Worst may have been a bad word.

 

I think he is mediocre. He has to have supreme talent to win.

 

I think this is a horrible argument. Look at Phil Jackson. He's has Kobe, Shaq, Pippen, and this one guy named Michael Jordan. He's always had great talent, and he's considered one of the best coaches of all time. You have to have talent to win. You can't win the Kentucky Derby riding a donkey....

I don't think Doc is a great coach. But, he's alright. Regardless of talent, you have to give a coach credit for a championship. Bad coaches don't do that.

 

Boston was horrible before they got Garnett and Allen...and don't discount how big of an affect those guys have had on the development of the young players like Rondo, Davis and Perkins.

 

If you're going to play the "Rivers had supreme" talent card to explain his success, then you have to be fair. Look at what he's had to coach prior to that.

 

If we're going to take away his last two years in Boston with big time talent, is it fair to take away the two seasons before that when the Celtics were abysmal?

 

His record then becomes 216-205.

 

In his first six coaching seasons (5 in Orlandon, 1 in Boston) he only had one below .500. And, that was an 11 game stint in the '03-04 season when he was fired after starting 1-10. Of his 5 full seasons, his worst was his rookie campaign when Orlando finished 41-41 with a bunch of no-names. That's the only time he missed the playoffs, and he won coach of the year that season. The injury to Grant Hill really de-railed the Magic after that.

 

Doc's a pretty good coach.

I removed his best because the point was, without Allen, Garnett, and Pierce he has done nothing whatsoever.

 

Even with just Pierce, he could only manage 24 wins, and lost 18 straight games.

 

Isn't that the year they tanked it to get in on the Durant and Oden sweepstakes? What did Pierce, Allen or Garnett accomplish before being coached by Doc?

I think this is a horrible argument. Look at Phil Jackson. He's has Kobe, Shaq, Pippen, and this one guy named Michael Jordan. He's always had great talent, and he's considered one of the best coaches of all time. You have to have talent to win. You can't win the Kentucky Derby riding a donkey....

 

And Jackson maximizes the talent he is given.

 

I think you could put Vinny Del Negro in his seat last year and they would win the title.

 

True, he only finished below .500 once. But he never was more than 7 games above .500. The difference between 41 wins and 43 or 44 isn't much, and his teams always tanked in the playoffs.

:irked:

And Jackson maximizes the talent he is given.

 

I think you could put Vinny Del Negro in his seat last year and they would win the title.

 

True, he only finished below .500 once. But he never was more than 7 games above .500. The difference between 41 wins and 43 or 44 isn't much, and his teams always tanked in the playoffs.

 

And when he has the talent, he won a NBA championship. This year, without KG, they got past a good Bulls team, and now face a very tough Magic team. I dont think you can say a guy who won a NBA championship and had his team one of the best teams again this season is one of the worst coaches? \

:irked:

And Jackson maximizes the talent he is given.

 

I think you could put Vinny Del Negro in his seat last year and they would win the title.

 

True, he only finished below .500 once. But he never was more than 7 games above .500. The difference between 41 wins and 43 or 44 isn't much, and his teams always tanked in the playoffs.

 

And when he has the talent, he won a NBA championship. This year, without KG, they got past a good Bulls team, and now face a very tough Magic team. I dont think you can say a guy who won a NBA championship and had his team one of the best teams again this season is one of the worst coaches? \

 

:irked:

I removed his best because the point was, without Allen, Garnett, and Pierce he has done nothing whatsoever.

 

Even with just Pierce, he could only manage 24 wins, and lost 18 straight games.

 

Then you still have to remove his two worst seasons, because he obviously had the least talent then. I can't possibly see how you're giving an accurate synopsis of his body of work otherwise.

 

If you don't like Rodgers, that's fine by me. I can take him or leave him. I just think the numbers you're using to judge him are skewed.

You may have yo go all the way back to the 1975 Golden State Warriors coached by Al Attles.

 

I knew if I asked, somebody would come up with an answer.:thumb:

 

A bit before my time, but I'll take your word for it. Based on your other post, I'd say you can make a real good arguement. Of course this was in the days that many of the best players were in the ABA. Since the merger, I'd say you're either loaded or you don't win it all in the NBA.

A question...since everyone loves to use this argument: "Coach X can't win unless he has great talent."

 

Can someone name me an NBA coach who has won a title without superior talent? Just one will suffice.

 

I'm talking about a coach who took a team that was clearly undermanned and won a championship. Not a very talented team that pulled an upset over a team that was arguably more talented.

 

Example: Last year's finals...the Lakers were the favorite going in. The Celtics won. But, both teams had exceptional talent. Both had championship rosters.

A question...since everyone loves to use this argument: "Coach X can't win unless he has great talent."

 

Can someone name me an NBA coach who has won a title without superior talent? Just one will suffice.

 

I'm talking about a coach who took a team that was clearly undermanned and won a championship. Not a very talented team that pulled an upset over a team that was arguably more talented.

 

Example: Last year's finals...the Lakers were the favorite going in. The Celtics won. But, both teams had exceptional talent. Both had championship rosters.

 

I would say the Pistons didn't have superior talent. They didn't have a Lebron, Kobe, Wade-type player.

I would say the Pistons didn't have superior talent. They didn't have a Lebron, Kobe, Wade-type player.

 

And, you'd be wrong.

 

Wallace & Wallace, Rip, Billups and Prince

 

They had superior talent. They may not have had one of the NBA's all-time top 50 players, but they had a great team.

And, you'd be wrong.

 

Wallace & Wallace, Rip, Billups and Prince

 

They had superior talent. They may not have had one of the NBA's all-time top 50 players, but they had a great team.

 

Exactly. I'd maybe put that team up against any of the past few years. They were stacked!

Exactly. I'd maybe put that team up against any of the past few years. They were stacked!

 

I don't know how high I'd rank them, but they weren't undermanned. A lot of people, including me, were guilty of overlooking them initially because of their lack of a superstar...but they weren't overmatched.

Doc just put on a display against Van Gundy. They got a lucky break on a call, but Orlando didn't take a good shot for the last 4 minutes of the game. They were getting anything they wanted early and tried to run the clock out for 4 minutes. Then down 3 w/ 6 seconds to go they have a terrible FT shooter in there when Doc is playing the foul game.

^ I don't exactly think the world of Van Gundy either.....