PGT: Mavs tried to give it away, but it was the Cavs

[haCORErdMav]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Dirk makes sike better, alien love is quenched.
Dirk makes the board happier by providing a plethora of squirrel nuts.

fify

[wilmtalk]

Originally Posted by sike

.

Dirk makes Carlisle better bc now Rick won't feel the need to play mad scientist with his lineups.

.

That has always been his weakness. His inability to spontaneously adjust. He needs a lot of time to work out his line ups. He is no Don Nelson.

[sike]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Dirk makes sike better, alien love is quenched.
Dirk makes the board better...watching greatness at work does that.

this

[vinylstar]

Originally Posted by wilmtalk

That has always been his weakness. His inability to spontaneously adjust. He needs a lot of time to work out his line ups. He is no Don Nelson.

This is slightly unfair. Once he has his rotation set, his in-game adjustments in directing his players how to respond in certain situations are very good. Doc Rivers is also doing some "mad scientist" things with his roster right now in Boston...he is also a very good coach - its what they do the first part of the season.

You want to talk about inability to spontaneously adjust...See 2006 Finals, Avery Johnson*

Edit: * - Too soon?

[Kante]

1. Rivers is really not a good coach

2. I think/hope wailmtalk was just joking

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Kante

1. Rivers is really not a good coach

Disagree. He's one of the best in the league. Pretty good tactician, excellent motivator, great players coach. I'd love to know who's better and has a better pedigree besides Pop and RC.

[Kante]

Adelman e.g. Rivers did sh*t before the big 3 were there.

[grndmstr_c]

I can't recall many times when I've watched the Celtics and thought they were poorly coached. Doc was definitely fortunate to have an emerging Rondo and a trio of extremely salty high IQ veterans playing for him, but surely he deserves some credit for the way that team has played over the years. To my eyes he coaches that Celtics team very differently than Dantoni coached the Suns, for example.

No argument with Adelman as one of the better active coaches outside RC and Pop.

[Kante]

Of course he deserves some credit, but he is not that good of a coach that people want to make him.

[vinylstar]

Originally Posted by Kante

Adelman e.g. Rivers did sh*t before the big 3 were there.

Adelman is also a very good coach. There can be multiple of these.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Kante

Adelman e.g. Rivers did sh*t before the big 3 were there.

Again, this "he didn't do anything without X player(s)" argument is absolutely silly. That argument shifts the focus from reality to some strange hypothetical universe that we'll never be able to look into (Pop without Duncan, Rivers without the B3, Carlisle without Dirk). There is pretty much zero point in that.

And you're not even applying the argument consistently. Rivers did sh*t without those guys? Fine. Adelman's done sh*t without Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Duckworth, and Robinson. Hell--he's done even less than Rivers overall. One title to none.

I'd also love to know what "e.g." means. Who else do you think is better than Rivers? More guys who have inferior objective credentials?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by vinylstar

Adelman is also a very good coach. There can be multiple of these.

Also, this. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Kante]

Maybe it was a bit too dramatical, but i just think that he is overrated. I think Collins or Karl are better or did more with less...