Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breath before the plunge

[Ryan, Patrick S Maj RES USAFR 439 MSG]

The Celtics have 1½ All-stars realistically. How's that for compromise on
Al?
 
How many of those games were both really "healthy"? Even when Pierce came
back he was extremely limited and looked more like a 40 year old - no lift,
no first step - he was Wally Z - jump shooting with no legs for about 10-15
of those games when he first came back. Second, as I've already maintained -
no defense. They were in tons of those games losing in the last five minutes
time and time again when they couldn't make stops and the opposition could.
Defense is a little of both - Doc can't teach it and the only guy we had who
could play it on the perimeter had three ligaments in his leg blown out.
 
So that said to answer:
 
1.    Yes and no. He's the ultimate players coach. If you gave him the 86
Celtics or any of the late Bulls teams he'd probably be fine because he
didn't need to be Xs and Os astute - he'd massage egos and handle personnel.
Right now - this team - he's never going to get them the next step they need
- defensive coaching.
2.    Yes. We had third stringers playing major minutes. Do you really think
Leon Powe would average 18 minutes a game if Allen, Wally, Hell even
Scalabrine was available? No. If Flip Murray had to play 18 min. per game
for Detroit they would no longer be one of the best defensive teams in the
league. Any team in the league once you play your 12th, 13th, and 14th man
major minutes you're likely lottery bound. And injury-prone players drive
down the grade of your bench - we have a supporting cast of players that
can't stay on the floor - that's on Ainge too.
3.    I think they are pretty close to that good - offensively. If the
owners went out and gave a max deal to Chauncey Billups the day after the
playoffs I think you COULD easily have that 20 game turnaround mentioned
earlier because you address the major weakness.  Pierce and Jefferson are
offensive machines, but you have to make stops to win - it's that simple and
our two studs either are not, or choose not, or can not make that commitment
on both ends consistently.
 
So in closing it's not ONE of those three it's ALL of those three in varying
degrees. Will changing Doc solve it all - no.  Will changing Doc and Danny
solve it all - no. Will changing Doc, Danny, and the owners solve it all -
MAYBE, but the odds of that happening are nil so bite off what you CAN chew
and start with the part easiest to change - and that's Doc.
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, here is my point.  If you assume that the Celtics have 2 all-star
players, as 99% of this list does, why do we still have a 40% winning
percentage when both of those all-stars are healthy?
 
1.  Is doc really that bad?
2.  Is our supporting cast really that bad?
3.  Are one or both of our all-stars not that good?
 
Seriously, it has to be at least one of those three, right?  
 
We all agree doc is horrible, but can he be completely to blame?  I continue
to think our supporting cast is severely overrated by people on this list
and as for our 2 all-stars, I guess we will see.
 
The facts are we win 40% of the time with our two big guns.  I don't know
how else to explain it other than Danny has done an awful job.  What am I
missing?  Is it all Doc?
 
rmn