Pop

[3ball]

Phil is much more of a player's coach, pop is much more of a disciplinarian who will hold you accountable publicly.

Joy watching both do their thing.

Except Popovich's Spurs are stacked compared to Phil's Bulls.

Just compare the rosters after MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge - it isn't remotely close - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.

[90sgoat]

The reason Pop can win with D-leaguers is because most of the league is not coached at all but players run the show and there are a lot of low iq players in the league in this era.

[dhsilv]

great coaches for superstars, but they'd get lesser results with that spurs roster.
but pop wouldn't work well with lebron & kobe. So there are always two sides of the coin.

This spurs team has likely 5 future hall of famers on it. You're telling me phil jackson couldn't make this team work? Really?

Oh it also has two or three rockstar level roll players who aren't making the hall but would be welcome additions on nearly every team ever.

[3ball]

The reason Pop can win with D-leaguers is because most of the league is not coached at all but players run the show and there are a lot of low iq players in the league in this era.

Except Popovich's Spurs don't have D-league players - for example, they're stacked compared to the 90's Bulls.

Just compare the rosters after MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge - it isn't remotely close - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

None of the NINE Spurs just mentioned are D-league players - so you're spouting poppycock.

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.

[90sgoat]

Except Popovich's Spurs don't have D-league players - for example, they're stacked compared to the 90's Bulls.

Just compare the rosters after MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge - it isn't remotely close - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

None of the NINE Spurs just mentioned are D-league players - so you're spouting poppycock.

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.

Lol take it easy there.

Spurs definitely have much better role players than Bulls, but the fact that a team like Atlanta with subpar players can be a 60 win team just shows how poorly coached the league as a whole is.

[3ball]

Lol take it easy there.

Spurs definitely have much better role players than Bulls, but the fact that a team like Atlanta with subpar players can be a 60 win team just shows how poorly coached the league as a whole is.

I agree with you - the league is extremely poorly coached..

and guys have no fundamentals... poor midrange efficiency, no post game or triple-threat game - it's all off-the-dribble.

look at the #1 high school player in the country - Josh Jackson - this guy needs a ton of work.. he's only good in transition with a full head of steam.. he's garbage from stationary position, which is what you need to be a great player against tight D.

imo, this is a product of a watered down game - spacing, screen-roll, drive-and-kick, rinse-repeat - this leads to poor fundamentals

[LAZERUSS]

Except Popovich's Spurs don't have D-league players - for example, they're stacked compared to the 90's Bulls.

Just compare the rosters after MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge - it isn't remotely close - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

None of the NINE Spurs just mentioned are D-league players - so you're spouting poppycock.

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.

Using your logic, then this year's Spurs are FAR more talented than the REST of the teams in the 90's, as well. I always find it laughable that Hakeem won a title with a bunch of role players, and did so in beating Ewing's Knicks, and a bunch of pathetic role players. The REALITY was, Shaq's Magic and Laker teams in the 90's were considerably less talented than any of MJ's teams. The '96 Sonics and the '97 and '98 Jazz were POS teams...pure-and-simple. Had any of the best teams of the 90's had to play against the best teams of the 80's, they were have been swept...with the possible exception of the stacked '96 Bulls. Jordan's Bulls never once beat even a remotely great team. They beat a washed up Piston team with a washed up Thomas in one series, and a washed up Laker team with a declining Magic, and a crippled and washed up Worthy who didn't even play the entire series. Those two teams were just SHELLS of their best teams.

[3ball]

Using your logic, then this year's Spurs are FAR more talented than the REST of the teams in the 90's, as well.

By my logic?... My logic says the Bulls had one of the worst supporting casts in the league after MJ and Scottie.

So it's no surprise that their roster pales in comparison to the Spurs top-to-bottom - it's not even close.

After MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge, it's a joke - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.. 2+2 = 4 bud.. the stats don't lie

[LAZERUSS]

By my logic?... My logic says the Bulls had one of the worst supporting casts in the league after MJ and Scottie.

So it's no surprise that their roster pales in comparison to the Spurs top-to-bottom - it's not even close.

After MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge, it's a joke - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.... 2+2 = 4 bud... the stats don't lie

So, using your logic, MJ and his Bulls would get blown out by Pop's Spurs with three ancient stars who are way past their primes, and a Kawhi, LMA, and West.

Speaks volumes about his rings then. He won them in a watered down era, with weak title contending teams. And we know that he had a losing playoff record in the 80's..which speaks volumes about that decade. Historically great teams led by the likes of a peak Magic, peak Bird, a peak Moses, and a peak Thomas. Magic and Bird were able to win multiple titles in a decade of the most talented rosters in NBA history, while Jordan padded his scoring stats on losers and as playoff cannon-fodder. It wasn't until Jordan had rosters that could win 55+ games and seriously challenge for a title WITHOUT him, and in leagues of POS teams, that MJ finally was able to win his rings.

[3ball]

So, using your logic, MJ and his Bulls would get blown out by Pop's Spurs with three ancient stars who are way their primes, and a Kawhi, LMA, and West.

No, because the Bulls' deficit at the #3 thru #12 spots was offset by Jordan averaging 10-15 ppg more than Kawhi, with twice the assists and the same or better defense.

I mentioned this in my post ALREADY - but you're an immature, autistic fool, so you simply ignore the facts and state your own poppycock falsehoods instead.

It wasn't until Jordan had rosters that could seriously challenge for a title WITHOUT him

The Bulls were a 2nd Round team without Jordan, and were one play away from being down 0-3 on the brink of being swept (Kukoc's walk-off miracle in Game 3 saved them).

A 2nd Round team is nowhere near "seriously challenge for a title"...

You're literally the only person on earth who says this.

If you want to start posting your overly-long, played-out, falsehoods and bullshit, I have my copy pastes ready to go, since I've thoroughly destroyed all your nonsense for 3 straight threads now... more and more severely each time.

It wasn't until Jordan had rosters that could win 55+ games WITHOUT him

That's nothing - they were 3-peat champions with 3-peat know-how and execution on both sides of the ball..

If the Spurs had won the championship in 2013, 2014 and 2015, they could win 55 this year quite easily without Kawhi (or Duncan), even though many guys are past their prime... Imagine if everyone WAS in their prime.

Ditto on the Warriors - if they won the championship in this year and next year to achieve a 3-peat, they would win 55 easily in 2018 if Curry retired.

But ultimately, the regular season is exhibition season compared to the playoffs - so the Warriors/Spurs would still lose in the playoffs, probably the 2nd Round, just like the Bulls did.

The Bulls were an ordinary 2nd Round team without Jordan, and a 3-peat dynasty with him - those are the facts.. If we wanted to verify Jordan's 3-peat to 2nd Round impact, we'd ask him to comeback and 3-peat again, while winning MVP's the whole way.... Done and Done.

[dhsilv]

We can't call LaMarcus Aldridge, or David West rejects. Can't do that.

Nor is Kawhi, Manu and all those guys D-League.

I get what you are saying but to me that is going too far. He sprinkled a couple young guys in with elite or really really good players.

I'm just lost about this d league stuff if we're talking this year.

Diaw first rounder
Parker First round
Duncan Lottery
Kawahi (first round, I think he was 1-2 spots past lottery)
Aldridge Lottery
Kyle Anderson (barely plays) was first round.
Bonner first round
David West first round

So you have Manu, Green, and Mills who were second round guys. Manu is no reject anywhere ever.

So we have TWO guys on that team who you can say came up I guess.

Green did play in the D league.
Mills also played in the D league.

Both guys also happen to have great shots and the SPURS organization is great at developing shooting. That isn't on Pop though.

Don't get me wrong he's a heck of a coach and he's really been getting better as the years go by, but this isn't magical. The Spurs were supposed to be this good if healthy.

[dhsilv]

The reason Pop can win with D-leaguers is because most of the league is not coached at all but players run the show and there are a lot of low iq players in the league in this era.

This is fair to a degree. The league in the late 90's was void of talent or general athletic ability on the benches by today's standards. The general basketball skill was WAY down, but you did have well coached teams.

[houston]

Pop alright great players make great coaches

[GOBB]

Great coach but you put him on the Sixers at seasons start and they aren't much better.

[3ball]

This is fair to a degree. The league in the late 90's was void of talent or general athletic ability on the benches by today's standards. The general basketball skill was WAY down, but you did have well coached teams.

You're just making stuff up - as the previous posts show, the Spurs don't have a team of D-league players, and 90'sgoat acknowledged his error:

Lol take it easy there.

Spurs definitely have much better role players than Bulls, but the fact that a team like Atlanta with subpar players can be a 60 win team just shows how poorly coached the league as a whole is.

So again - Popovich's Spurs don't have D-league players - for example, they're stacked compared to the 90's Bulls.

Just compare the rosters after MJ/Kawhi and Pippen/Aldridge - it isn't remotely close - Duncan/Parker/Manu destroy the Bulls next 3 guys, and Diaw/Green/West/Mills destroy the Bulls' stiffs after that.

[COLOR="navy"]Obviously, none of the NINE Spurs just mentioned are D-league players - they represent a stacked team.[/COLOR]

The Bulls had far less talent, which is why their #1 option (MJ) had to score 10-15 ppg more than the Spurs' #1 option (Kawhi) with twice the assists and the same or better defense.