Reply With Quote
The Spurs are more entertaining off the court than on. But, I don't care about off the court stuff and I'll watch Wemby highlights on ESPN.
How the Mavs shaping up this year?
Popovich aint retiring. He's like a Supreme Court Justice. The only way he's leaving the Spurs coaching job is by death haha.
The Spurs are more entertaining off the court than on. But, I don't care about off the court stuff and I'll watch Wemby highlights on ESPN.
How the Mavs shaping up this year?
jesus christ what a depressing thread
^ Victor will be throwing down some triple doubles soon enough with or without Pops hinderance.
Cheerful news is coming soon.
Huh? The Spurs were quite an entertaining team on the court last season, with an almost guaranteed Wemby highlight or more every game that he played, even during their losing streaks; and a comparatively very boring off-court team, with mostly young, unknown players with little to no drama to be had or followed.
, Keldon's "will-he-won't-he" decision regarding his number change was one of the more noteworthy Spurs stories off the court, and even that ended up being an uncontroversial nothing-burger
2012 (date of OP) is a great example of why Pop is top3 but not the GOAT coach. It was like the end of 2004 all over again - in an even worse way, as we weren't playing the Shaq-Kobe-PJ Lakers but a young, untested OKC team. Highly talented, no doubt, but we should never have been backdoor swept by them.
As one of the members of ST that views Pop realistically, 2012 was one of the most obvious ref phuck over jobs in NBA history.
I included it in my poll as potentially one of Pops best coaching years.
"Give me some nasty" was effective as and great to have viewed.
And who's the GOAT in your opinion?
Obviously Pop has had some fails, 2012 included, but much like the players, coaches have their peaks.
Pop is the only one who at least somewhat managed to adapt to modern trends and completely revamp his coaching style.
What did Phil do when Shaq left? What did he do after he left the Lakers? Yeah, he wasn't the coach, but his front office decisions completely ruined the Knicks.
He had one great gameplan, had the best talent and was amazing at man management. Never adapted, looked completely out of place by the time he was done.
Referees are supposed to be worked by the coaching staff. If we got ed over, some of that should lie at Pop's feet.
It was effective all the way until it wasn't, and we were back-door swept. If 2004 never happened, it'd be more debatable. Yet Pop was at the head of two monumental breakdowns where we had homecourt, had all the momentum up 2-0, and somehow still lost. Both would have been Finals berths, as well (2004 is more debatable on this one, too, obviously).
PJ is the GOAT, in my humble opinion. You don't rip off essentially 4 3peats in 20 seasons (in the more modern eras he coached in) and not be the GOAT. Likewise, PJ didn't need to revamp his coaching style all the time. He found a system that worked, and stuck with it, forcing others to adjust. Pop may have revamped his aura and coaching style more, but that's as much a downfall when you look at seasons like 2006, where going small, again in my humble opinion, at least cost us yet another Finals berth and a possible 3/4peat of our own, if you want to include 2004 in the mix (where PJ outcoached him, mind you).
Coaching at the pro level isn't nearly as much about X's and O's as much as it's about exactly what you just mentioned, manipulating these various million and even billionaire egos into working together and winning ball games. Besides, I didn't say he was some great X's and O's guy, dude.
Exactly.
Phil was the best ceiling raiser, but he had 0 adaptability skills and couldn't do without teams that weren't stacked. As we've seen during MJ's retirement and after Kobe kicked Shaq out.
Simply isn't true at all. Not even worth debating if that's your take, tbh. What other coaches are you referencing that did with teams that weren't stacked? It's not some kind of gotcha, bro. ty teams aren't going anywhere, but great teams might, with a great coach.
Popovich had some of the smallest egos the world has ever seen (from stars in pro sports) on his team. PJ had some of the biggest.
How isn't it true? He had one system for 30 years.
Pop played every brand of basketball there was over his 30 years. Yeah, he has his flaws, quite a few of them, but Phil's biggest quality was ego management.
How would you rate Jerry Sloan's career with very limited Jazz rosters? Almost took down the Bulls with Hornacek as their third best player.What other coaches are you referencing that did with teams that weren't stacked?
Spoelstra has been winning playoff series with next to nothing ever since Lebron left.
ty teams can't win a ring, but great coaches can certainly make them overachieve, even if it's just the regular season.ty teams aren't going anywhere, but great teams might, with a great coach.
And that's relevant how?Popovich had some of the smallest egos the world has ever seen (from stars in pro sports) on his team. PJ had some of the biggest.
Larry Brown was the bizarro Phil. He was great at raising teams' floors and could adapt to any situation but needed the (non?) stars to align to get even one ring.
PJ's system also worked for 20+ years. And, adjustments aren't just made on the offensive end. And, you'd have to be crazy to think the 08-10 Lakers played the same as the 00-04 Lakers, who also played the same as the 91-98 (Jordan season) Bulls. They ran the same system but the focuses, both offensively and defensively, wildly fluctuated.
Phil's biggest quality was winning rings, which he has considerably more than Popovich. He also has many repeats and 3peats under his belt, as we're both well aware. PJ also won 4 out of 5 against Pop, and was an Horry miss from likely being 5 out of 5. Surely that counts for something in your book, or are we disregarding head to head records as well in this alternate reality?Pop played every brand of basketball there was over his 30 years. Yeah, he has his flaws, quite a few of them, but Phil's biggest quality was ego management.
Look, Pop is definitely one of the best of all-time. It's certainly arguable that he's the GOAT. But it's a homer take to say PJ simply inherited teams and never did anything to manage those teams, never made adjustments in series or with teams, that managing the massive egos he had is not related to his coaching prowess. Quite the opposite is true, and that's where he made his money and won his rings. He was specifically sought out for these skills in the 2000s, qualities which are most important in a head coach.
Sloan lasted a long time, and it's clear we modeled our franchise on the Jazz. You want to talk about irrelevant, though, this is it. Almost winning counts for much less than, you know, actually ringing? Sloan lost, twice, against PJ's Bulls. You want to blame the Jordan Rules, sure, go ahead. That has little or nothing to do with PJ's coaching. Pop would have used the same advantage(s) PJ did, as any coach would. Makes no sense to act differently or that, because Sloan "overachieved" by getting to the Finals twice with "only" Stockton-Malone, he's somehow is better than Jackson. He couldn't have done better than PJ did, which is the yardstick we're forced to use since PJ didn't underachieve by any stretch of the imagination.How would you rate Jerry Sloan's career with very limited Jazz rosters? Almost took down the Bulls with Hornacek as their third best player.
Even Phil Jackson's non-Jordan team in the 90's did fine, using this type of measurement, anyway. Saying he couldn't drag an utterly Kobe-led team to the playoffs isn't a reflection on his coaching any worse than Pop's lottery seasons, either. It's not like he managed the Kawhi debacle to our benefit, for example.
Yeah, Popovich won plenty of playoff series, too. Is winning playoff series more important than winning rings, specifically, winning multiple rings in a row? I'd say no, but I respect your opinion that longevity, winning lots of regular season contests, and adjusting your coaching style counts for more in your eyes. I'm more interested in winning les, even if there's (relatively small, in terms of PJ's coaching stretches) lulls in between these massive runs.Spoelstra has been winning playoff series with next to nothing ever since Lebron left.
That's just the thing, too, that I keep mentioning - Pop couldn't repeat or threepeat, despite having top-tier talented teams full of players who were willing to put their egos aside. Since we're talking about Jackson, let's especially focus on 2004, where Pop was clearly out-coached in our collapse. PJ turned that team around when it looked like a monumental underachievement was about to occur. Of course, they still went on to the lose in the Finals, but that wasn't Pop's doing. Unless, of course, you're arguing Pop also had no role in the 04 Spurs being back-door swept by a feuding, injured and old Lakers team just waiting to implode at the drop of a hat?
Overachieving in the regular season is straight fool's gold - to me. It's good for the owners and there's plenty of positive trickle down effect on the city, sure, no question. I love having compe ive teams year in and year out, but the goal is to win it all. In a coaching comparison, how much good you did for the owners' and city's bank accounts isn't something I'm factoring in heavily, though sure, it's got some minor importance. Much less value than ringing and repeatedly, though, which will always bring up values more than just winning regular season games.ty teams can't win a ring, but great coaches can certainly make them overachieve, even if it's just the regular season.
Now, if Pop had won 7 or 8, and had at least one repeat or especially 3peat under his belt, he'd definitely be my pick for the GOAT. But, unfortunately for us, he didn't. The only real argument here for Pop then, must be something like Tim just couldn't pull it off in spite of Pop's overachievement, which I find hard to believe. Especially in 2004 and 2006, when Tim was absolutely in his prime and a 4peat or at least, a repeat Finals berth were more than achievable; Spurs were essentially 2 wins away from doing so in 04, if not for a Derek Fisher shot and a really embarrassing effort in Games 3-6.
PJ coaching some of the pro sports' biggest egos has nothing to do with them playing together and winning? That's where we differ, and markedly.And that's relevant how?
X's and O's are critical but easily delegated to assistant coaches - they're just not as important to a head coach, because a team that can win a le has rotation players who know their plays and system inside and out, anyway. It doesn't take more than 1-2 seasons, max, for even role players (who are high level) to understand any great coach's system inside and out. Adjusting your coaching style is somewhat important, too, I'll admit - but getting your players to play together and win is the direct purview of the head coach, and their most important job, by far. It's why shoving a bunch of players with massive egos together typically results in implosion, and it did even with PJ's teams.
But -- PJ was able to greatly extend the windows of these teams, while increasing cohesion and extracting the most potential out of his players to the tune of multiple 3peats. Having stacked teams helped, certainly - not arguing that, but it's not like Pop didn't have massively stacked teams, and for years upon years. And, you're ignoring that having stacked teams usually makes the coach's job a lot more difficult, not easier. Pop is the exception, having had some great players who were willing to buy in, something PJ's players repeatedly had to be manipulated and coaxed into doing. These teams were also in two of the largest markets, working within political webs constantly strung with ever-increasing intrigue, egotism and bias both inside and outside of the organizations involved. There's no apples to apples comparison with San Antonio, by any stretch of the imagination.
Yet Jackson still made it happen 11 times with 13 Finals appearances, and that's that. If you want to argue more specifically that PJ wasn't as good as Pop at X's and O's, or at player development even, okay I'll buy that - though some might say some of Pop's "talent acquisition" directly reflects the realities of pro sports in a small market, and so again there's not a direct comparison here to be had. Furthermore, Jackson and Jordan were both ringless in 1987, when he joined the team as an assistant coach. How many more years together should they have spent before ringing in order to have the same value as Pop does (or not be considered part of a "pre-built superteam" like the healthy Duncan/Robinson Spurs immediately were), may I ask?
In the end, though, in my opinion winning is what's going to be more heavily weighted in an objective discussion. Pop has done plenty of that, just not nearly as much as PJ (no one outside of Red Auerbach in the old days can hold a candle to him in that regard).
Pop had plenty of talent, and at least two golden opportunities (perhaps 3 or 4 if you want to count 2012/13 and others such as 2008 in the mix) to achieve the repeat that would have brought him into the same realm as Jackson and to a lesser extent, Auerbach. He didn't, and 4 out of 5 times, it was Phil Jackson who knocked him off, too. It is what it is. I love Pop and what he's done for the city, the les he's brought us. He isn't the GOAT, though. Maybe that's due to him not team hopping or whatever, sure, but there's plenty of coaches who took over the reigns of teams and never achieved anything close to Phil Jackson.
Of all of them or of Pops Duncan Championships?
GOAT All Time is always an opinion with no real way of proving.
Red Auerbach gets my vote. I firmly believe had Bird not did the idiotic self induced injuries of broken hand in bar fight and doing his own cement work and seriously screwing up his back the Celts could have at least 3 peated. Add Lenny Bias and it could have been kept going into the early 90s.
Regardless, 11 of 13 is impressive as . 8 team league or not.
Pops, eh lets save that for the Pops Best Coaching year thread. Link:
Spurs: To you, what was Greg Pops best coaching year? (spurstalk.com)
You'd have to give me some examples. I have not seen any. Culminating with Sochan at point guard.
Wept.
What could he do ? He had tried to tell Buss that Kirby was the problem and to trade him. Bryant was Buss' pet + Shaq didn't do any favors by shouting out "Pay me" publicly to diss Buss. So Phil solderied on for a year or so then said phuck this as to trying to work wiith POS Bryant.
Came back in 2008-09 and got the rigged trade of MVPau to go with stacked lineup of fairly healthy Odom, very good at time role player Kirby and the continued backing of Laker refs.
Phil sucked as GM in NY no doubt.
Popped has been equally bad his last 5 years, short of the Wemby ping pong ball miracle.
Two of the 4 times Pop and Phil met really irk me. 2004 and 2008.
2004 Spurs up 2-0 Phil absolutely did adjust, agreeing with Gary Paytons suggestion to crap can the triangle and go with pick and roll. Pop made absolutely no counter and got ing back door swept. 2008 the Lakers did have the better roster but he could have made way more noise with the rigged Derek Swisher obvious foul to end Game 4 and essentially the series.
Obviously they made changes according to their personnel, but it was still all about the triangle and it's variations.
Meanwhile we went from twin towers, to post-centric Duncan play, to two playmakers generating offense, to beautiful game, then back to post-centric LMA offense.
I genuinely appreciate you put a lot of effort in writing all of this, but after reading it thoroughly a couple of times, to me it just comes down to us having a different view on basketball.Phil's biggest quality was winning rings, which he has considerably more than Popovich. He also has many repeats and 3peats under his belt, as we're both well aware. PJ also won 4 out of 5 against Pop, and was an Horry miss from likely being 5 out of 5. Surely that counts for something in your book, or are we disregarding head to head records as well in this alternate reality?
Look, Pop is definitely one of the best of all-time. It's certainly arguable that he's the GOAT. But it's a homer take to say PJ simply inherited teams and never did anything to manage those teams, never made adjustments in series or with teams, that managing the massive egos he had is not related to his coaching prowess. Quite the opposite is true, and that's where he made his money and won his rings. He was specifically sought out for these skills in the 2000s, qualities which are most important in a head coach.
Sloan lasted a long time, and it's clear we modeled our franchise on the Jazz. You want to talk about irrelevant, though, this is it. Almost winning counts for much less than, you know, actually ringing? Sloan lost, twice, against PJ's Bulls. You want to blame the Jordan Rules, sure, go ahead. That has little or nothing to do with PJ's coaching. Pop would have used the same advantage(s) PJ did, as any coach would. Makes no sense to act differently or that, because Sloan "overachieved" by getting to the Finals twice with "only" Stockton-Malone, he's somehow is better than Jackson. He couldn't have done better than PJ did, which is the yardstick we're forced to use since PJ didn't underachieve by any stretch of the imagination.
Even Phil Jackson's non-Jordan team in the 90's did fine, using this type of measurement, anyway. Saying he couldn't drag an utterly Kobe-led team to the playoffs isn't a reflection on his coaching any worse than Pop's lottery seasons, either. It's not like he managed the Kawhi debacle to our benefit, for example.
Yeah, Popovich won plenty of playoff series, too. Is winning playoff series more important than winning rings, specifically, winning multiple rings in a row? I'd say no, but I respect your opinion that longevity, winning lots of regular season contests, and adjusting your coaching style counts for more in your eyes. I'm more interested in winning les, even if there's (relatively small, in terms of PJ's coaching stretches) lulls in between these massive runs.
That's just the thing, too, that I keep mentioning - Pop couldn't repeat or threepeat, despite having top-tier talented teams full of players who were willing to put their egos aside. Since we're talking about Jackson, let's especially focus on 2004, where Pop was clearly out-coached in our collapse. PJ turned that team around when it looked like a monumental underachievement was about to occur. Of course, they still went on to the lose in the Finals, but that wasn't Pop's doing. Unless, of course, you're arguing Pop also had no role in the 04 Spurs being back-door swept by a feuding, injured and old Lakers team just waiting to implode at the drop of a hat?
Overachieving in the regular season is straight fool's gold - to me. It's good for the owners and there's plenty of positive trickle down effect on the city, sure, no question. I love having compe ive teams year in and year out, but the goal is to win it all. In a coaching comparison, how much good you did for the owners' and city's bank accounts isn't something I'm factoring in heavily, though sure, it's got some minor importance. Much less value than ringing and repeatedly, though, which will always bring up values more than just winning regular season games.
Now, if Pop had won 7 or 8, and had at least one repeat or especially 3peat under his belt, he'd definitely be my pick for the GOAT. But, unfortunately for us, he didn't. The only real argument here for Pop then, must be something like Tim just couldn't pull it off in spite of Pop's overachievement, which I find hard to believe. Especially in 2004 and 2006, when Tim was absolutely in his prime and a 4peat or at least, a repeat Finals berth were more than achievable; Spurs were essentially 2 wins away from doing so in 04, if not for a Derek Fisher shot and a really embarrassing effort in Games 3-6.
You're way too much into rings culture for my liking.
Things have to be put into context and not everyone plays by the same rules. Especially not someone who coached big market teams everyone wants to join.
I just think winning with small market teams (not necessarily Spurs) is way more valuable than doing it with biggest franchises. Yeah, we have a lot of dumpster fire big market teams, but still.
It's easy to look like a mastermind when you got the GOAT on your team taking over whenever it's needed.
I didn't say Sloan was better than Jackson, I just wanted to see what you think about him.
Someone who never won't can't be better, but as I said, it wasn't a fair contest.
Overachieving in regular season is fool's gold if it happens constantly and then the team underpeforms in the playoffs, but for young coaches it's the best way to get noticed. Coaches who weren't good NBA players have no other way of getting to the top.
As for Pop, I always say we were 2 plays away from a 5 peat. How much of it is on him is debateable. I'll also never get over 2013 and Duncan-less lineup in that play. OKC losses in 2012 and 2016 are also questionable.
And yet most le winning teams are stacked.And, you're ignoring that having stacked teams usually makes the coach's job a lot more difficult, not easier.
My take is that it can't really be compared fairly because as I already said it's a different game depending on where you coach.Pop had plenty of talent, and at least two golden opportunities (perhaps 3 or 4 if you want to count 2012/13 and others such as 2008 in the mix) to achieve the repeat that would have brought him into the same realm as Jackson and to a lesser extent, Auerbach. He didn't, and 4 out of 5 times, it was Phil Jackson who knocked him off, too. It is what it is. I love Pop and what he's done for the city, the les he's brought us. He isn't the GOAT, though. Maybe that's due to him not team hopping or whatever, sure, but there's plenty of coaches who took over the reigns of teams and never achieved anything close to Phil Jackson.
Also, it's not about just longetivity, but longetivity in one place. I don't think Phil would've been able to stay in one place for 20 years, eventually his mind-games and motivation runs it's course and environment becomes toxic.
Just one more thing about free agents.
LMA was the only big name who joined in his prime.
What if we got JKidd in 2003? Or Jermaine O'Neal a few years later?
We were always a top3 contender and couldn't get any big name to join. If Lakers had our roster, those free agents would be desperately trying to get to LA.
That's why it was never a fair game.
Phil Jackson is basically the Kobe Bryant of coaching.
Both of them clearly had talent, all time level talent, but both were wildly overrated for them taking credit for some one else’s work, someone who actually benefited their careers.
Kobe had public spats with shaq, belittled MVPau, and had run ins with Phil Jackson, while continuously shifted blame of his failure to his teammates. There is no doubt those people were critical to him winning five rings, which through careful marketing and self promotion, kobe somehow got all the credit for.
Phil Jackson turned his team against jerry Krause and then Jerry west, had very public spats with them and eventually burned bridges with both franchises. He turned shaq and kobe against each other and in all these instances caused the eventual downfall of the teams. His one schtick was to create an us vs them environment and when the team was clearly more talented than anyone else in the league, the them was often internal. He rode his success with the bulls the entire career, earning respect with later teams that he managed. No doubt he took advantage of that but it was proven it wasn’t sustainable as the teams all eventually burned out. If Krause didn’t build the bulls and west didn’t build the lakers, Phil Jackson wouldn’t have these players to build his own successes on.
As much as phil outcoached pop in 2004, the reverse happened in 2003. The only difference is that pop got all the blame in 2004, while 2003 fell on shaq. Jackson basically was able to avoid all the criticisms of his failures. 2003, 2004 vs pistons, 2005 missing the playoffs, 2006 kobe refusing to shoot (where was his ego management there), 2007 underachieving, 2008 getting their pushed in by the Celtics, 2011 massive collapse vs the Mavs. If you want to highlight failures for pop, you have to do it for Phil.
Phil clearly had the most stacked teams on his teams. He had two top ten players on his rosters including the GOAT (jordan and shaq), another top 20 player (kobe) and a top 30 (Pippen). Pop had duncan (top 10), and a top 25 (admiral). That’s it.
For me there are multiple goat coaches, Larry brown was great but GM Larry brown undermined him, Chu I daly was fantastic in terms of ego management and team iden y but his career was too short, Pop was the one who was able to change with the times the best but he routinely outsmarts himself, Jack Ramsey brought in fitness to the league and of course the OG red Auerbach who built teams, dog managed and won 9 rings.
Then there are other great coaches who didn’t have (enough) rings, Lenny Wilkins (only one with the weakest champs in nba history), don nelson (too weird), even Rick adelman (loser mentality).
Last edited by ambchang; 10-03-2024 at 07:00 AM.
It’s worth noting Daly also won COTY with Orlando
Before that he did a decent job with NJ bit never had a full roster, Kenny Anderson misses the 93 playoffs, and Petrovic sadly passed away a few weeks later
Yep. Most underrated season of the Pop era, refs made sure Lebron doesn't face the Spurs after the humiliation vs Dallas a year before
The offense was a juggernaut, TP was at his peak and unguardable
Defense average but offense made up for it (until game 3 vs Okc)
Ridiculous box from one of those OKC games: Perk and Ibaka went a combined 22-22 and we lost by 6 points.
Probably my biggest frustration after the 0.4 robbery
13' was on us
Was it the season NBA started giving post game repports on their missed calls and 2 of those defeats should've been Ws? (Manu's steal on the side lines and forgot the other one)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
