COMMENTARY : Much of What Hurt the Celtics’ Rodgers Was Not His Fault

Coaching the Boston Celtics used to be a dream job. Nobody ever accused Tom Heinsohn, Bill Russell or K. C. Jones of being coaching geniuses, but they did not have to be. The National Basketball Assn. was a far weaker, less-competitive league in those days, and the Celtics’ cupboard was almost always overflowing with great players. Great young players.

Jimmy Rodgers, fired Tuesday after two shaky seasons at the Celtics’ helm, had few such luxuries. He inherited a team of greats who had grown old, their deeds no longer as wondrous as their names and reputations--and public expectations. His predecessor, Jones, had hastened his stars’ aging process by playing them more than 40 minutes a game and all but ignoring development of the Celtics’ young players, leaving them to rot on the bench.

For Rodgers to be successful by the Celtics’ exalted standards, he had to be lucky. He was not. He was forced to coach virtually the entire 1988-89 season without the team’s greatest player, Larry Bird, who was sidelined by surgery on both feet. He was forced to coach the entire 1989-90 season without his best young guard, Brian Shaw, who bolted to Italy in August when the Celtics were slow meeting his contract demands.

Rodgers was not responsible for negotiating contracts. He was not responsible for the Celtics’ uneven success on draft day. But he was held responsible, in essence, for the Celtics’ uneven play this season. He was held responsible for their elimination in the first round of the playoffs, the second consecutive season they were eliminated in the first round. That had not happened since Red Auerbach’s first two seasons, 1950-51 and 1951-52.

Some believe that if the Celtics had beaten the New York Knicks, Rodgers would not have been fired. Don’t be so sure. It probably would have taken beating the defending champion Detroit Pistons in the playoffs to save him.

Celtic owner Alan Cohen was not pleased with the team’s erratic play this season, and there was some feeling that Rodgers, while certainly not a so-called “players’ coach” (which usually means hands-off) in the K. C. Jones mold, was not quite hard enough on some of his aging stars.

What is more, Rodgers did a poor job communicating with several players, particularly Kevin Gamble and Jim Paxson. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Gamble was a budding star when injuries forced him into the lineup at the end of the 1988-89 season, but Rodgers soured on him early this season and never told the confused Gamble where he stood, or why. He was similarly vague with Paxson.

But if Rodgers’ inability to communicate with his non-legends was lacking, his ideas on how to save the Celtics’ old legs were not. What was lacking was the wholehearted cooperation of the most important person in the organization--Bird.

Rodgers wanted the Celtics to become more of an equal-opportunity team. Besides starting Ed Pinckney and having Kevin McHale fill a sixth-man role to beef up bench scoring, Rodgers wanted Bird to shoot less, prompting Bird to sarcastically refer to himself as a “point forward.”

Rodgers also wanted Bird to play less. It was like asking Diana Ross to sing backup. It did not wash. The Celtics looked great in their opening night victory against the Milwaukee Bucks, and in the winner’s dressing room, the only discouraging words heard were Bird’s.

“It’s going to take me awhile to get adjusted to this,” he said, after playing 32 minutes. The way he said it, you knew it was not an adjustment he was eager to make.

Ultimately, he did not. He was Larry Bird, and he knew what was best for Larry Bird. He shot more. He played more. And the Celtics won more. And when Rodgers tried to keep 35-year-old Dennis Johnson in a reserve role, Bird let the coach know that was not the way to go. Ultimately, Johnson played because John Bagley got hurt and because, lo and behold, Johnson proved he still could. Bird was vindicated--again.

But Bird was still a Rodgers booster, after a fashion. When the Celtics hit the home stretch and the front office failed to give Rodgers a vote of confidence, Bird let it be known that Rodgers had done a good job and deserved to be retained. But as Bird proved in the fourth quarter of Game 5 Sunday--when he was one for six from the field and failed to score in the last 11 minutes--his power is not what it once was.

When a coach is on the hot seat, a good image is one intangible that can help him hold a job. But Rodgers’ public image was not overly good.

There were few smiles in this Mr. Rodgers’ neighborhood. He was wound tight emotionally, and often looked and acted as if he was leading a death march. He baited the referees and got a lot of technicals. He bumped one and got a one-game suspension. After a loss at Atlanta to the Hawks, he went on and on, whining about the referees costing the Celtics the game. He sounded like a high school coach.

But if he wanted to whine about his firing, he would be justified to an extent. Few of the Celtics’ problems were of Jimmy Rodgers’ making. As the saying goes, if he didn’t have bad luck, he’d have no luck at all.

Celtic General Manager Jan Volk says Assistant Coach Chris Ford will be seriously considered as Rodgers’ successor. Can Ford make the Celtics young again? Can he be guaranteed the blockbuster trade that makes the Celtics’ bid for a 17th NBA championship something besides a pipe dream?

If not, his fate will be the same as Rodgers’. Unless the Celtics engage in some serious restructuring, unless the public’s and management’s expectations are lowered during that restructuring, holding the Celtics’ reins will be nobody’s dream. More like a nightmare.