CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: BleedGreen1989 on February 22, 2013, 09:18:06 AM
-
Man I don't want to sit here and drool over a franchise that's not green but this team just doesn't stop. They continue to constantly win regardless of who suits up. The build around their stars with players that don't wow you get they play well.
Obviously a lot of it is about Pop. This guy has clearly risen to the undisputed best coach in the NBA. I'm just rambeling here but last night they have the Clippers their worst loss of the season. Can't help but admire this franchise.
-
They do the best job of bringing in the role players that fits their style better then any other team.
Pop then asks players to do what they can instead of trying to make them do what they can't. (think the Celtics early this season having Terry play the Ray Allen role)
-
Superb style switch to an offensive open court system and execution of that offense by the whole team.
-
Tony Parker is the most underrated player in the game and a legit MVP candidate, and Duncan is one of the best big men in the game? manu is overrated at this point though...the rest of the role players play their roles to perfection
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
-
How do they do what?
People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".
Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.
What exactly are they doing that we aren't?
-
1) Talent evaluation ~~ outside of Tim Duncan and Kahwi Leonard (15th pick), not a single rotation player on the Spurs was picked before the 20s of the 1st round, or the 2nd round. They draft and / or find smart players with a specific NBA skill (if not multiple ones).
2) Team construction ~~ no team understands better that it's often a waste of time to reach for "upside" in potential draftees and FAs when they donb't have top picks or huge cap space, respectively. They have a structured system of play, and they acquire based on it. That certainly includes international pros.
3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.
4) Coaching ~~ Pop's the best, and he knows how to tell his team why their team and their system is superior. No egos. No spoiled brats. You buy in as a player, or you sit. The result is high efficiency.
-
How do they do what?
People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".
Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.
What exactly are they doing that we aren't?
That's a fair point but the rack up so many wins during the regular season (despite their recent lack of real playoff success) they sit their stars and win games where they should get blown out.
I suppose if the celtics were just gonna get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round I'd like to at least watch them dominate the regular season.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah very similar level contenders until this year. (Rondo being out etched that in stone)
Getting Splitter going as a second big man has been huge for them this year.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
-
How do they do what?
People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".
Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.
What exactly are they doing that we aren't?
Certainly fair, but it's also fair to point out that they play in the West -- the far superior conference over that span, and still so...
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
The Lakers were by far the best team the C's faced in the playoffs. They housed the Spurs that year.
Cavs were a tougher match up because they had LBJ to handle Pierce and attack us. The Lakers had a pu pu plater of SFs they were using. Even then they played us tough in all the games but the last.
-
The spurs haven't won a title in awhile BUT BUT BUT! they always put themselves in the best position possible to do so *Good seeding staying consistent*. That's all you can really ask for. Get the best out of your team and pop does that. Meanwhile in boston.........
-
How do they do what?
People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".
Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.
What exactly are they doing that we aren't?
That's a fair point but the rack up so many wins during the regular season (despite their recent lack of real playoff success) they sit their stars and win games where they should get blown out.
I suppose if the celtics were just gonna get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round I'd like to at least watch them dominate the regular season.
Again, don't see anything different with us: we have won games with Garnett out and with Rondo out. And for a good stretch there we racked more wins than the Spurs.
-
The Spurs do the best job of evaluating talent in the lower parts of the draft and scouting players overseas and acquiring their rights.
Because of that, the Spurs never have any shortage of capable role players on cheap deals at the back of their roster. They don't have to make desperation moves or search the waiver wire.
-
Not sure what reviewing old playoffs series has to do with the OP's point.
The Spurs are playing very very good basketball right now. Their win against last night was really strong -- a classic Pop win filled with surgical attacking of LAC's weaknesses.
It's impressive that they have the top record in the league at this point in the season. Admiration of the Spurs as a franchise is certainly well warranted.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
I don't think anyone saw the Pistons or Lakers as pushovers that year. The 3rd toughest team we faced was probably the Cavs.
-
I used to say the celtics were the spurs of the east. However, I stopped saying that awhile ago. That's disrespectful to the spurs and pop.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
I don't think anyone saw the Pistons or Lakers as pushovers that year. The 3rd toughest team we faced was probably the Cavs.
I was talking about teams the celtics faced in the eastern conference so that doesn't include the lakers. I put the cavs as the toughest team out of respect that they pushed us further than anyone else. We were mins away from losing that series.
-
The funny thing to me is they've won 16 of their last 17...and yet somehow all everybody wants to talk about is the LA teams and Lebron (understandable when Lebron went stupid here recently)
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
I don't think anyone saw the Pistons or Lakers as pushovers that year. The 3rd toughest team we faced was probably the Cavs.
I was talking about teams the celtics faced in the eastern conference so that doesn't include the lakers. I put the cavs as the toughest team out of respect that they pushed us further than anyone else. We were mins away from losing that series.
The Celts improved as the playoffs went on that year. The Pistons were probably 3rd or 4th best team in the league that year.
-
How do they do what?
People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".
Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't Www been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.
What exactly are they doing that we aren't?
Playing consistently every night of the regular season, winning more games, and playing in a tougher conference...if they were in the east they'd go further then us every year..quite clear to me they wouldn't struggle in 7 games against the pathetic 76ers of the world.
They'd sweep them.
-
3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.
Actually they did just that. When Richard Jefferson opted out of a his $15m final year of his contract everybody thought he was crazy because he played terrible for the Spurs. Then a lot of people thought the Spurs were crazy when they gave him a $39m/4year deal. Basically they gave an older version of Jeff Green, with less upside, more money.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=greenje02&y1=2013&p2=jefferi01&y2=2011
They also didn't re-sign 3rd leading scorer Stephen Jackson after their 2003 championship. Instead he signed with the Hawks for $1m//1yr. (A little more complicated though because they did offer $10m/3years but took it off the table). I'm sure a lot of fans in San Antonio thought they messed up after getting knocked out of the 2nd round of the playoffs in 2004, and Jackson went on to average 18ppg (and 22ppg over the last 41 games) for the Hawks.
Though I agree the Spurs have a great front office, they make some of mistakes too. But if you followed them closely you might be questioning some of their moves and why they haven't been able to win a championship or even get to the Finals since 2007.
-
How do they do what?
People here are whining that they're "forced to watch a couple of aging hall of famers muddle through the season and exit in the first/second round".
Well, since the last time they won a title, the Spurs have 2 first round and 1 second round exit in five years. And they haven't Www been to the NBA finals. They only just started making more serious noise this year.
What exactly are they doing that we aren't?
Playing consistently every night of the regular season, winning more games, and playing in a tougher conference...if they were in the east they'd go further then us every year..quite clear to me they wouldn't struggle in 7 games against the pathetic 76ers of the world.
They'd sweep them.
Quite clear to me that conjecture is just that.
-
Their coach knows how to adapt to a changing league. Ours doesn't.
-
I admire the Spurs. They are an elite, well-run organization, but I can't stand all the Spurs envy around here.
That said, if we aren't in the hunt anymore, I wouldn't mind seeing them get another title.
-
3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.
Actually they did just that. When Richard Jefferson opted out of a his $15m final year of his contract everybody thought he was crazy because he played terrible for the Spurs. Then a lot of people thought the Spurs were crazy when they gave him a $39m/4year deal. Basically they gave an older version of Jeff Green, with less upside, more money.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=greenje02&y1=2013&p2=jefferi01&y2=2011
They also didn't re-sign 3rd leading scorer Stephen Jackson after their 2003 championship. Instead he signed with the Hawks for $1m//1yr. (A little more complicated though because they did offer $10m/3years but took it off the table). I'm sure a lot of fans in San Antonio thought they messed up after getting knocked out of the 2nd round of the playoffs in 2004, and Jackson went on to average 18ppg (and 22ppg over the last 41 games) for the Hawks.
Though I agree the Spurs have a great front office, they make some of mistakes too. But if you followed them closely you might be questioning some of their moves and why they haven't been able to win a championship or even get to the Finals since 2007.
Nitpicking. Yes, we all make mistakes, but they're widely considered to have the wisest front office in the league.
-
Not sure what reviewing old playoffs series has to do with the OP's point.
The Spurs are playing very very good basketball right now. Their win against last night was really strong -- a classic Pop win filled with surgical attacking of LAC's weaknesses.
It's impressive that they have the top record in the league at this point in the season. Admiration of the Spurs as a franchise is certainly well warranted.
Not impressive anymore, now it's just an expectation ;D
They are simply the best every year
-
They do the best job of bringing in the role players that fits their style better then any other team.
Pop then asks players to do what they can instead of trying to make them do what they can't. (think the Celtics early this season having Terry play the Ray Allen role)
This in spades.
Pop builds systems around his talent - and his front office hits a higher percentage of its talent choices than any other team in the league.
He's also a master of managing minutes for his aging stars, and they put together depth that allows them to do that effectively.
As noted above, they also are very astute in cutting bait with players who don't fit their model - something the Celtics have struggled with under Ainge.
Anyone think Pop would have clung this long to Rondo? Of course not.
Ask yourself this: Would the Spurs draft the Purduo? Would the Spurs draft Fab Melo? Not a chance.
The Spurs don't hit all of them. No one does. But they certainly are better at what they do than Ainge and Doc are.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.
We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.
The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.
We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.
The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.
Getting Tim Duncan is pretty awesome.
You can still screw it up, see Timberwolves with KG, but it makes it all possible.
-
3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.
Actually they did just that. When Richard Jefferson opted out of a his $15m final year of his contract everybody thought he was crazy because he played terrible for the Spurs. Then a lot of people thought the Spurs were crazy when they gave him a $39m/4year deal. Basically they gave an older version of Jeff Green, with less upside, more money.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=greenje02&y1=2013&p2=jefferi01&y2=2011
They also didn't re-sign 3rd leading scorer Stephen Jackson after their 2003 championship. Instead he signed with the Hawks for $1m//1yr. (A little more complicated though because they did offer $10m/3years but took it off the table). I'm sure a lot of fans in San Antonio thought they messed up after getting knocked out of the 2nd round of the playoffs in 2004, and Jackson went on to average 18ppg (and 22ppg over the last 41 games) for the Hawks.
Though I agree the Spurs have a great front office, they make some of mistakes too. But if you followed them closely you might be questioning some of their moves and why they haven't been able to win a championship or even get to the Finals since 2007.
Nitpicking. Yes, we all make mistakes, but they're widely considered to have the wisest front office in the league.
Nitpicking, No. Not when you SPECIFICALLY mentioned how they wouldn't have a Jeff Green situation, yet they had an identical, if not worse situation with Richard Jefferson just a couple of seasons ago.
Is it nitpicking to say Danny messed up with Jeff Green when he had the financial discipline with James Posey, Tony Allen, and Glen Davis? (Not saying you're actually saying that, but some people definitely blame Danny for moves like that, while other teams, like the Spurs, get praised for similar transactions).
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.
We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.
The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.
Getting Tim Duncan is pretty awesome.
You can still screw it up, see Timberwolves with KG, but it makes it all possible.
Or Cleveland with Lebron, or Orlando with...everyone they've had.
The Duncan argument is valid, but the Spurs still stand out.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.
We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.
The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.
Getting Tim Duncan is pretty awesome.
You can still screw it up, see Timberwolves with KG, but it makes it all possible.
It's even more awesome when you already have Robinson on your team and you're just tanking the season.
-
The reason why the Spurs haven't made it to the finals since '07 was that Ginobili, the Q4 closer, their *Paul Pierce*, was injured. And that was a consistent trend, which continued on, postseason, after postseason, since that year.
And now, he's in the declining phase of his career. Thus, the Spurs do not have an all star, who can take over in those key situations. Duncan is no longer the man for that job; his job is pure defense and using that to generate some offense.
In contrast, the Celts have never had a truly injured Paul Pierce during a playoff run. Replace Doc with Pops and we win in 2008, 4-1 against the Lakers, in 2010, 4-2 against the Lakers, and finally in 2012, 4-2 against the Heat in the ECF and 4-1 against OKC in the finals.
-
3) Financial discipline ~~ they don't overpay role guys. If Jeff Green had gotten his current deal in an offer from the Kings or the Blazers or the Bobcats, they'd have said -- good for you. Good luck. Better to lose you than to be handcuffed bu you. Yes, sometimes they trade for overpaid guys who have a couple of years left, but they always get attached talent back in return that fits the plan in #2 above.
Actually they did just that. When Richard Jefferson opted out of a his $15m final year of his contract everybody thought he was crazy because he played terrible for the Spurs. Then a lot of people thought the Spurs were crazy when they gave him a $39m/4year deal. Basically they gave an older version of Jeff Green, with less upside, more money.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=greenje02&y1=2013&p2=jefferi01&y2=2011
They also didn't re-sign 3rd leading scorer Stephen Jackson after their 2003 championship. Instead he signed with the Hawks for $1m//1yr. (A little more complicated though because they did offer $10m/3years but took it off the table). I'm sure a lot of fans in San Antonio thought they messed up after getting knocked out of the 2nd round of the playoffs in 2004, and Jackson went on to average 18ppg (and 22ppg over the last 41 games) for the Hawks.
Though I agree the Spurs have a great front office, they make some of mistakes too. But if you followed them closely you might be questioning some of their moves and why they haven't been able to win a championship or even get to the Finals since 2007.
Nitpicking. Yes, we all make mistakes, but they're widely considered to have the wisest front office in the league.
Nitpicking, No. Not when you SPECIFICALLY mentioned how they wouldn't have a Jeff Green situation, yet they had an identical, if not worse situation with Richard Jefferson just a couple of seasons ago.
Is it nitpicking to say Danny messed up with Jeff Green when he had the financial discipline with James Posey, Tony Allen, and Glen Davis? (Not saying you're actually saying that, but some people definitely blame Danny for moves like that, while other teams, like the Spurs, get praised for similar transactions).
OK, they overpaid Richard Jefferson, who they soon traded for a better player on a better contract. Can you give me some others examples since Pop got there?
And more importantly, are you arguing that they aren't one of the best run orgs in the NBA, and that doesn't contribute to their ability to compete year after year? If not -- you're nitpicking.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.
We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.
The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.
Getting Tim Duncan is pretty awesome.
You can still screw it up, see Timberwolves with KG, but it makes it all possible.
It's even more awesome when you already have Robinson on your team and you're just tanking the season.
I think the day of that lottery was my nadir as a Cs fan. I just can't recall feeling any lower.
-
The reason why the Spurs haven't made it to the finals since '07 was that Ginobili, the Q4 closer, their *Paul Pierce*, was injured. And that was a consistent trend, which continued on, postseason, after postseason, since that year.
And now, he's in the declining phase of his career. Thus, the Spurs do not have an all star, who can take over in those key situations. Duncan is no longer the man for that job; his job is pure defense and using that to generate some offense.
In contrast, the Celts have never had a truly injured Paul Pierce during a playoff run. Replace Doc with Pops and we win in 2008, 4-1 against the Lakers, in 2010, 4-2 against the Lakers, and finally in 2012, 4-2 against the Heat in the ECF and 4-1 against OKC in the finals.
I think you're wildly overrating Pops. The problems we had those years were health related, and the Spurs don't seem to be able to magically overcome injuries (like Manu) any more than we do.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
What are you talking about?
The Pistons had the second-best record in the league that year. They were a great team, maybe even better than LA. They were the only team to beat us at home those playoffs. They were experienced and played elite defense.
I think these conference battles get a little exaggerated sometimes. Like a 55-win team in the East will become a .500 team out West. You see good teams like Miami lose to crud teams just like OKC has.
-
The reason why the Spurs haven't made it to the finals since '07 was that Ginobili, the Q4 closer, their *Paul Pierce*, was injured. And that was a consistent trend, which continued on, postseason, after postseason, since that year.
And now, he's in the declining phase of his career. Thus, the Spurs do not have an all star, who can take over in those key situations. Duncan is no longer the man for that job; his job is pure defense and using that to generate some offense.
In contrast, the Celts have never had a truly injured Paul Pierce during a playoff run. Replace Doc with Pops and we win in 2008, 4-1 against the Lakers, in 2010, 4-2 against the Lakers, and finally in 2012, 4-2 against the Heat in the ECF and 4-1 against OKC in the finals.
I think you're wildly overrating Pops. The problems we had those years were health related, and the Spurs don't seem to be able to magically overcome injuries (like Manu) any more than we do.
As far as the injury bug goes, Pierce never had it during the postseason. Our big downer year was '09, when KG went down with the knee bone spur. And thus, if Pierce were to go down, a type of hypothetical role reversal with the Spurs, I doubt that we'd do any better in the postseason than the Spurs w/o Ray Ray reverting back to his youthful Seattle days. And just like that, the Spurs were also underpowered for their playoff runs, since their last title.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Its not that black and white tho. The spurs play in a much tougher conference. The year the celtics won it all the toughest team they had to beat was the cavs.........enough said.
What are you talking about?
The Pistons had the second-best record in the league that year. They were a great team, maybe even better than LA. They were the only team to beat us at home those playoffs. They were experienced and played elite defense.
I think these conference battles get a little exaggerated sometimes. Like a 55-win team in the East will become a .500 team out West. You see good teams like Miami lose to crud teams just like OKC has.
The pistons might have been the better overall team but no team pushed us harder than the cavs and they had the best player in the world on their team hence why I said they were the toughest team we had to face. We were just mins away from losing that series and could have easily lost. Heres an example of what I mean. We were the toughest team miami faced in the playoffs last year but we weren't the best team, OKC was.
-
The reason why the Spurs haven't made it to the finals since '07 was that Ginobili, the Q4 closer, their *Paul Pierce*, was injured. And that was a consistent trend, which continued on, postseason, after postseason, since that year.
And now, he's in the declining phase of his career. Thus, the Spurs do not have an all star, who can take over in those key situations. Duncan is no longer the man for that job; his job is pure defense and using that to generate some offense.
In contrast, the Celts have never had a truly injured Paul Pierce during a playoff run. Replace Doc with Pops and we win in 2008, 4-1 against the Lakers, in 2010, 4-2 against the Lakers, and finally in 2012, 4-2 against the Heat in the ECF and 4-1 against OKC in the finals.
I think you're wildly overrating Pops. The problems we had those years were health related, and the Spurs don't seem to be able to magically overcome injuries (like Manu) any more than we do.
As far as the injury bug goes, Pierce never had it during the postseason. Our big downer year was '09, when KG went down with the knee bone spur. And thus, if Pierce were to go down, a type of hypothetical role reversal with the Spurs, I doubt that we'd do any better in the postseason than the Spurs w/o Ray Ray reverting back to his youthful Seattle days. And just like that, the Spurs were also underpowered for their playoff runs, since their last title.
Rondo's had health issues in multiple playoffs and he's been (when healthy) more valuable than PP in the playoffs for a while. You're just choosing specific players to support your argument.
-
As far as the injury bug goes, Pierce never had it during the postseason. Our big downer year was '09, when KG went down with the knee bone spur. And thus, if Pierce were to go down, a type of hypothetical role reversal with the Spurs, I doubt that we'd do any better in the postseason than the Spurs w/o Ray Ray reverting back to his youthful Seattle days. And just like that, the Spurs were also underpowered for their playoff runs, since their last title.
Rondo's had health issues in multiple playoffs and he's been (when healthy) more valuable than PP in the playoffs for a while. You're just choosing specific players to support your argument.
Rondo's role for the C's is the same as Tony Parker's for the Spurs, and that's being the main facilitator with a few scoring moves. And Rondo's offensive game is still the drive to the hoop. Both Pierce and Ginobili, however, could create their own shots while working within a team system. Thus, the C's have in proportion to the Spurs, a similar PG-Big Man-SF combo, Rondo-Garnett-Pierce to Parker-Duncan-Ginobili, the difference being is that the Cs had in addition, Ray Ray.
-
Over the past six years we've basically had the same results as them in the post season.
Yeah, but they've done that after a previous decade in which they won three titles and were a legitimate contender every year.
We had to stink for ten years in order to get a shot at being good again.
The amazing thing about them is not success over any five year period, it's the sustained success over what is twenty years now, as a small market team.
Getting Tim Duncan is pretty awesome.
You can still screw it up, see Timberwolves with KG, but it makes it all possible.
And it wasn't just "getting" Duncan.
First they drafted David Robinson, a rather nobody at the time. He wasn't even eligible to play at first, due to his comittment to the Navy. Then he had some crazy growth spurt making him unable to be in the Navy (too tall). Now all of a sudden, instead of having an average player, they have a 7 foot skilled center.
After all the moderate success they had in the 90's, which wasn't anything special, Robinson then got hurt and missed an entire season. The Spurs stunk so bad they lucked into the 1st pick. Which of course just so happened to be Duncan.
So yeah, luck plays a role too.
-
KG's Knee, Robinson was the first overall pick in 1987.
-
One good idea in examining how the Spurs operate is to look at how they traded away George Hill.
And I am still disappointed that the Celtics didn't draft Davis Bertans.
-
KG's Knee, Robinson was the first overall pick in 1987.
Yeah, couldn't quite recall his draft position exactly, but as I recall wasn't his growth spurt after he was drafted?