Pop's best coaching job [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

SRJ

10-19-2007, 02:23 AM

whottt

10-19-2007, 02:42 AM

Perhaps we have short memories, or perhaps I'm wrong, but 2003 was Pop's best work in a championship year.

Consider this: Popovich played most of the year with this roster:

Robinson/Willis
Duncan/Rose
Bowen/Ferry
Jackson/Ginobili/Smith
Parker/Claxton/Kerr

The guys in bold were all at least 36 years old when the season started except for Steve Smith, who at 33 years old could barely even move anymore - 40 year old Kevin Willis was moving much better than Smith. The guys in underlined text were 25 or younger, with very little NBA experience to go with their age. Parker had a great rookie season in 2001-02, but Claxton was coming off an undistinguished rookie season which took place a season after he was drafted due to injury. Stephen Jackson had played in only 100 games during his first two NBA seasons, and Italian League star Manu Ginobili was a 25 year old rookie.

Only three players on that roster were in their primes - starters Tim Duncan (the reigning MVP) and Bruce Bowen (the defensive stopper), along with Malik Rose, the 6th man.

On January 1st, 2003, the Spurs were 19-13 through the first 50 games of the season. They finished the season 41-9, tying Dallas for the best record in basketball at 60-22.

Forty-one and freaking nine. With that roster.

Imagine taking down a three-peat championship club with Tim Duncan, Bruce Bowen, a bunch of kids, and a bunch of geezers. How many coaches would have managed to dethrone the Lakers with a cast like that?

You made decent argument...but I'd argue that was probably the team that Pop did the least for based on one of your own points...

Those old guys you mentioned were keys to that championship...when they left, we weren't the same team and that's why we failed to repeat.

IMO, old guys need less coaching...not more...they know the ropes of playoff ball...they don't need pep talks...and they know the game.

Kevin Willis had about 15 good games left in his 40+ year old body...and he gave them all to the Spurs when they were most needed that year.

Kerr suddenly developed the ability to come in and hit multiple shots on command, after spending multiple games without getting off the bench...

Danny Ferry came up with the grittiest game of his entire career...IMO, that was due to his desire to go out a champion...

And Drob? Well...you can't coach defending Shaq.

Really the only truly inexperienced and young guys on that team were Parker, Jack and Speedy.

Manu was a veteran of many years...just not in the NBA.

IMO, that 2003 team was the best Spurs Team ever...not the best coached.

SRJ

10-19-2007, 03:09 AM

You made decent argument...but I'd argue that was probably the team that Pop did the least for based on one of your own points...

Those old guys you mentioned were keys to that championship...when they left, we weren't the same team and that's why we failed to repeat.

IMO, old guys need less coaching...not more...they know the ropes of playoff ball...they don't need pep talks...and they know the game.

I agree with you - I'm certainly not saying the old guys needed coaching - but the problem old guys have is wear and tear. We couldn't play those guys as much as I'm sure we would have liked to (Robinson in particular), so it took careful managing of their minutes to keep them in good position for a playoff run.

Kevin Willis had about 15 good games left in his 40+ year old body...and he gave them all to the Spurs when they were most needed that year.

Kerr suddenly developed the ability to come in and hit multiple shots on command, after spending multiple games without getting off the bench...

Danny Ferry came up with the grittiest game of his entire career...IMO, that was due to his desire to go out a champion...

Kerr's performances against the Mavericks and Nets were remarkable considering how little he played, but I wish people (I'm glad you remembered that - it seems most Spurs fans do not) would remember Danny Ferry's 9 pt, 10 reb performance in game two versus Phoenix. The Spurs were already trailing in the series after the first game, DRob was out with an injury, and Willis was suspended for a stupid play in game one. Huge game by Ferry.

And Drob? Well...you can't coach defending Shaq.

And nobody did it better than DRob. If the Spurs were coached by someone like Mike D'Antoni, DRob would have played like 300-500 more minutes that season and not been so effective in the playoffs. Pop is a master at juggling the minutes, even at the expense of a few (or even several) regular season losses.

Really the only truly inexperienced and young guys on that team were Parker, Jack and Speedy.

Manu was a veteran of many years...just not in the NBA.

Well, I believe the transition from foreign leagues to the NBA can be difficult for some players. Honestly, Manu wasn't bang up right out of the box either, though he improved dramatically from the beginning of the season to the end. By playoff time, he somewhat resembled the Manu we all know now - with timely 3's, clutch 4th quarter plays, and crazy finishes at the rim.

And I think it took a lot of great coaching to keep Stephen Jackson playing a role reliably well in his first big minute season in the NBA. Jackson is a loose cannon as we know, so Pop was doing something very well to get him in some sort of a line.

IMO, that 2003 team was the best Spurs Team ever...not the best coached.

I don't agree, but this particular issue seems much more subjective than others. I certainly wouldn't say you (or anyone else, for that matter) are wrong about this issue.

timvp

10-19-2007, 03:09 AM

Perhaps we have short memories, or perhaps I'm wrong, but 2003 was Pop's best work in a championship year.

Consider this: Popovich played most of the year with this roster:

Robinson/Willis
Duncan/Rose
Bowen/Ferry
Jackson/Ginobili/Smith
Parker/Claxton/Kerr

The guys in bold were all at least 36 years old when the season started except for Steve Smith, who at 33 years old could barely even move anymore - 40 year old Kevin Willis was moving much better than Smith. The guys in underlined text were 25 or younger, with very little NBA experience to go with their age. Parker had a great rookie season in 2001-02, but Claxton was coming off an undistinguished rookie season which took place a season after he was drafted due to injury. Stephen Jackson had played in only 100 games during his first two NBA seasons, and Italian League star Manu Ginobili was a 25 year old rookie.

Only three players on that roster were in their primes - starters Tim Duncan (the reigning MVP) and Bruce Bowen (the defensive stopper), along with Malik Rose, the 6th man.

On January 1st, 2003, the Spurs were 19-13 through the first 50 games of the season. They finished the season 41-9, tying Dallas for the best record in basketball at 60-22.

Forty-one and freaking nine. With that roster.

Imagine taking down a three-peat championship club with Tim Duncan, Bruce Bowen, a bunch of kids, and a bunch of geezers. How many coaches would have managed to dethrone the Lakers with a cast like that?Well said and I agree.

I've always said 2003 was Pop's best coaching job. He had a second year French point guard. A shooting guard who was not only erratic but was also basically a rookie. Manu was about 20% as good as he is now and about 500% more untamed. Speedy Claxton was a young backup who was inconsistent.

While Robinson was still good, he was a shadow of his former self. Bowen wasn't as good then as he is now. Kerr, Willis and Ferry played their roles well ... but they were old as dirt. Duncan was very good but he wasn't as much of a leader then as he is now. Rose was probably the only player in his real prime.

Pop's ballsy move of replacing Steve Smith in the starting lineup with Stephen Jackson was probably Pop's best coaching move at all time. What Spurs fans forget was early that season, Jackson was horrrrrrrrible. He sucked in preseason and was playing crappy in the beginning of the year. Yet Pop stuck with him ... and it paid off bigtime.

Comparing 2003 to 2007, Duncan is a better overall player now considering his passing ability and his leadership abilities, Parker is much, much better, Ginobili went from an average role player to a borderline superstar and Bowen is now a seasoned playoff vet. The only place where the 2003 team had more talent was in Robinson and Rose ... but Robinson wasn't as close to as good as he was in 1999. Again, Robinson was still way better than anything the Spurs have now but compared to 1999 Robinson, it wasn't even close.

The 2003 team had talent but it was mostly young talent that hadn't begun to reach it's potential and old players hanging on for one final year.

If I'm ranking Pop's best coaching jobs, I'd go:

2003
2007
2005
1999

Pop had a really good year coaching wise last year but he also had a much better and more experienced team, so it wasn't as impressive overall. 2005 he was pretty decent but the Spurs struggled more than they should have at points in the playoffs. 1999 Pop wasn't anything close to the coach he was today. He was more of an AJ and Robinson puppet than a head coach.

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:16 AM

jman3000

10-19-2007, 03:22 AM

i coulda sworn that steve smith began that year as the starter... had some small injury that lasted a couple games and then never really saw the floor much after that.

timvp

10-19-2007, 03:23 AM

I'm just going to challenge one point you made in that post...

Jack V Smitty:

Was a no brainer to make the move to replace Smitty with Jack...and no one complained about it either...because Smitty sucked.

Even Smitty didn't complain about it.Smitty sucked but so did Jack to that point of his Spurs career. In fact, on the Spurs forums, the only two fans where for Jackson starting at the time were SpursFan and Ghost Writer. (That might have been the only time they ever agreed :lol)

It was far from a cut and dry decision. I thought Pop crazy in his belief of Jack because Jack had regressed so much early in that season that he was about as bad as Steve Smith. However, Jackson quickly grew into the role and made it work. And Pop was right there encouraging him on after every bad pass and bad shot early in the experiment.

A 19-year-old point guard and a wild shooting guard with little to no experience shouldn't be winning championships ... no matter who the teammates are.

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:31 AM

I agree with you - I'm certainly not saying the old guys needed coaching - but the problem old guys have is wear and tear. We couldn't play those guys as much as I'm sure we would have liked to (Robinson in particular), so it took careful managing of their minutes to keep them in good position for a playoff run.

True...Pop was good at managing minutes...actually he still is. Every since 2001.

(I'm glad you remembered that - it seems most Spurs fans do not) would remember Danny Ferry's 9 pt, 10 reb performance in game two versus Phoenix. The Spurs were already trailing in the series after the first game, DRob was out with an injury, and Willis was suspended for a stupid play in game one. Huge game by Ferry.

That was the game of Danny Ferry's career...I gotta give him props for that game...

I am not a Danny Ferry fan at all...I'm still not.

But I fully expected us to go down 0-2 in that series and thanks to Ferry we didn't. I never doubted we would win that series...but I did think we were going to start off 0-2.

Glad you remembered Drob's injury...

Torn meniscus...he finished his career playing with a torn meniscus...guarding Shaq.

Should you ever find yourself involved in a Drob was soft argument...that's alway good ammo.

Well, I believe the transition from foreign leagues to the NBA can be difficult for some players. Honestly, Manu wasn't bang up right out of the box either, though he improved dramatically from the beginning of the season to the end. By playoff time, he somewhat resembled the Manu we all know now - with timely 3's, clutch 4th quarter plays, and crazy finishes at the rim.

Manu sprained his ankle during the 2002 WC's and then sprained it a couple of more times...

That was a big reason he never really got involved.

The thing about Manu in those playoffs?

He was freaking huge against the Lakers...

Jack sucked against LA...just like Smitty, and Ferry, and Hedo...had it not been for the Manu/Bowen double team on Kobe...

Jack may have been viewed in the same light as those aformention chokers...

And I think it took a lot of great coaching to keep Stephen Jackson playing a role reliably well in his first big minute season in the NBA. Jackson is a loose cannon as we know, so Pop was doing something very well to get him in some sort of a line.

I don't agree, but this particular issue seems much more subjective than others. I certainly wouldn't say you (or anyone else, for that matter) are wrong about this issue.

It is subjective...and there is absolutely no way to prove anything...

The reason I rate that team as the best is simple...

I knew that Spurs team was going to win a championship...and I never doubted it after the first game of the rodeo road trip...

That team swept the Lakers, during the regular season, they won just about every big road game...

To me that team bore the unmistakable mark of a champion...

The only Spurs team I've been 100% certain was going to win it all...and once I realized it, never doubted it, for a second.

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:34 AM

Smitty sucked but so did Jack to that point of his Spurs career. In fact, on the Spurs forums, the only two fans where for Jackson starting at the time were SpursFan and Ghost Writer. (That might have been the only time they ever agreed :lol)

It was far from a cut and dry decision. I thought Pop crazy in his belief of Jack because Jack had regressed so much early in that season that he was about as bad as Steve Smith. However, Jackson quickly grew into the role and made it work. And Pop was right there encouraging him on after every bad pass and bad shot early in the experiment.

A 19-year-old point guard and a wild shooting guard with little to no experience shouldn't be winning championships ... no matter who the teammates are.

All that's true...but Smitty absolutely killed us against LA in 02...

Pretty sure baseline(HITA)bum was on the Jackwagon too...even if not vocally.

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:42 AM

i coulda sworn that steve smith began that year as the starter... had some small injury that lasted a couple games and then never really saw the floor much after that.

Smitty sucked from the All Star Break of 2002 on...

Was complete garbage...

No one wanted him back after his performance against LA in the 2002 playoffs.

So no...it wasn't really an injury...he just couldn't move anymore, or defend, or shoot threes....

I had no clue who Jack was or what to expect...I just know I didn't want Smitty on the court on a regular basis after that...I rather Kerr start at 2 guard.

But I already knew Manu was going to wind up our 2 guard...

And I liked Smitty a lot before all that happened.

timvp

10-19-2007, 03:48 AM

The thing about Manu in those playoffs?

He was freaking huge against the Lakers...

Jack sucked against LA.Yeah Manu picked the right series to play well in. He was bad to sub par in each of the other series, though. The Nets was his second best series but he had a couple bad games in that series.

Manu's growth from 2003 to 2005 is almost unbelievable if you think about it.

All that's true...but Smitty absolutely killed us against LA in 02...

Pretty sure baseline(HITA)bum was on the Jackwagon too...even if not vocally.I don't remember where BBum stood on the matter but I do remember pretty much everyone agreed HITA sucked. Smitty's performance in the 2002 Lakers series was so embarrassingly bad I wanted him off the team.

Going into that season, I was hopeful that SJax could win the shooting guard battle. But he was horrible in preseason (he shot like 20%) and early in the season, even when he did good, it came at the expense of the Spurs. The Spurs kept losing every time SJax had played a lot.

Thank the basketball gods that Pop stuck with him, though.

raspsa

10-19-2007, 03:50 AM

Has to be 2005. TD had 2 very tender ankles to deal with. The Pistons were favorites to win. But the Spurs got the job done despite the adversity. Unlike the other championships where the Spurs were favorites.

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:52 AM

Yeah...the biggest reason I go with 2005 is because of all the injuries...

The back to back double OT wins, on the road were...

You just don't do that without fantastic coaching...

That was totally Pop...

Of course that is only 2 games...

But still even in the post season...guys were injured and beat up.

And he just cut players out of the rotation...

But you know...now that I think about it...coaching or not...Horry saved our asses in game 5.

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:56 AM

Going into that season, I was hopeful that SJax could win the shooting guard battle. But he was horrible in preseason (he shot like 20%) and early in the season, even when he did good, it came at the expense of the Spurs. The Spurs kept losing every time SJax had played a lot.

Thank the basketball gods that Pop stuck with him, though.

Well I wasn't an original Jackwaggoner...I was a Manuwaggoner...I didn't know Jack about Jack...but anyone was better than Smitty IMO. I agree....I didn't want Smitty back after 02. I don't think anyone did...

whottt

10-19-2007, 03:57 AM

Interesting that no one picks the 99 team...

Emeyin

10-19-2007, 04:05 AM

Hands down, 2003 was Pop's best coaching year. Pretty much for all of the reasons SRJ already stated in his post.

timvp

10-19-2007, 04:08 AM

Interesting that no one picks the 99 team...A vote for the 1999 team would be a vote for AJ.

:smokin

whottt

10-19-2007, 04:13 AM

Just to play Devil's advocate here....

Assuming that the fewer players you have with championship experience...the more important coaching is...

Number of players with championship experience(just off the top of my head):

99 Team:
3
Elie
Kerr
Perdue

03 Team:
4
Drob
Duncan
Kerr
Rose

05 Team:
5
Duncan
Manu
Parker
Bowen
Horry

07 Team:
7
Bowen
Parker
Duncan
Manu
Horry
Barry
Beno

The 99 Team actually had the fewest players with championship experience...

Now we all have our own ideas about who the leader of that team was...
Some say AJ
Some say Elie
Some say others...but usually it's one of those two...

But you gotta admit...a lot of inexperienced coaches would be too insecure to let their players take such strong leadership roles...or get so much credit...a lot of coaches might have come down on Elie for his ripping of the team in the media...or been afraid to ask David Robinson to take on a supporting role...

Anyway...that breakdown does help the argument for the 03 team...

But in some ways it makes a case as that 99 team being Pop's best coaching job...because he didn't try to do what he didn't know what to do...and he showed an unusual amount of maturity for a new coach...not to mention an unusual amount of trust in his players. Sometimes...the smartest coaching move is to take a step back...and it takes a great coach to know when that moment is...

Plus...that 99 Team featured the debut of the coach who reinvented the NBA defense...and that's Pop's greatest accomplishment as a coach IMO.

But it is intersting that first team is so often viewed as the toughest and the most experienced...when it was actually the least experienced....

ShoogarBear

10-19-2007, 05:50 AM

My order would be:

1. 2003
2. 2007
3. 2005
4. 1999

2007 should not be underrated, that championship was won during January-April, combined with the GS-Dallas break. Remember the thread by kris, during the darkest days, asking people to man up whether the Spurs would win it or not? A lot of people (me included) said no.

urunobili

10-19-2007, 07:17 AM

Yeah Manu picked the right series to play well in. He was bad to sub par in each of the other series, though. The Nets was his second best series but he had a couple bad games in that series.

Manu's growth from 2003 to 2005 is almost unbelievable if you think about it.

I don't remember where BBum stood on the matter but I do remember pretty much everyone agreed HITA sucked. Smitty's performance in the 2002 Lakers series was so embarrassingly bad I wanted him off the team.

Going into that season, I was hopeful that SJax could win the shooting guard battle. But he was horrible in preseason (he shot like 20%) and early in the season, even when he did good, it came at the expense of the Spurs. The Spurs kept losing every time SJax had played a lot.

Thank the basketball gods that Pop stuck with him, though.

i think you are actually forgetting some BIG time fourth quarter stops and three's in the clinching semi finals win on the Phoenix series... i would say he was ON like he is now all the 2003 playoffs... during the regular season... he was just slowed by his injuries... his playing style was just being re-adjusted and was not having enough PT to show what he does today... if you ask me... the same player with more knowledge of the NBA pace... not a big improvement... he was always great... i haven;t checked stats in his increased playing time but i bet that goes along with his increased numbers as well... remember the Hollinger PER stats... it's same old Manu... it shows more because of the playing time...
:reading

RC's Boss

10-19-2007, 07:30 AM

99 was too easy, 05 was what it was... , 07 should've been a title defense, 03 is my pick.

RC's Boss

10-19-2007, 07:30 AM

Damn, when do you guys sleep? I hope ya'll work nights!

Texas_Ranger

10-19-2007, 07:32 AM

2003.

TheAuthority

10-19-2007, 07:33 AM

Popovich's best coaching job: having Tim Duncan.

TDMVPDPOY

10-19-2007, 07:44 AM

wtf gives a shit, he seems to win games when his dress up for the game....pink shirt...

phyzik

10-19-2007, 08:26 AM

I say 2007... those calls he made for Horry to bump Steve Nash into the scorers table and Tony Parker to head butt Steve Nash in game 1 where freaking genious!! :stirpot: :fight :rollin

Obstructed_View

10-19-2007, 09:51 AM

2007 by far. The only good coaching decision I've ever seen by Pop in the playoffs was the adjustment to put Vaughn under the basket so he could score layups when his man left him. There were actually some productive inbounds plays as well. The rest of the time he helps the team by getting out of the way and letting them do what they do.

MI21

10-19-2007, 10:11 AM

A big point for the 2003 coaching job would be that the Spurs system as we know it today, whilst still in place in 2003, wasn't as well oiled and didn't have the players who would follow instructions as stritcly as today.

Parker, Buckets and Ginobili were all quite erratic, and still learning the NBA game. Reputations, which are important in the playoffs in regards to referees were not as strong. There wasn't the big game experience from the core players as there is from the core today. A lot of what had to be done, was new, and hadn't yet been experienced. Breaking through for the first ring with that core of players called for a really exceptional coaching performance.

So I think 2003 would be the best coaching job, but I will say that he did have 2003 Tim Duncan. The only player who has played as well as Tim did in those playoffs post Jordan, would be Shaq.

(Btw, in case anyone cares, I was all for Jack getting major minutes/starting early that season... I always thought the Spurs needed that youth, the "Anti-Spur" as he was called..)

whottt

10-19-2007, 10:59 AM

The reason I changed my mind about the 2007 team being the best coached...

Because it had the easiest road to the championship, and I'm still not certain it would have beaten the Mavs.

Other than that...I do think Pop did some of his best coaching last season...when he team was playing like complete crap and he told them they were going with what they had and no trades would be made...

baseline bum

10-19-2007, 11:16 AM

Smitty sucked but so did Jack to that point of his Spurs career. In fact, on the Spurs forums, the only two fans where for Jackson starting at the time were SpursFan and Ghost Writer. (That might have been the only time they ever agreed :lol)

Say what? I would have been for Beno starting over Smith, so you know I was down with Jack getting the job. Jack did have a really impressive summer league performance that season, but he was awful the year before.

baseline bum

10-19-2007, 11:20 AM

Those old guys you mentioned were keys to that championship...when they left, we weren't the same team and that's why we failed to repeat.

:wtf

The 2004 Spurs didn't miss Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, or Kevin Willis. They lost because Hedo Turkoglu couldn't replace Stephen Jackson's shooting in the playoffs, because Jason Hart was 1/10th the point guard Speedy Claxton was, and because Bruce went cold from outside (the only time Bowen hasn't produced in the playoffs).

Obviously losing David hurt, but Rasho did a decent job, unlike Hedo or Hart.

jman3000

10-19-2007, 11:26 AM

man... i remember hedo having an awesome year as far as 3pfg% is concerned during the regular season. i can recall thinking that if he had just hit for anywhere in the general ball park of his reg season stats we'd have been much better off.

ugh.

ShoogarBear

10-19-2007, 11:35 AM

I would have settled for Hedo just moving his feet to catch a pass.

jman3000

10-19-2007, 11:38 AM

mike my ass :pctoss

T Park

10-19-2007, 12:06 PM

I remember the exact game Jackson won the starting job.

Early November game vs the Lakers.

3 time champions, Spurs are getting their asses handed to em in the first quarter.

Jackson comes in and starts bagging threes, pop starts him in the third, and jackson helps the team go on to win the game by like 10 I think.

Never saw smitty again.

BTW, great night to win a TV too :)

SRJ

10-19-2007, 12:30 PM

This is a great thread, whott.

Having voted for 2003, I'd like to make the "case for" the other three teams, for the sake of argument:

1999 - In a 50 game season, a bad start shouldn't grant time enough to recover from it. Well, the 1999 Spurs, loaded with veteran talent who made a point of practicing during the lockout period, started 6-8 - during which time the Spurs lost games to potential future playoff opponents like Utah and the Lakers.

Yet, the Spurs finished 31-5, tied for the best record in the NBA (with the tiebreak) and finished with a huge point differential, far and away #1 in the league. Of course, one can attribute that to the veteran leadership that the 1999 team certainly had in spades; OTOH, the way the Spurs finished the season demonstrates the sort of credibility Popovich had with the players. In similar circumstances, on many other teams, it's not difficult to imagine a bunch of veterans turning on the (still unproven, just in his second full season) head coach *coughLakersandDelHarriscough*.

1999 was the first serious test of the Jacob Riis "Stonecutter" quote, and the team passed that test with flying colors. Pop got the players to buy into it, and that persistence was rewarded. And it's hard to claim that another Spurs team defended as well as the 1999ers.

Was the Memorial Day Miracle nothing if not the 1999 season in microcosm?

2005 - As whott pointed out, Pop kept the ship afloat while Duncan was out with the ankle injury. As a result, the Spurs finished with a great record (2nd in the NBA) and the top point differential - they closed out the season 9-8 after Duncan's injury in Detroit, which is certainly a respectable W/L record in his absence.

The WC playoffs more or less played out as they should have - interesting (to me, anyway) that the 2005 and 2007 Spurs had the same playoff record (12-4) after the conference finals. The 2005 Finals will always be memorable because of the quality of the competition - Detroit was so tenacious and resilient in that series that the Spurs were probably in for a seven game series no matter what. Although I suppose Pop could have played Tony for 48 minutes in game three?

2007 - Pop earned his crust right in the middle of the regular season when he challenged the team in the media and in the locker room. He harshly criticized the team after the home loss to Milwaukee, then he later made it clear that the team wouldn't be trading for a player to save the season. IMO, Pop rescued the team from complacency - after losing a seven game series to the WC champs, the Spurs played at a super high level in the first five weeks of last season before settling into the rut Pop blasted them out of.

The 2007 playoffs, judging by results, seemed to be the least strenous for any Spurs championship teams.

jman3000

10-19-2007, 12:38 PM

walking into the 07 playoffs i thought it had the potential to be the toughest of all the title runs... i mean a clicking denver squad, 60 win phx team, and "one of the best records of all time" dallas team. after that you had a possible rematch with detroit on the horizon and it all looked pretty daunting. it all just kinda desolved into a semi calk walk.

ShoogarBear

10-19-2007, 12:42 PM

Yep, but you know what? All that good luck in the 2007 playoffs balances off some of the bad luck in 2004 and 2006.

whottt

10-19-2007, 12:50 PM

:wtf

The 2004 Spurs didn't miss Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, or Kevin Willis. They lost because Hedo Turkoglu couldn't replace Stephen Jackson's shooting in the playoffs, because Jason Hart was 1/10th the point guard Speedy Claxton was, and because Bruce went cold from outside (the only time Bowen hasn't produced in the playoffs).

Obviously losing David hurt, but Rasho did a decent job, unlike Hedo or Hart.

Eh...it would have been nice to have Ferry to get some minutes on Malone.

Willis was not the same player that year he was the previous year...

I agree about Smitty.

I disagree vehemently that losing the Admiral didn't hurt us much...

Shaq dominated us in that series...for the first time...Kobe didn't get us that series, Shaq did. And our interior defense was completely weak. Shaq and Malone manhandled us....Drob was the best Shaq and Malone stopper in the NBA his final years in the NBA. Even Ferry would have helped some...if only because he could piss guys off.

Bruce sucked because LA kicked his butt with pics...

Kerr would have been better than Hedo...

Kerr would have helped if only because Phil wouldn't doubled off him...and since they were doubling both Duncan and Parker...that would have been huge.

Yeah...losing Kerr, Drob, and even Ferry, were reasons we lost the following year. And Willis completely declined,. Hedo was big reason too.

I never meant to imply losing Smitty was a reason we lost....

E20

10-19-2007, 01:42 PM

Pop won Coach of the year in 2003. Has anybody taken that in account? I haven't read the thread to see if anybody has mentioned it.

J.T.

10-19-2007, 01:54 PM

I think castration is preferable to reading "Beno" and "Championship experience" in the same post ever again.

Spurs Brazil

10-19-2007, 02:56 PM

I vote for 2003 too

TP was very young, Manu a rookie and Jax a question mark

I remember ESPN Brazil showed the 1st game of the season, at LA and I was very mad at Smith, because the terrible 2002 playoffs. So i had high hopes for Jax and Manu;

Manu played well for his 1st NBA game but Jax was terrible, I remember he missed everything, including a easy slam. Pop did a grwat job in beliaving Jax

In 2003 Pop also had to make a huge adjustment in game 2 against the Suns, a must win game and he didn't have Robinson and Willis

He started Ferry who played with a lot of heart and helped in the close win

Dave McNulla

10-19-2007, 03:34 PM

1999 is still me favorite championship, but 2003 for me.

the 2003 spurs beat the three time defending champion lakers on their floor by 28 points.

they beat the pain in the *** suns who seems to have the spurs number. they were the team that everybody picked to upset the #1 seed. and they had that kind of magic that the warriors against the mavs, with stoudamire and starbury chunking up threes to win game 1.

they beat a mav team that had offense on speed dial. i thought that should have been a sweep, but with 50 mav free throws in game 1 and the loss of offense in the middle of game 5, they put a scare into the spurs. they even had the spurs down by 10 before the run (that kerr seems to get all the credit for, even though that isn't true) and destroyed the mavs in the fourth quarter.

they beat the nets who were on their second consecutive trip to the finals.

in fact, that was the fourth quarter year when the spurs made huge runs with offense and defense. definitely the best coaching job.

worst coaching job? either 2000 or 2001, though 2006 will get a lot of votes in here.