why? sa will put on a clinicts1227;1183015 wrote:I'm going to gouge my eyes out if I have to watch SA/MIA
I disagree.dazedconfused;1183019 wrote:why? sa will put on a clinic
Yep. Pops may be the best coach in the NBA.robj55;1183020 wrote:SA is so well coached, unreal.
That clinic is like watching paint drydazedconfused;1183019 wrote:why? sa will put on a clinic
spurs teams of the past, yes, i'll give you that. this spurs team, though, just plays beautiful basketball to mets1227;1183023 wrote:That clinic is like watching paint dry
Wow I couldn't disagree more. SA is the most fun team to watch this post season IMO. The old moniker of SA playing boring basketball is outdated. They play some of the best basketball I've ever seen.ts1227;1183023 wrote:That clinic is like watching paint dry
Agreed. The make up of this Spurs team is much more exciting. Weapons everywhere... Shooters, slashers, inside scorers... They have it all.dazedconfused;1183027 wrote:spurs teams of the past, yes, i'll give you that. this spurs team, though, just plays beautiful basketball to me
Always has been imo, even when Phil was coaching. Phil was a great motivator and ran a great system with the triangle but Pop is just so damn good and has adapted from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. They run their sets so well and there are no egos. Maybe the best franchise in sports.hoops23;1183022 wrote:Yep. Pops may be the best coach in the NBA.
He definitely is.hoops23;1183022 wrote:Yep. Pops may be the best coach in the NBA.
I was going to type pretty much the same thing but didn't feel like debating anybody about it lol. I always thought Pops was > Phil. Pops hasn't had a lack of talent, but he never had the likeness of MJ, Kobe, or Shaq either..robj55;1183042 wrote:Always has been imo, even when Phil was coaching. Phil was a great motivator and ran a great system with the triangle but Pop is just so damn good and has adapted from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. They run their sets so well and there are no egos. Maybe the best franchise in sports.
Another difference to me that I heard this morning on Mike and Mike was that when the score was 85-85, the Thunder had 85 points on 84 passes...the Spurs 220 passes for 85 points. Talk about sharing the ball. wow.robj55;1183002 wrote:Spurs execute better and play better D, there is your difference.
I guess if you can ignore the fact that Popovich and the Spurs were bounced 2 out of the last 3 times in the 1st round of the Playoffs and once as a #1 seed losing to an 8th seed in 6 games. He is a very good coach but he wasn't better than Phil when he was coaching.robj55;1183042 wrote:Always has been imo, even when Phil was coaching. Phil was a great motivator and ran a great system with the triangle but Pop is just so damn good and has adapted from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. They run their sets so well and there are no egos. Maybe the best franchise in sports.
How awesome were the Lakers from when shaq left to when they stole Gasol? I cant remember.Skyhook79;1183122 wrote:I guess if you can ignore the fact that Popovich and the Spurs were bounced 2 out of the last 3 times in the 1st round of the Playoffs and once as a #1 seed losing to an 8th seed in 6 games. He is a very good coach but he wasn't better than Phil when he was coaching.
Didn't know they kept that stat, pretty sweet.sportswizuhrd;1183099 wrote:Another difference to me that I heard this morning on Mike and Mike was that when the score was 85-85, the Thunder had 85 points on 84 passes...the Spurs 220 passes for 85 points. Talk about sharing the ball. wow.
Ginobili, arguably their most important player, was hurt last year against Memphis. How did the Lakers fare last year in the playoffs? I seem to remember them getting their asses blown off the floor by the Mavs.Skyhook79;1183122 wrote:I guess if you can ignore the fact that Popovich and the Spurs were bounced 2 out of the last 3 times in the 1st round of the Playoffs and once as a #1 seed losing to an 8th seed in 6 games. He is a very good coach but he wasn't better than Phil when he was coaching.
Not to mention when Kobe didn't have Pau Gasol...robj55;1183192 wrote:Ginobili, arguably their most important player, was hurt last year against Memphis. How did the Lakers fare last year in the playoffs? I seem to remember them getting their asses blown off the floor by the Mavs.
I guess you could say that Kobe wasn't good enough to get it done without help.hoops23;1183248 wrote:Not to mention when Kobe didn't have Pau Gasol...
2006-2007 when they finished as the #7 seed and blew a 3-1 lead in the first round to Phoenix.
Yeah but every superstar is like thatrobj55;1183281 wrote:I guess you could say that Kobe wasn't good enough to get it done without help.
Then why do people associate winning and rings with individuals and not teams?lhslep134;1183288 wrote:Yeah but every superstar is like that
Unless we are defining superstar by their influence beyond the game itself (jersey sales, popularity, etc.), Tim Duncan is undoubtedly a superstar. While behind Jordan, I would say he is on a similar level as Kobe as his game is so complete.Crimson streak;1183277 wrote:I never really considered Phil Jackson a great coach. He fell into great situations. Jordan and pippen. Kobe and shaq. Anyone could win with those teams. Pop has never had a legit superstar. You could say Duncan but he's not the caliber of Kobe or Jordan.
Short answer? Because they're idiots. Seriously.robj55;1183308 wrote:Then why do people associate winning and rings with individuals and not teams?
