P J Carlissemo?

[Sac4cwebb]

The search for a new coach seems to have stagnated. Perhaps we are waiting for the NBA Finals to be over so we can interview Carlissemo. He has been working with one of the great all time coaches in Popovich. What do you think?

 

[Bricklayer]

The search for a new coach seems to have stagnated. Perhaps we are waiting for the NBA Finals to be over so we can interview Carlissemo. He has been working with one of the great all time coaches in Popovich. What do you think?

Oft discussed in several other threads -- I think Carlesimo is a proven nothing in the NBA. And his screaming and berating style was far better suited for when he could bully 18 yr old kids at an out of the way little college than when he came to the NBA and tried the same trick on grown men who were better paid and better at what they do than he is at what he does.

Minor quibble BTW -- Pop is a very good coach. He has also always had Tim Duncan. I want to see him go somewhere and win without that giant saftey blanket before I annoint him all time great status. Unfortunately I think he understands this, and has often intimiated that when Tim retires, so does he.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Minor quibble BTW -- Pop is a very good coach. He has also always had Tim Duncan. I want to see him go somewhere and win without that giant saftey blanket before I annoint him all time great status. Unfortunately I think he understands this, and has often intimiated that when Tim retires, so does he.

I agree with this. I would be very interested in seeing what Pop could do coaching without Duncan and what RC Buford could do as a GM without Duncan. The man is one of the top 10 players of all time. It's relatively easy to look brilliant when you have one of the league's most versatile and dominant big man on both sides of the ball. It also makes your acquisitions look much more valuable.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Oft discussed in several other threads -- I think Carlesimo is a proven nothing in the NBA.

I agree with your assessment and for the life of me I don't get why his name keeps coming up. Why does anyone care about this guy enough to keep bringing his name up?

 

[Elektrik]

Oft discussed in several other threads -- I think Carlesimo is a proven nothing in the NBA. And his screaming and berating style was far better suited for when he could bully 18 yr old kids at an out of the way little college than when he came to the NBA and tried the same trick on grown men who were better paid and better at what they do than he is at what he does.

Minor quibble BTW -- Pop is a very good coach. He has also always had Tim Duncan. I want to see him go somewhere and win without that giant saftey blanket before I annoint him all time great status. Unfortunately I think he understands this, and has often intimiated that when Tim retires, so does he.

Sounds like a smart man to me. We'll never find out if he can win without a superstar. Phil had Kobe, Shaq and of course Michael. Pop will never go to another team now without a player that is at a Tim Duncan caliber. Why would he? He can pick and choose wherever he wants from here on out. Can't say I blame him.

 

[kupman]

Can we start the short list of coaches that have won multiple championships without a superstar.......the very short list.

 

[kupman]

You see, the problem is a very circular one. Yes, superstars win championships. However, winning championships also creates superstars. Therefore, if a coach wins several titles with a team, his lead players are going to called superstars because they have won several titles.

We will never know what Popp would be without Tim and we also wil never know what Tim would be without Popp.

 

[Bricklayer]

Can we start the short list of coaches that have won multiple championships without a superstar.......the very short list.

That's irrelevant. Its true, but irrelevant.

Its a simpel question of sample size and cause and effect. As long as Pop and Duncan remain joined at the hip, then annointing Pop as a truly great coach, instead of a guy who was just along for the one great player's coat tails requires a large leap of faith.

He's clearly a good coach, likely a very good one. But without some way of separating the variables -- namely Pop and Duncan, there's now way to say more. To say that Pop would have hadgreat high level success without that player. In fact actually the one season when he did not have Duncan was when he first institiuted the palace coup to oust Bob Hill and take over during the Admiral's injury year. Of course he was actively tanking to try to assure himself of Duncan, but it was still a miserable year.

But doing it one time with one player inherently proves less than doing it many times with many players. PJ broke the impression that they were all MJs titles when he went to L.A.. Of course given that he just traded one best player in the game for another it still left questions, but it was a major boost to his case. Riley broke the impression that it was all Magic when he transformed a radically different NY team into an instant contender, then repeated with Miami. Sloan has done much for his rep with the Jazz performance this year. No Stockton, no Malone, and yet winning again. Pop...we'll never know. And he is indeed smart to bail with it being so. But if that's enough by itself then KC Jones is an all time great coach Of course he only coached for a few years with Bird and McHale and gang all at their peak. But damn if he didn't win a lot under those ideal circumstances.

 

[Kingster]

You see, the problem is a very circular one. Yes, superstars win championships. However, winning championships also creates superstars. Therefore, if a coach wins several titles with a team, his lead players are going to called superstars because they have won several titles.

We will never know what Popp would be without Tim and we also wil never know what Tim would be without Popp.

Very true. It's hard to separate the talent of a team from the coaching of a team. But you can tell by the eyeball test that a team is very cohesive, especially on defense. And a cohesive defense is much more than the sum of it's individual players. He definitely passes that eyeball test.

What is also interesting about the circularity argument is that Pop is not going attract certain FAs, while he will attract others. So, indirectly or directly Pop affects who that team gets in FA, and of course the FAs also affect the winning, and Pop affects the FAs, who affect the winning, etc......

 

[vfettke]

Pop would have never done as well as he has without Duncan

But, something tells me that it might be vice versa as well. i don't think Duncan would have done so well without Pop

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think what separates Pop from other established "Great" coaches is that his superstars have been give it all 100% types of players regardless of who is coaching them, or at least that is the perception of players like D-Rob and Tim Duncan and some of the euro guys who may be primadonnas in their own way but not in the way we traditionally view NBA players. Whereas someone like Phil Jackson has managed to get multiple egos who were spinning out of control to come together for a season or three. Pop never stepped in and righted a sinking ship, in fact he made the situation worse and by sheer luck they landed Duncan and he stuck around. Which is the other thing that dogs Pop - I know Spurs fans that hate him to this day.

 

[kupman]

PJ broke the impression that they were all MJs titles when he went to L.A..

The other thing that attests to Phil's greatness (and I believe to be more important) is that the MJ Bulls became a much better team when Phil became coach. In fact, I believe that Phil really helped MJ improve his game by getting more players involved. The same cannot be said of Doug Collins.

Hey, wait - Phil was an assistant coach to the struggling Doug! Where is Scottie Brooks' phone number? We may be on to something here!

Now if we can just find that MJ clone.

 

[Bricklayer]

The other thing that attests to Phil's greatness (and I believe to be more important) is that the MJ Bulls became a much better team when Phil became coach. In fact, I believe that Phil really helped MJ improve his game by getting more players involved. The same cannot be said of Doug Collins.

Hey, wait - Phil was an assistant coach to the struggling Doug! Where is Scottie Brooks' phone number? We may be on to something here!

Now of we can just find that MJ clone.

Phil also had the advantage of coming in just as the young Bulls core was coming into its own. Ditto with Kobe. That's going to happen, but you can't overlook it. Other coaches had those guys in their developmental years, then Phil took over just as they were hitting their stride.

In any case, I don't think PJs greatness is in any question, although the last few years have demonstrated the importance to him, as with anyone, of having overwhelming talent.

 

[grego]

Pop is a very good coach. He has also always had Tim Duncan. I want to see him go somewhere and win without that giant saftey blanket before I annoint him all time great status. Unfortunately I think he understands this, and has often intimiated that when Tim retires, so does he.

Of course. Every coach who has gotten a good record or many rings is always helped by those who play for him.

Ultimately it takes a team to win a lot and win championships. That includes a good coach and good players.

Where that puts Pop, I don't know, but its obvious that it takes more than just a good coach or a team that has one star or two big time guys and no one else.

I agree with this. I would be very interested in seeing what Pop could do coaching without Duncan and what RC Buford could do as a GM without Duncan.

Obviously. No GM will have as much success without some key guys and a good system to plug into, but Spurs have done a great job of making the most(more often than not) out of their picks. Very seldom do they make bad moves. They also manage the cap well.


As the saying goes, you win as a team you lose as a team. That includes the players, the coach, the front office, and the owners and of course luck (if one believes in it).

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Obviously. No GM will have as much success without some key guys and a good system to plug into, but Spurs have done a great job of making the most(more often than not) out of their picks. Very seldom do they make bad moves. They also manage the cap well.


As the saying goes, you win as a team you lose as a team. That includes the players, the coach, the front office, and the owners and of course luck (if one believes in it).

I agree with you to a point. I cannot fault RC for the job he had done. He has put good players around Duncan. However, Duncan has also made them look a lot better. Pretty much every big man put next to Duncan has been mediocre (Rasho, Mohammad, Elston, etc,). Even guys like Parker are probably overrated since they have a great defensive big man covering their mistakes and do not have to carry the offence consistently. Now can I fault RC for that? Absolutley not. However, I feel Buford will have the opportunity to either elevate his status as a top GM or devalue his legacy based on what he can do once Duncan retires. As I said, I am very interested in seeing how the Spurs fare post-Duncan.

 

[grego]

I agree with you to a point. I cannot fault RC for the job he had done. He has put good players around Duncan. However, Duncan has also made them look a lot better. Pretty much every big man put next to Duncan has been mediocre (Rasho, Mohammad, Elston, etc,). Even guys like Parker are probably overrated since they have a great defensive big man covering their mistakes and do not have to carry the offence consistently. Now can I fault RC for that? Absolutley not. However, I feel Buford will have the opportunity to either elevate his status as a top GM or devalue his legacy based on what he can do once Duncan retires. As I said, I am very interested in seeing how the Spurs fare post-Duncan.

Well yeah, any star makes a GM tend to look better and get more benefit of the doubt. For a team to win, they need a team (from owner to front office to coach to players).

I don't see how Parker is overrated. His life is easier because of Duncan though. But he has put in the time and focused himself to get better. In the past he used to disappear because his shot was far more inconsistent for example. 2003, 2004 (is one of the reasons they let Lakers come back to win 4 straight), 2005.

Duncan makes them a very dominant defensive team for the Duncan era, but the team premise is built around defense. You don't play if you don't put in the effort for Pop. They look at guys who can play defense. Barry is a very rare thing as far as guys who come for offensive based reasons. Although if you look at Barry he has improved on his defense.

It'll be tough for Spurs after Duncan. You have so many expectations after that, its hard to ever live up to that. Just like Chicago is having a tough time. Spurs keep drafting young guys though. Spurs are working on Ian Mahimi. Obvoiously it'll never be easy to get sure things when they keep going deep in the post season.

The key is staying consistent and staying up there. Duncan/Pop have won with many combinations of the team. They use the salary cap well. the trade for Ron Mercer was great because it gave them nearly 8 mil in cap relief in 2003-2004, for instance. BTW PJ Brown was almost a Spur if not for his love for his hometown New Orleans. It was his next choice. But you see with Oberto a smart choice to have a guy who can keep defenders honest or at least make them pay with his activity.

They've also shed themselves of Rasho's contract, Malik Rose' (that got them Nazr) who played good during 05 in the post season at times. Of course Malik would have been very useful against the Mavs in 06 though.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Grego,

Look I understand your point and I do not think our opinions differ that much. My point is that RC has done a fine job, but I want to see what he does post-Duncan. You can make a similar argument that once Petrie did the great job of getting Webber and Vlade, some of the role players we lauded him for looked much better because of them. The difference is that Petrie acquired Webber and Vlade while RC became the SPurs GM after Duncan was already there.

I do feel that Parker is overrated. Right now he is the finals MVP. However, when Duncan retires, how good will Parker be leading a team. This does not take away from the hard work he put in to improve. However, TNT analysts called him one of the top 5 PGs in the league, over players like Billups and Baron Davis. Put either one of those players on the Spurs with Duncan drawing double and tripple teams and they would be even more dominant.

Now can I fault RC for being hired into a situation where a team had a top 10 all time player? No, he has done everything expected of him to keep his team on a pedestal. Contrast that with Mitch Kupchack completley ruining the Lakers and you can appreciate what he has done. However, getting role players and adding great veterans looking for a/more rings (e.g. Horry, Barry, Finley, etc.) is a very different skill than building a contender from scratch.

So far Buford has been a great championship "manager." However, his legacy as a brilliant GM will be defined by what he does once Duncan is gone. Can he make a small market team a winner without a superstar? I feel that this is a legitimate question. Do you disagree with that?

 

[grego]

Grego,

Look I understand your point and I do not think our opinions differ that much. My point is that RC has done a fine job, but I want to see what he does post-Duncan. You can make a similar argument that once Petrie did the great job of getting Webber and Vlade, some of the role players we lauded him for looked much better because of them. The difference is that Petrie acquired Webber and Vlade while RC became the SPurs GM after Duncan was already there.

I do feel that Parker is overrated. Right now he is the finals MVP. However, when Duncan retires, how good will Parker be leading a team. This does not take away from the hard work he put in to improve. However, TNT analysts called him one of the top 5 PGs in the league, over players like Billups and Baron Davis. Put either one of those players on the Spurs with Duncan drawing double and tripple teams and they would be even more dominant.

Now can I fault RC for being hired into a situation where a team had a top 10 all time player? No, he has done everything expected of him to keep his team on a pedestal. Contrast that with Mitch Kupchack completley ruining the Lakers and you can appreciate what he has done. However, getting role players and adding great veterans looking for a/more rings (e.g. Horry, Barry, Finley, etc.) is a very different skill than building a contender from scratch.

So far Buford has been a great championship "manager." However, his legacy as a brilliant GM will be defined by what he does once Duncan is gone. Can he make a small market team a winner without a superstar? I feel that this is a legitimate question. Do you disagree with that?

Just so you know, Pop was the year before Duncan. He added Bufford, but ultimately Pop still makes the calls.