Reply With Quote
Yes, there's plenty of debate. Phil and Red had great players but Pop has too. You're making it sound like he's won NBA championships with the Rio Grande Valley Vipers roster.
Is there even a debate? Phil Jackon had Jordan, Pippen, Shaq and Kobe...he got to work in the 2nd and 3rd biggest markets in the world(LA & Chicago). Red got to coach Bill Russell in a league that only featured 8 teams at the time. Had he coached today...he'd be lucky to win 1 le as coach. That leaves us with Popovich...he constantly has to reinvent himself because all of our players come from the draft...from David Robinson....all the way to Leonard. Popovich doesnt skip a beat. No way any other coach can do that....
Yes, there's plenty of debate. Phil and Red had great players but Pop has too. You're making it sound like he's won NBA championships with the Rio Grande Valley Vipers roster.
Steve-Pop has had to work with draft picks his whole career....people seem to forget that...Robinson, Anderson,Manu, Duncan, Parker, Jackson...the list goes on and on...actually the only player that they Spurs got in free agency that helped us big time was Bruce Bowen and Horry...thats it....Boston and LA...cant say the same.....Pop is a bad man...
Pop has definitely ascended into the pantheon of NBA coaches. He's on the Mount Rushmore along with Red, Phil, and Pat.
Phil has to considered the best. MJ, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe and Gasol were in the league before Phil and they couldn't win it all. When Phil arrived, he got them 3 threepeats and 1 back to back. Pop is great, but not yet at that level. That's 11 championships.
Red was the first coach to notice that defense wins championships. He also invented the sixth man concept. He was an innovator and arguments could be made he was more important than Pop. He also had 9 rings if I recall right.
I would rank Pop right there with Riles (5 'ships as HC), perhaps higher because he's more consistent, and the showtime already won a championship before Pat got promoted to the head coach position.
Red was an innovator, but you could also make the case that he was slightly overrated as a coach simply because he was such a good GM. But the emphasis there would be on the "slightly" -- he was still a great coach.
Popovich and Phil are a study in contrasts. Phil was a lousy teaching coach or developer of talent -- he was at his best with guys who had plenty of talent but didn't know how to win les together -- teaching them to sublimate their individual egos to the needs of the team. Pop on the other hand has had one of the all time greats, but otherwise has been most skilled at taking role players who are willing to do the work and be part of a team and developing their talents into something greater than the sum of the individual players -- sometimes with guys who might not even have stuck in the league if they hadn't had Pop and his staff to help them improve as players.
Phil has far more rings, but he also had cherry-picked situations with levels of talent most coaches can only dream of. That said -- Phil (and maybe Pat Riley) are the only coaches who could have turned that sort of mess of clashing egos into a team that won repeat les, so kudos to Phil.
I call it Phil, Red, Riley, Pop -- until/unless Pop wins a le without Duncan, anyway.
So what about the work PJ did with guys like Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, Jud Buechler? They weren't the most talented but PJ was able to make them key contributers.
Kerr couldn't get minutes with Pop but was a key contributer with the Bulls. His outside shooting would have probably helped when the Spurs were getting owned by the Lakers in '01 and '02. In fact the only reason Pop played Kerr in '03 was due to injury and it ended up helping them get past the Mavs.
No
I may have overstated my case -- I don't mean to say that Jackson didn't do any teaching type coaching. But guys building new facets of their game definitely wasn't something he was notable for. By contrast, I think a significant part of our success with obscure role players isn't just our front-office's widely-renowned ability to find diamonds in the rough, but our coaching staffs ability to turn guys with limited tools and the right mindset into genuine assets by extending their game with methodical work and attention to detail.
As far as Kerr goes, he was an amazing shooter and the right kind of passer to be effective in a triangle attack that didn't require a traditional point (see also: Derek Fisher), but he was a truly terrible fit for Pop's defense and not the best guy to deliver the entry pass in the post, much less run the occasional pick and roll.
I think that shows Pop values system above players where PJ was able to fit players into his system and take advantage of their abilities.
Except that Pop just completely switched up some of the most fundamental tenets of his system over the last couple of years to become more offense driven, run the break more, attack in the early part of the clock even in the half-court, gamble more on steals to create fast-break opportunities, etc.
Why? Because the changes to the system system fit his personnel better.
For role players, clearly Pop is looking for specific things, because he's building the system around his best players' strengths. But I'd be surprised if the same wasn't true of Phil.
best coach of all time time is still a matter of opinion. Any GOAT discussion is a matter of opinion tbh...no matter how much consensus you seem to get.
Since 1990, the Spurs have had only ONE lottery pick.
For years I always considered Pop to be the best coach ever. If not for the Manu foul in '06 the Spurs may have 3 peat.
But then last year happened. I never saw Pop coach so poorly when it mattered. I am one of the few who still believe we should have beaten the Grizz even with an injured Manu.
In what world can Blair/Bonner defend Zebo/Gasol??? Surely not in the real world, I can't imagine any good coach watching film then coming up with this strategy.
So unless Pop sweeps OKC and beats the Heat this year, his legacy will always be stained with being upset by an 8 seed.
I would agree with top 5 or top 4, outside of phil red and pat, it would be wrong to say there are better than popovich
I know I'll always be wondering why didn't send David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon out there to defend them. I mean, they were right there sitting on his bench.
No . He's got better players this year, and they're playing. Last year's timid, sucky Splitter doesn't make the difference.I know I'll always be wondering why didn't send David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon out there to defend them. I mean, they were right there sitting on his bench.
Chuck Daly - For better or worse, he changed the entire philosophy of how a championship team is constructed.
Half of this board thought Popovich was a complete moron about 3-4 months ago.
/thread
Especially on a "San Antonio Spurs" forum...Pop will get much more love than say just a regular NBA forum on the web.
If Popovich had been coaching the 1990 Bulls and 2000s Lakers, I wonder if he would have 12 or 13 championship rings by now.
and a of a ONE at that
He would have to win another 6 rings to even be in the discussion.
Zen Master is the undisputed best coach in NBA history, it isn't even debatable.
I doubt it. It's hard to win that many when you can't repeat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
