Pop Realists, would a 5th title redeem all?

[Fabbs]

The thread is for Pop viewing realistic types, Aggie Hoops Fan types, those who see the coatail riding, never repeating, best roster 7/8 of the 12 years he's coached, Dunkan rump riding, 4 Dumb pushing, offensive moron, smallballs Mike Finley at the PF strategizing, Avery losing, Phils Bitch who goes into fetal position at the sight of Phil (2003 abberation notwithstanding), guy......

If he pulls off a title this playoffs 2009, will you forgive all?

a. No, besides numerous blown titles the dumbass never did repeat.
b. Yes. All is forgiven. The 5th will be sweet.

Popapologists while you have no need to respond I'm sure you feel the need to troll in.

[m33p0]

some will ask for a sixth. shit heads.

[koriwhat]

pop is a damn good coach regardless whether or not the spurs pick up another o'brien while he's still around.

[SpurSupremacist]

Where is the letter for "Popovich sucks a fat cock."?

[travis2]

Realists? :rolleyes

[ChuckD]

Any one who still hates Pop will always hate Pop.

[fyatuk]

I've never really liked pop as a head coach (I have issues with his in game methods, substitutions, adjustments, etc) and think he is over-rated. Despite that, he's still a good coach, just not "one of the best" like people like to say. Winning titles has nothing to do with my opinion of Pop.

[ambchang]

Why are so many teams struggling to find a head coach? We have posters here to claims to be better than one of the best coaches in the history of the league.
So much coaching talent wasted on this board, sigh ....

[Obstructed_View]

I love Pop, but he's made mistakes in the past. I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen when the discussion comes up. I love championships. The one in '06 would have been nice, too. Since that's not going to happen, I'll hope for more in the future. If the Spurs never win another one, 2006 becomes more prominent.

[Melmart1]

He has won four championships. He needs no redeeming.

[hater]

stupid thread. Pop is already one of the best coaches in NBA history. Probably top 5 or close. His time in San Antonio I would consider a golden age.

[YODA]

how soon people forget that they asked for his head in early 99 too. How fast that changed. If somethign goes wrong, they blame the coach. ITs amazing the pop haters here. Most people happy to have a good team.

[I. Hustle]

COATTAILS?! Pop has been here. He is the one that put the team together. Sure Tim is great and one of the best of all time but without the rest of the team that Pop put together we would not have one even one title. Of course he is not perfect but to call him a "coattail riding" coach is not appropriate. YOu can say he has made bad draft choices and called some bad plays but that's about it. The one true coattail riding coach is the WAY overrated Phil Jackson.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Redeem??? What is there to redeem? The Spurs have four NBA titles and have been the team in the NBA for the last decade.

Those of us who grew up being force fed a diet of Lakers/Celtics would have traded our best friends' left knut to have the Spurs breakthrough and win a title once, and for the last decade the little SA Spurs have been the team that the rest of the league looks up to.

The Spurs have been blessed to have Pop at the helm. If the Spurs never win another championship I'd say it's been an awesome ride.

[Fabbs]

I've never really liked pop as a head coach (I have issues with his in game methods, substitutions, adjustments, etc) and think he is over-rated. Despite that, he's still a good coach, just not "one of the best" like people like to say. Winning titles has nothing to do with my opinion of Pop. I think he is an above average coach, but i can go along with most of what you say. Not sure why you say "Winning titles has nothing to do with my opinion of Pop." Can you expound?

Obstructed_View
I love Pop, but he's made mistakes in the past. I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen when the discussion comes up. I love championships. The one in '06 would have been nice, too. Since that's not going to happen, I'll hope for more in the future. If the Spurs never win another one, 2006 becomes more prominent. Now there is a fair n balanced view from a Pop lover. Thank you.

The ones who posted 4 is great, 4 is more then enough.
"To one who has been given much, much is expected."
You've simply lowered the bar.

To the one(s) who claim Popped is better then Phil, you hardly merit a response. Phil is 4-1 in the playoffs vs Popped. The response is what SpurSupremacist suggested choice "c." be. :lol

[T Park]

LOL unreal

[Fabbs]

LOL unreal
op
Popapologists while you have no need to respond I'm sure you feel the need to troll in.

[FromWayDowntown]

Is one a "Popapologist" for pointing to his record and saying "Wow -- that's pretty damned good."

In other words, I think many of us would quarrel with the idea that characterizing Pop as an inferior coach is "realism."

[DisAsTerBot]

COATTAILS?! Pop has been here. He is the one that put the team together. Sure Tim is great and one of the best of all time but without the rest of the team that Pop put together we would not have one even one title. Of course he is not perfect but to call him a "coattail riding" coach is not appropriate. YOu can say he has made bad draft choices and called some bad plays but that's about it. The one true coattail riding coach is the WAY overrated Phil Jackson.

exactly.....pop drafted duncan..........phil drafted....mike no, shaq no, kobe no........ i think we can all see who rides coattails... :wakeup

[Slomo]

Redeem??? What is there to redeem? The Spurs have four NBA titles and have been the team in the NBA for the last decade.

Those of us who grew up being force fed a diet of Lakers/Celtics would have traded our best friends' left knut to have the Spurs breakthrough and win a title once, and for the last decade the little SA Spurs have been the team that the rest of the league looks up to.

The Spurs have been blessed to have Pop at the helm. If the Spurs never win another championship I'd say it's been an awesome ride.

:tu

I strongly believe there is method in his madness.

[jag]

When i begin to question Pop...I take a look at Tony Parker's career.

[koriwhat]

When i begin to question Pop...I take a look at Tony Parker's career.

no shit! i couldn't stand parker in the beginning but as pop got on his ass more and made him more discipline parker's game flourished.

i don't think you can consider pop anything but a great coach. he definitely doesn't ride anyone's coattails and if he did i don't think players would hold him in high regard as they do, especially not duncan himself.

[ambchang]

Other than Parker, people forget what kind of influence Pop had on buckets. True that his best statistical years were after he left the Spurs, but there is no doubt where that talent was funnelled to good use.

Duncan was utilized greatly throughout his career, where he wasn't asked to unnecessarily carry the whole team throughout entire seasons.

Ginobili went from a wild daredevil into a more controlled daredevil.

David Robinson got a new lease on life as a defensive specialist under Pop.

Jaren Jackson had his moments of glory with the Spurs and failed to do anything outside of the organization.

We have to see what kind of careers Udoka and Mahinmi have.

Udrih failed under Pop, but there is no question that it relates more to Udrih's work ethic than anything else. Same with Jackie Butler.

Point is, Popovich has always handled the players with respect and demands professionalism out of them, he prepared the players rigorously through practice, implements a fantastic system that is the cornerstone of 4 titles, and improved year after year in his in-game substitution.

Saying he had the best roster in the league 7/8 of his 12 years in the league (that would be 10.5 seasons) is revisionist history at its best.

[Tully365]

So you use Phil Jackson's record against the Spurs as proof that he is a good coach, but Pop's record over 10 years doesn't matter because he had Duncan? Jackson had Shaq and Kobe and Gasol... On every basketball forum I visit, it's considered a foregone conclusion that Pop is a great coach. Only on Spurstalk do I ever see spoiled fans who think 50+ wins every year, playoffs every year, and 4 titles is underachieving.

[fyatuk]

I think he is an above average coach, but i can go along with most of what you say. Not sure why you say "Winning titles has nothing to do with my opinion of Pop." Can you expound?


I'm just more likely to judge people by how they go about things, not the end result. Especially in sports such as basketball, where it's a team sport and can be greatly affected by players and coaches both.

I mean, Barry Switzer won a superbowl, but does anyone really believe he had any sort of competence at running an NFL team? There are numerous execellent coaches who have never won a championship for whatever reason as well across many sports.

I just don't find number of titles won to be relevant in terms of "who's the better" whatever.

[JamStone]

He has won four championships. He needs no redeeming.

+1

For any mistakes and misgivings, imagine if your favorite team's head coach was Avery Johnson or Mike D'Antoni or Flip Saunders. Even successful coaches like that have nothing on Pop. I don't care how much fortune Pop has had being with Duncan basically his entire coaching career. He still had to get it done. Look at Doug Collins with Michael Jordan, Del Harris with Shaq and Kobe.

Is he perfect? Of course not. Does he need to redeem himself? Ridiculous question.

[Matches Malone]

You got to be kidding, man.
Without going over the titles we've got, you have to recognize that Pop at the Spurs' helm helped promoting the organization as the benchmark for all sports franchises. Not only on terms of success, but also on terms of professionalism and group work ethic.
Everything that you hate about others teams (the drama queens, the indiscipline, the out of controls behaviors, the feuds, the locker room fights) has been excluded from the Spurs franchise thanks to Pop's "methods".
In contrast he brought unity, confidence and teamwork to each one of the Spurs lineups that he has been involved with. The methodical technical and mental development of players, the paternal approach that he uses for the relationships with his protégés, the steadfast values that cut him and the Spurs out of the mainstream BB.
He is the head of the snake. Cut it and you'll know what's next.
Hope your question is answered.

[anakha]

Is one a "Popapologist" for pointing to his record and saying "Wow -- that's pretty damned good."

In other words, I think many of us would quarrel with the idea that characterizing Pop as an inferior coach is "realism."

That's exactly what Fabbs has trouble wrapping his brain around.

And anybody who disagrees with his stance is immediately labeled a "Popapologist", regardless of their reason? Fred Phelps would love him. :lol

[ChuckD]

I'm just more likely to judge people by how they go about things, not the end result. Especially in sports such as basketball, where it's a team sport and can be greatly affected by players and coaches both.

I mean, Barry Switzer won a superbowl, but does anyone really believe he had any sort of competence at running an NFL team? There are numerous execellent coaches who have never won a championship for whatever reason as well across many sports.

I just don't find number of titles won to be relevant in terms of "who's the better" whatever.

Barry didn't develop the team or the culture of winning. Even though Jimmy Johnson had been gone for two seasons, it was still his team. Bad comparison.

In many ways, the Spurs ARE Pop. I think Pop and Phil J are the two best coaches in terms of imprinting their culture on the ballclub. Lest you go down the road of "on the court", Phil's record in his last two Finals is 3-8. Pop's is 8-3. I'm not as concerned about the head to head in the earlier rounds of the playoffs. The cold hard facts are that Pop has 3 rings since Phil last won one. It's kind of like when Utah owned the Spurs in the 90s: they would beat us, but could never seal the deal.

[Sean Cagney]

I've never really liked pop as a head coach (I have issues with his in game methods, substitutions, adjustments, etc) and think he is over-rated. Despite that, he's still a good coach, just not "one of the best" like people like to say. Winning titles has nothing to do with my opinion of Pop.

Nothign to do with Pop, okay the way he managed minutes during the year and had the rotation set perfectly for 4 title runs by the end of the year, I would say some of that HAS to do with POP. Managing the roster to resign players or bring in pieces that helped win some of those titles, nope Pop had nothing to do with that!


BTW it is not Pops fault we lost this year, injuries (MANU) added up and unfavorable schedule late in the playoffs, missed plane flight and so on, odds stacked agianst us bigtime. He was not outcoached by Phil, the team just ran out of gas late and thats that.

[barbacoataco]

I thought this post was sarcasm. It didn't even occur to me the poster was serious about Pop having to "redeem" himself. Unbelievable.

[fyatuk]

Nothign to do with Pop, okay the way he managed minutes during the year and had the rotation set perfectly for 4 title runs by the end of the year, I would say some of that HAS to do with POP. Managing the roster to resign players or bring in pieces that helped win some of those titles, nope Pop had nothing to do with that!


Reading comprehension much? I said nothing to do with MY OPINION of Pop. I did not say the titles had nothing to do with Pop.

Also note to a few others, I said I didn't like Pop as a head coach. He's a badass executive, GM, and assistant coach, and a good head coach. I just don't think he's "one of the best" when it comes to being a head coach, although he's definitely improved over his first 5-6 years (then I was wishing he'd quit as coach and remain elsewhere, now I don't have a problem with him being coach but think there are some coaches better than him).

[T Park]

then I was wishing he'd quit as coach and remain elsewhere, now I don't have a problem with him being coach but think there are some coaches better than him).

Really, whos available right now thats better?

[SpurSupremacist]

He has won four championships. He needs no redeeming.

No, I think you mean Tim Duncan has carried him to 4. He's lost AT LEAST 2 by my count.

[T Park]

No, I think you mean Tim Duncan has carried him to 4. He's lost AT LEAST 2 by my count.


Christ...

[SpurSupremacist]

So you use Phil Jackson's record against the Spurs as proof that he is a good coach, but Pop's record over 10 years doesn't matter because he had Duncan? Jackson had Shaq and Kobe and Gasol... On every basketball forum I visit, it's considered a foregone conclusion that Pop is a great coach. Only on Spurstalk do I ever see spoiled fans who think 50+ wins every year, playoffs every year, and 4 titles is underachieving.

Because 'the spoiled Spurs fans' watch the Spurs on a regular basis. Other teams fans do not see the Spurs as much as Spurs fans, obviously. They see the Spurs record and dominance over the years and automatically pencil him in as one of the better coaches, when people who have been watching him on a consistent basis can clearly see it simply isn't the case. Those are the same people who don't realize how dominant Duncan is on both ends of the floor, from mostly lack of seeing him play on a consistent basis. They think Duncan is more of a product of system and placement of players around him, when again... it simply isn't the case. If anyone examined that 2003 team, they had absolutely NO business winning a title that season. Duncan carried a bunch of rookies, has-beens and scrubs to a title that year. Easily one of the greatest playoff runs for an individual in the history of the NBA.

[Melmart1]

No, I think you mean Tim Duncan has carried him to 4. He's lost AT LEAST 2 by my count.

Really? Tim Duncan drafted and developed or traded for all the complimentary pieces that have surrounded him, enabling him to be dominant for a longer period of time and win championships?

But let's look at your numbers ... won four, lost two that you say were winnable. Four out of six is a win percentage of .667. A CHAMPIONSHIP win percentage of .667 is basically unheard of. That is well above the bar for any sport and yet some Spurs fans turn their nose at this because they are Pop Haters and can't see the bigger picture - which is that they have wasted what may be the only Golden Age of the Spurs by bitching and moaning over the ones they supposedly lost instead of enjoying the ones they got.

Perhaps my perspective is just different. Four titles is four more than I ever thought they might win after years of regular-season dominance and post-season sputtering during the height of the David Robinson era. After years of getting kicked in the guy every May, four titles needs no redeeming.

[T Park]

So let me get this straight.

When they lose its Pop's fault.

When they win, its cause of Duncan.


Got it.

[anakha]

Really? Tim Duncan drafted and developed or traded for all the complimentary pieces that have surrounded him, enabling him to be dominant for a longer period of time and win championships?

But let's look at your numbers ... won four, lost two that you say were winnable. Four out of six is a win percentage of .667. A CHAMPIONSHIP win percentage of .667 is basically unheard of. That is well above the bar for any sport and yet some Spurs fans turn their nose at this because they are Pop Haters and can't see the bigger picture - which is that they have wasted what may be the only Golden Age of the Spurs by bitching and moaning over the ones they supposedly lost instead of enjoying the ones they got.

Perhaps my perspective is just different. Four titles is four more than I ever thought they might win after years of regular-season dominance and post-season sputtering during the height of the David Robinson era. After years of getting kicked in the guy every May, four titles needs no redeeming.

Exactly.

Being able to win 4 titles in a decade is an achievement in and of itself.

And people are bitching about not winning more? And they call us the 'spoiled Spurs fans"!?

:rollin :rollin :rollin

[Tully365]

Because 'the spoiled Spurs fans' watch the Spurs on a regular basis. Other teams fans do not see the Spurs as much as Spurs fans, obviously. They see the Spurs record and dominance over the years and automatically pencil him in as one of the better coaches, when people who have been watching him on a consistent basis can clearly see it simply isn't the case. Those are the same people who don't realize how dominant Duncan is on both ends of the floor, from mostly lack of seeing him play on a consistent basis. They think Duncan is more of a product of system and placement of players around him, when again... it simply isn't the case. If anyone examined that 2003 team, they had absolutely NO business winning a title that season. Duncan carried a bunch of rookies, has-beens and scrubs to a title that year. Easily one of the greatest playoff runs for an individual in the history of the NBA.

You talk as if you are part of a great majority, which is simply not true. The overwhelming majority of Spurs fans think Pop is a great coach. You are part of a small minority that has confused contorted logic, chronic complaining, and lack of basketball knowledge with "realism."

[Manufan909]

You talk as if you are part of a great majority, which is simply not true. The overwhelming majority of Spurs fans think Pop is a great coach. You are part of a small minority that has confused contorted logic, chronic complaining, and lack of basketball knowledge with "realism."

+1

[Obstructed_View]

I always think it's funny that anyone would criticize pop for "coattail riding" when Phil Jackson waited until the Lakers had a team full of talent to take the job.

If you accuse Pop of doing anything, accuse him of "wagon hitching" and make sure to say how good a job he did of it.

[holcs50]

Alright-anyone who says pop lost us whole championships is just plain stupid. A coach can do only so much-usually a team winning or losing comes down to the players on the court. Now, I agree as a pretty big spurs fan like most of you guys-there have been times where he's frustrated the hell out of me with his substitutions-like i've yelled at the tv and thrown things multiple times, lol. Especially when he will take out a guy who is hot just to make sure his minute distribution stays on track, haha. But, anyways, for all those times we yell at pop for things like that we fail to realize all the great moves he makes between playoff games-he is truly one of the great coaches adjusting from one playoff game to the next. If the spurs lose, i seriously expect them to come out and make really good adjustments and either win close or big. Another thing is he does make good in game calls and subs-as fans though we only tend to realize the bad ones-just the way it usually is with coaches. I think most of our tough playoff losses-like in 06 comes down to the PLAYERS. Overall pop is a great coach-has his flaw like questionable subbing and some just weird draft/off-season moves-but all in all he's money!:ihit

[Obstructed_View]

Alright-anyone who says pop lost us whole championships is just plain stupid. A coach can do only so much-usually a team winning or losing comes down to the players on the court. Now, I agree as a pretty big spurs fan like most of you guys-there have been times where he's frustrated the hell out of me with his substitutions-like i've yelled at the tv and thrown things multiple times, lol. Especially when he will take out a guy who is hot just to make sure his minute distribution stays on track, haha. But, anyways, for all those times we yell at pop for things like that we fail to realize all the great moves he makes between playoff games-he is truly one of the great coaches adjusting from one playoff game to the next. If the spurs lose, i seriously expect them to come out and make really good adjustments and either win close or big. Another thing is he does make good in game calls and subs-as fans though we only tend to realize the bad ones-just the way it usually is with coaches. I think most of our tough playoff losses-like in 06 comes down to the PLAYERS. Overall pop is a great coach-has his flaw like questionable subbing and some just weird draft/off-season moves-but all in all he's money!:ihit

Or in the case of 2006, the players not on the court, and that's all on the head coach.

[Obstructed_View]

BTW, fabbs, the fact that you would think that a coach with four championships needs to be "redeemed" means that you are anything but a realist.

[fyatuk]

Really, whos available right now thats better?

That's a pointless dicussion since it's very subjective, and will just start a discussion on qualifications and what not I don't care to have. I'm not trying to convince anyone my opinion is correct, just shareing what my opinion is. Feel free to disagree, but you won't convince me otherwise.

[Fabbs]

I always think it's funny that anyone would criticize pop for "coattail riding" when Phil Jackson waited until the Lakers had a team full of talent to take the job.

If you accuse Pop of doing anything, accuse him of "wagon hitching" and make sure to say how good a job he did of it.
As opposed to Pop who ousted Bob Hill and took over with Duncan, DRob and co in his 1st full year. Yeah no coatail riding there. Popapologism at its finest. :rollin

Duncan was the best player in the NBA for at the very least 2002-2007. I may concede that Fat Blob Shaq at his steroid fueled/referee pampered best in 2001 alone was better. As is the media fertilizer about Koubee being the best in 2004-7. So all this whining about how 'Popped did not have the best players is bullshit.


BTW, fabbs, the fact that you would think that a coach with four championships needs to be "redeemed" means that you are anything but a realist. Lowering the bar solves that? See above :lol

In addition to the original post, i need to add the option of:
Poppers who will be perfectly happy if Popped does not get a 5th title. :depressed

[T Park]

That's a pointless dicussion since it's very subjective, and will just start a discussion on qualifications and what not I don't care to have. I'm not trying to convince anyone my opinion is correct, just shareing what my opinion is. Feel free to disagree, but you won't convince me otherwise.

In other words

You have no idea and no one to back it up with.


Goodbye.

[samikeyp]

Really? Tim Duncan drafted and developed or traded for all the complimentary pieces that have surrounded him, enabling him to be dominant for a longer period of time and win championships?

But let's look at your numbers ... won four, lost two that you say were winnable. Four out of six is a win percentage of .667. A CHAMPIONSHIP win percentage of .667 is basically unheard of. That is well above the bar for any sport and yet some Spurs fans turn their nose at this because they are Pop Haters and can't see the bigger picture - which is that they have wasted what may be the only Golden Age of the Spurs by bitching and moaning over the ones they supposedly lost instead of enjoying the ones they got.

Perhaps my perspective is just different. Four titles is four more than I ever thought they might win after years of regular-season dominance and post-season sputtering during the height of the David Robinson era. After years of getting kicked in the guy every May, four titles needs no redeeming.

:tu

[FromWayDowntown]

As opposed to Pop who ousted Bob Hill and took over with Duncan, DRob and co in his 1st full year. Yeah no coatail riding there. Popapologism at its finest. :rollin

Pop who fired Bob Hill (at the insistence of his players) and took over the head coaching job of an aging team that was 3-14 at the time. And Pop, who as you say "ousted" Bob Hill with no guarantee whatsoever that he'd end up with Tim Duncan.

Do great players make coaches great? Absolutely. Is a coach not great because he has great players? Absolutely not.

Has Pop made mistakes along the way? Sure. But have his players or some bad breaks also cost Pop an even more substantial resume. Undoubtedly. Without Manu's foul and without Fisher's miracle at .4, Pop probably has the very titles that his critics are bashing him for having missed out. In both instances, I find the criticism of Pop difficult to understand, since his teams were in position to win both of those critical games. If the claim is that Pop should have won more, don't the players that you all claim he's gravy-training bear some responsiblity for those shortcomings. After all, if Manu doesn't foul Dirk, the Pop's team wins that series. I'd never diminish Manu for that, but it's nonsensical to me to diminish Pop for that. (And I'll never believe that those Spurs would have seen Game 7 of that series without the drastic changes that Pop made to his rotation).

Even at that, Pop has done more that just tend the store during the Tim Duncan era. Pop got Tim to buy into what was going on in San Antonio and built a relationship with Tim that ensured that the dominant player in the league would be happy in San Antonio for the duration of his career. Don't for one second underestimate the coaching value in understanding the need for great players. Pop understood that with a guy like Tim, the best way to win was to focus on defense and ensure that his team would either blow teams out or at least be close enough on most nights to give them a legitimate chance to win. Pop has adapted his style to his players and gotten the most out of many of the players he's brought in.

What's most telling to me of Pop's greatness isn't that he's wearing 4 rings; it's that he's won titles with 3 rosters (1999, 2003, 2005-07) that bore very little resemblance to each other. He started out with a young superstar and an aging star; he won with a roster that was half young guys and half aging vets; and he won with a roster that had 3 stars and a bunch of role players. I'm not sure that even Phil Jackson has done that.

[fyatuk]

In other words

You have no idea and no one to back it up with.

Goodbye.

If that's what you want to believe. If I did give you a list, you'd just dismiss it anyway, so I'm happy to skip that inane discussion.

[FromWayDowntown]

If that's what you want to believe. If I did give you a list, you'd just dismiss it anyway, so I'm happy to skip that inane discussion.

Why not give us all something else to talk about? If you really think other coaches (who are not currently employed) could do a better job with the Spurs than Pop, I'd be interested in actually discussing that contention.

[ambchang]

Why not give us all something else to talk about? If you really think other coaches (who are not currently employed) could do a better job with the Spurs than Pop, I'd be interested in actually discussing that contention.

I would be interested to see a list of all NBA past and present that s/he thinks is better than Pop. I am not saying Pop is the best of all-time, but he belongs to a short list of NBA coaches who belongs to the top.

[Fabbs]

Pop who fired Bob Hill (at the insistence of his players) and took over the head coaching job of an aging team that was 3-14 at the time. And Pop, who as you say "ousted" Bob Hill with no guarantee whatsoever that he'd end up with Tim Duncan.
"Hill's 3-16 start in 1996 had more to do with injuries to David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Chuck Person, and Vinnie Del Negro." Yet you claim the players wanted him ousted. Okay.

.4 why is it even that close? 2-0 after two blowouts, Phil switches to pick n roll with Payton. What did Popped do to adjust?

2006 indeed no Manu brainfart and Spurs win and likely title. Again, why was it close? Smallballs with Mike Finley at the PF puts us down 3-1. I will give an asterisk to the Dick Bavetta game. No coach could have overcome that thrown crap.

[Solid D]

Hill was fired because the Spurs were soft and starting to play even softer without Robinson. They could score, but they were soft.

[gospursgojas]

Wow

[duncan228]

A look at who Pop is, from June '05, after game 1 of the Finals.

NBA: Popovich leads with military precision (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/12/sports/NBA.php?page=1)
Liz Robbins

SAN ANTONIO, Texas: Were it not for the officer on the military base at Diyarbakir, in southern Turkey, during the early 1970s, the Spurs might not be in the NBA finals today.

But Gregg Popovich, who majored in Soviet Studies at the Air Force Academy, where he played four seasons for the basketball team and was top scorer in his last year, enjoyed traveling as much as he loved basketball. When a general told him early in his tour to leave his counterintelligence work and go TDY- on temporary duty for the U.S. Armed Forces basketball team in Eastern Europe - Popovich found a permanent calling.

He took his curiosity and appreciation for foreign cultures with him as currency, and it has paid dividends now with the Spurs.In games against the Soviet Union before the fateful 1972 Olympics, and against countless others from Estonia, Latvia, Yugoslavia Popovich developed his worldview that helped bring memorable names to the NBA.

The Spurs boast the most diverse roster in a league steadily populated by international players: Popovich's team flies the flags of Argentina, France, Slovenia, New Zealand, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the United States.

"The opportunities I got in the military to travel with basketball really made me understand how much basketball is played around the world, how many good players there are," Popovich said Friday after the Spurs had taken the early 1-0 lead over the Pistons in the best-of-seven-game NBA finals.

"I always thought what a great way to combine my own personal enjoyment with professional responsibilities. So we made a commitment when we came that we were going to hit the streets out there in the other countries, and we were going to find bodies."

After his six years of military service, Popovich started his coaching career at Pomona-Pitzer, a California college playing in NCAA division III. He first joined the Spurs as an assistant coach under Larry Brown, now the Pistons' coach, in 1988. Sixteen years later, Popovich, 56, enters Sunday's Game 2 three victories from winning his third NBA title in seven seasons.

The man who could have been a spy has, instead, stealthily commanded the fourth-best winning percentage of any coach in NBA history (.661).

Popovich will be the first to say that having No.1 picks - David Robinson, from the U.S. Naval Academy, and Tim Duncan, from Wake Forest, via the Virgin Islands - helped him earn that distinction. But the unconditional respect he has from all his players propelled the Spurs' success.

Popovich's demanding yet caring relationship with his players holds the team together, R.C. Buford, the general manager, said. Popovich flew to the island of St. Croix to get to know Duncan before the Spurs drafted him in 1997. He attended Tony Parker's arbitration trial with his French basketball team in 2001.

Back in San Antonio, Popovich pushed, prodded and yelled at Parker, a 19-year-old rookie point guard, instilling military toughness on the court, while building his confidence.

"Pop just wants the best out of you," the veteran forward Robert Horry said. "He's going to be on you hard, I mean really hard, so if you have the mental toughness to take that, you're going to develop well as a player."

With Parker and Manu Ginobili, Popovich learned to discipline their games without stifling their creativity.

"He's the best thing that could have happened to those guys," the assistant coach, P.J. Carlesimo, said. "You got to let them play the way they are, and Pop recognized that about them right away."

Over the past two years, Parker and Ginobili have learned to read Popovich and his sarcasm. Witness the first quarter of Game 1 when the Spurs fell behind, 17-4, and Popovich had to call two timeouts.

"I asked them, if it wasn't too much trouble, if I wasn't being too pushy, if they could execute what we were trying to do, and, if it didn't make them too angry, if they also wanted to play some defense on the other end, that would be great," Popovich said after the game.

Ginobili got the point, especially when seeing Popovich's face.

"You get worried, because there's a vein here that just gets so big, you think it's going to explode," Ginobili said "He's a smart coach. He knows how to get the best from his team. He's got that temperament that he gets very upset, and he's not afraid to tell anything to anybody. So everybody feels the same situation; I think it's really good for the spirit of the team."

Players call Popovich's invective-laced tirades, "going Serbian." When Hedo Turkoglu of Turkey was on the team with current center Rasho Nesterovic from Slovenia, Popovich would actually converse in broken Serbian with them.

"That's something that those guys don't get a lot of places," Buford said. "It just adds to the relationship. It doesn't cement it, but it sure puts it in a different perspective. Those guys know he is making an attempt to be one of them."

Despite his time in Eastern Europe, Popovich insists he speaks only one language fluently: English. Popovich frequently quizzes his players on national politics, though his intellectual curiosity sometimes gets lost in translation.

In trying to loosen the mood before Game 1, Popovich talked about the National Spelling Bee. "I wanted to know if anybody knew the word that won - it was 'appoggiatura,"' he said. "Of course, none of us had heard of the thing."

Some players had not heard of the contest, and Popovich had to explain it three times. "Manu was like, 'Spelling bees? Where are the bees?"' Popovich said.

Popovich has always reveled in this communicating challenge. "Most people just didn't believe it; they didn't want foreign kids, thinking they didn't speak English and it's going to be a pain," he said.

In 1988, Popovich persuaded Brown and the Spurs' general manager, Bob Bass, to send him to Cologne, to scout players at the Euroleague championships. There, Popovich established a relationship with his first prospect: Zarco Paspalj. (The forward from Yugoslavia lasted one season with the Spurs, as Brown disliked his defense and poor conditioning).

Buford mined Parker, who is French, with the 28th overall pick in 2001. Ginobili, an Argentine, was the 57th pick in the 1999 draft and did not join the Spurs until 2002. The Spurs last year drafted Luis Scola, Ginobili's teammate on Argentina's gold-medal-winning team at the Athens Olympics last summer.

[Fabbs]

^^ 2005 was Pops finest year. No dispute here on that.
His ad-just-ment in letting the Spurs play some open O vs Phx was fabulous. :toast

So do you want a 5th title or are you good with Pops 4 too?

[ambchang]

"Hill's 3-16 start in 1996 had more to do with injuries to David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Chuck Person, and Vinnie Del Negro." Yet you claim the players wanted him ousted. Okay.

.4 why is it even that close? 2-0 after two blowouts, Phil switches to pick n roll with Payton. What did Popped do to adjust?

2006 indeed no Manu brainfart and Spurs win and likely title. Again, why was it close? Smallballs with Mike Finley at the PF puts us down 3-1. I will give an asterisk to the Dick Bavetta game. No coach could have overcome that thrown crap.

I suggest you read up on how the players were dissatisfied with how Bob Hill didn't put much emphasis on defense, even in the year they won 62 games.

In the mean time, you sound like these guys:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/archive/index.php/t-1446.html

[Fabbs]

I suggest you read up on how the players were dissatisfied with how Bob Hill didn't put much emphasis on defense, even in the year they won 62 games.

In the mean time, you sound like these guys:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/archive/index.php/t-1446.html
I suggest you read how these same players, oh wait with Duncan added did in Poppeds 1st full year.
and STFU and troll off. :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

"Hill's 3-16 start in 1996 had more to do with injuries to David Robinson, Sean Elliott, Chuck Person, and Vinnie Del Negro." Yet you claim the players wanted him ousted. Okay.

The story I've always heard -- from the day that Hill was fired, basically -- was that the core players on that team went to Pop and urged him to take over as head coach. That wasn't such a crazy idea, since there were many who believed that Pop should have taken over as head coach when he was hired in the summer of 1994 as GM and given free reign to choose the next head coach.

It's never struck me as surprising that Pop takes responsiblity for that decision as his own, given that Pop would never sell out his players because Pop knows unquestionably that the NBA game is a players' game. In part, Pop has the respect of most of the NBA players (evident if you go to just about any Spurs game) because he's decidedly pro-players on just about everything.


.4 why is it even that close? 2-0 after two blowouts, Phil switches to pick n roll with Payton. What did Popped do to adjust?

2006 indeed no Manu brainfart and Spurs win and likely title. Again, why was it close? Smallballs with Mike Finley at the PF puts us down 3-1. I will give an asterisk to the Dick Bavetta game. No coach could have overcome that thrown crap.

The difference between 2004 and 2006 and the inconsistency in the Pop haters' arguments about those series never ceases to amaze me.

In 2004, Pop "didn't adjust" against a great team and he was at fault.

In 2006, Pop "adjusted" against a very good team and he was at fault.

[fyatuk]

Why not give us all something else to talk about? If you really think other coaches (who are not currently employed) could do a better job with the Spurs than Pop, I'd be interested in actually discussing that contention.

"Not currently employed" is a figment of your imagination. I said I didn't think he qualified as "one of the best". I'm not reframing the argument to appease your need to prove someone wrong.

If you MUST have some names, I honestly believe Jerry Sloan, Byron Scott, and Phil Jackson are head and shoulders better than Pop (in terms of head coach). Since my qualification of "one of the best" in terms of current coaches would be top 10%, that would eliminate Pop right there. There's a couple others I'm blanking on the names of (I'm horrid with names) that are close to Pop.

There's another couple I think might develop into better head coaches than Pop over the next few years, but that's irrelevant.

There's also several past coaches who were easily better than Pop in their day, but it's a bit difficult to compare that since the game has changed tremendously even over the last 20 years.

[FromWayDowntown]

I suggest you read how these same players, oh wait with Duncan added did in Poppeds 1st full year.
and STFU and troll off. :lol

So I'll expect your "The Spurs would have 7 titles if Bob Hill was still the coach" thread next?

[1Parker1]

Some players had not heard of the contest, and Popovich had to explain it three times. "Manu was like, 'Spelling bees? Where are the bees?"' Popovich said.

:lmao Thanks I had never read that article before...

[Fabbs]

So I'll expect your "The Spurs would have 7 titles if Bob Hill was still the coach" thread next?
No. Nor do i expect you will troll off.

op
Popapologists while you have no need to respond I'm sure you feel the need to troll in.

[duncan228]

So do you want a 5th title or are you good with Pops 4 too?

Of course I want a 5th. I want to see Duncan go out with as many as possible. And Duncan plays for, and believes in, Pop. I'm thrilled with the 4 we've gotten under Pop's leadership, and I'm confidant he can do it again.

[ambchang]

I suggest you read how these same players, oh wait with Duncan added did in Poppeds 1st full year.
and STFU and troll off. :lol

What does that have to do with Bob Hill getting fired?

BTW, I sort of think I know what you are talking about, but are you actually talking about the 96-97 season, or the 97-98 season?

[ChumpDumper]

Why is Fabbs trying to censor other posters in advance?

They can post wherever they want.

[ambchang]

"If you MUST have some names, I honestly believe Jerry Sloan, Byron Scott, and Phil Jackson are head and shoulders better than Pop (in terms of head coach). Since my qualification of "one of the best" in terms of current coaches would be top 10%, that would eliminate Pop right there. There's a couple others I'm blanking on the names of (I'm horrid with names) that are close to Pop.

I can see you going for Phil Jackson being head and shoulders above Pop, but Sloan and Popovich are so similar in their approaches that they are pretty much considered equal at best for Sloan. Besides, if people are ragging on Pop about his inept offense, check what Sloan did with the Jazz in the 97 and 98 finals.

Byron Scott is a fantastic coach in his own right, but there were some obvious mistakes that he made along the way. Pop adjusted well in the New Orleans series vs. Scott, and outcoached him in the later part of the series. Scott failed to utilize his bench effectively and resulted in a bunch of exhausted starters by the end of the series, he also needlessly left David West in a blow out game, resulting in unnecessary injury that ultimately hurts the Hornets.

I don’t know how you can call the last two head and shoulders above Pop, but given that you said that it was your opinion, you can always have that to fall back on, just means that you have an opinion that most basketball minds don’t share.

[ambchang]

Why is Fabbs trying to censor other posters in advance?

They can post wherever they want.

We need to troll of I heard. Being a troll, such as saying Pop is a good coach, is unaccepted behaviour on Spurstalk.

[FromWayDowntown]

No. Nor do i expect you will troll off.

I'm sorry that you don't like being called on your absurdity.

It's interesting that you don't really have a substantive response to those who question your premise.

[Obstructed_View]

As opposed to Pop who ousted Bob Hill and took over with Duncan, DRob and co in his 1st full year. Yeah no coatail riding there. Popapologism at its finest. :rollin
I know you aren't real bright, and I know your reading comprehension could use some work, but please tell me you aren't so stupid that you'd accuse me of being an apologist. If you can call Pop taking over a team plagued with injuries that did NOT have Tim Duncan, and was at no time mathematically likely to get him, coattail riding, but can't say the same about Phil Jackson going where the talent is, then you have a huge problem. Oh wait, it's you. :sleep

[anakha]

Fight the good fight, Fabbs!

Let no logic or reason stand in the face of what you assume to be true!

After all, if you say it is so, it must be, right? :lol

[Fabbs]

"Quality not quantity." :toast
One Realist is worth a million of you trolls. :blah

I am thinking of entering the Pop dolls selling field tho.
What a market! Right here at ST. :toast

PopDoll buyers slogans:
"4 for 12, not 8 for 12!" :rollin
"No repeat. We repeat, No repeat." (Repeat over and over.)
No More O!, No More O!

[Brutalis]

Redeem??? What is there to redeem? The Spurs have four NBA titles and have been the team in the NBA for the last decade.

Those of us who grew up being force fed a diet of Lakers/Celtics would have traded our best friends' left knut to have the Spurs breakthrough and win a title once, and for the last decade the little SA Spurs have been the team that the rest of the league looks up to.

The Spurs have been blessed to have Pop at the helm. If the Spurs never win another championship I'd say it's been an awesome ride.

:hat

[Fabbs]

I know you aren't real bright, and I know your reading comprehension could use some work, but please tell me you aren't so stupid that you'd accuse me of being an apologist. If you can call Pop taking over a team plagued with injuries that did NOT have Tim Duncan, and was at no time mathematically likely to get him, coattail riding, but can't say the same about Phil Jackson going where the talent is, then you have a huge problem. Oh wait, it's you. :sleep
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Attempting to dis me on reading comprehension as you misread. :rollin

Originally Posted by Fabbs

As opposed to Pop who ousted Bob Hill and took over with Duncan, DRob and co in his 1st full year. Yeah no coatail riding there. Popapologism at its finest.

[anakha]

"Quality not quantity." :toast
One Realist is worth a million of you trolls. :blah

I am thinking of entering the Pop dolls selling field tho.
What a market! Right here at ST. :toast

PopDoll buyers slogans:
"4 for 12, not 8 for 12!" :rollin
"No repeat. We repeat, No repeat." (Repeat over and over.)
No More O!, No More O!

Too bad you're not that realist. :lol

Why go to the "You're all biased" argument so quickly? Finally ran out of points to make? Or were you getting lonely hoisting the 'Popovich sucks' banner all by yourself the past several pages? :lmao

[Allanon]

As a basketball strategist, I don't think Pop is very good at all, he won championships by having Duncan. Pop's not an X's and O's kind of guy, give Duncan the ball and he'll win the game.

What Pop excelled at was leading young men to their potential. He built the strong team hierarchy that has a definitive pecking order. This led to team harmony because everybody knew their place in the organization with Pop the defacto leader and Duncan as the First mate carrying out the orders.

After Tony Parker, I think Pop felt "I'm too old for this shit" and gave up on mentoring raw young players.

One of the great things about Pop was he always picked up guys who were good in character and didn't disrupt the team.

One of the worst things about Pop was he never picked up guys who might have disrupted the team but at the same time could have helped them repeat (ie. Artest, <insert high upside, troubled player here>)

[Fabbs]

^^ Oh but I am. :hat
And fyatuk, SpursSupremist and even to an extent Obstucted Reading Comprehension are all in agreement with me.

Your weak takes have changed nothing.
Shower on. :lol

[anakha]

^^ Oh but I am. :hat
And fyatuk, SpursSupremist and even to an extent Obstucted Reading Comprehension are all in agreement with me.

Your weak takes have changed nothing.
Shower on. :lol

So you consider to be on your side a guy who calls other Spurs fans 'spoiled' but bitches about having only 4 titles, a guy who has called out your views as being anything but realistic, and a guy who's viewpoints are more middle of the road than yours.

What a coalition. :lmao

[ChuckD]

You talk as if you are part of a great majority, which is simply not true. The overwhelming majority of Spurs fans think Pop is a great coach. You are part of a small minority that has confused contorted logic, chronic complaining, and lack of basketball knowledge with "realism."


+1

+2

[ChuckD]

I always think it's funny that anyone would criticize pop for "coattail riding" when Phil Jackson waited until the Lakers had a team full of talent to take the job.

If you accuse Pop of doing anything, accuse him of "wagon hitching" and make sure to say how good a job he did of it.

+1

At both Chicago and LA, he inherited teams that had already made it to the conference finals. He also had two first team All NBA players both places. When he doesn't have that luxury, he goes on seven year title droughts. Phil can't make the nut with just one first team All NBA player, but Pop did it four times.

[ambchang]

So you consider to be on your side a guy who calls other Spurs fans 'spoiled' but bitches about having only 4 titles, a guy who has called out your views as being anything but realistic, and a guy who's viewpoints are more middle of the road than yours.

What a coalition. :lmao

That slanted view on what is right and what is wrong, shockingly, is consistent with his views throughout this thread.

[dn0774]

I am curious in which "7/8" years you would consider Pop to have had the best roster on paper...please specify the years.

From what I can recall off hand since Pop took over the reins:

1998: Bulls/Lakers much more talent on paper, Pacers and Jazz up there as well

1999: Lakers added Rice and Kobe started to develop/Rockets picked up Pip...outside of Five-O and Timmy the Spurs didn't look too hot, hell the Blazers had arguably more talent

2000: Shaq went nuts and gave a damn for a change and the Blazers acquired more talent too..moot tho since TD got hurt

2001: Lakers had most talent no question, especially since Derek Anderson was hurt and Davids game (aka back) was aging in dog years at this point when they "clashed" in the playoffs

2002: Lakers again although injury issues (and Shaq expanding with every passing second) hurt their record...Kings were coming up too, both squads were more talented than the Spurs imo...Spurs didnt have a reliable 2nd scoring threat from what I recall

2003: Kings/Lakers better on paper, Mavs not far behind...Never will know what woulda happend if Webber didnt go down

2004: Lakers easily better on paper altho Tony/Manu had really come into their own at this point...that being said, Spurs should have finished off Lakers no question and Pop didnt adjust

2005: Spurs

2006: Spurs

2007: Spurs

2008: Celtics more talented and post-Pau trade Lakers were close as well

I can admit Pop shrivels up at the mere mention of Phil Jackson and his in game coaching ability/adjustments are shaky at times, but I think hes is the right coach for this team. Tim apparently feels the same way since he chose to stay following his rookie contract despite not a lot of sure-fire young talent waiting in the wings.

I do wish Pop would give more "high risk/high reward" players a chance, someone mentioned Artest earlier. I think since the Rodman fiasco way back when Pop has sworn off that for life though.

[dn0774]

Oh, and why all the talk about Bob Hill? I always assumed the fact that Hill wasn't given a head coaching job again in the NBA for 10 years (and lasted 1 season at that) validated his firing. Bob Hill is a bum, ask anyone at Fordham.

[Obstructed_View]

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Attempting to dis me on reading comprehension as you misread. :rollin

No, I read and understood exactly what you wrote and your having specifically mentioned his first FULL season is precisely why I replied in the first place. I took issue with the fact that you intentionally worded your post to somehow suggest Pop fired Hill knowing that Tim Duncan was going to come to the Spurs, which is at best intellectually dishonest, but more likely just evidence of more factual bankruptcy from you.

Go back and read the whole exchange again and it will make sense. I dare you to admit that you missed it. :lol

[Fabbs]

I am curious in which "7/8" years you would consider Pop to have had the best roster on paper...please specify the years.

From what I can recall off hand since Pop took over the reins:

1998: Bulls/Lakers much more talent on paper, Pacers and Jazz up there as well. True. 'Popped certainly wasn't up to utilizing Rodman while Phil certainly was. Phil once again owns Pop. :lol

1999: Lakers added Rice and Kobe started to develop/Rockets picked up Pip...outside of Five-O and Timmy the Spurs didn't look too hot, hell the Blazers had arguably more talent. Spurs added Ellie and Kersey. Already had a "Big 3" of Real MVP of Timmy Dunks, DRob and Shaun Ellot with the Little General running the point. I'll take the Spurs.

2000: moot tho since TD got hurt. Agree.

2001: Lakers had most talent no question, especially since Derek Anderson was hurt and Davids game (aka back) was aging in dog years at this point when they "clashed" in the playoffs.

2002: Lakers again although injury issues (and Shaq expanding with every passing second) hurt their record...Kings were coming up too, both squads were more talented than the Spurs imo...Spurs didnt have a reliable 2nd scoring threat from what I recall. The NBA was soo rigged at this point and Fat Blob Shaqs camping in the key and bowling over completely set defenders was a joke. Ditto Bryants pampering in the playoffs, ie elbowing Bibby and a foul being called on Bibby. 2002 was a joke. Spurs might have had a better roster but I'm not pushing it.

2003: Kings/Lakers better on paper, Mavs not far behind...Never will know what woulda happend if Webber didnt go down. Far and away Real MVP Timmy Dunks along with GNob, Parker, SJax, Bowen. Spurs hands down.

2004: Lakers easily better on paper altho Tony/Manu had really come into their own at this point...that being said, Spurs should have finished off Lakers no question and Pop didnt adjust. I'll take the Spurs Big 3 over the Lakers paper tigers any day of the week. Popped goes into fetal position and gets worked 4 straight games after being up 2-0.
2005: Spurs
2006: Spurs
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics more talented and post-Pau trade Lakers were close as well.
Late reg season game with major seeding implications played in San Antonio. Spurs go up 9 late, Popped per usual orders the Prevent Offense in the form of 4 Dumb ad nauseum to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I give the edge to the Spurs in a 7 game series. Oh, well we never got to see that because Phil owned Popped again WCFs. :depressed The Lakers Collusion was a lot to overcome, yet Lord Dumbass stubbornly plays 60% GNob after the FO did something right for a change and got Barry and KThomas. Lord Poppycock benches them both. We got to see what bringing in Barry earlier could have done. Even making the statement "We're not going to win the title without Ginobili" What a quitter and what a diss to his own bench.


I can admit Pop shrivels up at the mere mention of Phil Jackson and his in game coaching ability/adjustments are shaky at times, but I think hes is the right coach for this team. Tim apparently feels the same way since he chose to stay following his rookie contract despite not a lot of sure-fire young talent waiting in the wings.

I do wish Pop would give more "high risk/high reward" players a chance, someone mentioned Artest earlier. I think since the Rodman fiasco way back when Pop has sworn off that for life though
Great defensive coach, but too prideful and gloryhoggish to let a good offensive coach have freedom and control ie Tex Winters/Phil.

[dn0774]

From what I can recall off hand since Pop took over the reins:

1999: Lakers added Rice and Kobe started to develop/Rockets picked up Pip...outside of Five-O and Timmy the Spurs didn't look too hot, hell the Blazers had arguably more talent. Spurs added Ellie and Kersey. Already had a "Big 3" of Real MVP of Timmy Dunks, DRob and Shaun Ellot with the Little General running the point. I'll take the Spurs.

2003: Kings/Lakers better on paper, Mavs not far behind...Never will know what woulda happend if Webber didnt go down. Far and away Real MVP Timmy Dunks along with GNob, Parker, SJax, Bowen. Spurs hands down.

2004: Lakers easily better on paper altho Tony/Manu had really come into their own at this point...that being said, Spurs should have finished off Lakers no question and Pop didnt adjust. I'll take the Spurs Big 3 over the Lakers paper tigers any day of the week. Popped goes into fetal position and gets worked 4 straight games after being up 2-0.



Virtually all credit to the ring in '99 goes to Duncan/Robinson being at the apex of their interior defense as a duo...I cant include a guy who scored 11ppg as part of any kind of "big 3", especially with the kind of injury issues he had coming into that season...this roster was extremely short on talent overall for a championship team...does Pop get any credit here though for turning the offense over to Duncan rather than trying to live in the past with David as the focal point?

With regards to 2003, Timmy was at his individual peak without a doubt...but Manu was an unproven rookie playing out of control on occasion while Tony was still liable to get that deer in the headlights look at the mere mention of crunchtime. Neither of them were the players they are today by any stretch. SJax was a misfit coming off a 3.9ppg season. This team actually winning a ring was a testament primarily to Duncans individual greatness but Pop has to get some credit as well.

For 2004, how can you argue against Shaq/Kobe/Malone/GP on paper at the time? They were all playing at a high level going into that season (obviously GP ended up "Ben Wallacing" that year but still). If you are arguing in hindsight that the Spurs shoulda knocked them out I wont disagree, but to say the Spurs had more proven talent to begin with is false imo.

[Fabbs]

'99 while Dunks being the focal point was a no brainer IMO, still sure I'll give Pop credit for revolving the O around Tim. But as to no support beyond DRob, i disagree. While Elliott may not have been a true "Big 3rd", I nonetheless highly value role players ie he, Ellie and Avery in that series.

2003 you had SuperStevie Kerr flat preserving the series in Gm 6 or whichever that was he went 4-4 on treys and fed Tim the ball beautifully after Parker went deer/headlights. But young and inconsistent Tony was definitely "on" a couple of those Laker game thrashings. Slicing and dicing right thru their phony soft D. Credit for Popped? Some, but all taken away after the huge lead in Gm 5 was almost pissed away thanks to his m.o. of 4 Dumb with a lead.

2004 I'm fine with others like yourself finding the Lakers to be better on paper. I mean 51/49 55/45 whatever, either way is not unreasonable to me. For ^%$#s sake they were handed Malone and Payton on a silver platter. But i still liked the Spurs better, i really do (did) and think the 4 straight choke job is a disgrace, .4 or not. I do think with the previous rigged reffing in favor of the Lakers, that during the pre .4 timeout Pop had to tell his team don't even breathe on a Laker, esp that flopping faggot Swisher or else the refs will hand them the game. But GNobs mistake (and Pops?) was letting Swisher go to his left (shooting hand). Should have blockaded him to his right, but again being only two playoff years removed from the phoniest reffing job of all (Lakers-Kings 2002 Gm 6) and the refs giving such favoratism to that era's Lakers, maybe GNob felt he couldn't even look at Swisher wrong hence get rung up. I still say 4 straight was a disgrace and relfects on Popped as part of his "Owned by Phil" heritage.

[Fabbs]

edit: Elliott.

Got it exstatic below.
Spelling it with one t produces this: Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_

[exstatic]

^^ whats with the Luck_the Lakers repeatedly?
Have i been hacked?:lol

No, you just don't know how to spell Elliott. timvp added that "feature" to correct people.

[dn0774]

2003 you had SuperStevie Kerr flat preserving the series in Gm 6 or whichever that was he went 4-4 on treys and fed Tim the ball beautifully after Parker went deer/headlights. But young and inconsistent Tony was definitely "on" a couple of those Laker game thrashings. Slicing and dicing right thru their phony soft D. Credit for Popped? Some, but all taken away after the huge lead in Gm 5 was almost pissed away thanks to his m.o. of 4 Dumb with a lead.



I completely agree there...from 2003-2006/7 it seems we blew so many leads by going into turtle mode once we got them (aka playing not to lose rather than playing to win). Very frustrating to beat the brakes off a team in the 1st half and then come out without any offense to speak and watch the lead melt away.

[tlongII]

If Popovich wins a 5th title I will sing his praises. Not gonna happen though.

[xtremesteven33]

Im going out on a limb and saying that this is the best team the spurs have had in terms of talent and experience since the 2003 team.

None of the Big 3 show any major signs of breakdown or degression but rather show more cohesivness and consistency. The bench has gotten younger and talented with the improvements at the guard positions (Salim,Hill,Mason).

Also the Spurs have some reliable and smart veteran Big men who can contribute at a good level (thomas,Oberto).

Overall i am really excited to see this team play and will boldly state that i think this is the most talented and experienced team weve had since the 2003 team. We have just about as good of a chance next year as the Lakers do.

[ChumpDumper]

The NBA was soo rigged at this pointSo if it's rigged, why even bother bitching about the outcome?

[jayc23]

I love Pop, but he's made mistakes in the past. I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen when the discussion comes up. I love championships. The one in '06 would have been nice, too. Since that's not going to happen, I'll hope for more in the future. If the Spurs never win another one, 2006 becomes more prominent.

show me the one that makes no mistakes and let me call him God.....

Phil jackson is one of the greatest coaches of all time. would he have been with out Jordan, shaq, kobe, the world may never know

[jayc23]

If Popovich wins a 5th title I will sing his praises. Not gonna happen though.

you just worry about keeping oden from rolling his ankle

[Brutalis]

2004 was a mess. 2006 was very bitter in the way it ended and felt much like this season had it not been so rocky. Manu ultimately was the biggest reason we lost 2 of the 3 years just to throw that in there for rude manners.

2009 will be very interesting. When I dream of a 5th title, it feels different. Holy grail. Reinstating ourselves as we unfold into what appears to be an entertaining free agency that might attract what we need.

[Biernutz]

Oh crap --when is the Bob Hill was the best coach link posted? Or the Pop screwed Bob Hill link . Pop haters---get a life----

[Fabbs]

2004 was a mess. 2006 was very bitter in the way it ended and felt much like this season had it not been so rocky. Manu ultimately was the biggest reason we lost 2 of the 3 years just to throw that in there for rude manners.

2009 will be very interesting. When I dream of a 5th title, it feels different. Holy grail. Reinstating ourselves as we unfold into what appears to be an entertaining free agency that might attract what we need.


tlongII If Popovich wins a 5th title I will sing his praises. Not gonna happen though.
Indeed it will be a pleasant surprise if the Spurs with Popped can pull off #5.

[baseline bum]

Getting Pop was one of the greatest things to ever happen to this team. Without Pop, we lose Tim in 2000. Without Pop, this team is probably still regarded as soft like it was under Bob Hill. When Pop took the 2003 roster all the way, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was an elite and all-time great coach. You just don't win titles with rosters that young and inexperienced, especially when you have to end someone else's dynasty to do it.

[Harry Callahan]

To the thread starter,

Average coaches don't win NBA titles. Sure, you have to have the players, but you have to be able to put said players in a position to succeed. The Spurs inability to repeat had more to do with a mixture of bad luck, injuries (Duncan 2000 - Gino 2008), and a few phantom calls (WC Semis 2006).

[Harry Callahan]

'99 while Dunks being the focal point was a no brainer IMO, still sure I'll give Pop credit for revolving the O around Tim. But as to no support beyond DRob, i disagree. While Elliott may not have been a true "Big 3rd", I nonetheless highly value role players ie he, Ellie and Avery in that series.

Sean E was terrible in the Finals series for the most part in 1999 (not his fault - he was deathly ill with his kidney).

I'm sorry - I just don't think Popovich has to apoligize for anything.

BTW TS, Phil Jackson has been riding the same coattails himself if you want to go there. Six in Chicago and three in Los Angeles with two of the the top five (LA) or ten (Chicago with the greatest player ever) players in the league.

You dummies out there will see how the other half lives in a few years. You will miss Popovich then.

[dbreiden83080]

4 titles in the Duncan Era, nobody has any right to be demanding anything or talking baout redemption.