They are both among the longest-tenured head coaches in their respective leagues. They have both won conference and league championships. They both seemingly manage to get more out of their teams than the roster talent would indicate.

But when it comes to dealing with the media, Bill Belichick and Doc Rivers could not be more different.

Or are they more alike than a surface examination would show?

Doc Rivers was recently named the recipient of the Rudy Tomjanovich Award – a honor given from the Professional Basketball Writers Association to the head coach considered the most accessible to the media.

Bill Belichick is never in danger of being awarded the Horrigan Award from the Professional Football Writers of America, which goes “to the person whose qualities and professional style helped the media best do its job last season.” Guess who won last year? (Professional style? Ha.)

(As an aside, how ridiculous is it that these awards exist in the first place? It seems a little self-important for the media to be honoring people who make their jobs the easiest.)

While their approaches with the media are certainly different, you can’t argue with the results.

Belichick does not give away information on the day-to-day operation of his team, whether it be about injuries, the opponent, or what color jerseys his team is wearing that Sunday. He will almost never criticize a specific player publicly, instead putting the blame on the entire team, including the coaches and himself. Belichick will, from time to time, speak at length about the history of a certain strategy, or about players of the past, or will acknowledge something in the personal life of a media member (as he did by noting Monique Walker’s last day on the beat this season.) His press conferences, especially after a game, can be painful. He doesn’t elaborate on anything, does not want to speak about certain plays or performances until he has a chance to review the film. His weekly radio spots with WEEI are a little more open and cordial, though he still does not give away much.

Rivers talks openly about injuries. (sort of, more on that in a bit.) He’ll be critical of his players publicly. His press conferences are informative, engaging and smooth. His weekly spots on WEEI are appointment radio.

Both are successful, showing that there is more than one way to do things.

Let’s get back to injuries. The Patriots policies on information about injuries can be infuriating when, as a fan, you want to know how hurt a player is, and what the impact, long and short-term is going to be. But after a few days, it becomes “out of sight, out of mind.” The injured players are “day-to-day,” with no timetable set on a return.  The focus is turned onto the players who are playing. In addition to keeping fans and media guessing, it also keeps opponents in the dark, which is the real reason for the policy. Injuries never become an all-consuming drama.

If I have a frustration with the Celtics, and Doc Rivers (and Danny Ainge) it is how they deal with injuries. They talk about them, but in reality, they’re not giving you much more than the Patriots do. The release last week about Paul Pierce’s MCL was a bit of a surprise, it was also obvious that Pierce had a knee injury. (Well, except to foil-hat Felger.) In general, the Celtics will give almost daily updates on injuries without giving you any information.

Let me give two examples: Kevin Garnett in the 2009 playoffs, and Shaquille O’Neal last season. In both cases, you got daily updates which told you absolutely nothing. With KG, every day there was talk about being day-to-day or getting “close” or wanting to play. First there was talk about whether he would be ready for the playoffs, which Ainge and Rivers said he would be. Then as each game went by, KG was said to be “close.

He never stepped on the court for the Celtics in the 2009 playoffs.

Last season, it was Shaq. Following the trade of Kendrick Perkins, Danny Ainge repeated said that the trade was made in part because they expected Shaq (and to a lesser extent, Jermaine O’Neal) to fill the center spot. We got daily and weekly updates on Shaq, and how close he was to returning. Rivers talked about it, but Shaq never really came back, making just a token appearance in the playoffs (2 games, 2 points total) and obviously never being a factor.

If you think about it,  in the end, the practices of Doc Rivers and Bill Belichick when it comes to information about injuries, really have the same endgame. They tell you nothing. They do it to keep people guessing.

Celtics ownership infamously joked/bragged that they were being Belichickian during the KG injury. They knew the severity of Garnett’s injury, but played the “day-to-day” game to keep opponents guessing. In the endgame, perhaps it was Belichick-like, but the method of getting there was about as far from Belichick as you could get.

The difference between the Rivers method and the Belichick method is that Doc Rivers is going to sit in front of reporters and talk about the situation, seemingly being helpful, yet saying nothing, while Belichick is not even going to bother playing that game. But Rivers is lauded and awarded for being “helpful” to the media, while Belichick is mocked, and reporters gripe about not getting any information from him.

I actually prefer the Belichick way of doing things. The KG and Shaq sagas were painful. Every day it seemed like the player was very close to coming back, yet it didn’t happen. Hopes were raised, the frustrations grew as the weeks went by. Had it been Belichick handling it, it wouldn’t have been the same huge topic. Focus would be on the players who were actually playing. If the injured players came back, it would be a pleasant surprise and a bonus, perhaps even a lift to the team.

While Doc Rivers is definitely more media friendly and is certainly always accessible, part of him is more like Bill Belichick than it would seem. Let’s keep this mind next time you hear Rivers praised for his accessibility and willingness to talk about injuries, and the next time a reporter dumps on Belichick for refusing to talk about injuries.


11 thoughts on “Examining How Bill Belchick and Doc Rivers Talk With The Media About Injuries

  1. I hate the Celtics approach. It gives false hope, which is what they want. In 2009, it was intentionally done because they were afraid fans would jump ship and not buy playoff tickets. With the Shaq situation, Danny knew admitting Shaq was done would be admitting failure with the Perkins trade.


    1.  Remember the amount of days/weeks/months of the “Shaq is just about ready to come back.”


  2. Dear Bruce: Belichick gives out more information than it appears. You must deduce his specific meanings from his general statements on football theory, history, etc., but it can be done.
    And he’s a font of knowledge, or at least honesty on injuries compared to his predecessor Bill Parcells. With the Pats, Parcells made it a firing offense rule that he was the only person in the organization who could discuss injuries.
    When asked about injuries, his invariable answer was “I don’t know. I’m not a doctor.”
    I’d rather get a no comment than that.


    1. Michael,
      I don’t see how you can extrapolate that Belichick gives out information by implication.  He says the same things about all injuries. “I’ll coach the player that are available to me”, “He’s making progress but until we see him on the field we won’t know”, or “We have put him on IR”.  The only reading between the lines you can make is through the actions of the team.  If a player is not put on IR then the assumption is the injury is not too serious and the team expects the player back.  Otherwise they are quick to end someone’s season to make room for a healthy body.

      I do agree with you Parcells was worse with injuries.  I was laughing at your “I don’t know. I’m not a doctor.” comment.  


  3. After this post, Bruce has also been listed as probable on the BSM injury report, retroactive today.


  4. Great point here, especially with respect to Doc.

    Every time Doc is asked about an injured player, he’ll always answer with something that sounds like an answer, but isn’t.  For example, someone may ask “How is Paul’s knee responding to the rest?  Is it going to be a lingering issue throughout the playoffs?”  He’ll say something like “Paul’s really anxious to get back at full strength. He’s a competitor.  He’s a warrior.  We know he’s an important part of the team, and we want him back.”  Well, yeah… we sort of already knew that Pierce was an important player. But what about the knee, Doc?  


    1. I agree here. One thing, for sure, that we can say is that Doc’s post NBA life could easily include politics with that type of sleight of word.


  5. If Belichick’s obfuscation gives the Pats 1/100th of a percentage point of an advantage, I’m all for it.  All I care about is wins and losses, not accountability or stooorylines.  


  6. Watching TNT tonight, enjoying what the Celtics have done up until the 4th, has anyone noticed the analyst with Dick Stockton, who has been on quite a few of the calls this year, not being the biggest fan of the Celtics? I recall he did Game 5 or 6 on TNT as well. (I don’t know his name.)

    Normally, TNT does a great job with the actual broadcast, but the analyst seems to go out of his way in discrediting the Celtics, up until it was clear that they had the blow-out win.

    I had also noticed the same analyst that seemed to be “displeased” (best word I can come up with how he talked/analyzed) when TNT had some of the Atlanta games.

    Also, Brian Scalabrine has been on CSNNE with their pre/post work. Today, they had him ask a question about a specific way of doing a play (I don’t have the language) and I was really impressed. At first, I thought CSNNE was just padded their coverage since the Bulls are out, but he actually added something to the broadcasts. Normally, I don’t tune-in because it’s not for a non-grean teamer, but I enjoyed his analysis for someone who wants an honest breakdown.




Comments are closed.