Minnesota Sports Forum

Talent always trumps system in basketball, but a good system with a good coach can try to maximize the talent given to him. In this regard, the San Antonio Spurs are in a league of their own. They squeeze the absolute most potential out of every player.

First, they have no superstar. Duncan used to be a franchise player. Now he's just a very good player. Parker is great, but not a superstar. Manu is great, but again, not a superstar. These guys are legit contenders without a superstar, something that many pundits in the NBA don't think is possible these days (although Detroit in 2004 managed to do it).

Second, look at the guys that played for someone else prior to San Antonio, specifically Patty Mills, Marco Belinelli, and Boris Diaw. Go compare their efficiency/production/WS48 prior to coming to San Antonio. Suddenly they are all producing well above their prior career average.

Third, just watch them play. What a thing of beauty. John Wooden would be proud at the way these guys move without the ball, their unselfishness, their intensity and effort on defense. Anyone who thinks they need to watch college ball to see good system basketball just needs to watch the Spurs. These guys rarely rely on isolation. Instead it's a whirling dervish of player and ball movement. Awesome stuff.

Sorry for my indulgence here on the Spurs, but as I watched them execute in the second half, it just dawned on me that Adelman - a very good coach in his own right - and pretty much every other NBA coach simply aren't in the same galaxy as Pop.

Yep, there is no coach like Pop. What he does with less star power is wonderful. It doesn't seem to matter who he has out on the court...just work the system, and they win.

It's been interesting to watch Pop evolve in his style over the years. When Duncan was a dominant player, they really weren't a fun team to watch. Their offense was so dull that I used to give away my season tickets when they were in town. Dull, but effective. Now, there is no team that I find more fun to watch than the Spurs. The ball movement is extraordinary, and every player knows that if he gets to the right spot and everyone shares the ball unselfishly, there will be plenty of wide open shots. Tonight they made the Wolves defense look silly, but frankly, they do that to almost everyone.

As NBA coaches go, it's Pop followed by everyone else.

It certainly helps the beauty of their offense when they face a team who's defensive strategy seems to be "don't foul". Pop is great. Imagine what he could do with our team.

I keep thinking every year this will be the year they regress, but it never happens. Duncan is still good but as long as Pop is there, they'll be good every year. They're the only team I root for besides the Wolves (small market, no superstars, probably don't get many TV games), but they keep winning.

if both Kevins were taken out of the game last night, is that not POP out coaching Rick?

Popovich has Boris Diaw playing defense. And, he's not just guarding the buffet table.

Q nailed it. Popovich has figured out ways to maximize the talent he has.

Let's all take a breath. The Spurs had 20 turnovers. They shot 9/13 from three when they average 5/13 and 42/74 when they average 36/74.

I knew when I heard Peterson verbally french kissing Popavich that there would be a thread like this.

Want to boil down the Spurs, here goes: 1) Everybody on their roster can shoot. Everything else can be taught. 2) They DO ACTUALLY TEACH everything else. Their front office and coaching staffs are filled with guys not fat and lazy from making huge money as a player and/or their last two coaching stops. 3) Outside of an occasional sexting-with-your-teamates-wife michigas, they don't attract knuckleheads. When was the last time you heard a Spur going along with his father lying about his age and getting kicked out of the rookie symposium? 4) And last but not least, the two years out of the last 26 they don't make the playoffs? SURPRISE, they win the lottery. And make no mistake: They may as well have been wearing "Sherman" on the front of their jerseys that year, because they were tanking.

I know they dumped him a couple of times. But the Spurs did have Stephen Jackson on the roster. And, some consider him a knucklehead.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I know they dumped him a couple of times. But the Spurs did have Stephen Jackson on the roster. And, some consider him a knucklehead.

Way too gloss over the facts.

They had him at low money at the beginning of his career, when he didn't have to pray that he didn't use his gun, because if he did use it, he would have died homeless and broke. (Principal reason I can't stand magazines like Sports Illustrated. A bunch of lit majors trying to dress up answers like "....Because I hadn't gotten a lot of guaranteed money yet.")

Then he signed for big money and acted like he was destined to.

Then he was brought back because EVEN THE THREAT of Stephen Jackson was still better than watching Richard Jefferson BEHAVE.....and was mysteriously waived two days before the playoffs started that year.

I'd rather not, but I guess I could do this all day.

JasonIsDaMan wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I know they dumped him a couple of times. But the Spurs did have Stephen Jackson on the roster. And, some consider him a knucklehead.

Way too gloss over the facts.

They had him at low money at the beginning of his career, when he didn't have to pray that he didn't use his gun, because if he did use it, he would have died homeless and broke. (Principal reason I can't stand magazines like Sports Illustrated. A bunch of lit majors trying to dress up answers like "....Because I hadn't gotten a lot of guaranteed money yet.")

Then he signed for big money and acted like he was destined to.

Then he was brought back because EVEN THE THREAT of Stephen Jackson was still better than watching Richard Jefferson BEHAVE.....and was mysteriously waived two days before the playoffs started that year.

I'd rather not, but I guess I could do this all day.

What was mysterious about the Spurs waiving Jackson?

Surprising... yes. But it was pretty obvious that Jackson was upset with his rapidly diminishing role as the Spurs grew more and more disappointed with his rapidly diminishing on-court play. They cut him because they had better options and because he was the type of "knucklehead" to cause distractions when things don't go his way.