Nobody is saying that THIS roster will make the WCF in 3 years. This roster won't exist past this season. There WILL be trades to propel the team forward. But first we need the individuals on this team to improve. That's the entire philosophy behind this build: 1 - Get a lot of young, cheap players with a lot of upside. [check] 2 - Develop said players. [in process] 3 - Use the young, cheap, more fully-developed players to (a) win more games, and/or (b) capitalize on their trade value to obtain a big-time player. [3 months - 3 years from now].
In case you haven't noticed, this is "We suck", not "We will never win a title" thread. And with that, my argument about Pop's system is absolutely valid and your Phil system is completely not valid. For one, Phil isn't even coaching in NY, two, Phil has never been a +.500 team without 2 of the best players in the league. 3, the fact you are arguing "titles" instead of "not sucking" explains how far off you are in this debate.
I suspect that you think Duncan dominates the ball more than he does. Yes, Duncan is still the best big in the game - but he's not playing like Jordan/Pippen/Kobe/Shaq, he's been a role player for the last handful of years. Ditto for Parker/Ginobli. The Spurs are much more similar to Larry Brown's Pistons team than any of Phil's teams.
now that's a post propped up by tissue...my opinion about this topic is as valid as any and offering that opion was not based on debating it but like I said..you're baiting my opinion mags..it's ok to disagree without playing king on the mountain
The Spurs have had HOF players under Pops. Folks are forgetting David Robinson, Dennis Rodman, Bruce Bowen..lots of great players that have passed through there. I don't like Phil Jackson but his record stands and was very successful for a long time. If I chose one, it's the Spurs all day but this has nothing to do with my original point that a winning system doesn'tguarantee wins. Larry Brown's system failed after he left Detroit too
Thread topic answer..it's impossible to say what we'll be like. It's like saying a band will be great before they've ever practiced, recorded or gigged together. I'm optimistic though. Again..43 wins....after 20 games I'll reassess the situation.
ANYTHING's possible but I think 32 is our floor & unfortunately 37 (this may seem negative but I think it's realistic & I don't see it being that bad bc if we win 37, we'll only be better the following seasons w/ or w/o additional moves!) I feel is our ceiling (most likely IMO). I VERY much hope I'm wrong & we win ~43 (our team's capable but I don't think this likely in season 1)! THIS would of course exceed my expectations & I WOULD consider this season a success. Although all this is said assuming all the guys starting camp are the ones finishing the season. W/ Neil, it doesn't feel like he's done; IF he makes a deal(s) before the end of this season... I think THEN very easily we could hit or get a lot closer to 43!
Actually you have. You brought up Phil Jackson, then made comments about Pops requiring stars to win in SAS. Phil has never had a "winning season" without his stars, Pops has proven his system can have a winning season without playing his stars. If you want to believe that Phil Jackson can coach a team to a winning record without his superstars, then have at it. Arguing Pops requires stars to have a winning season is fucking laughable
27.5 wins. That's the over-under I have floating around in my head. If they gel quickly and somebody in the front-court shows they can be a reliable weapon on offense, to take some of the heat off of Damian, and if they somehow learn to play cohesive defense, despite their youth, then I could see that number climbing up to 33.5, but that's not the way I'd bet if I were talking to a sport-book in Vegas.
maybe but FACT...Pops has never coached a team like we have now to a winning record...the topic was system. I think you vastly underrate the Spurs roster over their winning streaks. I love Pops system. Stotts has achieved 2 great successful seasons with his system as well. One could say the Blazers didn't rely on superstars to achieve 105 wins in two seasons...saying Phil's triangle was not a winning system is also laughable...he had superstars because they wanted to win and until recently, they did. Again, my point was that a winning system doesn't always bring the hardware unless you have the roster to support it.
I also didn't say Pops required stars to win but the fact is he had stars while winning with his system. These things aren't mutually exclusive
Comparing Rodman (who also played with Jordan. And Kobe?) and Bowen to Duncan/Robinson/Jordan/Pippen/Kobe/Shaq? Uh huh. There's no doubt that Pops has had some tremendous talent - but his teams have never been dependent on that talent the way Phil was dependent on his (even greater) talent. Pops has won by surrounding his talent with low-level scrubs, while Phil surrounded the two best players in the league with fairly deep rosters (at least in LA). I also don't get your point about DET failing after Larry left. Yeah, after Larry left DET sucked. That's because they weren't coached by Larry, they were coached by Flip "Sucky" Saunders! Same team (essentially), different coach - it proves that Larry was a great coach with a great system and that Flip sucks as a coach. Pops = System Larry = System Sloan = System Phil = coat-tails
He didn't say that. He said Larry browns system failed after Detroit. Not Detroit failed after he left. I believe what he means is Larry moved on and couldn't do the same thing he did in Detroit.
I still don't think that's much of an argument (the first part). Saying Larry's system didn't work after he left is BS - it wasn't Larry's system anymore, it was Flip's best impersonation of Larry. And because Flip sucks it didn't work. It took the right roster for Larry's system to work, but it wasn't dependent on having the best players in the league like "Phil's system".
I don't think your getting it. He means the plan moved on with Larry, but Larry didn't continue to win. Didn't work with the Knicks Didn't work with the Bobcats. Im not arguing either way, just thinking your misunderstanding him. This has nothing to do with Detroit after Larry left. More about Larry's system not working in other places without a solid roster.
I don't think anyone is super excited about this current roster, other than it provides room for us to go several ways as the year progresses and we see the glaring holes. The key is the definition of suck, or opinions of the definition. However, I do believe this roster has more potential to be better even this year, than many are projecting. I will bring more numbers tonight to shut all you naysayers up.
