Very strong statement by DA on CBS

[GratefulCs]

How about this option?

It's a players' (and by extension, a GM's) league.  Great coaching is good to have but when it comes to titles, it's all about the players.

No, because Pops.

...

i mean, ya. Duncan. You need players.

But it wasn't just duncan who made them play the way they did when they beat the heatt last year. If they had carlisle(great coach) they wouldn't have done what they did. Maybe still would have won, but that team was passing all over the place. That was the most beautiful basketball i've seen with my own eyes. And YES you need the players, but those players wihout pop don't play that way


No duncan no chips. No pop. . . Maybe none either


And in this league, players are more important. But coaches that great are more rare than great players

[PhoSita]

It will depend entirely on the caliber of players he has the fortune of coaching in his time in the league.

Brad has the stuff to be a great coach but you don't achieve that kind of recognition without working with superstars.

[BballTim]

How about this option?

It's a players' (and by extension, a GM's) league.  Great coaching is good to have but when it comes to titles, it's all about the players.

No, because Pops.

Pop homself says that Duncan is the reason for all of the Spurs' success. In the overseas NBA trip, Pop just said, "Now I may have been a part of 5 championship teams, but the real reason for the success is 'Coach Duncan.'"

Duncan is a huge factor no doubt. But consider that other teams had got even luckier with the draft (OKC) without anything close to SAS results.

  Considering the Spurs got Duncan and Robinson in the draft you could argue that OKC wasn't as lucky. Also, OKC had like 1 year with all three of their big guys healthy in the playoffs and went to the finals that year. Considering the talent in SA, it's hard to say that the team really overachieved due to coaching over Pop's tenure .

[LarBrd33]

That's some shade on Larry Brown.

Ainge saying nice things about his coach is not particularly novel, IMO. He says nice things about everyone involved with the Celtics while they're involved with the Celtics -- what is he supposed to say, "I hate our coach and he steals my parking spot and I hate his dumb dumb face"? Ask him about Stevens in 2-3 years.

If I know Danny, this probably means he's trying to trade Brad for a 1st rounder.

[D.o.s.]

How about this option?

It's a players' (and by extension, a GM's) league.  Great coaching is good to have but when it comes to titles, it's all about the players.

No, because Pops.

Pop homself says that Duncan is the reason for all of the Spurs' success. In the overseas NBA trip, Pop just said, "Now I may have been a part of 5 championship teams, but the real reason for the success is 'Coach Duncan.'"

Duncan is a huge factor no doubt. But consider that other teams had got even luckier with the draft (OKC) without anything close to SAS results.

  Considering the Spurs got Duncan and Robinson in the draft you could argue that OKC wasn't as lucky. Also, OKC had like 1 year with all three of their big guys healthy in the playoffs and went to the finals that year. Considering the talent in SA, it's hard to say that the team really overachieved due to coaching over Pop's tenure .

Fun fact: the same guy that was fired so Pop could take over the head coaching job was also the guy who got fired so Scott Brooks (edit: PJ Carlissimo, forgot about his turn as a Sonics coach, not Scott Brooks) could coach Kevin Durant.

Not only would you not have to resort to google to find out who that was, I'm sure he would have been mentioned in here as one of those "great coaches" if he'd managed to stay in either front office's good graces.

[PhoSita]

Not only would you not have to resort to google to find out who that was, I'm sure he would have been mentioned in here as one of those "great coaches" if he'd managed to stay in either front office's good graces.

I mean, Bob Hill's inability to stay in either front office's good graces probably indicates that he'd have ended up getting canned (like the aforementioned Scott Brooks) before reaching greatness.

I don't think the legacy of coaches is determined entirely by their players.  See: Mark Jackson, Steve Kerr.  But it's like the "you need high draft picks to build a contender" thing.  It's not a sufficient condition, but it is almost always a necessary one.

[greece66]

That's some shade on Larry Brown.

Ainge saying nice things about his coach is not particularly novel, IMO. He says nice things about everyone involved with the Celtics while they're involved with the Celtics -- what is he supposed to say, "I hate our coach and he steals my parking spot and I hate his dumb dumb face"? Ask him about Stevens in 2-3 years.

If I know Danny, this probably means he's trying to trade Brad for a 1st rounder.

To me it looks more like a second 

[greece66]

How about this option?

It's a players' (and by extension, a GM's) league.  Great coaching is good to have but when it comes to titles, it's all about the players.

No, because Pops.

Pop homself says that Duncan is the reason for all of the Spurs' success. In the overseas NBA trip, Pop just said, "Now I may have been a part of 5 championship teams, but the real reason for the success is 'Coach Duncan.'"

Duncan is a huge factor no doubt. But consider that other teams had got even luckier with the draft (OKC) without anything close to SAS results.

  Considering the Spurs got Duncan and Robinson in the draft you could argue that OKC wasn't as lucky. Also, OKC had like 1 year with all three of their big guys healthy in the playoffs and went to the finals that year. Considering the talent in SA, it's hard to say that the team really overachieved due to coaching over Pop's tenure .

Other than Duncan, Kawhi, Parker, Manu et al were not top picks. Even if you think it's about the players (I don't) it has a lot to do with excellent scouting and player development.

Another thing to consider (again, even if you think that coaching does not has an impact on winning, which frankly I think is a rather silly claim): Pops was one of the first to go after non-American players. He got Zarko Paspalj in the US for instance. He gave a lot of euros opportunities and this greatly helped his team become better.

But again: coaching matters. What Jackson did in his first years in the Bulls, Pops in the SAS, Red with Boston. Saying that coaches do not matter is like saying you do not need a maestro in an orchestra or that all maestros are equally good.

[Big333223]

How a coach is remembered has so much to do with the players he winds up coaching.

I think we're all high on Brad Stevens, though, and I think that if we get some allstars in here in the next couple of years, Stevens has as good of a chance as anyone to go down in history for all the right reasons.

[greece66]

How a coach is remembered has so much to do with the players he winds up coaching.

I think we're all high on Brad Stevens, though, and I think that if we get some allstars in here in the next couple of years, Stevens has as good of a chance as anyone to go down in history for all the right reasons.

Ppl forget the other side of the coin.
Teams with good players that are not successful.
I already mentioned OKC.
Despite having DMC Sac did not even compete for a place in the playoffs last year; and Clippers have not been much of a success story either.

Also, ppl seriously think Kerr changed nothing in GSW after his arrival? The way the Curry was playing was completely different. And Budenholzer has nothing to do with the success of his team in RS?

The point is so obvious that I feel weird for even having to make it. Coaches do matter quite a lot.

Now, if you interpret this to mean 'if Pops was coaching Philly they would be a contender', I obviously do not mean that. But if Pops were coaching OKC for a couple of years, I do think we would see significant improvements.

[droopdog7]

I never said that coaching doesn't matter.  The point is, players are more important.

So it's cool having Stevens but for now it's like having a nice paint job on a broken down Yugo; it don't matter too much.

The question is, will Stevens still be here once the ship is righted.

[D.o.s.]

How a coach is remembered has so much to do with the players he winds up coaching.

I think we're all high on Brad Stevens, though, and I think that if we get some allstars in here in the next couple of years, Stevens has as good of a chance as anyone to go down in history for all the right reasons.

Ppl forget the other side of the coin.
Teams with good players that are not successful.
I already mentioned OKC.
Despite having DMC Sac did not even compete for a place in the playoffs last year; and Clippers have not been much of a success story either.

Also, ppl seriously think Kerr changed nothing in GSW after his arrival? The way the Curry was playing was completely different. And Budenholzer has nothing to do with the success of his team in RS?

The point is so obvious that I feel weird for even having to make it. Coaches do matter quite a lot.

I know of at least one coach who lead a team to a 24-58 season and then single-handedly turned his team around to win 66 games and the NBA title because his coaching just exploded, just hit some new next-level stuff, and the team's new record wasn't at all to do with the talent that his front office had assembled for him.

[PhoSita]

I think the biggest thing you can say about Pops' coaching job in SA is that his team has been so amazingly consistent even as his main guys have gotten older and the supporting cast has changed over time.

Yes, he's been blessed with one of the top 10 best players of all time, not to mention David Robinson, another top 20 guy.  Still, I don't think the Spurs would be on this amazing 50-win season streak if it weren't for Pops.  The Spurs probably wouldn't have won their most recent title if not for Pops's ability to integrate new role players.  Not many coaches could have turned Kawhi into the player he is, at least not so quickly.

[greece66]

I think the biggest thing you can say about Pops' coaching job in SA is that his team has been so amazingly consistent even as his main guys have gotten older and the supporting cast has changed over time.

Yes, he's been blessed with one of the top 10 best players of all time, not to mention David Robinson, another top 20 guy.  Still, I don't think the Spurs would be on this amazing 50-win season streak if it weren't for Pops.  The Spurs probably wouldn't have won their most recent title if not for Pops's ability to integrate new role players.  Not many coaches could have turned Kawhi into the player he is, at least not so quickly.

I agree with everything except that Timmy is an all time top 10 and Robinson a top 20.
I mean, they might be, but it's up for debate.

I think it's pointless to enter in a 'top 10 of all time' conversation here, but it's pretty obvious you can make a legit top 10 without including Timmy.

[greece66]

How a coach is remembered has so much to do with the players he winds up coaching.

I think we're all high on Brad Stevens, though, and I think that if we get some allstars in here in the next couple of years, Stevens has as good of a chance as anyone to go down in history for all the right reasons.

Ppl forget the other side of the coin.
Teams with good players that are not successful.
I already mentioned OKC.
Despite having DMC Sac did not even compete for a place in the playoffs last year; and Clippers have not been much of a success story either.

Also, ppl seriously think Kerr changed nothing in GSW after his arrival? The way the Curry was playing was completely different. And Budenholzer has nothing to do with the success of his team in RS?

The point is so obvious that I feel weird for even having to make it. Coaches do matter quite a lot.

I know of at least one coach who lead a team to a 24-58 season and then single-handedly turned his team around to win 66 games and the NBA title because his coaching just exploded, just hit some new next-level stuff, and the team's new record wasn't at all to do with the talent that his front office had assembled for him.

Sigh, I just knew someone would pick up this argument.

IMO a cheap shot. Doc was great a few years ago, now his coaching style is outdated. He might be a top 10 coach, but he might not be even that.

But, we can still leave Doc out of this conversation if you find it controversial, nothing changes at all. There are good and bad coaches and they do impact on the way their teams play.