Doc Rivers- Good or Elite Coach? OverRated?
Ok, No disrespect to Doc but I just don't
understand it. Boston has been good over
the years even before Doc got there.
Garnett is who made them into a contending
team in a VERY weak conference. They've
won 1 Championship under Doc, because of
Garnett and yet he is revered as an Elite
coach. I personally don't think he is.
He is a good coach, just Not in the realm
of Phil,POP, Aurabach, Riley, I'm missing
a few others but Doc shouldn't even be
mentioned in the same sentence as those
Steven A. & Skip B. both agreed that Doc
is the BEST coach in the NBA! Ridiculous!facepalm
Pop is the Best Coach in the NBA now there is no question.
Doc Rivers is one very smart Coach.
Weak Conference and also having Pierce and KG help making Doc look more important.
Doc Rivers is not the best in the NBA that is for sure.
I don't expect ESPN guys to like Pop too much. But it's not even close. Doc is a good coach, knows how to handle personalities, but he got handed a championship team in 2008. Phil would have won at least 2-3 with that group.
The double-top-secret difference between a "Good" coach and an "Elite" coach is simply a better, healthier roster. Even Pop without a healthy TD, TP, and/or Gino is merely a GOOD coach (see: 2000, 2009, 2011). With healthy stars, Pop is ELITE (see: 1999, '03, '05, '07).
Rivers seems to connect with his players, has a system that EVERYONE buys into, and thus gets the most from his roster. Unfortunately, Rivers has been hamstrung year after year by the same parade of injuries and age-related longer recovery periods that the Spurs have been dealing with for the last 5 years.
Great players make great coaches. To say Doc is aided by Garnett and Pierce but say POP is great because he's POP is ridiculous. POP is great because of Tim, Tony, Manu, etc. When POP was 17-47 in 1996 with Tim Kempton, Jeryl Sasser, Carl Herrera, Dominique Wilkins, Moses Malone, etc. people probably thought he was a bum. Auerbach was great because of Russell, Cousy, Hondo and the like. I think championships are important but very rarely do bad/average teams win championships. Basketball isn't like football. Wildcard teams and/or 9-7 division winners win Super Bowls. A 48-34 basketball team is not gonna win the championship. Obviously the '95 Rockets are an exception (6th seed) but that won't happen again.
If you are talking about great coaches that continually do more with less, I'd take George Karl or Rick Adelman.
Pop has a quality that endears him to the players.
He treats everyone the same.
This, combined with the franchise located in San Antonio, has eliminated some free agents from consideration. SA's locale had more to do with it. But he won't woo a prima donna.
At first, he took a system and got the players that could live in it. He did quite well.
Lately, he's adjusted the system to fit the players he had. He's always tried (and still does) to push the defense first mentality, but he ALLOWED for an offensive team based on the talent.
I lived with Adelman (as a Houston resident). I'd take Pop with those teams. Scola damn sure would have learned how to defend at least ONE set play in the NBA. Which would put him a step ahead of where he is now.
As for Phil, Pop never quit when the team stopped winning. He never looked for the next ideal opportunity. He doesn't seem averse to failure.
I am agree Rivers is not in Pop's league (the best in the NBA) and am syrprised that Bayliss would say that. As for that whoe Spur hater SAS - 'am not surpised at all.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4