The Doc Is In.

Amid the cross-burnings held in Danny Ainge's honor and the good-bye letters written for Paul Pierce stood an unfinished gravestone with Doc Rivers' career etched on the front. 2006 was not a pretty time for the storied Boston Celtics. They finished an Eastern Conference-worst 24-58 and seemingly destined to occupy the cellar for years to come.

Enter Kevin Garnett. Enter Ray Allen. Heck, enter Eddie House. Fifteen months after the dismal Boston Celtics closed their pitiful Red Auerbach-dedicated season, they stand as the 2007-08 NBA Champions. The coach once blamed for the demises of Tony Allen and Gerald Green was showered in basketball's first-ever Gatorade bath (however unsafe a tradition it may become).

This week the Celtics extended Rivers' contract by a reported two years. The monetary terms of the deal were not disclosed. The mere thought of it brings to mind one question -- who makes a team, the players or the coach?

Is Doc Rivers really responsible for the Celtics' turn of success? Pierce, Garnett and Allen might have something to say about it. Is there a cemented ceiling to how much influence a coach can have on a team, no matter how great he or she is? When thinking of the all-time greats in coaching, a series of superstars is always attached to each leader on the bench.

Would Phil Jackson have his plethora of rings without the likes of Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal and Scottie Pippen? Would the aforementioned Red Auerbach be the most revered coach in basketball history without Bill Russell, Bob Cousy and Tom Heinsohn? Would Jordan have become the greatest star in the game had he not been under Jackson's regime? Who made the other great?

...this is basically the "chicken and the egg" thing, isn't it?

Posted by Dan Zappulla, VendorBall Columnist.