Pop Realists, would a 5th le redeem all?

[JamStone]

He has won four championships. He needs no redeeming.

+1

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

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

[Matches Malone]

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

[anakha]

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

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

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

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

[ChuckD]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sean Cagney]

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

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


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

[barbacoataco]

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

[fyatuk]

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

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

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

[T Park]

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

Really, whos available right now thats better?

[SpurSupremacist]

He has won four championships. He needs no redeeming.

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

[T Park]

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

Christ...

[SpurSupremacist]

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

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

[Melmart1]

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

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

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

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

[T Park]

So let me get this straight.

When they lose its Pop's fault.

When they win, its cause of Duncan.


Got it.

[anakha]

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

[Tully365]

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

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

[Manufan909]

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

+1

[Obstructed_View]

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

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

[holcs50]

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

[Obstructed_View]

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

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

[Obstructed_View]

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

[fyatuk]

Really, whos available right now thats better?

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

[Fabbs]

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

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

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

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

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

Lowering the bar solves that? See above

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

[T Park]

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

In other words

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


Goodbye.

[samikeyp]

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

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

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

[FromWayDowntown]

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

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

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

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

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

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