Why we pick apart the Spurs...

[ninephive]

I've noticed that because people can't make any legitimate arguments against the greatness of the Spurs, they believe the best way to discredit them is to over-credit one or multiple pieces of the puzzle, which leaves room to crucify another piece.

Some people do this with Popovich. After this year with a past-prime Duncan and no 30-minute players, granted, this is harder to do. But there are still people (and Pop himself kind of does this out of humility) who say Pop's success is predicated upon having Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, DRob, etc. and that most coaches could do what he did if they had and kept those pieces.

A bigger argument we see is when people try and discredit Duncan because he's played for such a great coach and had a great supporting cast most of his career. They point to the 2004 Olympics as proof (which is a terrible argument in my opinion) and some people even go so far on this forum to say that his titles are a result of his cast. (2003 is hard to get around here of course)

Even more people try to discredit Parker and Ginobili as being top 75 players because they played with a top-3 coach and top 5-7 player. Even after Duncan's decline they use the "system" as the argument and you often hear players say that they could be replaced easily by other guards and the team would be just as successful.

Why would it be so bad to think about the Spurs as having a top-3 coach, top-5 player of all time, and 2 top-75 players for the amount of success they've had? Other organizations like the Showtime Lakers had a top-3 coach, TWO top 5-7 players, and another top-50 player and only won 5 titles. The Bulls had the GOAT coach and GOAT player and another top-50 player and won 6, but overall had much less playoff success than the Spurs. The 2000's Lakers had the GOAT coach, 2 top-10 players, and arguably one of the greatest supporting casts of all time.

My point is this...for the success of the Spurs that in many ways has never been equaled in NBA history, would it be crazy to think of Pop as a top-3 coach, Duncan as a top-5 player, and Parker and Ginobili as top-75 players with especially Parker a potentially top-50 player when it's all said and done?

[-Lebron23-]

Fans tend to oversimplify things in order to be able to discuss them. What's a 14 y.o. gonna have to say about the Spurs recipe for success on the 'superstar' era of basketball?

It's gonna be down to 'Pop is the GOAT coach so everybody else in that team is overrated', same as 'Jordan is GOAT so Pippen is nothing special' and shit like that. then you have people arguing the contrary and things heat up. Make it more complex than that and most will stay away from the topic because they don't want to engage on an argument where they can be proven wrong and their actual basketball knowledge is tested.

[ralph_i_el]

Most folks on this forum aren't old enough to comprehend the story of the spurs and how they got to this point today.

[rmt]

Most folks on this forum aren't old enough to comprehend the story of the spurs and how they got to this point today.

Agreed. They don't see the background and evolution of how they got to this point. That the great success started with drafting DRob, that Pop was a no-name and his job was in danger when they started the 99 championship season 6-8 but the players (especially Avery rallied behind him and saved his *ss). That DRob set the standard by graciously putting his ego aside to let Duncan become the main cog. That the 2003 team was very young and inexperienced with rookie Manu and 2nd year players Parker and SJax as their 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.

That Pop is allowed to coach the way he does because he had the confidence of DRob and Duncan and all the other players fall in line when the stars "take" the coaching. That they carefully (with a few exceptions like SJax) choose players with a certain type of attitude - "gotten over themselves." That they've had to scrounge around for no-name players and develop them because they didn't (usually) go over luxury tax (because of the market they're in). That the trust that exists today permeates from owner down to GM down to coaches down to the players as they try to do things the right way and allow others to shine.

That they didn't start this great 17 year run with a GOAT coach and multiple HOFs. That they were developed along the way with a lot of bumps and mistakes.

[Lebronxrings]

who says this? lol, everyone here sucks his d, hence why he got voted 5th on the all time greats. Without pop, and his cast, he wins 2 rings at the most.

[SpanishACB]

I've noticed that because people can't make any legitimate arguments against the greatness of the Spurs, they believe the best way to discredit them is to over-credit one or multiple pieces of the puzzle, which leaves room to crucify another piece.

Some people do this with Popovich. After this year with a past-prime Duncan and no 30-minute players, granted, this is harder to do. But there are still people (and Pop himself kind of does this out of humility) who say Pop's success is predicated upon having Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, DRob, etc. and that most coaches could do what he did if they had and kept those pieces.

Because it's a fact. You need specific players to win a championship any given year. Coaching alone won't cut it. You can coach your team perfectly and be done in 2nd round.

Pop is right and you have too much free time

[I<3NBA]

Agreed. They don't see the background and evolution of how they got to this point. That the great success started with drafting DRob, that Pop was a no-name and his job was in danger when they started the 99 championship season 6-8 but the players (especially Avery rallied behind him and saved his *ss). That DRob set the standard by graciously putting his ego aside to let Duncan become the main cog. That the 2003 team was very young and inexperienced with rookie Manu and 2nd year players Parker and SJax as their 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.

That Pop is allowed to coach the way he does because he had the confidence of DRob and Duncan and all the other players fall in line when the stars "take" the coaching. That they carefully (with a few exceptions like SJax) choose players with a certain type of attitude - "gotten over themselves." That they've had to scrounge around for no-name players and develop them because they didn't (usually) go over luxury tax (because of the market they're in). That the trust that exists today permeates from owner down to GM down to coaches down to the players as they try to do things the right way and allow others to shine.

That they didn't start this great 17 year run with a GOAT coach and multiple HOFs. That they were developed along the way with a lot of bumps and mistakes.

great post. i agree.

the Spurs do choose their players. one important quality is that the player must be, not just a willing passer, but a good passer. their whole system is predicated on ball movement. even Tony Parker said that most of their drills involved passing. just one or two dribbles, then pass. then dribble, then pass. and this goes on until all players have touched the ball. Parker says they do these drills so much passing has become second nature to the team. and he says that anytime they miss a pass wherein they should have passed, Pop gives them a good scolding.

[inclinerator]

pop is the goat coach
tim duncan "may" be top 5 from career accomplishments but isnt a top 5 player talent wise
of course the more you win the higher you are on the all time list

[rmt]

great post. i agree.

the Spurs do choose their players. one important quality is that the player must be, not just a willing passer, but a good passer. their whole system is predicated on ball movement. even Tony Parker said that most of their drills involved passing. just one or two dribbles, then pass. then dribble, then pass. and this goes on until all players have touched the ball. Parker says they do these drills so much passing has become second nature to the team. and he says that anytime they miss a pass wherein they should have passed, Pop gives them a good scolding.

I don't agree that their players MUST be good passers especially since Danny Green is an atrocious passer. They must be WILLING and unselfish passers. As Manu said, they go with whatever gets them the most. It used to be Duncan in the post, then pick and roll with Parker/Manu and now ball movement. I love their emphasis on ball movement and inter-changeable parts as their stars age. But yes, even their 1st round draft pick was with an eye to passing.

[r0drig0lac]

Most folks on this forum aren't old enough to comprehend the story of the spurs and how they got to this point today.

[Haymaker]

Agreed. They don't see the background and evolution of how they got to this point. That the great success started with drafting DRob, that Pop was a no-name and his job was in danger when they started the 99 championship season 6-8 but the players (especially Avery rallied behind him and saved his *ss). That DRob set the standard by graciously putting his ego aside to let Duncan become the main cog. That the 2003 team was very young and inexperienced with rookie Manu and 2nd year players Parker and SJax as their 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.

That Pop is allowed to coach the way he does because he had the confidence of DRob and Duncan and all the other players fall in line when the stars "take" the coaching. That they carefully (with a few exceptions like SJax) choose players with a certain type of attitude - "gotten over themselves." That they've had to scrounge around for no-name players and develop them because they didn't (usually) go over luxury tax (because of the market they're in). That the trust that exists today permeates from owner down to GM down to coaches down to the players as they try to do things the right way and allow others to shine.

That they didn't start this great 17 year run with a GOAT coach and multiple HOFs. That they were developed along the way with a lot of bumps and mistakes.

GOAT post.