Greg Popovich Coaching Shelf Life (Health Question)

[Gino-Step]

This is not about his coaching abilities. This is about his health. (which you may think is translating into declining ability to coach. That's a separate matter)


But how long before this dude starts to coach only home games or complains about road travel ala Phil. He's not as mobile on his legs and he's looking older and older. I know it's just a skin condition those lumps he has but the guy doesn't look like he should be coaching anymore beyond a year or two barring health issues that come up.

I think he's done as a coach tbh.

[Juggity]

Dude's only 64, he's still got 5-10 years if he wants to continue for that much longer

[TXstbobcat]

Where did this come from? He coached the spurs to the finals last year. I think that he coaches the spurs until he decides that he doesn't want to anymore. He's earned that right.

[Baam]

I think he should retire, beside Lionel Hollins is available...

[Gino-Step]

Dude's only 64, he's still got 5-10 years if he wants to continue for that much longer

64? That's pretty old no. He's like double the age of Brad Stevens. The NBA is now getting filled with the younger coaches. Jason Kidd, Brad Stevens, Analytical Guys, Eric Spoelstra etc.

Hubie Brown, George Karl, Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley and most of his contemporaries are no longer coaching. Who else is an NBA coach over 60 years old?

The only guy older than him is Rick Adelman, and other than that, it's Mike D'Antoni who is over 60.

[superbigtime]

Go away Pop

[Baam]

64? That's pretty old no. He's like double the age of Brad Stevens. The NBA is now getting filled with the younger coaches. Jason Kidd, Brad Stevens, Analytical Guys, Eric Spoelstra etc.

Hubie Brown, George Karl, Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley and most of his contemporaries are no longer coaching. Who else is an NBA coach over 60 years old?

The only guy older than him is Rick Adelman, and other than that, it's Mike D'Antoni.........

Exactly, he's getting his ass handed to him by the young coaches, time to call it quits, he can still help like Riley helps Spoelstra if he wants to...

[lefty]

He has already hit senility

[Baam]

I think we should trade him if we can, if we could get a first rounder or two for him that would be incredible tbh.

Then you just hire Hollins and you're in an even better position...

[DesignatedT]

Mike Krzyzewski is 66 and he's still going strong with Duke AND team USA.

Mike D'antoni is 62.

Rick Adelman is 67.

Pop is 64.

[Baam]

We should trade him to the Jazz or the Sixers.

[Baam]

Mike Krzyzewski is 66 and he's still going strong with Duke AND team USA.

Mike D'antoni is 62.

Rick Adelman is 67.

Pop is 64.

Adelman and D'antoni don't do shit anymore and are clearly past their prime like Pop.

[Gino-Step]

Mike Krzyzewski is 66 and he's still going strong with Duke AND team USA.

Good point. To me though, Krzyzewski looks about 8 years younger. Pop has a limp in his walk. His legs aren't straight they are bent, and his back is hunched. Doesn't get up out of his chair as quick either. Just think his energy level will begin to wane. And he'll go to his I'll talk like I don't care schtick more often just cause of that.

"It's just a game". "They know what they are doing... I don't need to tell them that". "If they can't appreciate the opportunity, then nothing I say will help anyways".

As you get older, you get wiser but your young players aren't wiser. Part of me thinks he talks like that because he's seen it all and he's lacking energy which leads him to resort to this schtick.

[DesignatedT]

Adelman and D'antoni don't do shit anymore and are clearly past their prime like Pop.

You're an idiot. Stop posting.

[Baam]

You're an idiot. Stop posting.

Karl is also pretty much done at this point.

[DesignatedT]

Good point. To me though, Krzyzewski looks about 8 years younger. Pop has a limp in his walk. His legs aren't straight they are bent, and his back is hunched. Doesn't get up out of his chair as quick either. Just think his energy level will begin to wane. And he'll go to his I'll talk like I don't care schtick more often just cause of that.

"It's just a game". "They know what they are doing... I don't need to tell them that". "If they can't appreciate the opportunity, then nothing I say will help anyways".

As you get older, you get wiser but your young players aren't wiser. Part of me thinks he talks like that because he's seen it all and he's lacking energy which leads him to resort to this schtick.


I think he will go out with Duncan. I think Duncan has two more seasons in him unless something odd happens.

[spursince#99]

Lock this absurd act of stupidity.

[SA210]

Pop went senile 6 years ago. Too late.

[TXstbobcat]

Pop is still one the best coaches in the NBA.

[DesignatedT]

If R.C. sticks around post Duncan/Pop era look for Bill Self to be the next coach.

[Gino-Step]

I think he will go out with Duncan. I think Duncan has two more seasons in him unless something odd happens.

I hope they go out this coming year with a championship. I hope they don't come back to repeat. If they win this coming year, most will think they've essentially repeated and not that far away from 3 peating.

Obviously if they don't win this year, they probably come back the year after... and I'm afraid Duncan and Pop and Manu 2 seasons from now ... it'll just be a farewell tour ... 6th seed out in the 1st round kind of thing. Duncan at age 39, Manu at 37/38, and Pop at 66 with a 33 year old Parker will not be pretty.

You hope they win this year and that's it.

[TXstbobcat]

There is still a possibility that Tim decides to continue playing after his current contract expires.

[Solid D]

Haha. He's far from done. Did you just start this thread so that you could bring up Pop's acne scars?

[Libri]

What lumps?

[HI-FI]

Good point. To me though, Krzyzewski looks about 8 years younger. Pop has a limp in his walk. His legs aren't straight they are bent, and his back is hunched. Doesn't get up out of his chair as quick either. Just think his energy level will begin to wane. And he'll go to his I'll talk like I don't care schtick more often just cause of that.

"It's just a game". "They know what they are doing... I don't need to tell them that". "If they can't appreciate the opportunity, then nothing I say will help anyways".

As you get older, you get wiser but your young players aren't wiser. Part of me thinks he talks like that because he's seen it all and he's lacking energy which leads him to resort to this schtick.
Pop does act bored at times, like he's getting worn down from this shit. Phil Jackson often had the same look towards the end, though maybe Phil was bored from being surrounded by amazing talent, or perhaps being around Kobe will grind anyone down. I don't like Pop's attitude as much anymore, but I also don't blame him for getting tired of the grind.

I imagine he's got a couple years left, most likely go out with Duncan. At this point those guys just want to ride this thing out with each other, so hopefully they can get another ring together.

[Fabbs]

This is not about his coaching abilities. This is about his health. (which you may think is translating into declining ability to coach. That's a separate matter)
I think he's done as a coach tbh.

SA210

Pop went senile 6 years ago. Too late.
Would be interesting to know in retrospect if indeed in addition to his stubborness undoings he had onset of dementia as a contributing factor.

[HI-FI]

SA210

Would be interesting to know in retrospect if indeed in addition to his stubborness undoings he had onset of dementia as a contributing factor.
Probably not dementia but excessive drinking tbh. He's got a drunks nose. Wine is good and all but everything in moderation.

[CitizenDwayne]

Pop's fine.

And sure, D'antoni sucks, but I doubt his age has anything to do with it.

[Seventyniner]

Thinly veiled agenda is thinly veiled.

[Baseline]

Popovich is the most overrated coach of all-time. He has four rings because of Tim Duncan, yet he sits Duncan in the last minute of a closeout game - and that's precisely why he doesn't have five rings. This stuff isn't rocket science. If you have the pieces and the talent, you steer it so it doesn't go off a cliff. Pop is no wizard. And he cost Tim a fifth ring. Period.

[TheGreatYacht]

I officially hate Gregg Popovich. The most overrated coach of all-time. Duncan, Manu, Robinson, Bowen, and to an extent, Parker, carried your hacked up face to those titles. You didn't do shit expect tell the guys to play defense. I was on your bandwagon for most of the year. Hell, no one expected the Spurs to do much of anything and your offensive system got to them into the Western Conference Finals riding a 20 game winning streak.

The problem with you, Greggory, is not your X's and O's, it's the way you stubbornly stick to your rotations and refuse to improvise those rotations on the fly. Gary fuckin' Neal should have not seen one more goddamn minute tonight. This was a game Parker should've played every minute of the 3rd and 4th quarters. Fuck fatigue. There's about 70 TV timeouts per quarter, and those minutes should be enough rest for a world class athlete in his physical prime. Yet, despite the liability Neal has been all fuckin' series, you put him in for Parker with close to 6 minutes left in the quarter. And just like last time you did so, the Thunder went on a run.

Are you fuckin' retarded, Greggory? Serious question.

For the second straight year you fucked this team with stupid rotations and roster decisions. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198885
You are not very bright are you?

Two years in a row - I said that POP would fuck up the Spurs chances for a title - and the Spurs would have to win IN SPITE OF POP.


Scotti Brooks - all of 16 years old - puts Sefalosha on Parker - and Pop shits the fuckin bed- after young Scotti spots Pop two games.

Next year all the Popsuckers are frothing at the mouth and their vaginas are moist with "pop-love" and what happens?

Pop shits the bed in game 6.

I am giving you a free long-range prediction for next year and you are sitting here with your pop-suckin-thumb up your ass and talking about vegas odds?

Just stop before you embarrass yourself further.
Losers are happy with 2nd place.

Losers feel fortunate to have already won a title.

Losers will accept anything the front office does - because - well - see above...

Losers think you are selfish and spoiled - to be critical of anything - Pop and the front office do.




Do you think Lakers and Celtics fans - should just stop wanting their team to win more titles?

Do you think the Celtics fans gave up their rights to question their front office?




Spurstalk is full of losers and this offseason has revealed what losers most of you are. No one is calling for Pop's head. No one is calling bullshit on the Manu contract - as much as I love Manu - he is not worth this contract and he has deteriorated significantly and it is painful to see.



Losers will continue to lose. Enjoy.

[kobyz]

Pop is too old, we should bring Jerry Sloan to replace him.

[milkyway21]

Coaching a 37-yr old TD, injured TP, injured Manu, Diaw just from a surgery, if you look closely, it was almost impossible for the Spurs to reach what they had accomplished in 2012-13 season. To the Finals.

So it does not warrant your move for him to stop coaching.


Slipping, I think, or the in so-called "execution" function maybe, but he's more on the stubborn side than dementia.

Like he yanked out Duncan when they already had no time-out left, then re-inserted again? huh? That was so out of the blue.. Negligence of Pop? or his asst. coaches?


:wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

Agenders assemble!®

[HemisfairArena]

:wakeup[/QUOTE]

[xmas1997]

Another really stupid hate thread. Name one coach who is better.

[HemisfairArena]

Another really stupid hate thread. Name one coach who is better.

Name one coach who has ever benched a top 10 player of all time in game 6 of the Finals with a 5 point lead and the title on the line. Hell...even Phil Jackson never benched Hack a Shaq in that situation.

[xmas1997]

Phil Jackson? Geez, certainly you can do better than that, can't stand that * SOB.

[Ocotillo]

Adelman and D'antoni don't do shit anymore and are clearly past their prime like Pop.

D'Antoni had a prime?

[HemisfairArena]

Phil Jackson? Geez, certainly you can do better than that, can't stand that * SOB.


Can you read? Pop is the only poor coach that would ever do what he did in game 6 in the Finals.

[xmas1997]

I can read, but apparently you can't, you don't answer a question with another question.

[Clipper Nation]

I could see Pop in a Tex Winter role in a couple years, tbh....

[xmas1997]

I could see Pop in a Tex Winter role in a couple years, tbh....

Might happen, but I doubt it. He will retire first IMHO.

[Rogue]

Pop is Sir Alex Ferguson in basketball and you can never say Fergie won those honors because of Keane & Beckham, or Rooney & Ronaldo. Pop only got some scraps from drafts into the 2000s, but he turned them all into solid role players or even star players. He only tanked one year to get Duncan and made a dynasty that lasted well over a decade, which's not that easy for a small-market team imho. You may have assembled a squad made of top drafts and talents but there're still many ways for you to fail (like OKC)

[maverick1948]

64? That's pretty old no. He's like double the age of Brad Stevens. The NBA is now getting filled with the younger coaches. Jason Kidd, Brad Stevens, Analytical Guys, Eric Spoelstra etc.

Hubie Brown, George Karl, Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley and most of his contemporaries are no longer coaching. Who else is an NBA coach over 60 years old?

The only guy older than him is Rick Adelman, and other than that, it's Mike D'Antoni who is over 60.

No it isn't old. Just ask me. I am older than Pop and I'm not old.

[anakha]

Offseason really brings out the idiots in here.

[HemisfairArena]

Offseason really brings out the idiots in here.


and here you sit.

[anakha]

and here you sit.

Tell us again how Holt not owning 50% of the Spurs makes him the majority owner.

[HemisfairArena]

Tell us again how Holt not owning 50% of the Spurs makes him the majority owner.


If you dont understand that...you are one of the idiots on here that you talk about.

[anakha]

If you dont understand that...you are one of the idiots on here that you talk about.

:lmao

Still holding on to that delusion despite being shown the definition of a majority owner and being provided information that Holt doesn't own 50% of the team.

Where's the proof that Holt owns 50%? Still waiting.

[HemisfairArena]

:lmao

Still holding on to that delusion despite being shown the definition of a majority owner and being provided information that Holt doesn't own 50% of the team.

Where's the proof that Holt owns 50%? Still waiting.


LMAO. You really are this stupid arent you? It actually doesnt matter if Holt owns 50%...he can own 40%....35%...and still be majority owner. Please tell me who is a bigger majority owner of the Spurs than Peter.......if you cant do it...you are a joke.

[ChumpDumper]

LMAO. You really are this stupid arent you? It actually doesnt matter if Holt owns 50%...he can own 40%....35%...and still be majority owner. Please tell me who is a bigger majority owner of the Spurs than Peter.......if you cant do it...you are a joke.Holy shit.

I thought he abandoned that thread out of embarrassment.

[HemisfairArena]

Holy shit.

I thought he abandoned that thread out of embarrassment.


I thought you would leave out of embarrashment of being a Manu homer...but here you are and here I am.

[ChumpDumper]

I thought you would leave out of embarrashment of being a Manu homer...but here you are and here I am.Yeah, but you're still completely wrong.

[HemisfairArena]

Yeah, but you're still completely wrong.



And you still believe OJ Simpson is innocent.

[ChumpDumper]

And you still believe OJ Simpson is innocent.Straw men cannot save you.

[Kindergarten Cop]

LMAO. You really are this stupid arent you? It actually doesnt matter if Holt owns 50%...he can own 40%....35%...and still be majority owner. Please tell me who is a bigger majority owner of the Spurs than Peter.......if you cant do it...you are a joke.

You'd be much better off letting this argument die. The longer it continues, the worse you look. By definition, one cannot be a "majority owner" if they own 40%...35%... or anything other than one more than 50%. Just because somebody owns more shares than any other single individual doesn't make him the majority owner - that's not how it works.

[HemisfairArena]

Straw men cannot save you.


You like men?

[anakha]

LMAO. You really are this stupid arent you? It actually doesnt matter if Holt owns 50%...he can own 40%....35%...and still be majority owner. Please tell me who is a bigger majority owner of the Spurs than Peter.......if you cant do it...you are a joke.



Majority Shareholder

A person or company that owns 50% plus one of the stock in a publicly-traded company. This allows the majority shareholder outright control of the company's operations, especially the election of its board of directors. Some majority shareholders are not involved in the daily operations of the company, but most are. Indeed, the majority shareholder is often the company's founder.


:lmao

You are without a doubt the biggest moron to sign on in this forum this year. Congrats.

[HemisfairArena]

You'd be much better off letting this argument die. The longer it continues, the worse you look. By definition, one cannot be a "majority owner" if they own 40%...35%... or anything other than one more than 50%. Just because somebody owns more shares than any other single individual doesn't make him the majority owner - that's not how it works.


You fail 100%. Economics 101. Man...is everyone stupid here? If I own 40% of a bar...and all the other partners scatter out for the other 60%...I AM THE MAJORITY OWNER. LMAO!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

You like men?You looking for a date?

Were I into men, they would have to be smarter than you.

[anakha]

You fail 100%. Economics 101. Man...is everyone stupid here? If I own 40% of a bar...and all the other partners scatter out for the other 60%...I AM THE MAJORITY OWNER. LMAO!!!!

That's a plurality owner.

You still can't read. Absolute genius.

[HemisfairArena]

I have never seen anyone not grasp ownership control like this. If you owner 40%...35%...of a company...and no one owns more percentage than you...you are the majority owner. How hard is that to understand? Majority owner means the guy who owns they most percentage...LMAO. It doesnt matter what the other percentages add up to...you own the biggest percentage. Period. Man...this is comical.

[Kindergarten Cop]

You fail 100%. Economics 101. Man...is everyone stupid here? If I own 40% of a bar...and all the other partners scatter out for the other 60%...I AM THE MAJORITY OWNER. LMAO!!!!

I'm really not sure if you are serious or I'm getting punk'd here.

[Kindergarten Cop]

I have never seen anyone not grasp ownership control like this. If you owner 40%...35%...of a company...and no one owns more percentage than you...you are the majority owner. How hard is that to understand? Majority owner means the guy who owns they most percentage...LMAO. It doesnt matter what the other percentages add up to...you own the biggest percentage. Period. Man...this is comical.

I'm trying to be civil here and answer respectfully. Could you be confusing "majority ownership" with "majority interest"?

[anakha]

I have never seen anyone not grasp ownership control like this. If you owner 40%...35%...of a company...and no one owns more percentage than you...you are the majority owner. How hard is that to understand? Majority owner means the guy who owns they most percentage...LMAO. It doesnt matter what the other percentages add up to...you own the biggest percentage. Period. Man...this is comical.

Economics fail. Utter fail.

You can own the most shares without owning a majority (50% +1). That makes you the plurality owner.

Majority owner means you own 50% + 1 of shares and can push through whatever decisons you wish.

Plurality owner means you need other shares to vote with you to reach the 50% + 1.

Does Holt have other voting partners? Maybe. Probably.

Does that make him Majority Owner? No.

Please, keep arguing that Holt owning less than 50% of the Spurs makes him the majority owner. We're all laughing at the logic knots you twist yourself into.

[TXstbobcat]

Majority owner
Definition
A majority owner of a business is a person who controls more than half interest of the organization's outstanding shares, or, occasionally, a group of associated individuals who collectively control more than half interest of an organization's outstanding shares.
- See more at: http://www.investordictionary.com/definition/majority-owner#sthash.3DNQD1vh.dpuf

[anakha]

Majority owner
Definition
A majority owner of a business is a person who controls more than half interest of the organization's outstanding shares, or, occasionally, a group of associated individuals who collectively control more than half interest of an organization's outstanding shares.
- See more at: http://www.investordictionary.com/definition/majority-owner#sthash.3DNQD1vh.dpuf

Already did that in another thread. The idiot just won't accept he fucked up his definitions.

[TXstbobcat]

If you don't have more than 50% then you are not the majority owner.

[Chinook]

That's a plurality owner.

You still can't read. Absolute genius.

I literally told him that on the second page of his thread. Just because I knew he was going to make that mistake.

[therealtruth]

Popovich is the most overrated coach of all-time. He has four rings because of Tim Duncan, yet he sits Duncan in the last minute of a closeout game - and that's precisely why he doesn't have five rings. This stuff isn't rocket science. If you have the pieces and the talent, you steer it so it doesn't go off a cliff. Pop is no wizard. And he cost Tim a fifth ring. Period.

[Clipper Nation]

After suffering through dumbasses like Chris Ford, Jim Todd, Mike Dunleavy, and Vinny Del Negro, I get a kick out of Spurfan ripping Pop to shreds and calling him overrated.... some people don't know how good they have it with Pop, apparently...

[HI-FI]

Popovich is the most overrated coach of all-time. He has four rings because of Tim Duncan, yet he sits Duncan in the last minute of a closeout game - and that's precisely why he doesn't have five rings. This stuff isn't rocket science. If you have the pieces and the talent, you steer it so it doesn't go off a cliff. Pop is no wizard. And he cost Tim a fifth ring. Period.
I thought Pop did a good job throughout the regular season and majority of the playoffs, especially when you factor the injuries and age of the team. So I definetly give credit. But the Finals, particularly game 6, was brutal. He looked lost out there, maybe in need of a drink, perhaps helpless with Manu's shittiness. Those 2 blew this Finals the most, to the point you hope they can recover from shitting their pants. Hopefully they realize it.

[Baam]

After suffering through dumbasses like Chris Ford, Jim Todd, Mike Dunleavy, and Vinny Del Negro, I get a kick out of Spurfan ripping Pop to shreds and calling him overrated.... some people don't know how good they have it with Pop, apparently...

Doc Rivers is overrated as well tbh.

Anyway Spurs fans know Pop's limitations better than anyone else but even some outsiders were shocked by how inept he was in the Finals, Bill Simmons among others called him out on it. Pop has an aura that he mostly has thanks to Tim Duncan and people in the media were mostly afraid to call him out on his mistakes but after his historical fail it's starting to change thankfully.

[HI-FI]

After suffering through dumbasses like Chris Ford, Jim Todd, Mike Dunleavy, and Vinny Del Negro, I get a kick out of Spurfan ripping Pop to shreds and calling him overrated.... some people don't know how good they have it with Pop, apparently...
Pop isn't a hack like those guys, he definetly deserves some respect and appreciation. But he's also let his ego and stubbornness get the best of him and the team. Just hope there are people there to tell him about his fuckups, because he acts like a tenured professor at times, perhaps past his prime.

[therealtruth]

Doc Rivers is overrated as well tbh.

Anyway Spurs fans know Pop's limitations better than anyone else but even some outsiders were shocked by how inept he was in the Finals, Bill Simmons among others called him out on it. Pop has an aura that he mostly has thanks to Tim Duncan and people in the media were mostly afraid to call him out on his mistakes but after his historical fail it's starting to change thankfully.

Exactly. Like you said Spurs fans know his limitations better than anyone else. I think those limitations are what prevents him from being in the class of a Phil Jackson. PJ would never do something as insane as sitting Duncan on a huge defensive possession. Also he would realize the value of having the best free throw shooters in the game at the end. Pop couldn't have played that any more poorly. Really? Inbound the ball to Kawhi. That's exactly who the Heat wanted going to the foul line. I would have loved someone else like Ginobili to have stepped up and got the ball and sealed the game. But they were so scared they put Kawhi in that position.

[therealtruth]

The best thing a coach can do is allow the players to decide the game. We wouldn't be discussing this if Pop had just allowed TD to decide his future. He certainly deserved it.

[flipspursfan]

You fail 100%. Economics 101. Man...is everyone stupid here? If I own 40% of a bar...and all the other partners scatter out for the other 60%...I AM THE MAJORITY OWNER. LMAO!!!!

Stop posting.

[anakha]

A lot of the time the perception of coaching decisions come down to who actually won the game. It's real easy to let hindsight dictate what the decision should have been.

Had the Spurs lost game 6 of the WCSF against Golden State, I'm sure there would have been people calling for Pop's head because of the Duncan benching in the 4th quarter of that game. Instead, the narrative became that of "that was one hell of a ballsy move by Pop".

The safer move then would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.

The safer move in the Finals would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.

Would either move have been the better one? I'm not sure. But letting the game result alone dictate whether a decision was better or not is looking at things too simplistically.

Personally, I think this would have been a moot point if Lebron had not bricked that one three so bad at the end of Game 6 that it bounced away from the 4 Spurs in the paint.

[Baam]

A lot of the time the perception of coaching decisions come down to who actually won the game. It's real easy to let hindsight dictate what the decision should have been.

Had the Spurs lost game 6 of the WCSF against Golden State, I'm sure there would have been people calling for Pop's head because of the Duncan benching in the 4th quarter of that game. Instead, the narrative became that of "that was one hell of a ballsy move by Pop".

The safer move then would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.

The safer move in the Finals would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.

Would either move have been the better one? I'm not sure. But letting the game result alone dictate whether a decision was better or not is looking at things too simplistically.

Personally, I think this would have been a moot point if Lebron had not bricked that one three so bad at the end of Game 6 that it bounced away from the 4 Spurs in the paint.

At the end of the Golden State game Tim said something along the lines of "if we win it's fine, but if we had lost then it'd be another story".

You can't tell me something didn't break between these two.

[Baam]

The problem was not only benching Tim, he also admitted he didn't run a single play for Leonard and went full retard with his usage of Manu...

[TheGoldStandard]

Or he could have just had someone foul on either possession... not that much different then hack a whoever.. make them hit clutch shots.

[therealtruth]

A lot of the time the perception of coaching decisions come down to who actually won the game. It's real easy to let hindsight dictate what the decision should have been.

Had the Spurs lost game 6 of the WCSF against Golden State, I'm sure there would have been people calling for Pop's head because of the Duncan benching in the 4th quarter of that game. Instead, the narrative became that of "that was one hell of a ballsy move by Pop".

The safer move then would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.

The safer move in the Finals would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.

Would either move have been the better one? I'm not sure. But letting the game result alone dictate whether a decision was better or not is looking at things too simplistically.

Personally, I think this would have been a moot point if Lebron had not bricked that one three so bad at the end of Game 6 that it bounced away from the 4 Spurs in the paint.

You're just saying every move is equal because anything can happen. That's not a good way to coach. A good way to coach is to say I need more defense/rebounding so I will put my best defender/rebounder in the game.

[anakha]

At the end of the Golden State game Tim said something along the lines of "if we win it's fine, but if we had lost then it'd be another story".

You can't tell me something didn't break between these two.

Without anything concrete stating whether the relationship between those two has indeed changed, it's presumptuous on anyone's part to speculate one way or the other.

And Duncan's response actually sums up the point I was making earlier about game decisions being judged based on the outcome.


You're just saying every move is equal because anything can happen. That's not a good way to coach. A good way to coach is to say I need more defense/rebounding so I will put my best defender/rebounder in the game.

I'm not saying every move is equal. Of course you try your hardest to make sure that the game's outcome does not come down to random chance.

The point I was trying to make was that in my opinion, in that particular game, that one particular decision was less of a factor in determining the outcome than the bounce from Lebron's brick that went away from the 4 Spurs who had good rebounding position anyway, Duncan or no Duncan.


The problem was not only benching Tim, he also admitted he didn't run a single play for Leonard and went full retard with his usage of Manu...

The Manu thing appears to me to actually be a similar argument.

There would be some camps that say the move should have been to keep the ball out of Manu's hands more - keep Parker as the primary playmaker. Others would argue that Manu's Game 5 performance would never have happened if that had been done.

The safer move might have been to trust Manu, in the same way that the safer move regarding Duncan would have been to keep him in the game and trust he can manage himself. Would it have been the better move?

Was Parker's hamstring the reason Manu took on more of the playmaking role? Unless we get a definitive answer either way, we'll have to operate on the most educated guesswork we can.

And yes, I agree that Leonard should probably have been given some chances to see if he could make things happen.


Or he could have just had someone foul on either possession... not that much different then hack a whoever.. make them hit clutch shots.

Wasn't there an article that came out this season that made the case for fouling versus straight up defense?

[ChumpDumper]

spurfan doesn't know his own limitations

[Baam]

He's done :

- historical blow out loss at home on military night

- loss to a team of scrubs coached by Spoeltra who outwitted him

- loss to the Lakers when a win could have kept them out of the playoffs

- soulcrushing Finals defeat, biggest choke in the history of sports actually, shat his pants on the biggest stage possible

- called Doc Rivers for antidepressants advice



Time for him to face the truth and retire.

[ChumpDumper]

Case in point.

[TheGoldStandard]

Without anything concrete stating whether the relationship between those two has indeed changed, it's presumptuous on anyone's part to speculate one way or the other.

And Duncan's response actually sums up the point I was making earlier about game decisions being judged based on the outcome.



I'm not saying every move is equal. Of course you try your hardest to make sure that the game's outcome does not come down to random chance.

The point I was trying to make was that in my opinion, in that particular game, that one particular decision was less of a factor in determining the outcome than the bounce from Lebron's brick that went away from the 4 Spurs who had good rebounding position anyway, Duncan or no Duncan.



The Manu thing appears to me to actually be a similar argument.

There would be some camps that say the move should have been to keep the ball out of Manu's hands more - keep Parker as the primary playmaker. Others would argue that Manu's Game 5 performance would never have happened if that had been done.

The safer move might have been to trust Manu, in the same way that the safer move regarding Duncan would have been to keep him in the game and trust he can manage himself. Would it have been the better move?

Was Parker's hamstring the reason Manu took on more of the playmaking role? Unless we get a definitive answer either way, we'll have to operate on the most educated guesswork we can.

And yes, I agree that Leonard should probably have been given some chances to see if he could make things happen.



Wasn't there an article that came out this season that made the case for fouling versus straight up defense?

I don't see where the problem is fouling, sending someone to the line and making them earn the points..