Doc is the Celtics new coach...

[Boondocks]

Actually, wasn't Kemp the "Reign Man" ? At least that's what it said on one of his posters I had back in the day.

[phoostal]

It's disappointing to lose Doc. He would have brought two things to the table. First, an excitement and enthusiasm that has been missing in this organization for years. Next, he would bring credibility to this organization that would attract big name free agents.

Stotts doesn't have these qualities. I'm not saying this can not change. However, right now he is not at that status.

Fratello, Scott, and Karl are status coaches that could bring this credibility that I speak of. Do we want to go that route?

Side note on Daly. I would be very upset if we hired this idiot. Yes, I know his credentials. However, when he was here in Orlando. He quit on the team and organization. Also, he sited he was older and did not have the heart for the job. I do not want a coach that is going to pull this stunt. Give me a coach that is going to be here for the long haul. One that does not give up when the team is struggling.

I have mixed feelings on this subject. I lean towards Stotts. On the other hand, I feel we can not go wrong with one of the other coaches. The only draw back with Stotts is if what we saw at the end of the year was a mirage or actual progress. Because if it was a mirage and we hire this guy for the long haul. We just lost another of rebuilding by hiring the wrong guy.

What this organization needs to do is make up it's mind on what direction they want to go. They need to do this as soon as possible. Make the decision on your coach and what type of team you want this to be. Do not keep everybody in limbo. The sooner they do this, the team can start to take shape. Starting with the head coach.

P

[chillzatl]

who ever we sign this year, we need to sign them to stay. No more of this "he's expendable" bs. If we sign STotts, we need to commit to him. If not, let him go and bring in someone else to sign long term.

Quote:

---

He couldn't get anything consistent out of the team that we traded away.

---

Tell me who has gotten anything other than consistant half-assedness out of Shareef or Bigdog? I can answer it for you... nobody. Because that's all those guys bring and it's a direct reflection of their attitudes.

Quote:

---

and even that didn't work consistently. This team continually played up to the better teams and down to the bad ones. This is a trend that did not change during Stott's run.

---

From the point that we traded away Shareef, Nazr and released Dion, we only got blown out in 4 games. From the point that Sura, Collins, Crawford and Co started receiving bulk minutes, we were only blown out in two games. Every other game we either won or competed hard to make it a very close game.

The point is, when Stotts was given a team of players that actually played hard, we competed against every team we played. Beating many playoff teams along the way.

Another key difference that refutes your comments and points directly at Stotts ability as a coach are time out situations.

With the old team, how many times did we see him call a timeout, diagram a play and go on to watch the players foul it up or turn the ball over? TOO MANY TIMES.

With the "new lineup", that all changed. These guys would come out of a huddle and run the play they were intended to run. More often than not, resulting in a key basket.

I can't count the number of times I heard Bob and Stinger make comments like "They work on that play in practice all the time" after those very situations.

That shows that Stotts wasn't just letting these guys go out there and play. He was still coaching. He was still teaching these guys plays designed to score points and they were able to make it happen.

Do you think he wasn't trying to do that with the other team? Of course he was... So what's the big difference? The big difference is that he had players that either cared enough to listen or were smart enough to pull it off. Something he obviously didn't have prior to that.

There is no reason that we can't give him a team of similar players and get similar results. It's NO DIFFERENT than what Doc did in Orlando. He had a team of players who played hard for him and suddenly he's considered to be the new golden boy in coaching. When Doc lost many of those gutsy, blue collar players, he started losing games and eventually, his job.

[dj_me]

Quote:

---

DJ, How do you define the team's direction? I know the team is rebuilding, but how? I do think the coach will have a role in determining the rebuild, and Billy and Stotts seem to be on the same page.

---

The team seems to be fitting more and more into an up-tempo, versatile-style of play. There are many players that we do and/or will have that fit this nitch. I believe that ATL will find someway to get either Howard (not too excited, but would fit better than...) or Smith (could be huge, but we already may have Jackson). I'd also love to pick up Livingston (the more I think about him, the more I like him).

Wishful thinking...

JT / Livingston

Sura / Hansen

Jackson / Diaw

CC / Howard / Hendu

Collier / Pryz / Ekezie

[Diesel]

What's that mean?

[TheDude]

poor poor guy.. was turning out to be something special and just fell off the face of the crack, i mean map.

[Plainview1981]

JT hasn't progressed"

JT isn't going to "progress" under any coach. JT doesn't

have basketball upstairs. To me, this guy has been giving

enough chances. He's just not a big time player on a team

expecting to win. Way too often he says stuff that he can't

backup and he just isn't very smart.

As far as Stotts goes....It looks like there is no other

choice other than him. My gut tells me he'll get a 3 year

contract.

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

From the point that we traded away Shareef, Nazr and released Dion, we only got blown out in 4 games. From the point that Sura, Collins, Crawford and Co started receiving bulk minutes, we were only blown out in two games. Every other game we either won or competed hard to make it a very close game.

The point is, when Stotts was given a team of players that actually played hard, we competed against every team we played. Beating many playoff teams along the way.

---

But we still LOST, consistently, and to fellow bottom feeders like Orlando, Philly (without Iverson), New York (without Houston), Washington, a 101 – 84 Thrashing at the hands of Toronto, and the last game of the season against Boston without Pierce. We almost lost one of our precious late season “gems” against Dallas.

Quote:

---

Another key difference that refutes your comments and points directly at Stotts ability as a coach are time out situations.

---

I didn’t say that the man can’t coach. I’m saying he has done nothing to earn him a long stay in Atlanta nor has he distinguished himself as one of the better coaches in the leage – and that is what we need when our games start having meaning.

Quote:

---

who ever we sign this year, we need to sign them to stay. No more of this "he's expendable" bs. If we sign STotts, we need to commit to him. If not, let him go and bring in someone else to sign long term.

---

I wouldn’t build my team around a coach. I’d see what my coach can bring out of my players and go from there. I certainly wouldn’t promise a new head coach ANYTHING based on a coaching basically 3 different teams with inconsistent results.

And the bottom line is that everyone is expendable in this league. There’s no such thing as a permanent head-coaching job; and we’re rebuilding. There’s no telling what this team will look like in 2 or 3 years. If and when we put a winning team on the floor, we don’t even know if Stotts can handle it.

To have this discussion, you have to define standards. What are the standards to which Stotts is being held? Are we judging him on 1-½ years of tenure? Are we judging him on half a season with Dog, half a season with Theo and SAR, and half a season with the free agents?

Looking at all three, I don’t see anything spectacular that merits a long extension for Stotts. A good coach comes in when players have given up on his successor, they get results, and they take good teams and make them better. Most importantly, they get consistency. Even if it was just a routine beating of lottery teams, it’s still consistent – but no matter whom the personnel were, our team could not do that.

…and so is every player that plays on a team with bad chemistry considered a cancer? Is that what we’re saying here, Stotts had two very cancerous players that refused to do what he wanted them to do? The things that would help this team beat even the bottom feeders on a regular basis…? Theo and SAR were not those types of players. I think given the same amount of talent, there are coaches who could have at least gotten consistent results – Rivers, Carlisle, Karl, Silas, Van Gundy, Fratello, O’Brien. Even new head coaches like Frank Williams or Musselman could handle that. I think these kind of guys have distinguished themselves as “good” coaches.

I think generally speaking, you could call him a good coach; however, I don’t think Stotts has accomplished anything that could put him in the category with guys who get results; nor do I believe that he is a BAD coach.

Either way, he is by no means my hands-down favorite to coach this team going forward. While we flounder away trying to find our identity, I think it would be wise to see what he’s got. Extending him for a couple of seasons isn’t a bad idea either. But committing to his vision and his coaching ability right now is premature to say the least.

[Wretch]

Not Frank Williams...sh#t just rolls out sometimes when I'm typing!

[OGRat]

I agree. And just to highlight one point. If we have learned anything about Stotts, I think it is that he has to have players that fit his system in order to win. Thus, the organiation needs to commit to obtaining players that could fit into his system. There do not seem to be any other alternatives that would include Stotts.

I am also concerned about Stotts' ability to develop players, but I do not have anything conclusive to go on. I really would not want to draft a good player whose development would be hampered because he does not fit into Stotts' system. I also would not want the team to suffer going through bringing in another coach in the middle of the season.

[Traceman]

before the season starts. I think that the best Stotts can hope for at this point is to start the season as coach and prove that he deserves to keep the job once Knight gets him some more players.

[Weez]

I agree with the first part of Og's post and in general in with Trace's. Stott's has a general system that he likes to play, especially on offense. He needs players to fit that system and had more of them post trade. Whether or not Jax's "development" had anything to do with Stott's coaching/practicing/teaching is up for debate, but one would have to argue that he at least used JAx correctly and he flourished under that role.

that being said, we have a ton of uncertainty with the draft. I say hold tight till after the draft and into July, when we know what direction the team is heading/is shaping up to be.

[Traceman]

With Doc off the market, what other coach is out there that we HAVE to go out and get before they sign elsewhere? Fratello? I would be okay with him but I certainly don't see a need to rush out and sign him now. Same goes for Byron Scott. I think waiting until after the draft makes plenty of sense. That being said, before the free agency period begins, we need to commit to a coach for AT LEAST the upcoming season because none of the better free agents are going to want to come here if the current coach might not even be here when the season begins.