Furthermore, we now know that both Horford and Smart are returning too.Well, I guess we know at least one of those key inputs now
Joe Mazzulla officially named head coach
- Thread starter Beale13
- Start date
Terrible choice to keep Mazzulla as coach, he was clearly far over his head this season and is nowhere ready to coach at this level imo.
Shame as i knew those 3 meaningless wins in this last series was going to make Wyc wrongly think that they can succeed with this guy.
Shame as i knew those 3 meaningless wins in this last series was going to make Wyc wrongly think that they can succeed with this guy.
Stephen Silas was around the team earlier in the postseason. He’s my bet along with a Vogel/Stotts type.
Agreed. I was suggesting Cassell instead of Vogel/Stotts (although Vogel would be a great hire)
View: https://twitter.com/ByJayKing/status/1664304115625631745
I think Cassell would be a great hire and probably better than JJ Reddick who was floated for Joe's staff last year.
Most significant unknown re: Mazzulla: Will he listen to the experienced coaches that Brad recruits (as opposed to the bench coaches that Joe is allowed to hire)?
It's a potentially awkward dynamic: "Yes, Joe, you could do what you wanted last season because key pieces left midseason and were not replaced, but now I've brought in people with a shit-ton more experience than you, and you need to listen to them. Like, one will install something you might be unfamiliar with, it's called an offense, and we might have another guy helping you scheme on the defensive end because you had that 'I'm utterly lost' look on your face when teams rallied in the 4th over and over again. Yeah, you can fill up a row of seats with your guys, but my guys will report back to me if you're not listening to their advice."
It's a potentially awkward dynamic: "Yes, Joe, you could do what you wanted last season because key pieces left midseason and were not replaced, but now I've brought in people with a shit-ton more experience than you, and you need to listen to them. Like, one will install something you might be unfamiliar with, it's called an offense, and we might have another guy helping you scheme on the defensive end because you had that 'I'm utterly lost' look on your face when teams rallied in the 4th over and over again. Yeah, you can fill up a row of seats with your guys, but my guys will report back to me if you're not listening to their advice."
I believe that Joe IS Brad Stevens' guy....and that if the faith level were what is implied above, he'd have been fired. I think what they are doing is clearing out the Ime guys and bringing in Joe (and Brad) guys.
The idea that the Celitcs would replace Mazzulla with Rivers may be one of the dumbest ideas floated out there in awhile.
Love how being one game away from the NBA Finals and winning nearly 60 games in the regular season shows that someone was "clearly far over his head" and "nowhere ready to coach at this level".
Two more quotes from that article:
At first, the Boston players all seemed to recognize that they fell short in the playoffs last season because their offense disintegrated in the biggest moments. Even in the series they won, they dealt with excessive turnovers and stalled ball movement. Over the first two months of the season, the Celtics rode their new offensive principles to a 21-5 record and, to that point, what would have been the most efficient offense in NBA history.
and
After all of the offensive shortcomings during last season’s playoff run, Mazzulla saw the Celtics puzzle differently. He wanted the players to reach a new level as problem solvers. He envisioned a more free-flowing transition game where offense and defense go hand-in-hand and trusted that the team had the talent to play more improvisationally on both ends than it had before.
He wanted them to learn how to diagnose any defensive coverage and come up with solutions on the fly.
How many people on this board agreed with JMazz and figured that the loss to GSW was because the offense stagnated against the coverages GSW threw at BOS? I think if JMazz had posted a message after last year's Finals that the Cs needed a more free-flowing offense that could adjust against different looks thrown at them on its own, most people would have agreed.Only, unlike most people, JMazz got to do something about it.
One thing that I don't think people are thinking about enough - and that King certainly didn't mention when he talks about his offense/defense conflict - is that last year, BOS's great defense was because of the two-big lineup but this year, one could say that BOS's great defensive rating was despite the two-big lineup. From what I remember (and I don't feel like looking it up but I think I'm correct), the two-big lineup didn't have the same on/off success this year than last year (granted in much more limited minutes). Yes, it's great that the two-big lineup really shut down PHI in G6 and G7 but I think all of us could see that TL wasn't the same player this year as he was last year. In particular, he didn't have this year the lateral mobility to guard on the perimeter like he did last year, which is important in the Cs defensive scheme.
No matter who is coach, I think the one thing the Cs need more than anything else is a close-to-fully-functioning Time Lord.
You realize that from all reports, the defense that Ime used was actually Mazzulla's, right?
Not a fan of keeping this guy at all but at least they are going to beef up security around the W.O.P.R.
Also if Tatum vouched for him then that's likely the most important factor in any decision.
Brad on CJM, he likes his leadership factor.
View: https://twitter.com/NBCSCeltics/status/1664303998810177537
Also if Tatum vouched for him then that's likely the most important factor in any decision.
Brad on CJM, he likes his leadership factor.
View: https://twitter.com/NBCSCeltics/status/1664303998810177537
I think Reddick was in part a choice because of something Brad noted in the PC today.... it's really tough to get guys to move and come to a new team as the season starts (or after it has). JJ was workig in Bristol CT, he could likely have taken the BOS job without worrying about stuff like moving his kids to a new school, etc.
I do. And I know that we all might be pleasantly surprised that with a full offseason with Brad's recruits and CJM's hires in place, and ongoing growth and maturity from the Jays, that we will finally overcome the Celts' playoff propensity to make things hard on themselves. I just don't think I'm being TOO alarmist (admittedly, my previous post was snarky and hyperbolic) to wonder and worry how a 34-year-old head coach might respond to Brad-selected coaches who have a stronger pedigree than CJM.
I trust Brad to navigate these dynamics. And I'm fascinated to see who the Celts can be with some stability and a gaggle of coaches, young and old, who are there to make Boston better. But I'm scarred, man. Mazzulla made a lot of questionable decisions. And got combative with the press when asked about them. I want things to work out -- because this team has the talent to win it all. To do that, though, I feel CJM has to be better.
It really is a bad situation at best, per Trapper's post, it's putting CJM into a bad situation. He now has better assistant coaches, but if there's a bad start that also means there'll be immediate talk of "why not replace with...?:
A lot of the defenses of CJM are similar to BrotherM's -- the team was very good w/ CJM and what ails the team wasn't his fault. Get better assistants and re-run it. I don't have a strong opinion on CJM, but it seems to me those are pretty half-assed arguments in his support. Yes, the team was good (as was expected). And, yes, the team failed in previous years w/ different coaches. And, yes, better assistant coaches to support him are needed. I'm fully of the opinion that coaching is overrated and the instant blame the coach thing is knee jerk silliness. In this case, though, I'm not reading from any corner a truly positive endorsement of what CJM brings to the table; doesn't that case need to be made rather than the failures aren't really on him?
The attacks against him are, more or less, he's young and inexperienced; seems to be frozen when discussing the game w/ the press; doesn't have the respect of his team; and was out-coached in X and Os during the playoffs. The counterargument is that it wasn't really his fault and to the degree it was his fault that can be fixed with better, more experienced assistants. Two points. One, the 2nd part of the pro-CJM argument contradicts the first. If a guy needs better assistants than that indicates he has some failings, no? Two, is there anyone who is arguing that the critiques are nonsense? I.e, who is saying that 1) CJM has an IME like gravitas that just needs another year to come out; 2) his players respect and support him so replacing him would be starting a dumpster fire; 3) criticism of his X n O moves during the playoffs are wrong -- he was pushing the right buttons but just didn't have the right players.
I get that coaches are treated unfairly and in a perfect world CJM would be given time to develop. But for a team with a narrow window to win, I think not seeing arguments positively stating that CJM is the right guy for the right moment is telling. The argument for a coach has to be more than "it wasn't his fault and to the degree it was his fault that can be fixed by new assistants." He's the coach and, however knee jerk blaming the coach is, it sure seems that, if it was a blank slate (let's say Ime was dumped after this season rather than before it), CJM would not be the first choice to be the head coach. So besides inertia, why should he be the first choice now?
I don't know if I can respond to each of these points, because there are a lot of them. And I think a lot of them are unanswerable, at least for us basement dwelling message board posters, in terms of how he's respected in the locker room, or specific scheme fits during games, etc.
What irks me is some of the hyperbole about how Mazzulla is clueless and over his head and not ready for this level, when the results on the court say otherwise. Top 3 in Offense and Defense in the regular season, second seed in the East, one game away from the NBA Finals. Was it the ultimate path we all wanted? Of course not. Was it the easiest path to get there? No, but sports never works like that. It's hard to win games. It's really fucking hard to win championships.
You mentioned that no one is offering any positive endorsements of him. Well, here are a couple from me. The guy is obviously an extremely hard worker and driven individual. You don't get to this stage at his age without having some really strong attributes (and the story in the Globe about his MMA training is a fascinating look into his psyche). He's very intelligent and sees the game from an analytical point of view (particularly on the value of the three-point shot). And, as mentioned above, the results on the court were at least on par with what Ime did last year, besides losing his Game 7 against Miami.
Why should he be the first choice to be the head coach now? Because he won 57 games last year, has been in the organization for almost five years and has earned the right to have a full offseason and a full staff to see what he can achieve.
And personally, I don't think the window for this team to win is all that narrow, because as long as Tatum is here and healthy, they have a bonafide A-1 star. And it's up to Stevens and Zarren to surround him with the right pieces to win a championship, and for Mazzulla to get those pieces to gel on the court.
One of the most obvious problems in trying to evaluate a coach is that we don't see like 90%+ of what they do, the most important stuff is happening in preseason, in practice, in the film room, in the lockerroom. We hyperfixate on the 5% that is televised, because we see it. The best proxy for guessing how well a coach is doing at all the stuff we don't see is how the team does over the course of the season, and how it relates to what the previous coach did.
Others have responded to most of these, but as to the one I highlighted, Mazzulla was every bit the humorless ghoul that Ime was when it came to talking to the press. Even in the friendly-fire press, like the pregame "interviews" with Gorman or Scal. I kind of found it jarring how robotic they both were (especially as compared to Stevens). I never really thought it was a relevant consideration to either's job performance, though. Only to my entertainment value.
Those last 2 sentences are doing a whole lot of unpaid work. Stevens and the rest of the Celtics braintrust really seem to think very highly of Mazzulla. He was named interim almost immediately, and there was a lot of talk that Mazzulla was one of the most well respected of Ime's assistants. It's quite possible that in some alternate universe in which Ime is fired now rather than September, Mazzulla is on a very short list of candidates for the head coaching position.
And disagree completely that having experienced assistants is going to be a problem. I'm sure Stevens and Mazzulla have been both on board with that for quite some time, or Mazzulla never would have had the interim tag removed. I think having several assistants that were loyal to Ime first was a far bigger problem for CJM this past season.
One hundred percent. It doesn't make them bad coaches, but I hate that Ime and, now, Mazzulla never seem to have a twinkle in their eyes. People with no apparent sense of humor get old quickly.
Last edited:
I'd be willing to bet that many of them actually do but they're so guarded that they'll never let it show up in these press conferences. Marketing and media appeasement can do so much for a coach, especially in a city like Boston, that I'm always surprised when people go with the wet blanket routine. We're all human and a dumb question at the height of frustration can lead to a short response but how about giving a little more color after you beat the Wizards in December? Crack a few jokes, give some candid answer, etc. Ainge was so good with the media. I always loved his WEEI appearances. Belichick I get. Even Brady, who probably hated the experience, was mostly gracious with the media and he had the least time of anyone.
Cuts both ways, I suppose. No one will doubt a coach's abilities if he's humorless. Start cracking some jokes and when the team loses, "the coach is nothing more than a comedian."
True but you also need to have some awareness for when it's appropriate and when not, no different than cracking a joke in a business meeting or something. You know when the serious times are and when a little levity might work. Miserable people like Shaughnessy will attack you no matter what but the rest can probably be influenced a bit. My media strategy would almost be entirely self-serving. You butter them up, you call them by their names, you make them feel important and human nature indicates that you'll get them on your side far more than if you're just a cold hearted dude talking X's and O's and being defiant. I get that not everyone is equipped with these skills and having a bunch of microphones shoved in your face is different than sitting around a table but that's why people with public-facing jobs go through training on this stuff.
Last edited:
Joe is definitely a risk, but at the end of the day I do think he showed improvement over the course of the season and I think unless you're getting a sure fire Hall of Fame coach to come in and take over long term, sticking with Joe is better than giving these guys their 4th coach in 4 years, especially since de facto GM Jayson Tatum loves the guy. Joe is incredibly young, hopefully they all work and improve together (and trade some combo of Smart/Brown ) .
) .
Joe has a winning record as a head coach in the playoffs. So we have that going for us!
Seriously, he'll be another year experienced and have a long time to think of what he could have done differently. We always treat these like there is only one variable. It's like pitching changes -- sometimes you think it's obvious that a guy needs to be pulled but then we don't really talk about the options to come in. The cost of bringing another HC in were not negligible.
Seriously, he'll be another year experienced and have a long time to think of what he could have done differently. We always treat these like there is only one variable. It's like pitching changes -- sometimes you think it's obvious that a guy needs to be pulled but then we don't really talk about the options to come in. The cost of bringing another HC in were not negligible.
It also speaks to how Mazz is as a communicator (and he’s far worse at press conferences than Ime or any other coach I’ve ever seen). I mean, as far as I can tell, the man has never smiled at a press conference -even after the heroic game 6 victory. And I get it, people around the team say that he’s far different in the locker room but his level of awkwardness with the media is still concerning. Isn’t this guy a professional communicator? Can he really be excellent with the players and more inept than your average teenager in front of a camera? The basic concern with Mazz is that he has an unimpressive resume and fell into the position due to happenstance, and this naturally leads to doubts about whether or not he’s over his head. At the time he was named interim coach, there really weren’t good options so I don’t think many people were against giving him a chance. But now the season is over and there is plenty of time to find a good candidate for what would be a highly desirable job. Isn’t it worth doing a search? Did Mazz really show that much potential this year?
If someone can't lighten up they may seem too guarded and too defensive. And too defensive was not an issue that kept CJM up at night.
I thought CJMs one word curt and dismissive answers bought him few friends. I thought he came off as an arrogant asshole. Maybe pobobs can find a few more $$$ and get CJM some media training as well as a veteran bench coach who can teach him the value of defense, in game coaching adjustments and the occasional use of a timely TO.
I find it amusing that people are worried about Joe being curt with the media and whether he can communicate with players when:
1. The players all talk about him as a communicator, and
2. We literally live in the market of the most famous curt to the media coach of all time, who is also and all-time great. (Pop is another example, he loosened up as he got older, but he was notoriously curt and angry at PCs and with sideline reporters for years.
I am 100% sure that Joe's press conference answers have no bearing on his ability to be a good coach.
1. The players all talk about him as a communicator, and
2. We literally live in the market of the most famous curt to the media coach of all time, who is also and all-time great. (Pop is another example, he loosened up as he got older, but he was notoriously curt and angry at PCs and with sideline reporters for years.
I am 100% sure that Joe's press conference answers have no bearing on his ability to be a good coach.
Did I miss the posts where people were saying that his press conferences correlate to his coaching ability? I saw at least a few who clearly pointed out that it doesn’t.
Joe comes off as amateurish in these press conferences. It’s not that he’s not cracking jokes, it’s that he looks like this is the first time he’s ever talked to a group of people before and has no ability to engage with people or explain anything. That would be fine if he worked for the Cs as an accountant but coaches are professional communicators. Shouldn’t he be better at this? He’s seen by many as too inexperienced for this job. The whole deer in the headlights act with the media isn’t helping his cause.
I think being a inexperienced rookie coach prone to making mistakes and also an inexperienced media presence are not mutually exclusive. And neither are dependent upon the other. My hope is he becomes a better coach. I care little if he comes off as an arrogant asshole in his press conferences. I just think a rookie coach could be better served if he tries a different tack or tact.
two posts above mine was one about how can he really be a good communicator with the players if he isn't with the press, and honestly the harping on it certainly implies people think it's a negative in a coach, which is dumb. That we have pages of discourse on how he doesn't give good quotes like Brad is so dumb.
The most important question about Joe Mazzulla has seemingly been answered. Jayson Tatum (and probably Jaylen Brown as well) are apparently ok with him returning.
In the end, that's all that matters even if a coach isn't that experienced or a good public speaker. Managing star players is far more important than being witty in front of a camera.
In the end, that's all that matters even if a coach isn't that experienced or a good public speaker. Managing star players is far more important than being witty in front of a camera.
You ever met someone who was affable one on one but had trouble with public speaking?
I pulled one of TonyC's observations about that from his longer post.
Does it specifically say it correlates with coaching? No. Perhaps I over-read it.
Yes. I tried cases in front of juries without issue (after the first couple). When I stand up to speak at a Town Meeting, which I've done regularly for 20 years, my wife says I turn green and my voice is shaking.
Coaching involves public speaking, and not just with the media. Is he not regularly addressing the team?
The guy in Foxboro comes off as highly knowledgeable but with some disdain for the press. Mazz comes off as frozen. And I’m not saying he can’t be a good coach and suck with the media. That said, it does make it harder for fans to get any sense of his strengths as a coach when he presents himself poorly on camera, and this definitely feeds the narrative that he’s in over his head. He also comes off as rigid in these in interviews, as if he’s incapable or unwilling to even consider doing anything differently as a coach. Maybe this is simply because he disdains the media, but that is also a bad look for a guy that has been criticized as not being adaptable with his in-game decision making.
I also disagree with the idea that being good with the media isn’t a skill that anyone should care about. A coach who has this skill can take some heat off the players and limit how much the media reacts to the inevitable ups and downs throughout the season.
Last edited:
Did Hauser play well the last 2-3 weeks of the regular season? Did not have a lot of great outings save for the last 2 games, which were glorified scrimmages. At least that's the way I saw it.
This feels pretty obtuse? Are you saying if he freezes up in front of the press then he probably freezes up in front of the team too?
Yeah, I don’t think there are many people on this board who are overly concerned with his media capabilities and those that comment about it, myself included, are merely pointing out something he clearly isn’t very skilled at doing. If a couple people think the press conferences are indicative of his coaching ability, well, I wouldn’t agree. But I also wouldn’t call those opinions “dumb” either.