Totally agree that Doc is the right coach for Boston. Have been a fan since he first came. Love the style of play and that he has players who can perform. I was afraid we were going to lose him after the 24 win season, but I never felt that was his fault. He is taking the same tact dealing with injuries this year (with his stars and subs) as he did that season (with his young team)…showing consistency in looking out for the welfare of his players and, I think because of it, he gets the most from all his players.

No doubt the naysayers will still bring up all of the “well, except for…” etc. in these comments, but mostly to cover their own butts. Only a cursory examination of the results would have led someone to think the man does not know basketball and was not a good coach. Unfortunately, all too often, that is all fans know in how to assess because of their own limited knowledge of the game.

It is, has been and always will be a players league, in that you have to have the horses to win. Many a great coach either at the college level or other pro stops has been humbled when their roster was not good enough to win. During the lean years, Doc continued to teach and help develop the young players who ultimately brought tremendous value. Whether his rotations suited fans here or not, was never the point on a team whose ultimate upside was not very high, regardless of in-game strategy, the realm of all armchair coaches.

Each and every player to come through Boston, be it a kid out of high school, or a 10+ year vet who has had a less than stellar rep with coaches in the past, has respected and followed Doc. He has great players now, which ironically, gives his critics even more fodder to denigrate him as still not being very good. But anyone who has followed the team closely these past few years can see the real truth.

It would be great if all Doc’s critics would man up like you Jeff and admit they were wrong but I suspect we will still hear/read our share of “yeah but” or “for this particular team he’s good” type backhanded compliments. I can truly say not that I was “right”, but that I always liked Doc, could tell he was great with people and had a deep knowledge of the game.

Doc’s story is living proof that a coach is as good as his talent. When the Celtics management gave Doc talent, he won.

Pretty simple. He did a great job last year, and 60 wins given the obstacles this year – injuries, no bench for the first two-thirds of the season – is an impressive achievement.

doc is good and i’m glad we have him and i can’t say i have always felt like that. all of what has been said about doc is true and he is a good man, leader, etc. that being said , he has his defects like any man and they need to be addressed. i wish he had played walker more this year, gabe as well and powe, gomes, et.al. when they were rooks-rondo as well. i wish he rested pp and ray more, like last night when pp had only 30. he has a great staff and he deserves a lot of credit for how mr. thibs et.al. work with the players. the big thing is his relationship with danny which seems to work real swell. they seem to trust each other and stay on top of things. doc is also very wholesome, a very good trait in today’s cynical world.

….about Doc having the respect of the players even before they started winning. That 24-58 team played hard every night, and no one was ever pointing fingers. That’s the sign of a strong coach. I’m happy to say I’ve never flip-flopped on my feelings about Doc. I’ve always thought he was a good coach. That 24-58 team was bad, yet they hardly ever got blown out. They were always competitive.

I would also like to point out the childish arguments after a coach make some decision that cost us the game.

Sometimes these decisions make you pause, but more often than not, they were trying something and it didn’t work, it could have but it didn’t.

I would like to tell people who argue a lot about these things, get over yourself, your ideas might not have worked.

Doc has always had the strengths we see now, and his weaknesses are still there. He has always had problems with evaluating when someone is ready to contribute and developing smart substitution patterns. This team is just so set as far as the talent pecking order that it doesn’t matter much. On a developing team, these can be fatal flaws.

…there are multiple ways to address an issue and when the end result of winning isn’t there people tend to analyze the choice of action as “wrong.”

I was one of the biggest critics of Rivers up until the 24 win season, when I moved back home and got a chance to dig deeper into his process and reasoning.

My main objection for years was that Rivers got caught “watching the game” and would allow ineffective play to continue instead of making substitutions. Later I learned that Rivers prefers to allow players he believes to be capable, to work their way out of jams in order to build confidence.

Now, he adjusted by also calling more timeouts and “course-correcting” those players instead of just expecting yesterdays practice or pre-game instruction to re-emerge in their minds without guidance.

I also had a huge problem with him playing less talented players over more talented, but less experienced players. My rationale was that if you were going to lose or if someone was ineffective than a more talented player should get a chance to succeed or fail.

Later I learned that Rivers sets the standard for playing time based on EXECUTION and not seniority or pure talent. This is especially effective in a losing environment and/or with young players because it establishes a criteria that even ego-centric and highly competitive players must adhere to.

Though it was consternating to see Perk, Jefferson, Gomes, Powe, and now Walker sit for months when you know they can do some things – by establishing the criteria for PT based off how consistently a player correctly reads the offensive/defensive schemes, no player has any legit gripe about anything – they know what they have to do to get on the court.

This eliminates the jealous in-fighting or anger toward a coach that may stem from lack of PT or clearly defined objective to gain court time. A player knows if he’s messing up in practice or when reviewing game film. There is nothing to hide behind – no dunk, no steal, no highlight pass will change that reality.

Rivers’ ability to set a standard, communicate its purpose, and maintain discipline and objectivity in the face of pressure are the qualities that make him so well-respected by his players and why I eventually came to realize just how great a coach he was – there is none better at managing PEOPLE than Doc Rivers.

I agree with Jeff here in that I am greatful everyday that Danny Ainge runs this team and not fans.
As for BS Simmons, I hope someday he finds someone screaming for him to be fired, and attacks his personal character and intelligence, as loudly as he attacked Doc. What goes around comes around and we all know Karma is a harsh mistress, it’s something I hope Simmons learns in a very harsh way. Maybe it’s too harsh but I hope he finds himself in an unemployment line regreting the way he treats people in his columns. Not that Doc cares what BS Simmons has to say, afterall, if they guy really did know half as much as he claims about the game or players he would have a real job in sports.

It’s funny how winning changes everything, and it’s funny how fans think they know more than coaches about game management, player management, or even Xs and Os. No matter how many games Doc wins, no matter how many banners this team hoists, there are still going to be fans who think they could have called a better play, developed players more quickly, had a more solid rotation, etc etc ad nauseum, than Doc, and that’s sad. Either way, it’s nice to see some people step up and admit they might have misjudged him.

Doc Rivers is a really good coach and we are lucky to have him.

I don’t want to brag, but I thought this the moment Danny knocked on his door in Orlando.

as they say winning cures everything. Early on I thought Doc was really weak with timeouts, clock management and substituions. He has definitely improved in all of those areas. He reminds me a lot of KC JOnes but with a better handle on the x’s and o’s. You may recall that KC always left that to Jimmy Rogers. There are still times when I think he doesn’t use his timeouts well enough but again he’s improving. IF you watch Phil Jackson he will use all of his timeouts to stop a run if he has to. Doc tends to let his guys play and sometimes ( see Orlando) he waits too long to make a change. The thing I like most about him though is that he doesn’t take any bull. I remember him pulling Pierce in his first year because Pierce was dogging it. Pierce hated that but it made him a better player. I still think there are times when Doc needs to get in Pierce’s grill more than he does but Doc has learned how to use Paul and play to his strengths. Rondo , I’m sure is a challenge at times and KG is an absolute nut so it’s not like Doc doesn’t have work to do with this team. the other thing I like about him is that he’s installed a system and he sticks to it. Guys have to fit into his system and not the other way around

did Perk play 42 minutes last night?

Jeff, I went from stalwart defender of Doc to thinking the critics had a point. There was a game against Detroit (I think) where an obvious coaching mistake cost us the game. I still remember one of our frequent blogger’s comment “Nice guy, can’t coach”. But it is very true that he never lost his players. New fans ask how I could I have stuck with that lousy team for so many years. Well if I didn’t quit during the Pitino dark era, Doc was a step up. In that 24 win season hope was born (Of course HOPE was Oden/Durant). I enjoyed their never hang dog emotions and effort. (Even Pierce). I wanted to see more of the end-of-bench guys and still do but the productivity of Leon and Big Baby and the giving up on Green and O’Bryant (who haven’t cut it anywhere else) showed the system’s smarts.
To me the window in is Perk. Rondo was going to show his talent I think with any coach. But Perk is truly a product of the system. Doc was patient with him through the bad and now we are seeing pretty good center play.
Its the system – Grousbeck, Danny, Doc, Thibodeau, Ray and others. Doc wasn’t as bad back then and he isn’t the show now. But….let’s credit him for this…seen again last night….he draws up super plays out of timeouts. Having a Ray Allen at the end of it helps but New Jersey came out of a timeout near the end and went low to Lopez with Vince in the zone.

This isn’t at all meant to bash Doc. BUT, let’s not act like he’s the most amazing coach of all time now. By most accounts, he was badly outcoached by Rick Carlisle in the Pacers series in ’05. We had the more talented team, and had no business losing that series.

And you can’t overlook the impact Thibodeau and Cliff Ray have had. They are outstanding assistants that Doc didn’t have before Ray and KG arrived. If we had the same players as we do now, but didn’t have those two guys, where would we be? Not sure if we would have won the title last year.

And for as talented of a team as we are, I still have trouble understanding how we can struggle scoring down the stretch in close games, even when fully healthy. Ray Allen often becomes invisible, and we run iso after iso to Pierce. I’m sorry, but that’s not good coaching. At that point in the game, our talent should really show and we should be literally impossible to guard as a team.

However, Doc has won a title, and we’re at least contenders this year. He’s handled some very difficult situations with the epitome of class and poise. He’s clearly a GOOD coach, but I wouldn’t necessarily label him a GREAT coach.

In response to what is best, more rest or not, " I put my trust fully in Doc, he knows what is best for this franchise". That says it all.

Doc has done a great job here over the past two seasons. Very impressive work.

1. Suppose of the ‘young guns’ told you (the coach) “I hate Boston, don’t like a lot of my teammates,or you, and will be out of here as soon as my current contract is done”. Would you give him playing time over a less talented but much more amenable type? I’m sure this sort of thing happens.

2. Suppose a player consistently ‘does it his way’, even though he has been coached many times that ‘his way’ does not fit this team. Would you play him over a less talented but much more amenable type?

3. Suppose a player is a good guy and talented but a near alcholic and/or a closet druggie. Would you develop him (assuming you’ve done everything possible to straighten him out) or would you develop a less talented but more amenable type?

4. Maybe a player is a closet homosexual and the other players DO NOT WANT him on the team. Would you develop him or would you develop a less talented but more amenable type?

   I’m sure our bloggers here can come up with a lot of other possibilites that we as fans have no idea of. But those above behind the scenes DO happen in real life and DO, I’m sure, have a effect on individual playing times.