Reply With Quote
Also Adelman beat Phil in 2002
Ok the Lakers won *
All things considered , I think Adelman was Phil's toughest opponent
Only had 1 superstar in 92 and almost forced a game 7 in Chicago
Pushed the Lakers to a game 7 with a sitty Rockets team and had the cojones to send Von Wafer to the locker room (who was a good scorer off the bench back then - what happened to him by the way lol)
Also Adelman beat Phil in 2002
Ok the Lakers won *
Dont get me started on *.. '99
So according to Lakerfans:
Shaq > Duncan
Phil > Pop
Kobe > Duncan
Yet Tim has more rings than Shaq, tied with Kobe even though Kobe won 3 of those playing with MVP Shaq and Phil as HC, and is tied head to head vs Kobe in the playoffs without Shaq.
This is stunningly irrelevant. 99 = cir stances beyond the teams control affecting all teams. This is called luck or basic uncertainty.
2002= cir stances only relevant to one team. That's called a rent.
Both of us know you weren't talking cigars.
And talking about what Phil would've done is not factual. That's pretty obvious.
Your types of stoogies coming in a box is also not factual.
please. nobody gives Lebron for 2012. Spurs and Heat took care of business when others couldn't. 2002 was the pinnacle of rigging, I doubt we see something like that again in our lifetime, especially with social media imo.
what you currently smoking? i found this old ty cigar, smoked it recently and puked it up. still, been thinking of getting back in the cigar game. i've smoked so much weed the past few years that I kind of need to balance my brain back out with some stogies, plus I enjoy them.
as for your question, i agree with those that think Pop is overrated as a head coach. As a GM and President of basketball operations though (building a culture and system, communicating that vision to others, hiring the right people etc...) he's one of the GOATs.
overrated...cant defend le, doesnt reign down on p orker...fck him
Got a box of Bolivar Belicoso as a gift, and its pretty prime time if im honest. Nice burn, good smokey flavor. They are pretty taxed, I dont think I would of boughten them. Ramon Allones is a great one, Ashton Robusto, had a few of those this year and they were great. As for the weed, it man, keep on cheefin.
Both of us? Wrong again. Phil owns pop, thats a fact. Ill really send you one im not joking, you seem like ur panties are always tied up in bunch, sometimes you need to just relax.
Last edited by whitemamba; 09-08-2016 at 12:07 PM.
Pop really is a master. He keeps the work environment professional. Fosters team spirit. Gets players to buy in and sacrifice. Calls great plays out of timeouts. Knows when to call timeouts. Does all of the little end game subs utions right. Keeps the old timers fresh. Designed a great defense. Has probably the best and most consistent draft record. Knows how to network and bring in new talent.
The only downsides I can think of for Pop are not being able to find a way to use Rodman, and it sometimes seems like he should play the rookies a bit more often.
Phil owning pop and how many Phil would have won if he inherited the 96-97 Spurs. In fact, based in his track record Phil won't even take the job because he never takes teams that are fully constructed.
He doesn't have a track record in building any teams or developing any talent. He creates discords in the locker room ( players vs management with the Bulls, Kobe vs shaq in LA, throwing pau under the bus in LA) does not indicate he would have any long term success with any team.
That is his style. Right or wrong it has worked for him and the teams he's coaching. He has 6 les over 9 years with the Bulls and 5 les over 10 years with the Lakers. With the average tenure of an NBA coach just above 2 years I'd say he has had tremendous long term success.
...and he has better regular season and post season win percentages than Pop. And let's not forget the 4-1 dominance in head to head post season match-ups.
Put on your spinning shoes Amb. You're going to need em.
Last edited by cobbler; 09-08-2016 at 04:41 PM.
How would that translate to phil would have won more than 5 with the Spurs roster?
That is his style. Right or wrong it has worked for him and the teams he's coaching. He has 6 les over 9 years with the Bulls and 5 les over 10 years with the Lakers. With the average tenure of an NBA coach just above 2 years I'd say he has had tremendous long term success.
...and he has better regular season and post season win percentages than Pop. And let's not forget the 4-1 dominance in head to head post season match-ups.
Put on your spinning shoes Amb. You're going to need em.
And I don't smoke cigars.
I don't care if you smoke cigars or not. What does that have to do with my post?
I was specifically addressing your comment (quoted) that PJ's style of coaching does not dictate that he would have any long term success with ANY team. Clearly he had just that with two.
I thought you were white mamba. Should have looked at username so my bad.I don't care if you smoke cigars or not. What does that have to do with my post?
I was specifically addressing your comment (quoted) that PJ's style of coaching does not dictate that he would have any long term success with ANY team. Clearly he had just that with two.
He had 8 years in Chicago and burned that franchise to the ground. Then did that twice at the lakers. By long term I am comparing it relative to pop with the Spurs type of long term. So no, I don't see him doing that with any team. He is great with taking a ready made team to the promised land. Not that great with building a new team and sustaining it for more than a decade.
He was assistant coach for two years and head coach of the Bulls for nine years. Many would argue it was Jerry Krause who burned the franchise. And many would argue it is Jim Buss that has been the Lakers problem not PJ or how he left them.
Pop has the longest current tenure with one team and that deserves some credit I guess but there are only a handful of coaches that stayed with a single team more than a decade. Off the top of my head I can only think of Sloan to be in the same ballpark with Pop with regards to single team tenure so that is pretty much a ridiculous argument.
Regardless, PJ has better winning percentages over what is basically the same amount of time spread between two teams. And head to head there is no debate. I'll take wins over all else including longest single team tenure, development, or front office skills.
Popovich is by far the better strategist, roster builder, and innovator. Not one coach from the Phil coaching tree has enjoyed any worthwhile success. Meanwhile, the league is filled with Popovich disciples from coaching to front offices.
Phil did innovate (via Tex Winter) with the Triangle in the early 90's, but later on, Jordan would often freelance out of the Triangle and just iso. The 3 peat Lakers didn't even run the Triangle that much. You don't need to when you have Shaq. Kobe would also shun the Triangle and iso.
That said, Phil's one big advantage over Pop is that he was always willing to run his players into the ground. Pop has cost us at least two les ing around with "managing minutes."
And
Phil had (in their primes and peaks):
- Michael Jordan, the greatest player of all-time.
- Shaq, a top 10 player, whose peak was arguably the highest in NBA history.
- Scottie Pippen, the GOAT perimeter defender.
- Kobe Bryant, a top 15 player of all-time.
- Pau Gasol, a top 40-50 player of all-time.
And a host of great role players, from Kukoc, Rodman, Horace Grant, Rick Fox, Lamar Odom, etc, etc. And Phil always coached in big markets.
On the other hand, Popovich has coached only one top ten player of all-time during their prime and peak, and won 5 les with him. Just one less than Phil won with the GOAT. A broken down David Robinson was probably the 2nd best player after Duncan from the 98-2014 era.
After those two, it's:
- Manu Ginobili, he's in Gasol's tier all-time.
- Tony Parker, one of the most overrated players in NBA history. Similar to how advanced stats haven't been kind to Kobe, advanced stats don't like Tony Parker.
Jury is still out on Kawhi.
I do agree the Spurs have had some fantastic role players, but nothing superior than what Phil had over the years.
Pop is in another class, really. But his micromanaging obsession is what keeps him from really driving the nail into the coffin of this debate.
My opinion: I would want Pop running 99% of everything basketball related and just switch in Phil to close quarters. Pop is in' awful at closing quarters because he gets too cute with lineups, while Phil coached teams are the best quarter closing teams ever, because he's not afraid to let his stars kill themselves.
4-1
Phil has a losing record against Mike D'Antoni. Never beaten Mike D heads up, so...
Nice logic
I value winning number one. You know that. Championships! Playoffs and Regular season winning are secondary. Third is head to head. No lack of logic there. Mike D has no championships. You have to get past the first criteria to even consider tie breakers or subsequent criteria IMO.Phil has a losing record against Mike D'Antoni. Never beaten Mike D heads up, so...
Nice logic
One could also argue that it takes just as much to coach a team with multiple type-A greats as it does high quality role players. NBA coaches are baby sitters. Managing ego is every bit as important as X's and O's. Just as a silly example, if you put the Cavs or Warriors against the current USA team I would put my money on the former. They have learned to play together and know the pecking order.
Pop is a great coach, and has my respect. However, if I was going into a championship series with any group of players, I would take PJ over Pop every time.
PS. I love how you all rag on Kobe on a daily basis talking about how his advanced stats don't hold up and how his playoff performances are subpar and what a cancer he was etc. etc. etc. and then say he's top 15 and one of the main reasons PJ was so successful.
Last edited by cobbler; 09-08-2016 at 10:35 PM.
Kobe is overrated per casual fan perception, who value like per game stats and "flair."I value winning number one. You know that. Championships! Playoffs and Regular season winning are secondary. Third is head to head. No lack of logic there. Mike D has no championships. You have to get past the first criteria to even consider tie breakers or subsequent criteria IMO.
One could also argue that it takes just as much to coach a team with multiple type-A greats as it does high quality role players. NBA coaches are baby sitters. Managing ego is every bit as important as X's and O's. Just as a silly example, if you put the Cavs or Warriors against the current USA team I would put my money on the former. They have learned to play together and know the pecking order.
Pop is a great coach, and has my respect. However, if I was going into a championship series with any group of players, I would take PJ over Pop every time.
PS. I love how you all rag on Kobe on a daily basis talking about how his advanced stats don't hold up and how his playoff performances are subpar and what a cancer he was etc. etc. etc. and then say he's top 15 and one of the main reasons PJ was so successful.
Kobe is a top 15 player of all-time, and was one of the reasons Phil won les. But compared to Duncan, Kirby ain't in the same area code, and this is proven easily by every statistical metric you can think of.
And
Head-to-head is a stupid, nonsensical criteria, for player and coaching comparisons.
Why?
For the former, basketball is a team game. Head-to-head record will only make sense when professional basketball turns into a one-on-one affair. The logical way to compare players are stats, preferably advanced.
And for coaching, it makes even less sense since each coach isn't working with identical players. Phil's teams were always better on paper than Pop's, just by virtue of having Shaq and Kobe on the same team. Pop took a team whose second best player was Derek Anderson to the Conference Finals. Think about that.
pop dont need to prove anything to anybody.... he transforms scrubs into solid role players other teams are dreaming to get.
I have no problem saying Duncan had a more consistent and better statistical career. Kobe is not the end all. Not even close to my favorite Laker players. I also have no problem saying over their careers the Lakers were the better team. Championships are tied and I value defending them more than making/missing the playoffs on any given down year. And head to head with the "teams" is 4-1 Lakers.Kobe is overrated per casual fan perception, who value like per game stats and "flair."
Kobe is a top 15 player of all-time, and was one of the reasons Phil won les. But compared to Duncan, Kirby ain't in the same area code, and this is proven easily by every statistical metric you can think of.
And
Head-to-head is a stupid, nonsensical criteria, for player and coaching comparisons.
Why?
For the former, basketball is a team game. Head-to-head record will only make sense when professional basketball turns into a one-on-one affair. The logical way to compare players are stats, preferably advanced.
And for coaching, it makes even less sense since each coach isn't working with identical players. Phil's teams were always better on paper than Pop's, just by virtue of having Shaq and Kobe on the same team. Pop took a team whose second best player was Derek Anderson to the Conference Finals. Think about that.
And are you seriously going to sit there and tell me you have never watched a series and said "coach A out coached coach B"? Hmmmmmmmm.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
