Reply With Quote
The best thing a coach can do is allow the players to decide the game. We wouldn't be discussing this if Pop had just allowed TD to decide his future. He certainly deserved it.
Exactly. Like you said Spurs fans know his limitations better than anyone else. I think those limitations are what prevents him from being in the class of a Phil Jackson. PJ would never do something as insane as sitting Duncan on a huge defensive possession. Also he would realize the value of having the best free throw shooters in the game at the end. Pop couldn't have played that any more poorly. Really? Inbound the ball to Kawhi. That's exactly who the Heat wanted going to the foul line. I would have loved someone else like Ginobili to have stepped up and got the ball and sealed the game. But they were so scared they put Kawhi in that position.
The best thing a coach can do is allow the players to decide the game. We wouldn't be discussing this if Pop had just allowed TD to decide his future. He certainly deserved it.
Stop posting.
A lot of the time the perception of coaching decisions come down to who actually won the game. It's real easy to let hindsight dictate what the decision should have been.
Had the Spurs lost game 6 of the WCSF against Golden State, I'm sure there would have been people calling for Pop's head because of the Duncan benching in the 4th quarter of that game. Instead, the narrative became that of "that was one of a ballsy move by Pop".
The safer move then would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.
The safer move in the Finals would have probably been to keep Duncan in the game in the waning minutes of Game 6 and trust his instincts.
Would either move have been the better one? I'm not sure. But letting the game result alone dictate whether a decision was better or not is looking at things too simplistically.
Personally, I think this would have been a moot point if Lebron had not bricked that one three so bad at the end of Game 6 that it bounced away from the 4 Spurs in the paint.
At the end of the Golden State game Tim said something along the lines of "if we win it's fine, but if we had lost then it'd be another story".
You can't tell me something didn't break between these two.
The problem was not only benching Tim, he also admitted he didn't run a single play for Leonard and went full re with his usage of Manu...
Or he could have just had someone foul on either possession... not that much different then hack a whoever.. make them hit clutch shots.
You're just saying every move is equal because anything can happen. That's not a good way to coach. A good way to coach is to say I need more defense/rebounding so I will put my best defender/rebounder in the game.
Without anything concrete stating whether the relationship between those two has indeed changed, it's presumptuous on anyone's part to speculate one way or the other.
And Duncan's response actually sums up the point I was making earlier about game decisions being judged based on the outcome.
I'm not saying every move is equal. Of course you try your hardest to make sure that the game's outcome does not come down to random chance.
The point I was trying to make was that in my opinion, in that particular game, that one particular decision was less of a factor in determining the outcome than the bounce from Lebron's brick that went away from the 4 Spurs who had good rebounding position anyway, Duncan or no Duncan.
The Manu thing appears to me to actually be a similar argument.
There would be some camps that say the move should have been to keep the ball out of Manu's hands more - keep Parker as the primary playmaker. Others would argue that Manu's Game 5 performance would never have happened if that had been done.
The safer move might have been to trust Manu, in the same way that the safer move regarding Duncan would have been to keep him in the game and trust he can manage himself. Would it have been the better move?
Was Parker's hamstring the reason Manu took on more of the playmaking role? Unless we get a definitive answer either way, we'll have to operate on the most educated guesswork we can.
And yes, I agree that Leonard should probably have been given some chances to see if he could make things happen.
Wasn't there an article that came out this season that made the case for fouling versus straight up defense?
spurfan doesn't know his own limitations
He's done :
- historical blow out loss at home on military night
- loss to a team of scrubs coached by Spoeltra who outwitted him
- loss to the Lakers when a win could have kept them out of the playoffs
- soulcrushing Finals defeat, biggest choke in the history of sports actually, shat his pants on the biggest stage possible
- called Doc Rivers for antidepressants advice
Time for him to face the truth and retire.
Case in point.
I don't see where the problem is fouling, sending someone to the line and making them earn the points..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions