Rummpd: Is Gregg Popovich a great coach or not?
I have always been extremely back and forth on this issue, mainly because I believe Pop greatly underutilized Malik Rose’s unusual gritty talents while he was with Spurs and won mainly because of one Tim Duncan.
That being said, I think Pop is now a great coach:
Why the change of heart?
1) Pop this year has not been afraid to use the “soft card”. The San Antonio Spurs biggest weakness is their seemingly inherent capacity as players to not show up against some teams. Pop has brought thunder down on the Spurs at least two times this year and each time the Spurs have responded soon thereafter with impressive wins.
2) The System: Some players struggle to get minutes, his rotations are seemingly bizarre at times, and we all want to throw bricks at the tube sometimes for what seems to be obvious solutions to in-game situations that he seemingly will not embrace. However, overall most players thrive in the system that preaches defense and teamwork over individual brilliance and in the end the Spurs usually mesh and get the job done.
3) Respect: A recent poll of players had Pop at the top of the list for those to play for – you cannot B.S. today’s players. He has earned it the old fashioned way through hard work. Even Kobe Bryant said he enjoyed working with Pop for the All-Star game. This is the respect that lets a Manu Ginobili or a Tony Parker sublimate their talents to winning basketball.
I also foresee a future where Pop wins without Duncan due to his system if he chooses to stick around. As such, I am now in the camp of Pop being a great coach period.
ShoogarBear: A Tale of Two Coaches:
Coach 1: 6 years, 331-161, .672 winning percentage, 4 division championships, 2 NBA Finals appearances, one NBA le. Future Hall-of-Famer.
Coach 2: 2+ years, 79-103, .434 winning percentage, fired after 18 games into season 3.
First coach? Larry Costello with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (for five of those years). Second coach? Costello without Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Costello today is not considered a great coach.
This isn’t to say that Pop should be penalized because he has Duncan. But the fact is we don’t really know how well he would do without TD for a long time. What little we do know isn’t promising: an under .500 record over the last two years without him.
The measure of a coach is what he does when he doesn’t have the talent. KC Jones took five teams to the Finals and won twice, but will never go down as a great coach because he only excelled when he had the horses. Phil Jackson, for all his obnoxiousness, proved his greatness in 93-94 when he took a Bulls team with Scottie Pippen and a bunch of parts to within a Hue Hollins of the Eastern Conference Finals. Larry Brown and Pat Riley have shown they can build multiple teams up from scratch.
Maybe Pop is a truly great coach; we just don’t have the data yet. With luck, we won’t have to find out for another 7 years.
Rummpd: Pop was in an unusual situation when he took over for Bob Hill after David Robinson went down and had a far weaker team than he does now as far as depth. Granted they had Sean Elliott but who else really?
He has also become a better coach over the years and more confident in his own style and abilities.
As such, I believe that one day either through God forbid another bad injury or on the planned retirement of one Tim Duncan, Pop will remain a solid coach that given a point guard of Parker's caliber, a Ginobli and some size up front will continue to win games.
Moreover, one cannot rule out the plausibility of him helping to lock down another free agent or foreign find, who may not be a Duncan but another star.
I cannot see him ever being a .500 coach, he would not take it and demand excellence. If by some chance he failed to maintain that standard over a season and a half or so, he would voluntarily retire. One great thing about Pop is his pride.
ShoogarBear: When Pop first replaced Hill, there was no Robinson or Elliott, which would have been a disaster for anyone, but he did nothing that year to distinguish himself.
Pop is a good system coach. But some flaws are obvious: his system’s do ented tendency toward offensive stagnation (which he has been working to overcome). His subs utions are often a source of confusion for all. A major weakness is his refusal (or inability) to make in-game or in-series adjustments. Even the most die-hard supporter has to concede that he was badly out-coached by Phil Jackson last year.
I concede that he has worked to improve over the years. The jury is out on whether he is a truly great coach. As a final point, I submit that if Tim hadn’t told Pop to play Kerr in the 2003 WCF, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
----------------------------------------
Thanks to Rummpd and ShoogarBear for this Battle Blog. The judges have given the win to ShoogarBear. Thanks to you two and to the juges.
good job guys. Win one without DRob, and i'll call Pop the greatest coach ever...til then, he's just damn good.
TD told Pop to play Kerr? damn. i thought Pop only played kerr cuz TP was sick...adding that TD told him is insult to injury....
last years meltdown has to fall on Pop's shoulders some....bring it back home Pop and you can have your own float.
I've never felt Pop was not such a good coach as much as an unbelievable GM. His ability to construct a team and find affordable talent cannot be argued. The let down has always come when Pop muddles rotations, calls 4 down ad naseum, and doesnt let his players just PLAY.
Pop = mediocre coach and SUPERB GM
I'd like to thank the Mavs for what they did last night right before the judges voted . . .
I was robbed! Gee just like the NBA refs.
Congrats the "better bear" won!
Last edited by Rummpd; 04-08-2005 at 08:11 PM.
Man I want to file a protest on this one.
What a ty week to be on the road with no internet access
Yeh 0.4 all over again, but the "Bear" made some astute good points even though it is inane Pop is not a great coach, but time to move on, have to dust myself up and go forward.
yeah really nice job shoogarbear
it was a tall order for Rummpd
if he was to win i guess he had to put some details in (system of coaching, inspirational , game readiness) which we really don't know much about.
regardless i do think pop is a great coach.
Fascinating
He has a good system but I don't know if he's a great coach.
Battle blogs: One of the greatest aspects of ST that were tossed by the wayside.
A coach who plays Bonner for too long in the playoffs is not a great coach TBH
And I still cant get over hte fact that he completely messed up the rotations in game 5 vs OKC
Total panic move
^ yep. I think he's a very good GM but as a coach, he makes some terrible personnel decisions in crucial moments.
Great bump
This looks like a fun idea... why did the "Battle Blogs" stop?
Yeah he really screwed us by playing Bonner 12 minutes per game during our longest playoff run since 2008... what was he thinking playing Bonner 25% of the game. Man i get people need a whipping boy but is laughable...
As for starting Manu in place of Green I can understand both sides of the argument but Manu was playing well and Green wasn't when looking at it black and white like that it kind of makes since.
I think everybody is of unanimous agreement that Pop screwed up the rotations in game 5. Starting Manu/Green doesn't mean he had to screw up the rotations. He could have had Green on a quick trigger. It threw everything off. It messed with Parker's aggressiveness. The fact is it was a panic move he didn't think through. The messed up rotations are evidence of that. If Pop anticipates he's going to panic again it would be useful to work out that panic plan ahead of time.
I'd be interested to see this battle blog play out again now. Several of the key points used by ShoogarBear are more arguable now. Pop has shows he can run a very efficient offense these past two years at least, and with the decline of Duncan and Manu, he's still leading the team to 50+ win seasons. Quite the accomplishment.
You want him to come up with a plan a head of time for when he panics during the midst of an unpredictable game...no way you just said that. Parker, god forbid could get injured and Neal could be struggling down 10 against a stingy defense and offensive juggernaut (The Thunder) how would you propose , hypothetically he go about fixing that? Entering the series there was know way to know that Green would burn out after playing well in the 1st 2 rounds and hitting 3's at a clip nearly 10 % better than the league. Neal wasn't exactly lighting it up either so he couldn't just go to Neal. Green could hit the street from the sidewalk and you want to keep him in the starting lineup of a crucial WCF game 5. That is laughable. Green is a hot/cold player pop likely sensed that and felt Manu would keep Brooks from switching Sef & Westbrook. Remember he starting the RRT and didn't hit a shot for 5 entire games despite logging nearly 100 minutes. He is an unpredictable player.
Parker not being aggressive when Manu is in the game? they've player together for years. Granted Parker has been more ball dominant since last season. But in 2010-2011 Manu started and Parker still lead the team in scoring and assists. While having the best record in the league (Bulls had the tie breaker). The move was actually meant to free up Parker from the freakishly long armed Sef. Westbrook can't check Manu (who is 6'6 as you know) Jackson came in and played well of the bench (13pts 3 steals in 30 minutes) so it wasn't like he depleted the bench by moving Manu (who still played with the bench unit during that game). I can get your logic but I'd disagree with it Pop made the right move.
Ish can get real..quickly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
