next »

[Snakehead]

Maybe we really aren't all that good? I don't know how you can just force a group of players to be better. We aren't a championship caliber team, I love this team to death, but I've come to grips with just riding into the playoffs and just taking as much as we can.

Yeah, I've come to grips with that too. Sucks, but reality is reality.

Coaches are the number one scape goat in the NBA.  If we had lesser management we would have fired Doc long ago (before the Big Three era) and we'd have god knows who as a coach.

Coaches can't make players better and they can't always make them play harder.  Just how it is.  Doc seems to be a great motivator for a lot of guys who have had great careers and strong work ethic and a certain respect, others like say Big Baby... well he may never get through.  Do we blame that on Doc?

[Rtpas11]

  I know we gave injuries now, but I still stand by what I've been preaching. Docs coaching isn't helping but hurting. These players are now starting to think the game & plays way too much. It looks like Rondo is back on the floor the way our guys especially Jeff Green looks so confused. T-will looks indecisive like docs voice is controlling his every move.

Terry is flat out playing terrible. His impact really shapes this team. Well just fins wait for playoffs. Hopefully we do make it & play far better like we usually do.

Last: we don't need to run a bunch of plays to beat good teams. Look at the knicks great record, & they probably run 2-3 plays all game. Pick n roll, pick n pop & iso

[kgainez]

T-will looks indecisive like docs voice is controlling his every move.

OMG!!
I feel like I've seen the same thing, but I don't say it because ppl here like stats and don't believe what you see.

I feel this way about JG and T-Will. A lil about Crawford, too and also when LB plays. It feels like Doc is putting them in a box or wants one thing from them. Going away from that results in being in the dog house.

Tonight..when T-Will stopped at the top of the key he kept looking like he was supposed to pass it but nothing opened up. It seemed like he reluctantly drove to the basket.

Crazy.

The KG/Lee loss also doesn't seem to help either.

[crimson_stallion]

Doc was coaching all season people, including the times when we had those big win streaks.

The difference is that something like 5 of our last 6 losses have been wither without KG or without Pierce.  We cannot win consistently without both of those guys on the court, its just not going to happen.

Rondo is somewhat expendable but those guys are not.

[Atzar]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight. 

[Chief]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Doc is trying to reinvent the wheel. Right now he's got a triangle.

[pearljammer10]

Are you positive the schedule has nothing to do with it?

And the fact that two more of our starters are out?

[Fafnir]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Knicks weren't playing a big man when Doc did that. When they had a big on the floor so did the C's. You want Bass/Wilcox guarding Novak? Melo? JR Smith?

Yet in the end it was turnovers that did us in more than anything, which had little to do with the lack of "bigs" you are harping on.

[Chief]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Knicks weren't playing a big man when Doc did that. When they had a big on the floor so did the C's. You want Bass/Wilcox guarding Novak? Melo? JR Smith?

Yet in the end it was turnovers that did us in more than anything, which had little to do with the lack of "bigs" you are harping on.

I guess we see basketball differently. I like traditional basketball and traditional line-ups no matter what the opponent counters with. Over the history of the NBA,  that has been the most successful formula.

As far as the turnovers, it happens when you don't have a true pg (as mentioned above) and everyone is playing out of their natural/more comfortable positions.

[Fafnir]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Knicks weren't playing a big man when Doc did that. When they had a big on the floor so did the C's. You want Bass/Wilcox guarding Novak? Melo? JR Smith?

Yet in the end it was turnovers that did us in more than anything, which had little to do with the lack of "bigs" you are harping on.

I guess we see basketball differently. I like traditional basketball and traditional line-ups no matter what the opponent counters with. Over the history of the NBA,  that has been the most successful formula.

As far as the turnovers, it happens when you don't have a true pg (as mentioned above) and everyone is playing out of their natural/more comfortable positions.

Last night the C's didn't have the players to play traditional line ups, especially with the other team only playing one or none big men.

I don't think citing tradition an eschewing thinking about how things are occuring on the court is a good way to analyze coaching decisions.

How you match up, how you'll guard the other teams actions, and how you'll run your offensive action should be what you look at. Instead its:

If 2 tall guys in Then
      Good Coach
Else
      Bad Coach

Of course when Doc does play the tall guys and it still doesn't "work", he's "playing the wrong ones". Bass is the target this time, used to be Davis. Before that it was O'Neal, etc.

[Chief]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Knicks weren't playing a big man when Doc did that. When they had a big on the floor so did the C's. You want Bass/Wilcox guarding Novak? Melo? JR Smith?

Yet in the end it was turnovers that did us in more than anything, which had little to do with the lack of "bigs" you are harping on.

I guess we see basketball differently. I like traditional basketball and traditional line-ups no matter what the opponent counters with. Over the history of the NBA,  that has been the most successful formula.

As far as the turnovers, it happens when you don't have a true pg (as mentioned above) and everyone is playing out of their natural/more comfortable positions.

Last night the C's didn't have the players to play traditional line ups, especially with the other team only playing one or none big men.

I don't think citing tradition an eschewing thinking about how things are occuring on the court is a good way to analyze coaching decisions.

How you match up, how you'll guard the other teams actions, and how you'll run your offensive action should be what you look at. Instead its:

If 2 tall guys in Then
      Good Coach
Else
      Bad Coach

Of course when Doc does play the tall guys and it still doesn't "work", he's "playing the wrong ones". Bass is the target this time, used to be Davis. Before that it was O'Neal, etc.

That's why he gets paid the big bucks. His job is to evaluate the talent Danny gives him and do the best with it. IMO, he has not always done that.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Doc is trying to reinvent the wheel. Right now he's got a triangle.

Basketball has changed drastically in the last 50 years.
This article from Zach Lowe, just the other day, highlights that as well as anything (and, really, any work Lowe has done this year shows how much the game has changed and evolved):

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9098417/how-miami-heat-went-historic-winning-streak-came-dominate-league

To say that a team, missing 4/5ths of its starting lineup just needs to play some bigs to right the ship seems to be putting a bit too much faith in the strength of an antiquated system.

[Chief]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Doc is trying to reinvent the wheel. Right now he's got a triangle.

Basketball has changed drastically in the last 50 years.
This article from Zach Lowe, just the other day, highlights that as well as anything (and, really, any work Lowe has done this year shows how much the game has changed and evolved):

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9098417/how-miami-heat-went-historic-winning-streak-came-dominate-league

To say that a team, missing 4/5ths of its starting lineup just needs to play some bigs to right the ship seems to be putting a bit too much faith in the strength of an antiquated system.

It works when you have the greatest player on the planet. We don't.

[MBunge]

It's kind of ridiculous to complain about Doc's coaching now, when the team is being held together with spit and bailing wire.

It it, however, entirely fair to look at some of the weird play out of this Celtic team and wonder what role Doc's coaching plays in it.  Like when they played .500 ball for the last 2/3rd of the season a few years ago, including home losses to some of the worst teams in the league.  Or the start of this season when the defense was atrocious and Rondo's "I'm going to pass up lay ups in order to try for assists" approach got as bad as its ever been.

Of course, such thoughts are treated as blasphemy by some of the folks around here.

Mike

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.

We're missing four of our starters.  Let me say that again:  our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured. 

We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington.  The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation. 

No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.

Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.

That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.

Doc is trying to reinvent the wheel. Right now he's got a triangle.

Basketball has changed drastically in the last 50 years.
This article from Zach Lowe, just the other day, highlights that as well as anything (and, really, any work Lowe has done this year shows how much the game has changed and evolved):

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9098417/how-miami-heat-went-historic-winning-streak-came-dominate-league

To say that a team, missing 4/5ths of its starting lineup just needs to play some bigs to right the ship seems to be putting a bit too much faith in the strength of an antiquated system.

It works when you have the greatest player on the planet. We don't.

That doesn't mean you go back to a system that isn't working for anyone. Defenses are so wildly more sophisticated now. And, yes, Lowe was looking at The Heat but he has written numerous other articles on a variety of teams, all of which pinpoint how the game has developed and changed. The Heat in that article are an example, the best one, of how offenses, and defenses, have changed. If you really think the answer to a team's woes, any teams, is to regress to an offensive or defensive scheme that most every team has figured out how to stop, or succeed against, well, we think fundamentally differently.