Reply With Quote
ok
I wanted to discuss this considering how this offseason has become on Popovich time. It would seem that he wasn't a first ballot HoF the way people carry on.
Instead I wanted to talk about what I think is his greatest attribute in talent evaluation and development. This is all inclusive considering front office, coaching and players themselves. While Buford deserves a lot of the credit the list of names that Popovich has brought in and have come out remarkable basketball people is simply breathtaking. Names like Manu Ginobil, Tony Parker, Kawhi Leonard, Bruce Bowen, and Stephen Jackson. You have guys like Jaren Jackson, Danny Green, Antonio Daniels and Avery Johnson who saw their game elevated under Popovich's tutelage. You have coaches with direct links like Jacque Vaughn, Mike Brown, Mike Budenholzer, and Brett Brown as well as guys he has influenced in a lesser way like Doc Rivers and Monty Williams. From the front office ranks you have Buford, Presti, Ferry and Demps.
I can see an argument that Larry Brown rivals in this comparison but other than that I just do not see anyone of the modern era that even comes close. Phil Jackson and Don Nelson weren't better. Pat Riley has been good but not that good. Is there someone that is missing because I contend that in terms of finding and developing talent, no one has been better than Greg Popovich in the modern era.
Enjoy it while you can because like say a Dallas Cowboys fan can attest, you don't know what you have until it's gone.
ok
Are you claiming Popovich "found" Ginobili, Parker, Leonard, Bowen and Steven Jackson?
Or is it other Spurs scouts and FO found them and then once on the Spurs roster Pop coached them?
I encourage critical thinking. For example how will this bear out for the future of the organization. Pop has brought in a few new coaching and FO guys like Marks, Boylen, and Teielep. The last one is interesting because he was an unconventional ESPN analyst and is now a head scout. Marks is a new coaching prospect.
Will Green, CoJo, Nando, Leonard, Baynes, Mills continue to get better?
Rather than banal indifference perhaps you could try and use the brain a bit.
I don't know specifically but are you contending that he was not instrumental?
I believe it was Presti who found either Parker or GNob. The board had discussions on it. The rest i believe he coached after they arrived.
We've all heard the story ad nauseum how military stricto Pop yelled at teenage Parker and shaped him up. Excellent, and no doubt good for Parker at the time. Too bad he didn't keep it up when Parker went into his foray of hanging out with rap punks (eyeball at one of the s-stains nightclub parties) and playing like a rap punk on the court for important portions of 2008-12. Also, the in your face yelling, while obviously good for young party boi Parker, does not seem to have worked with others. Popped silly selfish *doghouse* with Splitter etc.
And his opposite doghouse of leaving Turnobili in 2013 and forcing Parker to stay in for an unmedicated Ron Ape Artest assault along with abandoning Tall Balls in favor of small balls in the 2006 playoffs is unforgiveable.
A huge momentum swing was deciding to resign-extend Oberto and trade Louwie Scolas rights for Greek Never Came. I think Kori Ellis still had some employ with the Spurs, either way had some posts that inferred it was NOT Popped idea, that Popped was fine with Scola. Huge huge derailment of potential Spurs dynasty. Nonetheless, the subsequent gay love affair with Finley and Bonner is was just gagging.
If you were to improve upon the coaching position/situation during the Duncan era, how would you have done it?
By firing Pop and promoting Bud
1- Scouts
2- The only players Pop ever developed were/are Tony and Kawhi.
This
Good post, FuzzyLumpkins, but wrong timing. At this point of the offseason the 2 or 3 decent posts in the thread will be drowned in troll's verbal diarrhea. Still expect the anti-Manu guy to turn up and turn this into a Manu-is-finished thread.
P.S. Totally agree with your points, Pop's greatest ability is to evaluate talent and polish it. He'd be awesome in the FO if he's bothered to do it after Duncan retires.
Again, the true story is: Pop didn't like Parker but R.C. was sold on him. So R.C. told Presti to make a best of Parker video. When Pop watched it, he was ok with drafting Parker.
All of a sudden the whole world thinks Presti was the genius.
It's like praising the paper boy for the accurate weather forcast.
As for the OP: I think Pop is good but like the above story tells you, it's a team thing between RC, Pop and some scouts just as it should be.
Pop hired Presti, right?
I believe Pop said that he handles free agency while Buford handles the draft. So distribute the credit and blame accordingly.
Your face when bud gets timmy killed in a drunken driving accident
This is just ignorance as to managing an organization is done. Yes, Popovich delegates and he also has the grace to accept none of the credit if he could. At the same time where do you think the buck stops? The whole organization deserves credit but Popovich deserves more credit than anyone else. This is underscored by the turnover in terms of the roster and front office and the consistent success nonetheless.
Sorry but Manu's game's improvement from his rookie season by the time 2005 rolled around was stellar. From Jaren Jackson to Gary Neal you have guys that showed significant improvement that were not superstars. The Spurs player development program is innovative and lauded by the league. As is their training and conditioning, scouting, and overall decision making.
I get that but unless folks try and push back against the storm then they get to rule the roost. Season is starting back up soon and it's time to push back.
War of the
Pop didn't develop Manu, Manu was already 26 years, he just needed to adapt to the new rules/style of the NBA. Neal is a scrub and also was 25 when the Spurs got him, that's the opposite of development, the Spurs always tried to sign older players (who were ready to play).
Like i said, in 16 years : Tony, Kawhi and counting
I got this far and saw no reason to continue reading your post. Think of how the third clause relates to the first and try and use some critical thinking.
lol Flabbs
uh. and therefore you don't need coaching, right?
of course you need to still develop a player at 25 (btw. Manu was 25, not 26).
I would even claim, that's the point: what coach has the ability to improve a player, who is already in his mid 20ies. Pop does.
Exactly, Pop is very underrated in this regard because he hasn't been able to work with a lot of high lottery talent for obvious reasons. When he gets someone like Tony or Kawhi he polishes them to gold. I'm pretty sure neither would have developed as much under another coach and team.
There are other, less fancy examples though , look at Gary Neal - a euroleague journeyman approaching 30 who was turned into a legit NBA player. Yea he's no LeBron but he's made the most of his potential under Pop. In fact more than he could have imagined a few years ago. A lot of players have had their best years in the NBA under Pop - Bruce, Speedy, Derek Anderson, Jaren Jackson, etc, and the only real talent that was let go - Scola, Dragic - were traded before spending a day on the roster.
George Hill?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Agreed!
