Reply With Quote
Well an interesting point is, that last year when they had these votes about best coach etc. Pop won best coach but was nowhere to be found in any of the other categories which were: adjustments, plays out of time out, etc. etc. etc.
That says a lot
Of course people within' the league will always speaking highly of him on the record, he's one of the most decorated executives/coaches in league history.
Anyone who's unbiased and possesses common sense knows that he lucked into an all time great player/core that created a utopian existence and were destined to win championships.
It's not a knock, just reality. None of these so called genius executives/coaches would be who they are otherwise.
Well an interesting point is, that last year when they had these votes about best coach etc. Pop won best coach but was nowhere to be found in any of the other categories which were: adjustments, plays out of time out, etc. etc. etc.
That says a lot
Two words: cognitive dissonance.
Two more: Brainwashed homer.
interesting, except 2012-2014, I totally disagree, but I would like to read the argument for that statement (mainly because you said it can be done easily)
no coach gets lucked into the 2014 offense that is the pinnacle of team basketball
There's not much to write, tbh. Duncan is an absolutely great talent to build teams around, but the fact that the Spurs managed such steady and prolific success cannot be attributed to luck alone, or mainly, especially when talking about a position as crucial to a team as Head Coach. Pop has been at the helm of some of the most innovative and successful offenses & teams through the years, managed to coach a mul ude of teams and personalities to championships, and also managed to make the most of scrubs to maintain a two-decade long span of unending success. The fact that comparable talents to Timmy (Hakeem, for example, or anyone you'd like except for MJ and Russell) don't have as many rings as him speaks to his talent, to his teammates, and also to his coach and winning situations he was put in. And that's not to even mention Pop's accolades or career milestones, which haven't been a fluke.
Thinking back, I could've just replied " '14" and be done with it, it was that easy. But I felt like expanding. Pop is ridiculously over-hated here - posters just want to be contrarian to the public opinion for the sake of it. But Pop, even if he's 70 now and should've retired 2 years ago, is still a Top 3 all-time coach, tbh.
Did you see the video of Masai wanting to pick Giannis in '13? https://streamable.com/7fwkqr
I'm sure he was just "lucking into" that prediction
who talked about luck? it was ALL about Tim Duncan and the others were lucky to be on his side (Pop, Manu, Parker, Rob, Kawhi, etc...), and that does not diminish the individual talent of each of these characters, but they all orbited around Duncan, this is the only truth.
in fact, this is common sense, so I believe the whole basketball community would agree, it’s not something to brag about or anything like that.
Missed this reply.
Uh, TD 21 did - go read the quote I was pulling from him. He's (in)famous for attributing well-run FOs and moves to sheer luck, while overestimating the impact that players have on a franchise.
The only "truth" is that Timmy isn't the only generational talent to step on an NBA court, but is one of the only generational talents to have the amount of rings and consistent winning that he's experienced. Am I in any way, shape or form dismissing Duncan's greatness? Not for a second. BUT assuming (again, I was originally replying to TD 21) that the only reason those rings were won, those championship teams formed, was all "luck", is ridiculous, disingenuous, and outright naïve at best.
This comes as a snippet of a much larger discussion to be had, IMO, which is what role exactly are coaches responsible of in a championship team/run. And it's a topic where I feel like there's a vast disagreement between the consensus of SpursTalk armchair GM's, and the rest of the NBA and its circles. To be honest, I never thought before coming here that I'd read some of these ridiculous takes about Pop or any other championship caliber coach that people spout on here, to the point that I'm convinced that some or all of them HAVE to be trolling. There is simply no way to have been watching the Spurs for as long as posters here have been posting, and not recognizing the amazing work Pop has done through the years. On a deeper level, frankly, I just think some posters don't understand the game on a deep enough level to truly "get" the importance that a coach like Pop has on a team and playoff run. It's easy to watch games and boxscores and make conclusions, but truly breaking the game down is hard, time-consuming, and unrewarding, and I hardly think posters here are going to analyze Pop's schemes and strategies during those le runs to see what Pop did or didn't do. They just remember the "big things" (and usually the bad things: taking Timmy out of the game, playing Splitter or Red Mamba unnecessarily, etc.).
Coaching can get chess-like during intense series, and I think the Spurs are no strangers to that. So when you say "it was ALL about Duncan and the others were lucky to be on his side", I say yes - but it goes both way. Timmy without Pop, wouldn't have 5 rings. Timmy without Manu wouldn't have 5 rings. Timmy without the Spurs wouldn't have 5 rings. There's a long, long, long list of talents wasted away on trash teams, talents that never had a good team built around them, and so on and forth. That's the argument I'm making, and it's fine if you disagree. I don't expect us to see eye-to-eye on this, I've said already that public opinion here is skewed, for reasons that I probably won't ever understand.
I didn't get this part. What exactly is "common sense"? The fact that Pop single-handedly orchestrated one of, if not the greatest, team offensive schemes of all time? That part, we could agree on - though I don't think it's your point exactly
Did you see the video of Masai wanting to pick Giannis in '13? https://streamable.com/7fwkqr
I'm sure he was just "lucking into" that prediction
If he really had any idea Antetokounmpo was going to be anywhere near as good as he is, he'd have tried to move heaven and earth to select him.
I've never said the players are the only reasons, I said theyr'e by far the most important and certain ones would reach a threshold of success no matter who the president/GM/head coach were.
I notice you apologists can never point to direct ways coaches supposedly have significant impact because deep down you know, now more than ever, in the genized style of play/"player empowerment" era, they're just along for the ride.
Name a coach or front office who has adjusted their playing style with largely the same group of guys over the course of two decades.
"because of the collective basketball IQ, unselfishness and talent of the players involved."
Wait a minute, who attained those players in '14? Isn't your whole schtick that the Spurs just lucked into everything they ever had? Oh no... You indirectly complimented the Spurs without realizing it.
Did they just luck into that, too?
You can't have it both ways.
Someone not being an unabashed homer = immediate meltdown. Funny how the guy who once called someone a "pussy for not quoting him" refuses to do the same.
The core players naturally adjusted as they ascended/decended, as Pop himself has said many times. It didn't take a genius to figure out to play through the post when by far the two best players were bigs, nor to transition to being more pick and roll reliant when they had two elite perimeter creators, then more ISO heavy again when that suited their two best players.
I used to be gullible and naive about this stuff too, buying into cliches like "culture" and "system", thinking the primary reason executives and coaches were successful or not was due to basketball intelligence.
You started this non-quoting thing. The difference is it's clear I'm talking directly to you. The other guy? Acted like a buffoon by pretending there were other people saying the same thing as I had. What "meltdown" occurred here? You get spoken to with the same condescending manner that you give out. My post wasn't even that "mean".
Nah, you did. I don't care, but it is hypocritical.
?
By your standards it was tame, I'll give you that. I wasn't condescending, but you and your butt buddy constantly are.
Never fails to surprise me how much you're lacking in self-awareness. Just end this before we go back and forth again. It's pointless when you're speaking to an asshole like yourself.
I see that you can't let this go. You're not at all like DAF86 where we could meet anywhere eye to eye. You're this thorn on my side, an annoying pest that will be around forever. Guess we're just destined to argue with each other. Since you're afraid to settle this outside of this message board, there's no way around it. You'll continue to root for a team you hate (get real, if you're hoping for the a complete makeover of the front office, it's not going to happen - Pop will have a lasting imprint long after he's gone) and I'll continue to support a team I love. And you'll continue call me an apologist for it. What's sadder? Staying onboard a Spurs message board to criticize them for the rest of your life? Or me "blindly" supporting that team?
I'm ready to "let it go" the second you start speaking to me with respect. Once you do so, I'll do so to you, the same way I am with everyone else.
So you just throw every word I say back at me? You're very original. And Lol if you think you treat anyone with respect with the way you post. Such a clueless .
I'm ready to "let it go" the second you start speaking to me with respect. Once you do so, I'll do so to you, the same way I am with everyone else.
If you learn to read, I used quotations around the word "blindly", which implied I don't--you just believe I do.
You hated Vassell, then loved him the moment they drafted him.
Like I said I would, didn't I?
You hated Vassell, then loved him the moment they drafted him.
Ah I see switching gear now to change the topic to avoid self reflection.
I think the crux of the problem is that some are taking Pop's recent poor coaching and trying to make the (imo indefensible) claim that he was never that good to begin with.
Some fools used to do the same with Parker, bringing up failures from his prime years when he played poorly late in his career.
I am in the camp that 2014 alone proves Pop's genius, even though he was a great coach prior to that. You don't get an all-time great season with no transcendent in-prime talent without great coaching.
You come off as head-in-your-ass dumb off this reply, man. Come on. Not giving credit to a coach for having his team achieve one of the most dominant regular & postseason runs of all time, championship included, biggest winning margin in the Finals kind of system? That's like not giving Phil any credit for the triangle. Ridiculous. I'm not even going to expand, it's just stupid that you're saying this. Talk about not understanding how coaching affects teams and winning.
Do you think putting emotes makes your sayings any more true? You're the only one laughing...
If he really had any idea Antetokounmpo was going to be anywhere near as good as he is, he'd have tried to move heaven and earth to select him.
I've never said the players are the only reasons, I said theyr'e by far the most important and certain ones would reach a threshold of success no matter who the president/GM/head coach were.
I notice you apologists can never point to direct ways coaches supposedly have significant impact because deep down you know, now more than ever, in the genized style of play/"player empowerment" era, they're just along for the ride.
Anyways, another classic instance of being presented by evidence about good FOs being good FOs, and dismissing them. How can you say "If he really had any idea Antetokounmpo was going to be anywhere near as good as he is, he'd have tried to move heaven and earth to select him" when you're literally being presented a clip of Masai trying to get a deal done to get Giannis? What did you want him to do, give up the Raptors core for a 15th pick? Don't be ridiculous. Anyways, it's clear your mind is made up, it's surprisingly hard to get you to even meet eye-to-eye on anything but your own skewed perspectives.
Please, please define what you mean by "direct ways". I'm not going to start writing about coaching for you to not understand what I'm saying, quote a random sentence, and try to laugh the post off. Given coaching, by its nature, is mostly off-court, invisible to fans, intangible things, I'd really love to know what you consider "direct ways". Has any coach in history even made their teams better, tbh? Why don't teams just spend every dollar* on players and get AAU level coaches for pennies on the dollar to fill in? Weird how they keep paying millions of dollars for those guys, tbh...
Last edited by Sugus; 12-17-2020 at 10:40 PM.
I actually think the crux of the issue, is the surprisingly large amount of posters that never would give Pop any credit whatsoever for the Spurs' success. Like, I don't think it's a trend that started in '16-17, when the team was already falling. I truly think some of these guys have been touting Pop as a fly-on-the-wall in terms of the Spurs' achievements and winning culture since way back in the championships days. Numbers just don't work out another way.
Agreed on the Parker hate, another one of ST's autistic-like fixation on an otherwise well-respected player. Talk about choosing favorites between him and Manu... At least I'm content seeing the Manu love.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
