Reply With Quote
Pat Riley? Why not just say Pat Riley?
And if you're convinced that Riley won't take the job, surely there is someone else that you have in mind as a secondary alternative, right?
Isn't a gay bar happy hour somewhere missing you?I'm not familiar with this dialect or terminology. Is this sumfink used frequently in the colonies? At first I thought it might be some kide of cheeky remarks, made by a piece of tom who was projecting from behind his computer, but I figured there couldn't be someone that miserable and worthless here; I just know thou wouldn't consume time and energy doing it multiple times every time he posted.
Ta.
Toodle pip!
Pat Riley? Why not just say Pat Riley?
And if you're convinced that Riley won't take the job, surely there is someone else that you have in mind as a secondary alternative, right?
I somewhat have to agree. Sure lose one or two games and maybe the loses are not because the other team is better then you. However lose 4 in a row and get swept, now that just means you got beat by a better team. Bottom line is this years Spurs team was just not that good.
As for Pop, I don't know what has become of him but you would have some major blinders on not to see his coaching level is falling off a cliff. Would I want a new coach? Not really, I would rather have the Pop of old back but the question is does Pop still have that in him? Maybe it's just there is a time that even the greats have to go in replace of a fresher outlook.
Didn't know clicking on the link would be so difficult for you.
I provided the link so verification of Riley considering a return to coaching could be made.
I'm not fully convinced Pat Riley will not take the job if offered. 99%.
This ownership will not part with Popped tho so......anyways.
I provided a list of 20 candidates. You and Eric_Park_Cane never responded.
Sken, yeh need a skinfull and a really hippocrockapig so that yeh can get the salmon canyon ye be needing. A swamper hopper should dae the trick.
It's a much better option than being a in a hump .
Toodle pip!
Wait -- where is that list? I long ago stopped reading your complaints and your refusal to accord even a modest amount of respect to an opposing viewpoint since the simple fact of the matter is that no matter how much you despise Popovich, the odds are substantial that he'll coach the Spurs next year if that's what he chooses to do.
With that said, if you have 20 candidates for the job, why not just post them here?
You long ago stopped reading my posts but you'd like me to post my list of 20?
Okay. Is this like "you can't quit me"?
Holt won't let me have any input. Nor you, it's true. Yet this is a basketball discussion board and that's why i made a thread on whether or not the Spurs will go the same route as The Big 3 Celtics of the 1980s.the simple fact of the matter is that no matter how much you despise Popovich, the odds are substantial that he'll coach the Spurs next year if that's what he chooses to do.
Please join, respectfully.
Gregg Popovich and his 80+ million payroll (which as a front office executive he helped create) just got swept by a Suns team with one legit big man.
Yet he shouldn't be bashed?
Because the PopApologists aren't gonna answer that.
Exactly. These fans aren't realizing that the NBA is a superstar league. With the exception of one Pistons team, you don't win it unless you have a bonafide star and the Spurs don't anymore. Manu and TD aren't on that level consistently anymore and Parker isn't on that level. The Spurs will be championship contenders nit by developing young marginal talent like Hairston and Mahinmi, but by sucking hard, hitting the lotto balls on the next bad ass star in the making, and develop him + surround him with role guys who do their jobs when it counts. That's the Phil Jackson/Pat Riley/Pop etc. Formula for championships in this league.
The Mavs are picking up their option on Barea and here we are just sitting on our hands. I demand action by the Spurs front office.
Who should coach the Spurs next year -- other than Pat Riley?
Because the PopApologists aren't gonna answer that.
Yes lets bring back Finley and Bonner.
Action!
Even the 2004 Pistons were half comprised of lottery picks.
It's who Popovich decided to play during the season. Instead of playing Ratliff (5pt/4.2reb/2blks in Charlotte) and Ian (when warranted against athletic teams like Portland/OKC), he played Bonner (7pt/3reb/0.4blk). This greatly affected the quality of paint defense and placed too much on Duncan's shoulders so that he was worn down by the playoffs.
Every year I think that Duncan's done at the end of the year, and every year he comes back and performs wonderfully at the beginning of the year. Remember at one point he was 2nd in PER behind Lebron. It's just that at his age, he can't maintain that level for the whole season. Playing Ratliff and developing Ian would have eased Duncan's load and resulted in a fresher Duncan and contributing bench bigs for the playoffs.
Not only was Jefferson learning a new system but playing him so much out of position and not running more plays to get him integrated into the offense was on Popovich. Why not play Ian instead of small ball and further confusing Jefferson. I'd much rather see Ian on LaMarcus Aldridge than Jefferson.
Bowen should have been brought back - the perimeter defense and 3pt shooting would have been better. His defense (even at his advanced age is still better than any other perimeter player on the Spurs). His 3 pt shot (which isn't affected by age) is still better than any other Spurs player. That's 20 min. of "corporate knowledge" not wasted on Bogans trying to learn the system and not contributing anything in the playoffs.
It's not age that matters as long as players get adequate rest. Look at what Nash (36) with his bad back and Hill (38) with his bad ankle did. Bowen was an iron man (virtually injury-free and only a year older than Hill) and Ratliff (38) could have easily contributed 10-15 mins. a game during the RS.
A few more games won at the beginning of the season means that Manu wouldn't have had to kill himself getting the Spurs into the playoffs. Maybe Finley wouldn't have bailed if things didn't look so bad. He shot 51%FG and 46%3PT for Boston in RS.
A fresher Duncan and Manu, Bowen to throw on whoever's hot (eg. Nash in game 1 or Dragic in game 3), Ian/Ratliff occasionally on Amare = better paint + perimeter defense, better 3pt shooting, more speed/athleticism, better bench. No Bonner, Bogans, Mason.
It all comes back to a better/developed bench means rest for older players in RS and much-needed contributions in the playoffs. So yes, it's mostly on Popovich - he put the team together, and he decides who gets minutes.
I'm all for letting Pop go -- just answer the question.
ing A. Playing Mason AT ALL is all-time stupid. He played in that throwaway game 5 at Dallas and was COMPLETE garbage. If he was half ass in that game, I could understand playing him a little against PHX. Pop overplayed Bonner and underplayed Dice. Pop played the garbage he signed. He's at fault for acquiring these chumps and he's to blame for playing these inept chokers. Bonner should play a few minutes in the 1st half and unless he's rolling that's it. He's not a 4th quarter player and everyone, anyone knows it.
Those guys just did not get a fair shake in the regular season. Hairston couldn't buy playing time behind Finley and Mason. Mahinmi was buried deeper than Theo was at the end of the bench. Hairston could have helped on D consistently and his offense isn't near as cold or inconsistent as Mason's. I take that back... Mason's offense and D both consistently suck. I hope Hairston has a place on this team next year. And Ian ... surely you don't let a 23 year old with that size and athleticism go find a comfy home with another team. Pop acquired these guys and it's his responsibility (and his coaching underlings) to develop them. He failed in that regard.
He's got a list of 20 alternatives; you'd think answering that question would be easy.
Not far from the truth
I'd posted it here http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...on#post3945808 and then never heard a peep out of you PopApologists.
Posted on 12-26-2009
T_Park and The View Gals,
Sorry about being late. Isp connection probs yesterday, the promised day.
Pat Riles
Phil Jackson
Aggie Hoops Fan
Fabbs
Bill Russell
John Wooden
Tim Duncan
Bruce Bowen
Manu GNob
Bob Horry
Billy Walton
Ben Howland
Hakeem O
Tom Thibodeau
Tim Grgurich
Rick Carlisle
Jerry Sloan
Nate McMillan
Rick Adleman
Doug Moe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have to remove Carlisle after his sucky, almost Poplike refusal to leave little Frenchie in (who rocked and brought the Mavs right back into it) and instead stick with 0-7 Mr. Peanuthead.
Does it really have to be binary? Pop is great or fire Pop?
I don't want to fire Pop, I'm not sure if we could get anyone better (and the risk alone makes it a bad choice). That doesn't mean he hasn't made some really bewildering decisions. You can criticize Pop without wanting him to be fired, and he does deserve some criticism for some of his bizarre decisions over the past few years.
That would require him to make adjustments, and stubborness (for better or worse) seems to be a trademark of his personality. No reason to believe he is willing to admit he is wrong and make adjustments.
His bizarro stubborn moves go back to 2006 with a completely successful 60+ win season and 1st Round dismantling of the Kings he resorts to small balls and gets worked by rookie coach Avery. 2005 summer on it's safe to say he has more or less sucked 4 of 5 playoff years.
It's what I've said all season.
Props to Fabbs for assembling the dumbest "list" evah. Good to know you were never serious about any of this.
Extra props for SA210 for pimping John Edwards for president one last time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
