I think the Celtics and Cavaliers each own one huge edge when you break down the two teams as we head into what I think will be a seven-game playoff series.

The advantage for Cleveland? Sebastian Telfair and his inside knowledge on how to stop Rajon Rondo.

Well, that and the very best basketball player in the world at the absolute peak of his powers. Would anyone be shocked if LeBron James averaged a triple-double in this series? As great as Dwyane Wade was in the last two games of the first-round series, LeBron will be better. Bank on it.

And how about the Celtics? When I looked over the matchups and handed out the check marks, I was surprised at how easy it was to give Doc Rivers the nod.

Now I know that the NBA Coach of the Year will never be handed the Mike Brown Trophy. He is a terrible offensive mind, seems to lose focus in big spots and doesn't, I believe, have the full confidence of the players he is supposed to lead (including the soon-to-be two-time MVP.)

Doc Rivers has won 178 regular-season games and an NBA title over the last three seasons, but is he ever mentioned as one of the, say, top five coaches in the league? As a fan, do you ever see Doc on the sideline and think, "Thank God we've got that guy?" Probably not, I suspect.

Why is that? And why does he only get a clear edge over a coach like Brown in a playoff series? Rivers has won 178 regular-season games and an NBA title in the last three seasons. Why isn't he higher in the pantheon on current coaches?

Here's what I think we know about Doc Rivers the coach after six seasons with the Celtics.

Give him medium talent and he'll get you a medium result (see the 2004-05 Celtics, a team that lost in the first round after winning 45 games with Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker, Ricky Davis, Gary Payton, Raef LaFrentz and a 20-year-old Al Jefferson.)

Give him a team that is built to tank and he'll do his best to coach the team to Durantville or Odenberg (the 2006-07 Celtics played without Pierce for nearly half the season, at one point losing 18 straight games and finishing the season with a 24-58 record, second-worst in the NBA. A good sign that maybe a team isn't exactly consumed with winning? Playing Telfair and Allan Ray in the same backcourt during crunch time.)

Give him a team that suddenly has three Hall of Famers that need to win a championship, a couple of quality role players and the right number of young guys and he'll get you to the podium (say this for Doc -- he outcoached Phil Jackson in an NBA Finals. Number of coaches that can make that claim? That would two. Doc and Larry Brown. Not too shabby.)

Give him a team with the same Hall of Famers -- now with the years that made them Springfield bound in the rear-view mirror -- and with an up-and-coming star plus a supporting cast somewhere south of the OK range, and he'll do nothing to get in the way of the inevitable decline (66 wins in 2007-08, 62 in 2008-09 and 50 this season. If I set the over/under at 46.5 for 2010-11, anyone willing to go north?) that always seems to happen with teams post-title in the NBA. 

As a coach, he pretty much follows the script.

So I guess the question is this: Has Doc Rivers ever surprised us?

Think about it. Has there been, in Doc's tenure on the sideline with the Celtics, a playoff series that they should have absolutely won yet lost? How about the opposite? Nope and nope. And have the Celtics overachieved by a huge total in any regular season? How about underachieved? Not really. 

Right now, for the first time in Boston sports history, we have three active coaches who have a won a title with their current teams (until 2004 there had never been a period in Boston sports that had two active coaches that had won titles in the city.)

And two of those guys -- Bill Belichick and Terry Francona -- have moments. Things that you immediately identify them with. With Belichick you can take your pick. Sticking with Brady over Bledsoe. Stopping the Rams. Taking the safety in the Monday Night win at Mile High. That's three of about 50 that I could have chosen. And Francona, well, he'll always be The Man That Stopped The Curse. 

Even the bad stuff resonates with Belichick and Francona. BB now has a trio of all-time losses (Colts AFC title game, 18-1, and fourth-and-2) while Tito has never been able to shed the "loyal way past the point of to a fault" label.

Quick: Name me a Mount Rushmore Doc moment, good or bad. A play he drew up, or a substitution he made.

No luck, right? And I get that it's harder for a basketball coach to make that kind of impression -- the NBA just isn't built for a coach to showcase. It truly is a players league. I still don't feel that we have figured out what Doc Rivers is yet.

And public perception means something. If I ask the average Boston sports fan to describe Belichick in 20 words, probably somewhere the words "great coach" show up. And with Francona, you'll most likely get something in the "knows how to win" neighborhood. 

Doc? Not sure. Maybe something like this: "Nice guy, was a good player, too. Didn't do anything as a coach until the Big Three showed up."

I hear a lot of that when Rivers is discussed. And it is true that if the Celtics had wound up with Oden, the lead analyst for the 2010 NBA playoffs probably would be Doc Rivers. He needed great players to win a title. So, by the way, did every other title-winning coach in history. You think Terry Francona went from winning 65 games with the Phillies to a World Series with the Red Sox because he got 30 games smarter? Of course not. 

Look, a team coached by Doc Rivers can win an NBA championship. Of that we are certain of. And if that's the best thing that can be said about someone's coaching acumen, well, you could do worse.

But I think a deep run by this team (meaning getting past the Cavs,) goes a long way in defining Rivers' place in Boston. He'll of course never be at the Belichick/Auerbach level (even if wins three titles -- people just don't look at him that way) but he can fit nicely in that group of coaches right below. A title in the bank plus a gutsy run by an aging team that the city had given up on? That'll change perception. 

It could happen if we get the answer to a key question.

Is it time for Doc Rivers to depart from the script?