http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-061130a Royce Webb breaks down the last 37 seconds of the NJ/Boston game and makes it painfully obvious that this guy really needs to be fired. Like, yesterday. After reading that piece, it is hard for me to believe that this guy is actually still coaching in the NBA. I don't count myself worthy to lace Tom Thibodeau's sandals, but man, even I could do better than that.
Looks like horrible coaching to me. They were obviously clueless out there on the floor ... how does Wally pass up on a 3 with 3 seconds left on the clock and they're down by 3 points? How the heck do you let your players completely botch a play (which was a bad play to begin with -- I saw it on TV), and then waste 10 seconds of the shot clock strolling down the court not knowing they need to foul? How do you keep your 3 point shooters glued to the bench and insert two non-scoring bigs into the game when you know you need a 3-pointer to stay alive? Terrible preparation, terrible game management, terrible clock management, terrible player management, terrible coaching all around.
[movie preview voice] Shane Novak, the ultimate 3pt shooting, defender, role player rookie vet ever. Mr. Intangible just got Tangible. Shane Novak. [/movie preview voice]
so he needs to be fired, maybe you should lighten up francis. you obviously have a bone to pick with Rivers, one of the most likeable people in the nba. i can think of several games the rockets didn't execute well at the end from the past couple of seasons, should jvg be fired for that? that's silly. and that's assuming you are correct about the poor coaching and since you have no idea of what went on in the huddle, you're probably not.
Like other people said, most of this was the players's faults. The only coaching mistake was probably not putting all 3-pt shooters out there. I don't understand why people think the other mistakes should be blamed on the coach. 1) Pierce took a quick shot to get the 2 for 1. That was good coaching. If the players botched the passes, shots or rebounds, it was not the coach's fault. Whether Pierce decided to take the shot, 2 or 3 pointers, does not matter. You needed to take the quick shot so you have another chance later. The fact that the clock showed 26.7 seconds when Kidd got the rebound told me the play worked fine. 2) I don't understand why you have to foul the Nets with 26.7 secs to go. The Celtics were gettting the ball back. You just have to play tough defense. Fouling would either give the Nets the chance for 2 free points or to run out the clock. Bad decision. 3) 17.1 secs to go. The players scrambled for 14 seconds until Wally had the ball and the chance to take a 3 pointer. He drove. How do you blame the coach? He couldn't be standing there yelling to them to take the shot. Even if he wanted to, the players probably could not hear or if they did, it would be so distracting for them to concentrate on making the shot. Hogwash! This writer does not know BB.
I've liked him ever since his Marquette days. But the Celtics need to fire Doc. Some of his comments from last season and this summer lead me to believe he doesn't care if he's fired and would almost welcome it. He should have quit or negotiated a buyout this summer. I really don't know how much of this late game meltdown is his fault. Doc is a sharp guy and it's hard to believe he could mess up that bad. Even with Szczerbiak and Pierce aside, Doc doesn't seem to have control over the team. At some point you have to blame pathetic execution on the coach not getting thru to the players.
Actually no ... I have no bone to pick with Rivers, he has always seemed like a really nice guy to me. It's just that the Celtics have been so bad for so long, it just seems like Doc is out of his league here. Like A_3PO says, players have a responsibility to execute, but at some point when you keep failing the same way over and over again, you have to really question the coaching.
I don't see Mike Woodsen and his super-young Hawks struggling in the same way, and he doesn't have the luxury of two vets like Wally and Pierce. Johnson is in only his second year as a go-to guy (Pierce has been that since 1999), and Woodsen has gotten NOTHING out of his last two lottery picks. I mean, the two-for-one ideal at the end of a game is moronic. You put together the best possible possession, no matter what, regardless if it takes two seconds or 24. That lineup, and that Pierce play (I'm glad Webb put this together) left me aghast.
I'm not trying to call you out, rage, but I feel that most fans are thinking the same way you are. However... With 37 seconds on the shot clock, you don't have to go for a 3. Rivers could have diagram a play for Pierce or Telfair (or anyone that has the ability for that matter) to penetrate and drive in for and EASIER basket. They're only down by 1, why go for a 2 for 1 with a 3-point heave? It doesn't make sense. You just have to inbound the ball, set some screens, and hope that the penetrator either gets the basket or gets fouled. In either case, they go up by one. In theory, fouling them as early as possible is the best way to go. They already missed a potential tying basket and they didn't rebound the ball, fouling the Nets ASAP stops the clock and, at worst, you're down by 3. Now look at what really happened. They bricked the shot, missed the rebound, waited around for 10 seconds until they actually fouled someone. Now you got only 17 seconds to work with AND you could be down by 3. I can't defend Wally for that one. I could say "yea Rivers could have made them aware of the situation" but Sczerbiak is a vet and should have known better. All in all, I wouldn't fire Rivers over this one loss. I'd fire him for the season they're having instead. This is just another example of not necessarily bad coaching, but bad preparation. You don't go into a timeout saying, "Look guys, we'll play 2 for 1. Inbound the ball and take the first shot you get. Whatever happens after that, we'll ad lib" and that's what it looked like. Hogwash!
I noticed you qualified the talent by saying joe johnson is only in his second year of being a "go-to-guy". He's probably in his third year being better than pierce. pierce has got to be most overrated guard in the last 5 years. talk about a guy who needs to dominate the ball and he's no where the passer that joe johnson is and before looking up the stats I would suspect johnson is the better shooter. one of doc's problems is being saddled with an overrated shooting guard who's only a decent shooter. so yeah, looking back, drawing up a play with pierce shooting is ill-advised. edit: must say I didn't realize pierce was shooting so well this season, good for him. but johnson is still shooting better
I don't mind discussing the topic. I never said you have to go for a 3. You take the 1st shot you can get. Many times, if the opponent know you only need 2 pt., they will try to stop the drive and leave you open for a 3. You can't go onto the court and have your mind set on doing one thing. You take what you can. Pierce is a veteran, he can decide for himself. In the actual play, the pass was bad. Pierce fumbled the ball. After wasting seconds, maybe he felt his only chance to get a 2 for 1 was to take that 3. Indeed it turned out to be so. I don't think he had time to drive. If he drove and missed, the clock would have gone under 24 seconds and the Nets could really run out the clock then. I don't think this is the theory. I have not seen any coach who would foul intentionally when their team is down 1 and a chance to get the ball back. I can't say about the rest of the season but I doubt that Doc said what you think he said in that time-out.
Great. Doesn't excuse Woodsen's superiority as a coach. And there's no way Johnson was better than Pierce last year, this year, or three years ago. Swamped putting these horrible rankings together, so you can look up the rest, but here's last year's numbers: Pierce: 39 mpg, 26.8 ppg, 47 shooting, 4.7 assists, 6.7 rebounds Johnson: 40.7 mpg, 20.2 ppg, 45 shooting, 6.5 assists, 4.1 rebounds Steals, blocks, turnovers all the same. I mean, Pierce had seven more points, more combined rebounds/assists, and shot better in nearly two less minutes. Needed 1.5 more shots per game to score nearly seven more points per game. Screw it, I want to slack off ... This year, Pierce: 38.6 mpg, 27.4 ppg, 46 shooting, 3.9 apg, 8.5 boards Johnson: 41.2 mpg, 27.8 ppg, 49 shooting, 4 apg, 5.2 boards So, this year, Johnson is shooting a little better, but Pierce's stats are still better once you even out the stats per minute. And Pierce has shown he can still contribute in other areas while still getting the 27 points -- 12.4 combined assists/rebounds, while Johnson's has dropped to a combined 9.2 assists/rebounds with his increased scoring load. Again, nothing against Joe, who is still figuring this out (after being shoe-horned into a point forward role at times last year, while still shooting worse than Pierce). Johnson may match Pierce as the year moves on, and for a few years after this (Paul is four years older), and while Pierce may have been overrated until last year -- let's not throw the whole argument away with a needless bit of hyperbole. There's no way in hell Joe Johnson has been better than Paul Pierce for the last three seasons. Another edit: 2004-05, which ended with Pierce moping against the Pacers. His absolute low ... Pierce: 36.1 mpg, 21.6 ppg, 45.5 shooting (didn't round it up to 46), 4.2 assists, 6.2 rebounds Johnson: 39.5 mpg, 17.1 ppg, 46.1 shooting, 3.5 apg, 5.1 rebounds. So, 3.4 more mpg, 4.5 less ppg, nearly the same shooting, less assists, less rebounds. And that's the third year of your claim. Dude, there's no way.
Have always liked Doc, one of my favorite young coaches in the league. I think he's a pretty good coach, but he might have overstayed his welcome in Boston, which has been the same for every coach who has gone through Boston, not just in Doc's case.
