POP = GOAT

[rjv]

of course, one has to be willing to accept that the ONLY reason simmons, KA or DJ got any time was due to the injuries. it is possible simmons would have still seen the same amount of time. then there is the other reality we don't get to see where pop defers to DJ but TP is healthy and the result turns out to be a poor one. in that case, would those who argue Pop should turn to other players stayed on that side of the argument or would they have called Pop foolish for going with an inexperienced point guard?

[rjv]

Until the next time you go, WHAT THE IS POP DOING !!??!!??

Heard it before. We all have, many times. Here and on ESPN etc. It could be argued, and is, that pop has cost the Spurs a ring...or two here and there. Shall we dance ? Don't get me wrong but RC is the genius behind this operation. THAT dude has a knack for finding talent like nobodies bidness.

Pop, love him, great coach. But the Spurs were a 5-peat team that just...blew it. And we're not talking that 1st Miami series. Pop has had his ups...but that doesn't degrade what he's done it just keeps him out of 'best ever'. Elite, yes. Top...4 all time. The no repeat, with what he had at the time, and the opposition...and not repeat?

Best ever ain't in that conversation. Again, love him but I admit...I also have a bit of not loving him. If I saw him in an elevator I'd probably say, 'WHAT THE , DUDE...' Then take a selfie with him, give him a hug....all against his will...and call it a day.

the metrics by which dynasties are judged seem arbitrary to me. for instance, it seems that there is a general agreement that if a team does not win back-to-back les it can't be considered a dynasty. but what is to be said of a team that has had the almost unprecedented level of success the spurs have over the past twenty years? Twenty 50 plus win seasons in a row. 10 conference final appearances in that same time frame. 5 les. is one to say that the Detroit "bad boys" were a better team because they won a back-to-back but faded soon after? even bird's celtics only beat the lakers once. houston a dynasty because they won back-to-back les while jordan pretended to be a baseball player?

[Hoops Czar]

But the Dubs did have a gimmicky coach before Kerr, with pretty much the same top talent, and never had this kind of success. So, you know, it's ok to on Kerr now that he put together the final product, but he should get recognized for punching the right buttons, even after that 3-1 choke.

Except the year he was fired, Mark Jackson didn't inherit a historically great superstar PG, he had an often injured All-star PG. He didn't have a DPOY candidate in Draymond Green, he had a 2nd year Green coming off the bench. He didn't have an All-star caliber SG, he had a good regular season 3rd year SG that choked in the clutch that led many to compare him to a poor man's Danny Green. Bogut couldn't stay healthy. David Lee was starting at PF. I'm not a fan of Mark Jackson and as gimmicky as he was, the team clearly wasn't ready when he was the head coach.

[DMC]

I'd lean towards giving the players more credit than pop. They showed up and played great. He looks like a genius because they won, but he was still playing garbage ass David Lee.

A couple years ago the Rockets made a huge comeback because McHale benched Harden and trusted his bench guys to win the game, yet didn't get any credit for it.

Pop was forced to trust his bench guys, but let's not forget Pop wouldn't bench parker in 2015 or 2016, or Manu in 2013.

This series hasn't done much for Pop's legacy, positive or negative.

If it was a player thing, you'd see other teams doing it. There are plenty teams out there who have cheerleaders for coaches, and the players pretty much have the run of the floor. Sure the players deserve more credit than Pop and Pop would be the first to say so, but at the end of the day there's only one team that could do that, and every NBA team has a coach.

[DMC]

Except the year he was fired, Mark Jackson didn't inherit a historically great superstar PG, he had an often injured All-star PG. He didn't have a DPOY candidate in Draymond Green, he had a 2nd year Green coming off the bench. He didn't have an All-star caliber SG, he had a good regular season 3rd year SG that choked in the clutch that led many to compare him to a poor man's Danny Green. David Lee was starting at PF. I'm not a fan of Mark Jackson and as gimmicky as he was, the team clearly wasn't ready when he was the head coach.

But just 1 year later they were champions. Imagine that.

[DMC]

Until the next time you go, WHAT THE IS POP DOING !!??!!??

Heard it before. We all have, many times. Here and on ESPN etc. It could be argued, and is, that pop has cost the Spurs a ring...or two here and there. Shall we dance ? Don't get me wrong but RC is the genius behind this operation. THAT dude has a knack for finding talent like nobodies bidness.

Pop, love him, great coach. But the Spurs were a 5-peat team that just...blew it. And we're not talking that 1st Miami series. Pop has had his ups...but that doesn't degrade what he's done it just keeps him out of 'best ever'. Elite, yes. Top...4 all time. The no repeat, with what he had at the time, and the opposition...and not repeat?

Best ever ain't in that conversation. Again, love him but I admit...I also have a bit of not loving him. If I saw him in an elevator I'd probably say, 'WHAT THE , DUDE...' Then take a selfie with him, give him a hug....all against his will...and call it a day.

nothing you said makes any sense. Sounds like some alt trolling bull from a lottery team fan.

[Hoops Czar]

But just 1 year later they were champions. Imagine that.

Because they were healthy and Curry played at another level.

[ErnestLynch]

the metrics by which dynasties are judged seem arbitrary to me. for instance, it seems that there is a general agreement that if a team does not win back-to-back les it can't be considered a dynasty. but what is to be said of a team that has had the almost unprecedented level of success the spurs have over the past twenty years? Twenty 50 plus win seasons in a row. 10 conference final appearances in that same time frame. 5 les. is one to say that the Detroit "bad boys" were a better team because they won a back-to-back but faded soon after? even bird's celtics only beat the lakers once. houston a dynasty because they won back-to-back les while jordan pretended to be a baseball player?

Of course it's arbitrary. Look, I don't even abide by the theory that coaching makes THAT much difference. IF they have the players, their job is basically...not to up. Granted these conversations, always, boil down to an opinion. As said, sports is not the 'science' that those that talk about it and play it like to think it is. If it were, no point in playing the games, right ?

But the fact remains, for whatever reasons and whatever definition, there are coaches that have done things Popovich has not in 'about' the same number of years. Whatever reason you come up, while all valid and endlessly argued don't negate the fact that there are other coaches that have achieved 'things' that Pop, has not. Expansion, small market, less talent..yadda yadda.

Yup. All valid. But somewhere in there...in two seasons...with the big 3 basically in their prime...a repeat...that would have been a 3-peat..did...not...happen and in FACT...did not make it to the WCF in either year after winning the le. To me, that knocks him out as well as the Spurs as far as a dominate team. 'Dynasty' by definition I agree. They missed the playoff 3 times in 33 years since their inception. That is a dynasty for the very example of what dynasty is about ...time. But we're not talking about the Spurs as an organization. We're talking about Gregg Popovich. He hasn't been there 33 years. None of them have, clearly. That's what a dynasty is. The people come and go and it just keeps humming along, like..America. Call it 'ins utional IQ' or 'culture'. It just ...keeps going, successfully. Coaches and players come and go, the team goes on. Imagine Green Bay..generations have come and gone...the Packers are still there, competing. That's a dynasty, by definition.

[DMC]

Because they were healthy and Curry played at another level.

Get real. You said they weren't ready. Not ready teams don't win championships. They were ready, they had a ty coach who ran a high screen for Curry on every other play. It was his decision who to play and who to sit. Kerr didn't just luck out by being around when Steph climbed out of the cocoon.

[rjv]

Of course it's arbitrary. Look, I don't even abide by the theory that coaching makes THAT much difference. IF they have the players, their job is basically...not to up. Granted these conversations, always, boil down to an opinion. As said, sports is not the 'science' that those that talk about it and play it like to think it is. If it were, no point in playing the games, right ?

But the fact remains, for whatever reasons and whatever definition, there are coaches that have done things Popovich has not in 'about' the same number of years. Whatever reason you come up, while all valid and endlessly argued don't negate the fact that there are other coaches that have achieved 'things' that Pop, has not. Expansion, small market, less talent..yadda yadda.

Yup. All valid. But somewhere in there...in two seasons...with the big 3 basically in their prime...a repeat...that would have been a 3-peat..did...not...happen and in FACT...did not make it to the WCF in either year after winning the le. To me, that knocks him out as well as the Spurs as far as a dominate team. 'Dynasty' by definition I agree. They missed the playoff 3 times in 33 years since their inception. That is a dynasty for the very example of what dynasty is about ...time. But we're not talking about the Spurs as an organization. We're talking about Gregg Popovich. He hasn't been there 33 years. None of them have, clearly. That's what a dynasty is. The people come and go and it just keeps humming along, like..America. Call it 'ins utional IQ' or 'culture'. It just ...keeps going. Coaches and players come and go, the team goes on. Imagine Green Bay..generations have come and gone...the Packers are still there, competing. That's a dynasty, by definition.

by your logic then, duncan can't be considered a dominant player.

[DMC]

Of course it's arbitrary. Look, I don't even abide by the theory that coaching makes THAT much difference. IF they have the players, their job is basically...not to up. Granted these conversations, always, boil down to an opinion. As said, sports is not the 'science' that those that talk about it and play it like to think it is. If it were, no point in playing the games, right ?

But the fact remains, for whatever reasons and whatever definition, there are coaches that have done things Popovich has not in 'about' the same number of years. Whatever reason you come up, while all valid and endlessly argued don't negate the fact that there are other coaches that have achieved 'things' that Pop, has not. Expansion, small market, less talent..yadda yadda.

Yup. All valid. But somewhere in there...in two seasons...with the big 3 basically in their prime...a repeat...that would have been a 3-peat..did...not...happen and in FACT...did not make it to the WCF in either year after winning the le. To me, that knocks him out as well as the Spurs as far as a dominate team. 'Dynasty' by definition I agree. They missed the playoff 3 times in 33 years since their inception. That is a dynasty for the very example of what dynasty is about ...time. But we're not talking about the Spurs as an organization. We're talking about Gregg Popovich. He hasn't been there 33 years. None of them have, clearly. That's what a dynasty is. The people come and go and it just keeps humming along, like..America. Call it 'ins utional IQ' or 'culture'. It just ...keeps going, successfully. Coaches and players come and go, the team goes on. Imagine Green Bay..generations have come and gone...the Packers are still there, competing. That's a dynasty, by definition.

That's it, negate logical rebuttal before it ever gets offered.

What other small market franchise has won b2b les? Name one that's won 5 les in the past 20 years. Name one that's ever won 5 les.

All this you say sounds like some Koolaid man level desperation.

[ErnestLynch]

by your logic then, duncan can't be considered a dominant player.

Apples and oranges. Players aren't coaches. A coach 'coaches' a team. A 'player' is ...himself. Is Harden a dominate player ? For now, yes. It's all relative to time. One day MJ will be put in the books with 'one of the greats'. As will TD etc. And not that long from now in the big scheme of things. In a 100 years, they'll be a Ted Williams * and they'll be judged by their era.

[ErnestLynch]

That's it, negate logical rebuttal before it ever gets offered.

What other small market franchise has won b2b les? Name one that's won 5 les in the past 20 years. Name one that's ever won 5 les.

All this you say sounds like some Koolaid man level desperation.

Yup. Again this is about Pop, not the Spurs as an organization. IS Pop the 'greatest ever' ? That was the idea being thrown out there. If you think he is, that's fine. maybe he is. I don't even know how that's judged. All I know is, championship in 2003, 2005, 2007. He's 0-4. Actually, counting '99 he's 0-6 at a repeat. That's the 'greatest ever' ..in your mind ? Again, that's not even tossing the Miami thing into the debate and the loss and IF you add THAT ring, that's EIGHT shots at a repeat. Eight. He's 0-8 on repeats. The year before a ship, and the year after. 0-8. Or , maybe 0-10. Both ends of the ships. That ain't the 'greatest ever'. Sorry. 5 championships and no repeat ? Let me ask you this, has anyone with 5 rings not repeated ? , some "only' have two..that were...repeats. Do you 'get it' now ?

[SASdynasty!]

Once you Pop, you can't stop

[Hoops Czar]

Get real. You said they weren't ready. Not ready teams don't win championships. They were ready, they had a ty coach who ran a high screen for Curry on every other play. It was his decision who to play and who to sit. Kerr didn't just luck out by being around when Steph climbed out of the cocoon.

The Cavs did last year. Big difference between O'neal and Bogut starting at Center. Andrew Bogut missed the 2014 playoffs and was a walking zombie in 2013 playoffs (though he started to pick it up) after missing most of the regular season in 2013. Spurs were a Ginobili buzzer beater away from being down 3-1 in the series. Do you need a history lesson on how coach Kerr got slapped by coach Lue after Bogut went down with an injury in last year's finals? So much for stud muffin's in game adjustments and beating up on an inferior Eastern Conference team that literally had only two options on offense. Nothing baby face Curry could do about it either. Yeah, chef was a very good player for Jackson and if it wasn't for him turning an ankle against the Spurs in 2013, that series might have ended differently.

[rjv]

Apples and oranges. Players aren't coaches. A coach 'coaches' a team. A 'player' is ...himself. Is Harden a dominate player ? For now, yes. It's all relative to time. One day MJ will be put in the books with 'one of the greats'. As will TD etc. And not that long from now in the big scheme of things. In a 100 years, they'll be a Ted Williams * and they'll be judged by their era.

well i just the think the whole apples and oranges thing is just begging the question. it certainly implies that coaches should be held to a higher standard than players, but that would contradict the assertion that the only job of the coach is "not to up" since you don't abide by the theory the coach makes that much difference.

[ErnestLynch]

well i just the think the whole apples and oranges thing is just begging the question. it certainly implies that coaches should be held to a higher standard than players, but that would contradict the assertion that the only job of the coach is "not to up" since you don't abide by the theory the coach makes that much difference.

To use yet another cliche'...it is what it is. You can dance around it all you want. He has 5 rings..a great accomplishment, but has never repeated. To me, and others which I agree with, that takes him out of 'greatest ever' and for those..SAS in particular who called Larry Brown 'the greatest ever' and Doc Rivers the 'second best coach in the NBA' I say...

*hurl*

BS then, BS now.

Pop is a great coach. Just not the greatest. The no repeat, particularly with 3 ships in 03 05 07...and not even going to the WCF in between...is ...what it is. lol

Those are the years that take him out. Not 99, not 14.

AND..not only did he not make it to the WCF after winning the le in 2007...if I recall, he got swept in the first round.

RC Buford is the brains behind the Spurs success, imho.

[Chucho]

The dude that does the calling out of the cliff jumpers from the game threads needs to do flip-flop threads on:

Pop
LMA
Parker
The entire team in general sans Kawhi


And then everyone will bully him because, well, being called out...

[UZER]

the metrics by which dynasties are judged seem arbitrary to me. for instance, it seems that there is a general agreement that if a team does not win back-to-back les it can't be considered a dynasty. but what is to be said of a team that has had the almost unprecedented level of success the spurs have over the past twenty years? Twenty 50 plus win seasons in a row. 10 conference final appearances in that same time frame. 5 les. is one to say that the Detroit "bad boys" were a better team because they won a back-to-back but faded soon after? even bird's celtics only beat the lakers once. houston a dynasty because they won back-to-back les while jordan pretended to be a baseball player?

I'm still hearing spurs were never a dynasty because they never went back to back. Yet these are the same people that always refer to the Lakers AND Celtics of the 80s as dynasties.

[ErnestLynch]

I'm still hearing spurs were never a dynasty because they never went back to back. Yet these are the same people that always refer to the Lakers AND Celtics of the 80s as dynasties.

The Packers have had strings of bad years. Are they not a dynasty ? The Spurs are a dynasty. Gregg Popovich is not the GOAT, IMHO, which is the le of this thread. The Spurs, as an organization ARE a dynasty, but that is a product of time, not all of which occurs with just one team/group. Sustained success. Anyone who says the Spurs aren't a dynasty, in terms of sports, doesn't understand the definition. AGAIN...apples...and orangutans.

[bic50]

Still hate the fact that it took injuries to force his hand, tbh... guys like Simms, Murray could've had a larger role before, IMO...

Not complaining with the result though...

This

[bklynspursfan]

Simmons was getting decent time anyway. He got bumped up once Kawhi went out, but he was still getting his time in.

And Murray is still a ?. These minutes will help him, no doubt though, but Patty has stepped up as well. The only guys not really playing are Dedmon, Bertans, and Anderson.

And tbh, they've done just fine with the rotation they have. He may change it up a bit next series, we'll have to see.. but Simmons has been the biggest difference maker off the bench, and he was getting time before anyone went down

Pop's gameplan worked to a T. He deserves lots of credit, and the guys to do for executing.

[DMC]

Yup. Again this is about Pop, not the Spurs as an organization. IS Pop the 'greatest ever' ? That was the idea being thrown out there. If you think he is, that's fine. maybe he is. I don't even know how that's judged. All I know is, championship in 2003, 2005, 2007. He's 0-4. Actually, counting '99 he's 0-6 at a repeat. That's the 'greatest ever' ..in your mind ? Again, that's not even tossing the Miami thing into the debate and the loss and IF you add THAT ring, that's EIGHT shots at a repeat. Eight. He's 0-8 on repeats. The year before a ship, and the year after. 0-8. Or , maybe 0-10. Both ends of the ships. That ain't the 'greatest ever'. Sorry. 5 championships and no repeat ? Let me ask you this, has anyone with 5 rings not repeated ? , some "only' have two..that were...repeats. Do you 'get it' now ?

"I don't even know how that's judged"

"Pop has had his ups...but that doesn't degrade what he's done it just keeps him out of 'best ever'. "

Since you think B2B is the criteria, you'll need to explain why. I don't need to debunk it.

A coach gets a team to the Finals, if the team can repeat and does, it's the same team most of the time. Why didn't Phil repeat after Shaq left? Why didn't he have a b2b before or after Michael in Chicago?

Pop has taken different squads to the top of the mountain, has 3 different Finals MVPs and none of they are named David Robinson. His coaching tree looks like a Cypress tree, while the others... not so much. What's Phil's coaching tree? Derek Fisher?

Larry Brown is a better coach than Phil Jackson. Red just had a powerful team. Bill Russell was able to player coach them to the Finals.

[HarlemHeat37]

^^Have a feeling that's an Avante troll, tbh

[Chris]