THEY WEREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO EARN PLAYING TIME!!!!!!

WOW!!!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

When Perkins, Rondo, Walker, Giddens, Erden, Harangody, Pruitt, Giddens,Johnson, and Moore didn't get time its because THEY WEREN'T BETTER THAN THE GUY IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE ROTATION!!!!


  I don't think this is completely true, but for a lot of those players I'd agree. In some of our worse years he was coaching/developing some players and not others. By this I mean, for example, Doc was trying to develop Perk and Al. He'd put them in games when they were doing what he wanted and take them out when they weren't. Skippy and Raef weren't out on the court because they were the better players, more that someone had to be on the court when he took out Perk and Al.

The flip side is also true in that Doc will let veterans play on when their production or even effort is poor or erratic.  Look at 'Sheed a couple years ago or how consistantly atrocious 'Quis had to be this year before Doc consigned him to the bench.

Mike

  Hasn't Marquis basically been on the bench since we brought in Pietrus?

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #304 on: February 21, 2012, 02:42:05 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
Who were the rookies that Doc didn't play and then went to prove they deserved playing time once they moved to another coach?

Doc's record is pretty obvious: if a rookie has talent, Doc will eventually find playing time for him. If he lacks talent or isn't ready, he won't play.

What's the problem with this? Seems perfect to me.
There is way too much logic in this post. Please Simplify so that even I can understand.

Wait. Its so simple even an idiot like me can understand. Doc didn't play players because.....

THEY WEREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO EARN PLAYING TIME!!!!!!

WOW!!!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

When Perkins, Rondo, Walker, Giddens, Erden, Harangody, Pruitt, Giddens,Johnson, and Moore didn't get time its because THEY WEREN'T BETTER THAN THE GUY IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE ROTATION!!!!


  I don't think this is completely true, but for a lot of those players I'd agree. In some of our worse years he was coaching/developing some players and not others. By this I mean, for example, Doc was trying to develop Perk and Al. He'd put them in games when they were doing what he wanted and take them out when they weren't. Skippy and Raef weren't out on the court because they were the better players, more that someone had to be on the court when he took out Perk and Al.

The flip side is also true in that Doc will let veterans play on when their production or even effort is poor or erratic.  Look at 'Sheed a couple years ago or how consistantly atrocious 'Quis had to be this year before Doc consigned him to the bench.

Mike

  Hasn't Marquis basically been on the bench since we brought in Pietrus?


Nope.  His minutes went down a bit but Doc basically kept playing 'Quis until the last month and he was probably the second worst player on the team, outsucked only by Bradley's early season awfulness.

Mike

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #305 on: February 21, 2012, 05:08:33 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Here's the thing. Doc and Danny don't care if we find out if they have NBA skills or not because they can see them in games and practice and in the locker room and they know whether they have NBA skills or not based on what they see.

Remember, we don't have the Celtics playbook or know if the players are doing exactly what they are taught or not or if they a problem in the locker room or not. We don't know if they are intelligent or morons.

But Danny and Doc do. And, based on the amount of young players that started here and then went onto other clubs and became tremendously successful, while having done nothing here or having never gotten the chance to play here, I think we should trust their judgment and ability to develop players their way.

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #306 on: February 21, 2012, 05:21:36 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Here's the thing. Doc and Danny don't care if we find out if they have NBA skills or not because they can see them in games and practice and in the locker room and they know whether they have NBA skills or not based on what they see.

Remember, we don't have the Celtics playbook or know if the players are doing exactly what they are taught or not or if they a problem in the locker room or not. We don't know if they are intelligent or morons.

But Danny and Doc do. And, based on the amount of young players that started here and then went onto other clubs and became tremendously successful, while having done nothing here or having never gotten the chance to play here, I think we should trust their judgment and ability to develop players their way.

You know, I could bring up Jeremy Lin here as the example of how NBA talent evaluators are somewhat less than perfect.  But I don't need to, because there's better example right on the Celtic roster.

Avery Bradley looked like a frickin' disaster pretty much every time he got on the court last season.  And at the start of this year, he wasn't a whole lot better.  If you'd asked anybody to evaluate Avery Bradley through the 1st 12 games of this year, "draft bust" would probably have been the most commonly used phrase.  He looked like a guy who was never, EVER going to adjust to the level of NBA basketball.  Then, Rondo and Dooling both go down and Doc is literally forced to play Bradley big minutes.  And guess what happened?  The guy who looked like he couldn't play in the league suddenly became a legitimate NBA player.  Even when he plays fewer minutes now, Bradley plays substantially better when he's on the court than the start of this season and there was absolutely NO reason to think that was ever going to come true before Bradley got a chance to play.

Players have to play.  Young players have to especially play.  Young players have to particularly play if practice time is limited.

Mike

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #307 on: February 21, 2012, 05:41:04 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Here's the thing. Doc and Danny don't care if we find out if they have NBA skills or not because they can see them in games and practice and in the locker room and they know whether they have NBA skills or not based on what they see.

Remember, we don't have the Celtics playbook or know if the players are doing exactly what they are taught or not or if they a problem in the locker room or not. We don't know if they are intelligent or morons.

But Danny and Doc do. And, based on the amount of young players that started here and then went onto other clubs and became tremendously successful, while having done nothing here or having never gotten the chance to play here, I think we should trust their judgment and ability to develop players their way.

You know, I could bring up Jeremy Lin here as the example of how NBA talent evaluators are somewhat less than perfect.  But I don't need to, because there's better example right on the Celtic roster.

Avery Bradley looked like a frickin' disaster pretty much every time he got on the court last season.  And at the start of this year, he wasn't a whole lot better.  If you'd asked anybody to evaluate Avery Bradley through the 1st 12 games of this year, "draft bust" would probably have been the most commonly used phrase.  He looked like a guy who was never, EVER going to adjust to the level of NBA basketball.  Then, Rondo and Dooling both go down and Doc is literally forced to play Bradley big minutes.  And guess what happened?  The guy who looked like he couldn't play in the league suddenly became a legitimate NBA player.  Even when he plays fewer minutes now, Bradley plays substantially better when he's on the court than the start of this season and there was absolutely NO reason to think that was ever going to come true before Bradley got a chance to play.

Players have to play.  Young players have to especially play.  Young players have to particularly play if practice time is limited.

Mike
Again, YOU judged him to be a bust. Danny and Doc never said such a thing. If anything they showed that they believed in him by giving him regular rotation minutes(9.5 MPG before Rondo's injury while playing in 12 of 13 games)straight from the beginning of the year.

Your example of Bradley is a poor one and really only goes to prove my point.

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #308 on: February 21, 2012, 05:48:37 PM »

Offline Tai

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2230
  • Tommy Points: 32
But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Here's the thing. Doc and Danny don't care if we find out if they have NBA skills or not because they can see them in games and practice and in the locker room and they know whether they have NBA skills or not based on what they see.

Remember, we don't have the Celtics playbook or know if the players are doing exactly what they are taught or not or if they a problem in the locker room or not. We don't know if they are intelligent or morons.

But Danny and Doc do. And, based on the amount of young players that started here and then went onto other clubs and became tremendously successful, while having done nothing here or having never gotten the chance to play here, I think we should trust their judgment and ability to develop players their way.

You know, I could bring up Jeremy Lin here as the example of how NBA talent evaluators are somewhat less than perfect.  But I don't need to, because there's better example right on the Celtic roster.

Avery Bradley looked like a frickin' disaster pretty much every time he got on the court last season.  And at the start of this year, he wasn't a whole lot better.  If you'd asked anybody to evaluate Avery Bradley through the 1st 12 games of this year, "draft bust" would probably have been the most commonly used phrase.  He looked like a guy who was never, EVER going to adjust to the level of NBA basketball.  Then, Rondo and Dooling both go down and Doc is literally forced to play Bradley big minutes.  And guess what happened?  The guy who looked like he couldn't play in the league suddenly became a legitimate NBA player.  Even when he plays fewer minutes now, Bradley plays substantially better when he's on the court than the start of this season and there was absolutely NO reason to think that was ever going to come true before Bradley got a chance to play.

Players have to play.  Young players have to especially play.  Young players have to particularly play if practice time is limited.

Mike

I remember earlier this season that people were wondering why Bradley was EVER getting playing time. That Moore was better and should be playing while Bradley should have been glued to the bench, and what not. Where are you getting that Doc didn't give Bradley a chance to play? Doc gave him a chance, and people didn't like what they saw. We could be saying the same about Moore and JJJ a year from now (I sure hope not).

Yes, he did get better, and Doc had faith he would get better (or was doing well enough), so he gave Bradley those minutes early in the game.

Jeremy Lin? The Celtics claimed him twice, and was beat out in waivers. So your best argument on that is that he wasn't drafted. Really, man?

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #309 on: February 21, 2012, 05:55:54 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Here's the thing. Doc and Danny don't care if we find out if they have NBA skills or not because they can see them in games and practice and in the locker room and they know whether they have NBA skills or not based on what they see.

Remember, we don't have the Celtics playbook or know if the players are doing exactly what they are taught or not or if they a problem in the locker room or not. We don't know if they are intelligent or morons.

But Danny and Doc do. And, based on the amount of young players that started here and then went onto other clubs and became tremendously successful, while having done nothing here or having never gotten the chance to play here, I think we should trust their judgment and ability to develop players their way.

You know, I could bring up Jeremy Lin here as the example of how NBA talent evaluators are somewhat less than perfect.  But I don't need to, because there's better example right on the Celtic roster.

Avery Bradley looked like a frickin' disaster pretty much every time he got on the court last season.  And at the start of this year, he wasn't a whole lot better.  If you'd asked anybody to evaluate Avery Bradley through the 1st 12 games of this year, "draft bust" would probably have been the most commonly used phrase.  He looked like a guy who was never, EVER going to adjust to the level of NBA basketball.  Then, Rondo and Dooling both go down and Doc is literally forced to play Bradley big minutes.  And guess what happened?  The guy who looked like he couldn't play in the league suddenly became a legitimate NBA player.  Even when he plays fewer minutes now, Bradley plays substantially better when he's on the court than the start of this season and there was absolutely NO reason to think that was ever going to come true before Bradley got a chance to play.

Players have to play.  Young players have to especially play.  Young players have to particularly play if practice time is limited.

Mike
Again, YOU judged him to be a bust. Danny and Doc never said such a thing. If anything they showed that they believed in him by giving him regular rotation minutes(9.5 MPG before Rondo's injury while playing in 12 of 13 games)straight from the beginning of the year.

Your example of Bradley is a poor one and really only goes to prove my point.

The point is that Bradley looked HORRIBLE on the court until he finally got a chance to get out from under Doc's thumb and just play basketball.  Bradly played like hot garbage last season.  He was playing like hot garbage early this season.  What happened to change that is that he got a chance to play more than 8 minutes a game.  That's the point.

But I realize I'm talking to a wall here.

Mike   

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #310 on: February 21, 2012, 06:02:54 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

Here's the thing. Doc and Danny don't care if we find out if they have NBA skills or not because they can see them in games and practice and in the locker room and they know whether they have NBA skills or not based on what they see.

Remember, we don't have the Celtics playbook or know if the players are doing exactly what they are taught or not or if they a problem in the locker room or not. We don't know if they are intelligent or morons.

But Danny and Doc do. And, based on the amount of young players that started here and then went onto other clubs and became tremendously successful, while having done nothing here or having never gotten the chance to play here, I think we should trust their judgment and ability to develop players their way.

You know, I could bring up Jeremy Lin here as the example of how NBA talent evaluators are somewhat less than perfect.  But I don't need to, because there's better example right on the Celtic roster.

Avery Bradley looked like a frickin' disaster pretty much every time he got on the court last season.  And at the start of this year, he wasn't a whole lot better.  If you'd asked anybody to evaluate Avery Bradley through the 1st 12 games of this year, "draft bust" would probably have been the most commonly used phrase.  He looked like a guy who was never, EVER going to adjust to the level of NBA basketball.  Then, Rondo and Dooling both go down and Doc is literally forced to play Bradley big minutes.  And guess what happened?  The guy who looked like he couldn't play in the league suddenly became a legitimate NBA player.  Even when he plays fewer minutes now, Bradley plays substantially better when he's on the court than the start of this season and there was absolutely NO reason to think that was ever going to come true before Bradley got a chance to play.

Players have to play.  Young players have to especially play.  Young players have to particularly play if practice time is limited.

Mike

I remember earlier this season that people were wondering why Bradley was EVER getting playing time.

That's right.  Because THAT'S HOW BAD HE LOOKED.  What happened to change Bradley from a guy who looked like he'd be out of the league as soon as his rookie contract was up to a guy who looks like a legitimate player?  Actually getting a chance to play.  That string of games where he got a chance to start clearly and undeinably did more to improve Bradley as a player than anything else since Ainge drafted him.

Mike

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #311 on: February 22, 2012, 10:10:36 PM »

Offline bostonpatriot

  • Kristaps Porzingis
  • Posts: 189
  • Tommy Points: 6
Once Doc doesn't play a couple of guys who later leave the Celtics and become solid players for some other team, then you may have an argument.

Bill Walker.  A great player?  No.  A quality NBA starter?  No.  But when he went from Boston to NY, Walker went from 3.6 minutes a game and contributing nothing to 27.4 minutes a game, 11.9 pts, 3.1 rebs and 51% from the field.

By comparison, Marshon Brooks for NJ this season is playing 30 minutes a game and putting up 14.2 pts, 4.3 rebs on 43% shooting.

This season, Walker is averaging 6.1 pts and 2.7 rebs with a +6 efficiency rating.  Pietrus is putting up 6.7 pts, 3.1 rebs abd a +6.1 efficiency rating.

Mike

Bill Walker isn't a rotational player. He plays in NY because they've been lacking depth at the wing and plays more when there are injuries. Played less than 800 minutes in each of his seasons there. He's a one-dimensional jump-shooter and a poor defender. A 10th/11th man.

The idea that Doc should have found playing time for this level of prospect to develop in a contending team doesn't make any sense. Why sacrifice anything at all to develop fringe rotation players? They'll play when they're necessary. How much better is Walker now than when he traded to NY? Same player. 

Re: Celtics (15-15) at Mavericks (20-12) 2/20
« Reply #312 on: February 22, 2012, 10:24:37 PM »

Offline bostonpatriot

  • Kristaps Porzingis
  • Posts: 189
  • Tommy Points: 6

The flip side is also true in that Doc will let veterans play on when their production or even effort is poor or erratic.  Look at 'Sheed a couple years ago or how consistantly atrocious 'Quis had to be this year before Doc consigned him to the bench.

Mike

Players' form varies. It doesn't make any sense to shut down a player with a record of producing because of a bad moment of form. Especially if you don't have anyone good and reliable to play in front of them.

Maybe the young players behind them are scrubs, or maybe not.  But how do we ever find out unless Doc plays them enough in real games for them to demonstrate some NBA level skills?  

If you were a NBA coach and you were seeing that a guy in practice was a scrub or totally unready to play in the NBA, would your thought process go "okay, I need to play this guy because some fans like to see young players on the court with their own eyes"? Do you think Popovich should have played all those guys I mentioned more or it's just Doc? Because, again, Doc isn't unique - this complaint about coaches not playing young players enough is very widespread. It's mostly because fans want to see them because there's always the hope some of them may be a next big thing or at least a good player.

Plus, playing time doesn't help all young players and can actually hurt some. To some players, it'll only mean they'll be acquiring bad habits or getting their confidence shattered. Not every young player is ready to benefit from more playing time.

Not the case of the recent Celtics youngsters that didn't get playing time though. They were just bad. I for one am glad I wasn't forced to watch Patrick O'Bryant, Luke Harangody or Lester Hudson more than the strictly necessary.