DinkinFlicka
Erect Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 28,500
- Likes
- 22,812
Either him or Jackson. I know the knock on Phil is he lucked out in Chicago and LA with talent, but Pop has had an incredible wealth of non-stop talent. It's easier to like Pop because his guys play better team ball.
He lucked out in Chicago, he kind of picked his luck in LA. Tex Winters deserves a lot of props for helping Phil too. IMO
Pop has had 3 really talented guys forever, and a lot of interchangeable parts. One guy leaves he plugs in the next guy that has bounced around and wins. That gives me far more confidence that Pop would win with less talent. We've been saying for 5 years it seems. "The Spurs are going to fall off this year" Yet Pop works his magic and they keep winning, he's added probably 3-5 years to Timmy's career. He has been lucky that he has always had a group of guys that only care about winning. Not many superstars would sacrifice minutes and stats for more years like Timmy has.
But to me, the guys that get plugged into Pop's system are good players. It's not like he's making bad/average players good. I think he does make his players better, but as an organization they do a really good job of finding guys who will fit. They have their core and then they change out role players who can defend, rebound, and shoot 3s and it's no surprise to me that the system keeps working.
I think I would too. I view them as about even, but Pop is much more my style and I find him a lot more likable. I kind of hate Phil.
BTW, to me having those role players is more important than having your core 3-4 guys. I think you can win with 1 or 2 core guys if you are 8-9 deep. In 4 title runs, Tony Parker was pretty terrible in 3 of them.