Author Topic: What's the difference between us and the spurs?  (Read 13170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #75 on: November 29, 2012, 11:35:33 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 11:50:35 AM by celtsfan84 »

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #76 on: November 29, 2012, 11:37:43 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #77 on: November 29, 2012, 11:41:51 AM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8282
  • Tommy Points: 251
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
Better players + better coaches = better team

I don't think the players are better. That was my main reason for the post. I looked at their record and they have 13 wins already?

Duncan and KG. Take either/or. They're pretty even overall to me.
I would take Pierce over Manu.
I would take Rondo over Parker.
I would take Bass over Diaw and probably Sully over Blair.
Lee/Terry and Danny Green seem pretty even.
I do like Jackson over Green from an aggressive standpoint.
Heck I see Avery and Kawhi playing the same role and I see that as a toss up.
I guess I like Splitter more then Wilcox but then I love how Wilcox plays with Rondo, so I don't know.

As for Doc vs Pop. I think both have their strengths. Doc is a master at calling plays and in the playoffs really seems greg at motivating. The fact his players are willing to practically die for him says a lot. I'm not convinced that Pop is far superior to Doc as an overall coach.
You are wrong pretty much across the board on the talent.  The Spurs have a lot better players than the Celtics.  And the coaches are even less close.  Pop is an all time great, Doc is very average.

TP, agreed.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #78 on: November 29, 2012, 12:22:08 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #79 on: November 29, 2012, 12:43:42 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #80 on: November 29, 2012, 12:45:09 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Although we have gone further than the Spurs have in recent years.

But yeah, I think Doc and Pop are pretty much on the same level.  They are both in the upper echelon of coaches, but not necessarily separated from the rest. 

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2012, 12:46:37 PM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10270
  • Tommy Points: 1184
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
TIAGO Splitter.

He sets a mean pick.
"The Boston Celtics are not a basketball team, they are a way of life."

- Red


Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #82 on: November 29, 2012, 12:52:30 PM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #83 on: November 29, 2012, 01:05:32 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #84 on: November 29, 2012, 01:08:40 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Although we have gone further than the Spurs have in recent years.

But yeah, I think Doc and Pop are pretty much on the same level.  They are both in the upper echelon of coaches, but not necessarily separated from the rest.

Pop puts his players in the best possible position to succeed. As a coach that's all you can do. I don't think doc is anywhere near pops level.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2012, 01:11:20 PM »

Offline KCattheStripe

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10726
  • Tommy Points: 830
Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

So I guess according to you any rational analysis between us and the HEAT would start when their core was assembled. 

So if the question was about the HEAT, you'd respond 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 2 years (which they have and we don't).

That logic works against us, not for us.  Your logic makes the HEAT sound pretty invincible. I disagree with your HEAT praising logic.

it is what it is
theyre pretty invincible until proven otherwise

Yeah, I'm with Edgar on this one.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #86 on: November 29, 2012, 01:12:13 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Tony Parker is similarly entertaining.  Manu is fun to watch.  The team itself also plays a faster and more offense oriented style of play.  The Spurs are 3rd in the league in scoring, the Celtics are 14th.

Not saying that the it is better.  It is just generally more fun to watch.  And no, this isn't because they are losing.

I would think most casual fans would be more interested in a team that scores more and less interested in a team that scores less.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #87 on: November 29, 2012, 01:18:00 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
I'm so sick of the spurs. Every year we hear how they retooled and are going to win the West only to see them flame out. Pop is a good coach, but I think he's a bit overrated like his team.

Agree completely.  He was a great coach, when his great players were in their prime, and just better than everyone else.  Since then, his teams consistently come up short.

Well going by that logic doc isn't too great either. We come up short every year in a worse conference.

Although we have gone further than the Spurs have in recent years.

But yeah, I think Doc and Pop are pretty much on the same level.  They are both in the upper echelon of coaches, but not necessarily separated from the rest.

Pop puts his players in the best possible position to succeed. As a coach that's all you can do. I don't think doc is anywhere near pops level.

I think Doc does this too.  But there is often a learning curve for new players.  The Spurs have very few new players this year, and the C's have a ton.  It takes a while for a coach to learn how to use players, and for the players to learn how to fit in.

On the whole, both coaches have a similar track record, when they have had similar talent levels.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #88 on: November 29, 2012, 01:21:47 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #89 on: November 29, 2012, 01:34:31 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.