So my idea for this post came from a couple different things I saw, one of which was Brad's decision making in the game last night. Now that he has a full, healthy team it makes dividing up playing time and making smart substitutions so much easier.
For example, he got a lot of flak last night for putting Zeller into the game, but it was a timely, and crucial substitution. With Drummond in the game, Kelly had botched 2 consecutive defensive possessions. One where Jerebko successfully got a hand on a Drummond contested rebound, and the ball rolled off Kelly's flimsy hands out of bounds, and the other was on a free throw where he got caught contemplating the meaning of life, didn't even try to box out, and eventually committed a foul under the basket. Okay okay, so this one is obvious, but still credit to Brad for making a quick substitution.
Brad managed our big men perfectly, by yanking both Olynyk and Johnson when they weren't being physical enough in their time on the floor, and rewarded Jerebko and Zeller for playing good defense (though I certainly don't expect it to be a trend with those 2). This unfortunately meant playing Horford extended minutes in his first game back from injury, but fortunately he looked really good out there, and ultimately we should be grateful the coaching and medical staff was as cautious and patient as they were.
Brad also managed the Pistons' big men perfectly, which I'll explain. In the final Celtics possession of the game, Brad decided not to take a time out, instead running the same play to get Isaiah free and going downhill with the high screen handoff. You might think this would be a mistake, since the defense would be prepared to guard the same play they had just seen, and IT wouldn't get the foul this time around, but the defense collapses, the ball is kicked out to Crowder and...well he misses the shot.
Except then Marcus Smart gets an offensive rebound, keeping the ball alive, and allowing Horford to tip it back in for the game winner. All of this is credit to none other than Brad Stevens. By refusing to take the time out, he denied the Pistons the opportunity to substitute in Drummond, the best rebounder in the league, which may very well have won us the game. Not only does this mean more space in the paint for Isaiah to make a good pass to the perimeter, it means 2 touches by the Celtics that would have been infinitely more well-contested if he had taken the time out.
Lastly, there was a play down the stretch, where Brad made a smart decision in having Avery cover Morris, who had been forcing switches, and comfortably shooting over IT all night long. This time when Morris tried to make the switch off Smart, AB was already there to help, and Isaiah switched quickly out onto Bradley's defensive assignment. It was seamless and the defense didn't expect it, leading to a crucial stop down the stretch. That decision and good communication can be traced back to Brad.
So what's the point of this post? We already know Brad is a good coach, who has encouraged and fostered continuous improvement out of his team, with guys like IT, Crowder and Bradley all making vast improvement to their game in their time in Boston.
But what about this little rumor going around the media? Actually it ran rampant for a few days, and was no doubt propagated by the Celtics' shorthanded struggles, and increased rumors of Demarcus Cousins's availability. It read: "Brad Stevens doesn't want to coach difficult player" or "Not everyone is down with the Boogie".
Basically the media had latched onto the idea that the reason a trade for Cousins hadn't been made, is that the organization was split on whether he could really be controlled and relied on, or if he would bring any team he was on crashing down. Since Cousins's reputation is that of a "coach killer", having had 6 different head coaches in Sacramento since he was drafted, it would make sense that Brad wouldn't want him in Boston, right?
Well, to be honest, maybe that's partly true. Obviously Brad doesn't have final say in any of this, but if Brad says he wants high character guys on his squad, maybe Danny hesitates to make the trade. Maybe it's the right thing too. Danny has to weigh the pros and cons of trading guys like AB and Jaylen, and the potential of the Brooklyn picks, to not mortgage the Celtics's future, but he also has to weigh the potential of his own coach's comfort and credibility in the locker room (Or maybe Danny is waiting for the price to go down, so it's not as risky of a move).
Now, if there's any conclusion we can come to based on NBA champion teams from recent years, it can only be one thing. Superstars. Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett. Dominant bigs and wings who can single handedly take over games. Except for 2 teams. The 2011 Mavs and 2015 Warriors.
Now don't get me wrong, there are 2 great players on those teams between Dirk Nowitzki and Stephen Curry, but is a superstar all it takes? Curry is no doubt a generational talent, but didn't last year show that a dominant wing, that can contribute in every imaginable way on the floor, is more important than a prolific scorer? Nowitzki had some great games, but when revisiting the 2011 finals, he didn't dominate by any means. There were games in the playoffs and even the finals where he was downright awful for 3 quarters, but made big shots down the stretch. So what's the common thread(s) between these 2 teams?
I'll start off with one I haven't mentioned yet: a balanced team. Between the role players and the benches, both teams were deep and versatile, well equipped to give their starters enough rest while holding down the fort. Tyson Chandler/Andrew Bogut, Andre Iguodala/DeShawn Stevenson, Shaun Livingston/JJ Barea. They did have star complementary players, like Draymond Green and Jason Kidd too, but the bench's versatility and synergy were vital to both of these teams. There's even a good argument that in 2011 Miami's lack of a good bench is what did them in.
The other thread should be obvious at this point, the coach. Rick Carlisle and Steve Kerr set their teams up for success. Kerr's switching defense, along with his ever-moving guards and plethora of pin-downs, brush screens, and down screens make for an incredibly unique offensive scheme, that's a veritable headache to successfully defend. Carlisle's defensive schemes slowed down and turned over the most problematic defensive mismatch since Shaq; LeBron James.
The thing is, Danny doesn't want to be the Mavericks, and he doesn't want Brad to be Rick Carlisle. He doesn't want only get over the hump 1 time in 20 years with a superstar. He doesn't want to be the Warriors, because that took too many years of losing basketball, risky drafting, and unlikely results.
Much closer to the truth would be the Spurs. Not the way they play, but their sustained success. Danny trusts Brad's defensive schemes. He trusts his ability in the locker room, and he trusts his ability to develop young talent.
Danny Ainge sees Brad Stevens as the next Popovich.
Even better, rather than scrounge up diamonds in the rough, like the Spurs have done in the past, Danny has the Celtics in a position to easily acquire promising young talent for the foreseeable future.
Long story short, Danny has seen what it takes to win 1 championship, and what it takes to win 5. He knows the potential that he has right now to begin a stretch of sustained winning in this league. He has the assets, he has the intelligence, but JUST as importantly, he has the coach.
BTW, sorry if this post sucks. It's the first "theory post" I've ever written, and I know the idea of not trading for a superstar if you had the opportunity is pretty controversial on this sub. I was inspired by a few comments I saw about Brad's coaching as well as the rumors that Danny might not be willing to bring in Cousins. I just hoped this could bring about some interesting discussion.
Submitted November 20, 2016 at 02:20PM by Beta_boy_94