Reply With Quote
Just stop? WTF? And what's with your need to defend the Heat?
He used the word "b*aner" to describe someone who happens to be darked skin. And to me, that's a racial epithet.
Just stop? WTF? And what's with your need to defend the Heat?
Man, what's with not giving the team credit for being in position to win it all in 6? The Heat coming back from 10 down after 3 was fluky because the surge happened when the starters were on the bench. Yes, Pop is an all-time great coach and the best coach in the league who put us in position to win it all but you have to give the team credit for playing the games and following the game plan to a tee...until you know what happened.
You have to give credit to all parties involved, but this thread isn't just about the Finals. If I recall correctly, the CotY is a regular season award and no one but no one manages and coaches a team of otherwise unknowns to a top seed each and every year better than coach Pop. So yeah, if the award was about being the best COACH in the league, not just the biggest turnaround or some other flukey that often leads to the coach being fired a year or so later, then Pop should win it every year.
Agreed.
It's not defending it's being realistic and objective. The Heat were the better team.
Yep, either that or Keeping Tim in there to get one final reboundPop giveth POP TAKETH away at times.No they were not the better team at all, the Spurs were the better team but the Heat had some luck on their side and Had the best player in game 7, period.
I'm probably in the minority but he always does that. If Pop had kept Tim in and they forced a switch where the smaller, more mobile guy blew by Tim and scored a bucket, people would be blasting Pop for panicking and not sticking by his game plan.Yep, either that or Keeping Tim in there to get one final rebound
No they were not the better team at all, the Spurs were the better team but the Heat had some luck on their side and Had the best player in game 7, period.
And yet, for the last several years there have been Spurs "fans" crying for the owners to fire Pop and blow up the team.
Okay, that would be a two pointer though instead of a three! They left the smaller guys out there to guard the three and still let Lebron have two wide open looks, what was the point of guarding the three again if you did not do it? I take a two anyday over that three.
lol idiots
It's perhaps a mistake in philosophy, but not in execution of that philosophy. Some coaches intentionally foul in that situation and send the team to the line. Some coaches aggressively guard the 3 point line and will allow a wide open layup for 2 if it comes to that. Some coaches (like Pop) go small to match up with the opponent and try to defend both the 2 and 3, with slightly more emphasis on guarding the 3. Pop is adamant in making sure never to foul someone near the rim so as to avoid and-1 opportunities (if you recall this is exactly what cost us in 2006 with manu's infamous foul on dirk).
There could be disastrous situations with all 3 philosophies. Maybe Coach X's team is up 3 and intentionally fouls. Miami goes to the line and makes 2 free throws, steal the ball, and hit a game winning 2. People would be criticizing coach X for intentionally fouling. Had they just played good solid defense, then maybe Miami wouldn't have scored at all on that possession and maybe that would've given them the necessary buffer to win the game and the championship.
It's fine to criticize the philosophy, but I'm not a fan of criticizing philosophies only when they don't work. All coaching philosophies are prone to exploitations or bad luck (or both) because there's no one, true, perfect defensive philosophy in that situation.
The truth is last season could be a 30 for 30 segment, "the championship that almost happened" a series of unfortunate events had to occur for it to all go down like last season. 9 out of 10 we win it but we know what happened. We all know Duncan should never have been out of the game and I'm sure we could have put him on someone who would have had to take more time off the clock to get the shot off he didn't have to be on bosh etc... But what it comes down to is they got a rebound and they got a shot and we have learned that the spurs suck at grabbing boards
One of the unfortunate events was the RW went down against Houston and hurt OKC's chances. That set up a Spurs sweep of a Memphis team that really had no business in the WCF. So you have to take all things into consideration. Spurs had a really good year last year, best year since 2007. That's how I look at it. Mike D says the Spurs are the best team the Lakers have faced this season. We have an opportunity to be right back there, and then it's anyone's game.
If they were the better team the spurs would've won. This isn't hard people.....Yep, either that or Keeping Tim in there to get one final rebound
No they were not the better team at all, the Spurs were the better team but the Heat had some luck on their side and Had the best player in game 7, period.
They should have one, some crazy events happened and some really crazy shots! They were the better team in that series and should have won it. You sound like you accept it better thinking the Heat were the better team so they were, to each their own. Spurs blew it.^^^^^ Yep.
Still if they went small to guard the 3 better they should have actually guarded the three when Lebron hit that WIDE open look! That makes me mad they were out there to guard the three and failed to even do that. Might as well have had Tim in the game if you are going to give a WIDE open look. I see what you are saying though.
Exactly. The strategy was reactive not proactive. When you're down 3 you don't allow the other team to get what shot they want. You want to force them of the 3pt line and into a contested jumper. With a smaller more mobile lineup you can actually chase the guys of the line. Otherwise we might as well have had Duncan out there. Duncan however might actually have been able to block a shot or grab a rebound.
Also the strategy ignored the importance of having a defensive anchor out there. A defensive anchor makes sure everyone is in the proper place and anticipates what the offense is going to do. They looked clueless out there. Pop has confirmed they didn't execute the way they were supposed to. You put Duncan out there and he's going to make sure everyone is in the correct position and understands what to do.
What if Duncan gets blown away by a faster player? He's been all-defense for all his career. I think he would understand how to play defense against faster players. You saw how hard he played in game 6 and you take his body of work as Spurs. I think he deserved to be out there. I would much rather have Duncan out there while all that happened then always thinking about what if one of the best defensive players in NBA history was out there.
Also in that situation all the Spurs are worried about is not giving up open 3's and layups. You want to force contested 2's or even trap the offense. Alot of times in that type of situation the coach will take a timeout just to see what the offense is going to do to make sure everyone is on the same page as far as defending it. The Spurs did none of that. You can't allow an open 3 and then complain about how the ball bounces. 3's tend to have unpredictable bounces.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions