Reply With Quote
it's pop poor coaching, full of himself that kill the team not kawhi!
it's pop poor coaching, full of himself that kill the team not kawhi!
I'm calling bull on "2014 doesn't happen without 2013." That was a repeat. I still think it was a repeat, and I was teleported to a bizarre parallel universe where 6 happened.
First of all, Miami was significantly worse in '14, hence why the Spurs won by the largest margin in Finals history.
As for "motivation," how's this for motivation: the first repeat championship in franchise history. That's motivation enough.
And finally, as Pop likes to say, professionals don't need external motivation. They're already motivated, or they wouldn't be playing in the NBA.
It was a repeat.
lol delusional
It’s not about the Heat. It’s about we would have lost to the Thunder.
Yeah, no.
blame him for manu's bald spot while you're at it.
the bald spot was a source of external power to keep manu going in old age.blame him for manu's bald spot while you're at it.
This. It took one of the greatest postseason peaking NBA teams in history, with a very big settle to score with Miami, to take out the Thunder in a very tense, brutal 6 games. Im not saying we wouldnt have beaten the Thunder if we won it in 2013. But it would have been a complete toss up.
I thought it was the testicle sacrifice to the dark powers that did that.
The more that the dust clears on this off season the more I hate Kawhi. Not even the Dark One would approve of what he did.
That's just BS, it was Stephen Jackson, Dedmon and Jonathon Simmons. If those guys had kept their head straight and didn't form a clique against Manu, Tony and Pau calling them Yes Men and that they get to play without really deserving it, then maybe Kawhi would have stayed.
What did Dedmon said? Thought he left on good terms.
Jackson, Deadmon and Simmons are clear examples of non Spurs mentality and, at the same time, of ty decisions for their careers...all of them have had pretty bad team outcomes when decided to leave us. Don't even think they mede a lot more money than if they were committed to our team...
I just watched Bayless on first take saying that Manu 's retirment has a lot to do also with the KL behavior...and then that phenomenon of Chris Carter, aka Kiwhi camp lik asser, saying that Manu should not be considered an all of famer.
Frankly, also not knowing what happened really, considering all things and where they traded him, there have been something really bad between Leonard and the old core.
I see them considering Kiwhi no less than an ungrateful person, and probably in any case a traitor, if not a fraud...
That's not something easy to predict, 'cause all has changed just from the moment uncle Dennis took the reins...but then entire outcome has probably become something difficult to stand for players like the big three that have sacrified body and soul for the greater good of the team.
So probably the le of this thread is right...but at the same time its not, considering I'm happy to still see Manu and Tim in photos contributing to the next team's season. That's the evidence of the behavior of true sportsmans and a truly committed team's players...(apart the fact that Manu and Timmy are still being paid).
Kawhi kept it going lol. the guy, but THANK YOU for helping TD get that last ring
It depends on what those guys expected to happen when they left. I doubt they really expected to win championship or become superstars anywhere else. Simmons claimed there was too many politics. Maybe he's right. Who knows?
politics? Simmons played just a decent reg. season and s good play off.. Deadmon a good reg. season and bad play offs. Both were nothing relevant before coming to our team. But with us they had the opportunity to become decent nba players...
The point is that if you don't learn to put the team interest in first place with us, you're not going to learn it anywhere...despite the evidence that you have improved your value as a player thanks, in big part, to our rules and organization.
its politics when your coach tries to share his wiew about how a successful team has to be managed?
its politics when the winningest trio of basketball players show you the way to behave in a winning way deciding to let the coach treat them the same of the others (Tim), or renouncing to a starter role and a lot of money (Manu and in a lesser way Tony)?
Or maybe is politics to define the correct role in wich your coach sees you involved for the greater good of the team?
imho thats just the way of a winning colture...the same colture that can consent to decent or less than decent players to improve constantly and at the same time be beneficial to not only themselves but also to the team, expecially a team of high level with the gol to comtend for the le.
its in this kind of team interest to make the players improve...and then let them expand their role and consequently pay them more accordingly. But all this have to be balanced and require a certain degree of knowledge and objectivity from the players about the benefit they received and then role they are supposed to have in the future plans of a contender.
that's the way it works for both, players and team, the best way. And works only if the interest of the player in balanced in not only make stats and having money, but also play for a team with the goal to win it all every season...not exactly the Orlando or Atlanta situation...
Simmons politics comment was on his role. He wanted a guaranteed role, and the Spurs don't do that for role players. You earn the right to play. I think the Spurs and Simmons agreed on the $ and years but not on the role.
FWIW Simmons agent said they never received an offer from the Spurs beyond a very small 1 yr QO.
I think the Spurs were waiting for him to get an offer and see if they would match (just like K.Anderson), but along the way, JSimms felt insulted by the Spurs, realized that the free agency market was rough and if he wanted to sign elsewhere b4 teams ran out of money, he had to be more aggressive and just decided to leave. He's asked out of his QO and signed in Orlando not just bc they offered more money but bc they offered him more minutes and possibilities for a larger role.
Thats because POP is a ing hack. It was always Tim Duncan.
No big 3, no Spurs championships.
Kawhi was the recipient of an award for playing slightly above Patty Mills.
No offense, but outside of this area, no one gives a about the Spurs, so "Spurs legend" doesn't mean anything. Most NBA fans cannot name a Spurs player prior to David Robinson outside of maybe Gervin. They probably cannot name anyone between David and Tim's rookie years except David and Tim. They know the big 3 but they don't know who was 4th before the most recent championship group. They know who Horry is but mostly because of his Lakers and Rockets days. They probably think Tony and Manu were drafted in the lottery.
When the coach gets more face time with the media than the rest of the team combined, that "legacy" carrot doesn't seem that attractive to someone who could be the same in a larger market like LA.
Well, considering the average fan is 14 years old, I think they only know who's they're sucking. Most haven't even watched a Larry Bird or Kareem highlight video, tbh.
The average NBA fan is about 40 years old, but if I take you at your word, then the term "legend" has no credibility in this discussion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions