Reply With Quote
LOL Prime Pop, age and alcohol has effected his coaching I guess, not only players have fell off with age Pop has as well.
Of Course Prime Duncan is going to make any coach look good. But that doesn't mean Pop hasn't done a good job. While we had talent, I wouldn't say we had the most talented teams in general. The 03 Team in particular was Duncan and a bunch of role players. Could Pop have done a better job the last few years: Sure. That doesn't mean Prime Pop wasn't a good coach.
LOL Prime Pop, age and alcohol has effected his coaching I guess
Pop, Phil J, Riley, Auerbach ALL depended on HOF players.
Pop 2003 is a match for Carlisle this year. It was really just Tim. Manu was a rookie, Tony was 4 years from having a jump shot, and David was done.
4down worked very well, what other coach could have made that work with Duncan?
Just Tim?
Tim was indeed unreal in 2003, but Manu even as a rookie was terrific during the playoff run
Ok, Drob wasnt as dominant as he used to be, but he was still a presence in the paint
And if Stephen Jax is a scrub, then , I would love to have plenty of scrubs like him on my team
Look at every NBA champion in the last thirty years. With the exception of the 2004 Pistons, every one has had one or more HOFers on the team.
Look at the coaches with at least three les going all the way back:
Kundla: Mikan
Auerbach: Russell, Cousy, Hondo, etc
Riley: Magic, Kareem Worthy
Jackson: Jordan, Pippen, Kobe, Shaq
Pop: Duncan, Robinson, Manu, Tony
Every coach that is regarded as elite has had great players. Without great players, none of those guys would be regarded as great coaches.
Of course, no disagreement
But playing ing Bonner?
True, but no matter how we slice that bread, 11 les is 11 les. Period. 3 three-peats, a back-2-back, 13 total finals appearances (), and 1 win away from the Eastern Conference Finals in 94 without Jordan. They didn't win anything before Phil. Best coach ever.
X2
ANYONE ON THIS BOARD COULD HAVE COACHED DUNCAN TO MULTIPLE RINGS.
SIMILARLY ANYONE ON HERE COULD SIT ON THE SIDELINES AND NOT MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS.
Hopefully we get pop out of here
Well, the players around Dirk aren't exactly scrubs, either. The commonality is that they are/were ONE STAR teams.
DRob 2002-2003 was a 8.5/7.9 player clearly on his way out. Jack was a find and a good piece, but as subsequent years have shown, not a star, but a clear #3 or #4 option. Manu was good, but nothing like he would become. He got called for travelling a LOT his first year or two before the refs caught on to the Euro two step and let it go. He didn't shoot well from 3. Tony was Devin Harris class at the time. He didn't have anything resembling a jumper.
The 2002-2003 team was clearly Tim and the Tim-ettes.
Both teams he coached had been to the Conference Finals with the basic rosters he inherited. The one time he was handed a middling roster, his after-recess Laker team, he went out in the first round. He likely would have continued that pattern had the Lakers not been gifted Gasol.True, but no matter how we slice that bread, 11 les is 11 les. Period. 3 three-peats, a back-2-back, 13 total finals appearances (
It is all about the players.
Thats right Manu never won any championships or MVPs before coming to the NBA.... oh wait....
And Parker was better then. He had a crap J but he didnt have the ego or the TO problems then. Now hes scared and thinks he should get a foul every play.
Prime Manu made Team USA look bad for what its worth. Carry on.
Duncan was God like, we had SJax, Drob offensively was done but D was still there and no one was scoring in the paint against us. Manu was a rookie but still played very well. Parker was green but we had a very good speedy backing him up.
that 03 team>>>>05,07 teams
Ignorance on this board is amazing
I think Bruce made the team look better than it really was. The Spurs deterioration started when he couldn't defend anymore.
Marion woulda looked real good in a Spurs Jerz
Bowen was amazing. You figure that out once you have no perimiter defense. If you think about it he was really as productive as a 15 ppg guy or better on a lot of nights because he got you 6-7 ppg while not allowing the guy he was guarding to score his usual amount and/or at a much lower percentage. It was a Big 4. It's a shame most of us never refered to it as a big 4, including myself.
My thoughts exactly. He was the vocal leader as well.
No we have no true point guard like Nash or Kidd, he is the same thing as RJ basically maybe more versatile.
Great receivers make QBs look good, and great QBs and receivers make offensive coordinators look good, and great offensive and defensive coordinators and great QBs, receivers, linemen and defense makes coaches look good.
Great domestiques made Lance Armstrong look good (and some EPO but who's counting) who in turn made John Bruyneel look good.
He plays great defense, does a lot of the dirty work (loose balls, deflections), good rebounder, and can score in the post on a fairly consistent basis. RJ doesn't do one of those things.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
